Life just gets worse in Iraq - Page 20 - 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 12-03-2006, 12:47 AM   #286
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:41 PM
The EU-3 and UN negotiations have brought nothing forward. The regime wants, and will get nuclear weapons.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 12:51 AM   #287
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Not if the regime is replaced.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 01:23 AM   #288
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:41 PM
That won't be done, for all the platitudes about supporting pro-democracy activists the support has been very minor.

A list of the major political parties allowed to run in the elections;

Executives of Construction Party (Islamist)
Islamic Iran Participation Front (Islamist)
Islamic Society of Engineers (Islamist)
Militant Clergy Association (Islamist)
Militant Clerics Society (Islamist)
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 02:03 PM   #289
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:41 AM
What about the Rumsfeld memo? Oops, then he resigned..

Maybe it ended up wherever the Bin Laden determined to attack in US ended up. Maybe Bush has some sort of kiddie basketball hoop in the Oval Office and he crumples such things up and uses them as balls...
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 04:49 PM   #290
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i don't have the time to pick through this entire post, so i'll just focus on this, because it is your biggest misunderstanding: it is NOT about the insurgency.

it is about the sectarian conflict that has evolved into a civil war.

the "insurgency" is the least of our worries.
The insurgency is responsible for STARTING much of the sectarian violence that has been primarily seen around Baghdad. Information captured from insurgents and terrorist carefully show that creating a civil war, or at least the perception that there is one, could be the key to getting the US to withdraw. Insurgents have dressed up as Iraqi police and Iraqi Soldiers and gone into Sunni neighborhoods and killed those that thought they were giving intelligence to legitmate Iraqi military/security services on the insurgency. They have gone into both shia and sunni neighborhoods murdering civilians in attempts to create the impression that it was sectarian driven attack in order to inspire revenge attacks by either side on whom ever they mistakenly percieve to have launched the attack in the first place. The perception of a Civil War in the United States gives liberals a rallying point to declare that this is someone else war and we should leave. For the average person, it creates the perception that the cost are simply to great given that its now a "civil war". The insurgents and terrorist have been wildly successful in creating the perception in the United States that the war is either lost, pointless, and that the United States should just leave. But thats how most insurgencies succeed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 05:37 PM   #291
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


i don't remember saying it would NEVER (!!!) form, but i have said that it currently DOES NOT FUNCTION in any sort of meaningful sense. the most basic duty a government has to its people is stability (hence, the whole premise of the WH's defense of it's conduct in the GWOT) and security, and the current government has been unable to do so with the US Army working on its behalf!.


well, the paranoia is fun, and what you're really doing is spelling out a case to get the US, and the rest of the world, out of a petroleum-based economy (i assume you drive a hybrid, if you drive at all, since you'd never want to give that tyrant any power by purchasing his oil), but, sorry friend, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the current situation is an improvement.







Democrats indeed ...



q]
Most provinces in Iraq are relatively secure, but you seem to think that Baghdad and Anbar equal all of Iraq. Sorry, but its a little more complex than that. The Iraqi government has only been in office for 6 months. How in the hell can any government be expected to function perfectly like a European democracy after what Iraq has been through for the past 25 years, in under 6 months? You can't declare that something has not worked or failed, when the time needed to succeed is much longer than you have given it.

I've already demonstrated how the removal of Saddam has been an improvement for the region and key US security interest in the region. You have yet to explain how some rag tag Shia militia's are more of a threat to Kuwait than Saddam's military was.

As for the Baker commision, it is composed of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans. Their final paper and advice is the result of a compromise and not what Baker himself would have advised independently. Unfortunately, if leaked material is correct, the idea sounds like recipe for disaster and hostage taken.

It would be incredibly foolish to withdraw all US combat Brigades by early 2008 and leave behind thousands of military advisors without any sort of protection. That would just be insane. The irony is, you could only do this if you thought that Iraq was much more secure they is generally claimed by most of the critics. The Iraqi military needs 4 years and 6 months of building before it will be able to operate fully and independently of US help. The commissions recomendations, if the leaks are accurate, show they think the Iraqi military is much more capable than even I think.

