Iraqi Parliment Bombed - Page 3 - 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 04-13-2007, 02:40 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi Parliment Bombed

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and it's yet to be accomplished. you cannot have a "non-hostile" (what could that mean?) "stable" governemnt in a coutnrywith an insurgency with indefensible borders and a population that identifies on the basis of ancient sects and tribes. you have no definable enemy for the government to protect it's citizens from, since said "enemy" is part of the government itself, and the government holds no appeal to the local population. just how are American troops supposed to wage war and reconstruct/rebuild at the same time?

there is no government. it only exists as a legitimizing tool for the genocidal purposes of the Shia militias.
Nation Building and counter insurgency are tasks that often take decades to complete. Of course it has yet to be accomplished. Such task have never been accomplished in such a short time frame. You have to build a government that is first able to provide security for the people which will allow economic growth. The local population will gradually support and help the government more as their security and economic situation improves. The Iraqi military is four years away from having the size and combat capabilities needed for these task. The logistical component will take even longer to develop. As the government wins over more of the population that supports insurgents and militia's, either out of fear or genuine support, their strength will diminish.

The exact same process is under way in Afghanistan which has a far greater tribal history than Iraq. Lots of reconstruction projects get destroyed in Afghanistan, but there are many that survive and are benefiting the population. In both country's, its a gradual process of securing and building on many fronts, which if given the time and resources, will eventually succeed. Insurgents in both country's are banking on the fact that democratic country's often do not have the will to see such tasks through and are hoping that by raising the cost of both operations, they can convince the domestic populations of the country's involved to prematurely withdraw. It is the only way they can succeed, because in the long run, they simply do not have the money and resources that the occupying country's have, nor do they have the military capacity to push out the occupying forces.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 02:44 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:19 AM
this isn't a fledgling government we're supporting from afar.

we are occupying the country.

American soldiers die every week for these ill-defined, elusive, ultimately unattainable goals built upon articles of faith that the local population will somehow have a change of heart. the rosey forecast you have for the winning over of the local population simply isn't supported by the reality of what's on the ground. things have gotten steadily worse since 2003, and most of the middle class -- those with the most invested in a stable society -- have already fled the country.

you can't even secure Parliment.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 02:58 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




ah, but i've not been arguing the exact opposite.

on the contrary, STING states that those who disagree with him are advocating the preicse opposite of his conclusions (stay stay stay, keep on keeping on).

and i'll amend my statement about the government:

"it functions most effectively as a legitimizing tool for the genocidal purposes of the Shia militias."

i think it's dead obvious that the current status quo will never result in an acceptable outcome. it's also dead obvious that the ranting against DEMOCRATS (!!!) as trying to subvert the Iraqi government and the soliders is self-serving paranoia not seen since the collapse of South Vietnam.

so what do we do?
While the government is not perfect, its still a government that has representitives from every part of Iraq's society. Plus as the US military has reported, nearly all of the sectarian violence in the country occurs in and around Baghdad. Iraq on the other hand is ethnically mixed from north to south, but many of these area's are not experiencing sectarian violence. Responsiblity for the sectarian violence is in the hands of certain sunni insurgent groups, Shia militia's, and Al Quada. While the Iraqi government may have blocks that have ties to Shia militia's and Sunni insurgent groups, its still has representitives from all parts of Iraqi society and is vital to the political negotiation that will be needed in the months and years to come in order to bring about a stable country.

The Democrats are calling for the withdrawal of nearly all US combat forces from Iraq between March and September of 2008. In my view that is essentially an immediate withdrawal given the amount of time it would take to all the troops, equipment, material and bases that have been built.

If you and others have ideas on withdrawal that differ with the Democrats in Congress, then I would like to hear them. When and how many combat brigades do you plan to withdraw? How does this withdrawal at that particular time help build and Iraq that is stable, and not a threat to its neighbors? Will Iraqi military forces be capable of replacing the coalition troops that are withdrawn at the particular time you select? Or do you not have a time table for withdrawal unlike the Democrats and believe that conditions on the ground, not some artificial time table, should determine when troops can be withdrawn?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 03:18 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
this isn't a fledgling government we're supporting from afar.

we are occupying the country.

