Iraqi forces failing - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-04-2007, 03:22 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 06:08 PM
From today's Washington Post:

Quote:
Nearly 2 million Iraqis -- about 8 percent of the prewar population -- have embarked on a desperate migration, mostly to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. The refugees include large numbers of doctors, academics and other professionals vital for Iraq's recovery. Another 1.7 million have been forced to move to safer towns and villages inside Iraq, and as many as 50,000 Iraqis a month flee their homes, the U.N. agency said in January.
__________________

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 03:33 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:08 AM
If there aren't going to be any Sunnis in Iraq in a decade is there an obligation to make sure that they are living in surrounding countries rather than dead in Iraq?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 04:59 PM   #48
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


You know, instead of reading what other people say about the released document, why don't you read the document yourself:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/images/02/02/nie.3.pdf


The most important thing one should be taking note of from this report is what it says about the pre-mature withdrawal the democrats so strongly support:



you know what kiddo? i have read the document, and all you can do is pull out the ONLY piece of the NIE that agrees with you -- you dont't want a total withrawal. well guess what? neither does anyone else. what people DO what is to do something differnetly because what you've been advocating is not working. it's not. there's no two ways about it. end of story. and the NIE details the myriad failures and rapidly deteriorating situation (but why would you read that part of the document?)

if all you've got left is arguing over the semantics of what is and what is not a Civil War, and the continuous comparisons to Bosnia as evidence of some sort of victory or validation or vindication ... then you're truly fucked. you can't find anyone, aside from Cheney, who supports what you think needs to be done. the NIE certainly doesn't agree with your assessment of either the situation on the ground or with what needs to be done. you're pulling out a document that has a single point of agreement with you, and a total backhand to everything else you've been advocating it, and then trying to spin the NIE as some sort of supporting piece of evidence?

good luck.

Democrats support total withdrawal? yes, continue to ignore the Republicans -- including MCCAIN -- who support a redeployment, an altering of strategy, especially if this little "surge" doesn't work.

you know what i just learned? during the American Civil War, there was no violence in Boston! or in New York! there was no violence in Philadelphia! therefore, there was no Civil War from 1861-1865!!! the vast majority of American citizens at the time weren't concerned with being murdered by marauding bands of southerners who would routinely round people up, drill holes in their eyes, shoot them in the head, and then dump them in the Potomac! there was NO CIVIL WAR because 10% of the population of the US wasn't massacred, like in Bosnia, the only true civil war.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-04-2007, 11:59 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you know what kiddo? i have read the document, and all you can do is pull out the ONLY piece of the NIE that agrees with you -- you dont't want a total withrawal. well guess what? neither does anyone else. what people DO what is to do something differnetly because what you've been advocating is not working. it's not. there's no two ways about it. end of story. and the NIE details the myriad failures and rapidly deteriorating situation (but why would you read that part of the document?)

if all you've got left is arguing over the semantics of what is and what is not a Civil War, and the continuous comparisons to Bosnia as evidence of some sort of victory or validation or vindication ... then you're truly fucked. you can't find anyone, aside from Cheney, who supports what you think needs to be done. the NIE certainly doesn't agree with your assessment of either the situation on the ground or with what needs to be done. you're pulling out a document that has a single point of agreement with you, and a total backhand to everything else you've been advocating it, and then trying to spin the NIE as some sort of supporting piece of evidence?

good luck.

Democrats support total withdrawal? yes, continue to ignore the Republicans -- including MCCAIN -- who support a redeployment, an altering of strategy, especially if this little "surge" doesn't work.

you know what i just learned? during the American Civil War, there was no violence in Boston! or in New York! there was no violence in Philadelphia! therefore, there was no Civil War from 1861-1865!!! the vast majority of American citizens at the time weren't concerned with being murdered by marauding bands of southerners who would routinely round people up, drill holes in their eyes, shoot them in the head, and then dump them in the Potomac! there was NO CIVIL WAR because 10% of the population of the US wasn't massacred, like in Bosnia, the only true civil war.

I pulled out the part of the document that is most relevant to the debate about what the coalition should be doing next in Iraq. The Democrats want to withdraw what the NIE has refered to as:

"an essential stabilizing element in Iraq."

Why would you totally or even partially withdraw what is "an essential stabilizing element in Iraq", especially considering the consequences of such a withdrawal?

Coalition forces perform vital security task in the country on a daily basis. Which coalition forces would you withdraw and why? Who would replace them in carrying out the vital tasks they perform everyday? Do you now believe the situation has improved to the point that the tasks they currently perform are no longer needed?