American soldiers die every week for these ill-defined, elusive, ultimately unattainable goals built upon articles of faith that the local population will somehow have a change of heart. the rosey forecast you have for the winning over of the local population simply isn't supported by the reality of what's on the ground. things have gotten steadily worse since 2003, and most of the middle class -- those with the most invested in a stable society -- have already fled the country.

you can't even secure Parliment.
You could say much the same about Afghanistan. The United States is an occupying country but it is there to help the government develop to the point that it can handle the country security and other needs without the need for foreign military resources. The reality of what is on the ground in Iraq is no different that what has been seen historically in many nation building, counter insurgency task. In fact, many of those situations were worse. The goals are NOT elusive and unattainable, as history has shown, provided the occupier does not give up on the mission.

Iraq never had anything remotely similar to a middle class as most Americans would understand it, and there is certainly a much larger educated segment of the population in Iraq than there is in Afghanistan. You can't be arguing for the continuation of the process in Afghanistan which is starting from far worse conditions in this regard, and then claim that Iraq situation is impossible given the lack of a significant educated middle class.

Insurgents and terrorist in both Iraq and Afghanistan launch many attacks on both governments every year. Just because this one succeeded means nothing, but the insurgents that launched the attack want you to think that it is indeed significant and it appears they have succeeded. The fact that Abraham Lincoln was murdered did not mean that the United States was about to fall apart, nor did the 9/11 attacks show that. Any individual or group of individuals with the right resources technically will always have a chance to penetrate the tightest security as has so often been demonstrated through out history. Its not the single incidences that are the most important, but the broader overall security, economic, and political situation that is most important.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 03:37 PM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If you and others have ideas on withdrawal that differ with the Democrats in Congress, then I would like to hear them. When and how many combat brigades do you plan to withdraw? How does this withdrawal at that particular time help build and Iraq that is stable, and not a threat to its neighbors? Will Iraqi military forces be capable of replacing the coalition troops that are withdrawn at the particular time you select? Or do you not have a time table for withdrawal unlike the Democrats and believe that conditions on the ground, not some artificial time table, should determine when troops can be withdrawn?


it's funny that you think that the government is "representative" of the people when they cannot leave the 4 sq. miles-large "Green Zone." they have little contact with actual Iraqis. and a bunch of Republicans -- the late Gerald Ford, James Baker, fBrent Scowcroft, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith, and others -- advocate withdrawal as well.

but, anyway, you're again seeing things only in military terms. it's the political that matters most. the US must make it clear that there is a deadline. precisely when isn't important, but the fixture of a deadline is, as well as the public perception that a deadline has been agreed upon by the US as well as Iraqi leaders. so long as there are foreign occupiers on the ground, there will be violence. and the establishment of a clear deadline will undercut much of the anti-colonialist resentment to the occupation.

it's also abundantly clear to everyone in the Middle East that the stability of the region will be dependent upon preventing the current Civil War -- or worse-than-a-civil-war, depending on how you look at it -- from spilling outside Iraq's borders. it will be necessary to speak to the governments of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, etc., in order to determine how best to maintian the tenuous regional stability, though such discussion cannot take place without a set withdrawal date in order to remove the colonialist tint of the occupation, and other powers -- China, Russia, the EU -- can be brought in as well. and part of all this must be an attempt to deal with the Israel/Palestinian crisis that simultaneously supports the right of Israel to exist while asking for fairness for the Palestinians.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 03:39 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
[B]

You could say much the same about Afghanistan.
and all of your arguments come down to this, don't they. all very, "oh yeah, well Afghanistan is bad too but people aren't as mad about it." we've heard it all before.


[q]The goals are NOT elusive and unattainable, as history has shown, provided the occupier does not give up on the mission.[/q]

can you show me the successful occupation of a Muslim country?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 03:45 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:19 PM
The Ottomans did it rather well.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 03:46 PM   #38
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The Ottomans did it rather well, one could consider the Dutch in Indonesia too.


Muslim and Arab.

(hint: Algeria. Lebanon. those are our models.)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 04:15 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Listen, STING, this withdrawal will occur within the next 2 years because your political winds are shifting and there is no public support for the war anymore, except from people like you. So it's going to end.

This is all the responsibility of the people YOU support who fucked up this entire thing from even before they invaded and then successively fucked up everything since. So, you go on and keep blaming Democrats for all the shortcomings of a corrupt, incompetent administration. But for their fuck ups we wouldn't be here. And but for their fuck ups maybe things could have worked out so that an immediate withdrawal wouldn't be necessary at this point and the result not so stark. But since they are incompetent, stupid and entirely unwilling to compromise or gaze reality in the eye, here we are.

This thing is ending, your dissertations about the rosiness of Iraq notwithstanding. At this point, the question becomes how to best withdraw, because any sentient being at this point can see that it is an inevitability.

Should have never started this war, and now you're going to end it on someone else's terms. Congratulations, that's all on you.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 04:40 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




it's funny that you think that the government is "representative" of the people when they cannot leave the 4 sq. miles-large "Green Zone." they have little contact with actual Iraqis. and a bunch of Republicans -- the late Gerald Ford, James Baker, fBrent Scowcroft, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith, and others -- advocate withdrawal as well.

but, anyway, you're again seeing things only in military terms. it's the political that matters most. the US must make it clear that there is a deadline. precisely when isn't important, but the fixture of a deadline is, as well as the public perception that a deadline has been agreed upon by the US as well as Iraqi leaders. so long as there are foreign occupiers on the ground, there will be violence. and the establishment of a clear deadline will undercut much of the anti-colonialist resentment to the occupation.

it's also abundantly clear to everyone in the Middle East that the stability of the region will be dependent upon preventing the current Civil War -- or worse-than-a-civil-war, depending on how you look at it -- from spilling outside Iraq's borders. it will be necessary to speak to the governments of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, etc., in order to determine how best to maintian the tenuous regional stability, though such discussion cannot take place without a set withdrawal date in order to remove the colonialist tint of the occupation, and other powers -- China, Russia, the EU -- can be brought in as well. and part of all this must be an attempt to deal with the Israel/Palestinian crisis that simultaneously supports the right of Israel to exist while asking for fairness for the Palestinians.
Well, that did not really answer any of the questions that I asked. Some arbitrary deadline won't stop Al Quada, Sunni insurgents, or shia militia's. In fact, it will only embolden them, create fear among the population in which they will stop cooperation with the government and coalition forces for fear of the reprisals they will experience once coalition troops are gone. Anti-government forces will then have a timeline under which they can distribute their resources to prepare for the exit of coalition forces and destroy the government once such forces are gone.

When and how the coalition withdraws from Iraq is extremely important to the country's future. If the Iraqi government and security forces are not developed enough when withdrawal comes, they will collapse.

Country's like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey all have conflicting interest in Iraq and while its important to try and forge a general consensus on such issues, Iraq's problems as well as the greater regional security issues will never be solved alone by such negotiations. Such negotiations without either a strong coalition or Iraqi security presense within Iraq as well as an Iraqi government would be unlikely to accomplish anything. If the coalition is to withdraw, then the Iraqi military and police forces will have to be up to the task of replacing the security role coalition forces provide, otherwise security will collapse making economic development, political negotiation, as well as the government impossible.

If some arbitrary withdrawal date were a cure all, why is a date not being proposed for Afghanistan?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 04:44 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


and all of your arguments come down to this, don't they. all very, "oh yeah, well Afghanistan is bad too but people aren't as mad about it." we've heard it all before.


[q]The goals are NOT elusive and unattainable, as history has shown, provided the occupier does not give up on the mission.[/q]

can you show me the successful occupation of a Muslim country?
I'm just mentioning the fact the the Democrats proposals for Iraq contradict their proposals for Afghanistan. Stability in Iraq for US and global security is the higher priority. The greatest area of Al Quada activity in 2007 is Al Anbar province Iraq, yet the Democrats want all US combat troops out of Iraq by mid-2008, yet want to maintain US combat forces in Afghanistan where Al Quada has not been significantly active for years.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 05:03 PM   #42
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Well, that did not really answer any of the questions that I asked. Some arbitrary deadline won't stop Al Quada, Sunni insurgents, or shia militia's. In fact, it will only embolden them, create fear among the population in which they will stop cooperation with the government and coalition forces for fear of the reprisals they will experience once coalition troops are gone. Anti-government forces will then have a timeline under which they can distribute their resources to prepare for the exit of coalition forces and destroy the government once such forces are gone.



it's because you're asking the wrong questions. you're fretting over tanks when you should be focusing on Shia militias.

setting a date will force the Iraqi government to deal with it's own problems as well as assure the Iraqi people that the US isn't a colonialist overloard intent on dominating the oil. i know your posts make it seem as if this is indeed the truth, that we are only there for the oil and to protect the oil in Saudi Arabia, but i actually don't think that's the case.

much of the violence is due to the very presence of American troops in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is not really the problem here; it's the sectarian violence.