These are very basic questions that any advocate of withdrawal should at least try and answer. Many Democrats are advocating a total pull out of US forces within 6 months, the Murtha plan, so your statement that no one wants a "total withdrawal" is totally false. Nearly all Democrats, including those running for President want the United States to pull out ALL of its Combat Brigades within the 12-18 months of the time frame of the NIE estimate. Given the vital role such combat brigades play in stabilizing the situation on the ground, as well as the consequences listed of what would happen if they were withdrawn within the time period for the estimate, the NIE considers nearly all of the proposals by most Democrats and their candidates for 08 to be a mistake.

Withdrawal is not an alternative strategy to stabilize Iraq. It is an action that will destabilize Iraq and create the Civil War so many are obsessed with in describing the situation in Iraq.

General David Petraus, General John Abazaid, General Casey, as well all divisional commanders in Iraq, OPPOSE the premature withdrawal plans of Democrats especially the candidates for 08. During congressional testimony in November, General John Abazaid effectively rebutted Senator Clintons assessment of the situation as well as what needed to be done next.

John McCain just recently stated he was against the pre-mature withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq saying it would be a mistake to start withdrawing troops before their mission has been completed. He also added, that none of the generals and security experts in and outside government that he had discussions with, believe it is wise to prematurely withdraw coalition troops. Again, why would you even consider partially withdrawing what the NIE says is "an essential stabilizing element in Iraq?"

If you really read what the NIE says, you would realize they do not support any form of withdrawal at all for the next 12-18 months at least! I actually find little if anything that I disagree with the NIE about. The report discusses many of the problems I have brought up in the past, and does not call the overall conflict a "Civil War" as you and others do. It makes me wonder if you really understand my position on the conflict. It mentions that there is the potential for a more stable environment in Iraq, but it will require more time than the estimate is for, 12-18 months. But your not going to get to that point if you follow what the Democrats would like to do and withdraw all or nearly all US combat Brigades from Iraq in the next 12-18 months.



The reason that you did not see much of the communal violence that is seen in Baghdad during the Civil War in the United States was because the country was already very well divided with the exception of a few states between those that were for one side or the other. The opposing populations were seperated by hundreds of miles in an era when the horse was the main means of transportation. Iraq by contrast is ethnically mixed from north to south, but is experiencing 90% of its sectarian violence in one city because of the actions of a particular shia militia, certain insurgent groups, and Al Quada. All of the provinces as well as all of the various blocks of the government have remained apart of the country, which is not the case in a Civil War. Nearly 3% of the US population died during the US civil war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 11:45 AM   #50
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:08 PM
[q]Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause

By Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy took a slow look around the east Baghdad neighborhood that he and his men were patrolling. He grimaced at the sound of gunshots in the distance. A machine gunner on top of a Humvee scanned the rooftops for snipers. Some of Hardy's men wondered aloud if they'd get hit by a roadside bomb on the way back to their base.

"To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do," said Hardy, 25, of Atlanta. "I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated."

While senior military officials and the Bush administration say the president's decision to send more American troops to pacify Baghdad will succeed, many of the soldiers who're already there say it's a lost cause.

"What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to kill us," said Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tenn., as his Humvee rumbled down a dark Baghdad highway one evening last week. "Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that overnight."

"Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away," said Gill, who serves with the 1st Infantry Division in east Baghdad. "And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."

Soldiers interviewed across east Baghdad, home to more than half the city's 8 million people, said the violence is so out of control that while a surge of 21,500 more American troops may momentarily suppress it, the notion that U.S. forces can bring lasting security to Iraq is misguided.

Lt. Hardy and his men of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 2nd Infantry Division, from Fort Carson, Colo., patrol an area southeast of Sadr City, the stronghold of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

A map in Hardy's company headquarters charts at least 50 roadside bombs since late October, and the lieutenant recently watched in horror as the blast from one killed his Humvee's driver and wounded two other soldiers in a spray of blood and shrapnel.

Soldiers such as Hardy must contend not only with an escalating civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite Muslims, but also with insurgents on both sides who target U.S. forces.

"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much," said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, of York, Pa. "This isn't our war - we're just in the middle."

Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq's sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare.

"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change," said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, Okla.

Bush's initiative calls for American soldiers in Baghdad to take positions in outposts throughout the capital, paired up with Iraqi police and soldiers. Few of the U.S. soldiers interviewed, however, said they think Iraqi forces can operate effectively without American help.

Their officers were more optimistic.

If there's enough progress during the next four to six months, "we can look at doing provincial Iraqi control, and we can move U.S. forces to the edge of the city," said Lt. Col. Dean Dunham, the deputy commander of the 2nd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, which oversees most of east Baghdad.

Maj. Christopher Wendland, a senior staff officer for Dunham's brigade, said he thinks there's a good chance that by late 2007 American troops will have handed over most of Baghdad to Iraqi troops.

"I'm actually really positive," said Wendland, 35, of Chicago. "We have an Iraqi army that's actually capable of maintaining once we leave."