Quote:
If some arbitrary withdrawal date were a cure all, why is a date not being proposed for Afghanistan?
for the last time: Iraq and Afghanistan are differen countries and diffierent situations. equivocate all you want, it just makes you look even more foolish.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 05:06 PM   #43
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I'm just mentioning the fact the the Democrats proposals for Iraq contradict their proposals for Afghanistan. Stability in Iraq for US and global security is the higher priority. The greatest area of Al Quada activity in 2007 is Al Anbar province Iraq, yet the Democrats want all US combat troops out of Iraq by mid-2008, yet want to maintain US combat forces in Afghanistan where Al Quada has not been significantly active for years.


hasn't it been made rather obvious that battling Al-Qaeda is done through effective intelligence work and NOT through guerilla warfare? in fact, removing American troops from Muslim lands will take away the greatest recruiting tool Al-Qaeda has aside from the presidency of George Bush. Al-Qaeda is too amorphous and tenously connected, at best, to some sort of central leadership (that isn't in Iraq, it's in Pakistan) for any sort of conventional military action.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 05:14 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Listen, STING, this withdrawal will occur within the next 2 years because your political winds are shifting and there is no public support for the war anymore, except from people like you. So it's going to end.

This is all the responsibility of the people YOU support who fucked up this entire thing from even before they invaded and then successively fucked up everything since. So, you go on and keep blaming Democrats for all the shortcomings of a corrupt, incompetent administration. But for their fuck ups we wouldn't be here. And but for their fuck ups maybe things could have worked out so that an immediate withdrawal wouldn't be necessary at this point and the result not so stark. But since they are incompetent, stupid and entirely unwilling to compromise or gaze reality in the eye, here we are.

This thing is ending, your dissertations about the rosiness of Iraq notwithstanding. At this point, the question becomes how to best withdraw, because any sentient being at this point can see that it is an inevitability.

Should have never started this war, and now you're going to end it on someone else's terms. Congratulations, that's all on you.
It was vital to US and global security that Saddam be removed from power. Goodluck arguing that US and global security would be better with Saddam in power given his prior actions and the fundamental global security concerns.

The war, the fundamental security needs of the planet, will still be there after any pre-mature withdrawal of coalition forces. The question will be how many Iraqi's will be slaughtered in the years after a pre-mature withdrawal that is not in the interest of anyone except Al Quada, and anti-government forces in Iraq. Depending how that new bloody situation evolves will determine when US forces are forced to go back into the region under far worse circumstances. Allowing Al Quada to have a safe haven in Al Anbar province is not a good way to prevent the next 9/11. It will in fact be the first safe haven that Al Quada has had since early 2001.

These new problems will be the result of the policies chosen by those advocating a pre-mature withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq. Its unlikely that such a pre-mature withdrawal would occur while Bush is still in office. Bush still has the support of most Republicans and the Democrats do not have the votes to override a Presidential veto of Democratic bills. In 2009 though, a new President could put in place a withdrawal plan that could have most US combat forces out of Iraq by early 2010.

Although it is unlikely, given the amount of development work that is needed, perhaps another 2 to 3 years of the type of support that the Iraqi government and military needs will be enough to enable it to survive a pre-mature withdrawal, but I doubt it. If Iraq collapses as a result of a pe-mature coalition withdrawal, it will happen on the next Presidents watch and the only one to blame will be that President who thought that such a withdrawal plan was in the best interest of security in Iraq, as well as US security. Any mess that ensues, any consequences, of a pre-mature withdrawal from Iraq will be on the President that chooses that option.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 05:25 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:19 PM
Different time, different needs and different means to those ends. There is no chance of Saddam Hussein aquiring WMD.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer 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 05:19 AM.


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