If the Iraqi army can control the violence, his thinking goes, economic and political progress will follow in the safest areas, accompanied by infrastructure improvement, then spread outward.

In counterinsurgency circles, that notion is commonly called the "inkblot" approach. It's been relatively successful in some isolated parts of Iraq, such as Tal Afar on the Syrian border, but in most areas it's failed to halt the bloodshed for any length of time.[/q]



most interesting point: the pro-war media bias.

the American public is shielded from the realities of the violence.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-05-2007, 11:48 AM   #51
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:08 PM
eh, fuggit.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-05-2007, 11:25 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
U.S. military: Iraqi lawmaker is U.S. Embassy bomber

Story Highlights
• Iraqi Parliament member convicted of bombing U.S., French embassies in '83
• Jamal Jafaar Mohammed's position gives him prosecutorial immunity
• He supports Shiite insurgents and acts as an Iranian agent in Iraq, D.C. says
• Mohammed is also accused of attempting to kill a Kuwaiti prince

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A man sentenced to death in Kuwait for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies now sits in Iraq's parliament as a member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition, according to U.S. military intelligence.

Jamal Jafaar Mohammed's seat in parliament gives him immunity from prosecution. Washington says he supports Shiite insurgents and acts as an Iranian agent in Iraq.


Repeated efforts by CNN to reach Jamal Jafaar Mohammed for comment through the parliament, through the ruling Shiite Muslim coalition and the Badr Organization -- the Iranian-backed paramilitary organization he once led -- have been unsuccessful.

A Kuwaiti court sentenced Jamal Jafaar Mohammed to death in 1984 in the car bombings of the U.S. and French embassies the previous December. Five people died in the attacks and 86 were wounded.

He had fled the country before the trial.

Western intelligence agencies also accuse Jamal Jafaar Mohammed of involvement in the hijacking of a Kuwaiti airliner in 1984 and the attempted assassination of a Kuwaiti prince.

Jamal Jafaar Mohammed won a seat in Iraq's Council of Representatives in the U.S.-backed elections of December 2005. He represents Babil province, south of Baghdad, in parliament.

Al-Maliki has urged American intelligence officials to share their information with Iraqi lawmakers.


Al-Maliki's political party, Dawa, claimed responsibility for the Kuwait bombings at the time but now disavows them. The Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim party was forced into exile under former dictator Saddam Hussein, who was executed in December.
The Iraqi Government is dealing and will deal with Iran.

Al-Maliki is their man.

surge the troops and let's
whack the Sunni's a bit more
before Iran gets all the spoils
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 11:28 PM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Have your cake and eat it too; at fault for both hurting and helping Irans proxies
Quote:
A growing number of Iraqis blamed the United States on Sunday for creating conditions that led to the worst single suicide bombing in the war, which devastated a Shiite market in Baghdad the day before. They argued that slowness in completing the vaunted new American security plan has made Shiite neighborhoods much more vulnerable to such horrific attacks.

The chorus of critics said the new plan, which the Americans have barely started to execute, has emasculated the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia that is considered responsible for many attacks on Sunnis, but which many Shiites say had been the only effective deterrent against sectarian reprisal attacks in Baghdad’s Shiite neighborhoods. Even some Iraqi supporters of the plan, such as Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister who is a Kurd, said delays in implementing it have caused great disappointment.
link
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-07-2007, 08:23 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
Seven killed in CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter crash in Iraq


By Joseph Giordono, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Thursday, February 8, 2007

Seven people were killed when a Marine Corps CH-46 Sea Knight went down early Wednesday northwest of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. It’s the fifth American helicopter to crash in Iraq since Jan. 20.

While the previous three military helicopters — plus one belonging to a private security contracting firm — were shot down, a senior U.S. defense official said the CH-46 helicopter did not appear to have been hit by hostile fire.

However, an Iraqi air force officer said it was downed by an anti-aircraft missile and an al-Qaida-linked Sunni group claimed responsibility for the downing..
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-13-2007, 08:26 PM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:08 AM
The right message
Quote:
Feb. 13, 2007 — The story tonight in Iraq is not the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country’s most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago, and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, “He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house.”

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

Though he is gone for now, many think al Sadr is not gone for good. In Tehran he is trying to keep the Madhi militia together.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2872953
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-14-2007, 10:24 AM   #56
War Child
 
Butterscotch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 716
Local Time: 11:08 PM
I heard a GI on the news the other night who had the perfect answer. He said what was happening there was a Civil War, and that everyone has a civil war, we (US) had one, and that everyone has to fight it out for themselves- without intervention from other countries. He said the US should come home now.

The argument that we owe it to the dead to fight on is crazy. How many more dead do you want us to end up oweing something to? I bet most of the dead would want to save their friends and let them get out.
__________________

__________________
Butterscotch is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com