But its difficult to come up with a balanced bipartisan policy proposal that protects US Security interest in the region when one side only has a withdrawal at all cost policy on their minds instead of protecting US security.

The US Military will have the final say on how any troops are withdrawn as well as what will be left behind in terms of forces to protect advisors which the commission appears to have completely forgotten about.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 06:05 PM   #292
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,497
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The insurgency is responsible for STARTING much of the sectarian violence that has been primarily seen around Baghdad. Information captured from insurgents and terrorist carefully show that creating a civil war, or at least the perception that there is one, could be the key to getting the US to withdraw. Insurgents have dressed up as Iraqi police and Iraqi Soldiers and gone into Sunni neighborhoods and killed those that thought they were giving intelligence to legitmate Iraqi military/security services on the insurgency. They have gone into both shia and sunni neighborhoods murdering civilians in attempts to create the impression that it was sectarian driven attack in order to inspire revenge attacks by either side on whom ever they mistakenly percieve to have launched the attack in the first place. The perception of a Civil War in the United States gives liberals a rallying point to declare that this is someone else war and we should leave. For the average person, it creates the perception that the cost are simply to great given that its now a "civil war". The insurgents and terrorist have been wildly successful in creating the perception in the United States that the war is either lost, pointless, and that the United States should just leave. But thats how most insurgencies succeed.


and this is postively delusional.

as if "liberals" are the only ones who want either a change in strategy, or a withdrawal.

and please show me where i've argued for withdrawal. i haven't.

but many prominent "Conservatives" have.

but, then, what slurs could you toss at them?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 06:23 PM   #293
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:41 AM
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ries-newsOne-2


U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Iraq was in the grip of civil war as U.S. and Iraqi forces attacked insurgent bases in a bid to shore up the authority of a government itself riven by factional rivalries.

In Washington, outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was revealed to have acknowledged in a memo just before he lost his job that U.S. strategy was not working and it might be better to reduce troop numbers.

President George W. Bush has repeatedly rejected recent assertions in the mainstream media that Iraq is now embroiled in a civil war. Annan's remarks, to the BBC, might add to pressure for a swift change of policy.

"When we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war -- this is much worse," Annan said.

He agreed with Iraqis who said life was worse now than it was under deposed president Saddam Hussein.

"If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison -- that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again?" Annan said.

"And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control," he added.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 06:25 PM   #294
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,497
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Most provinces in Iraq are relatively secure, but you seem to think that Baghdad and Anbar equal all of Iraq. Sorry, but its a little more complex than that. The Iraqi government has only been in office for 6 months. How in the hell can any government be expected to function perfectly like a European democracy after what Iraq has been through for the past 25 years, in under 6 months? You can't declare that something has not worked or failed, when the time needed to succeed is much longer than you have given it.
it's been well over 3 years since Saddam was overthrown, and Condi Rice STILL has to wear a bulletproof vest at the freaking airport. there's been a collapse of civil order in iraq. there are no reliable Iraqi troops to impose order. and the Iraqis themselves grow more pessimistic with each passing day and wish for the US to withdraw.

no one is asking for Iraq to be France. but for Iraq to resemble anything other than a failed, insanely violent society ensconsced in a Civil War (that, yes, Colin Powell and NBC News and pretty much everyone else agrees with), a whole bunch of things are going to have to happen, and there don't seem to be any of these signs. for your grand 10 year project to work, there needs to be at least some sort of framework and successes to build upon after 3.5 years, but there isn't. we need the following:

1. Maliki to be a sort of unifying national leader
2. American troops to calm the civil war
3. American-trained Iraqi troops to fight for a united democratic government rather than for tribal/religious vengeance

and these are just the basics! this isn't even approaching oil exportation, Iranian influence, or the electricity in baghdad. this isn't even beginning the long, slow process of democratic nation building. it's not even the beginning of the beginning of that process. it's something totally different -- show me the sectarian strife in post-WW2 German or Japan.

and STING, you're going to have to face the reality that whatever threats you present as being posed by Saddam to the rest of the world (and where's your urging for oil independence and movement away from a petroleum based economy?), they pale in comparison to the real threats: AIDS, Palestine, NoKo, and the metastisizing threat from Islamist terrorism aided by genuine weapons of mass destruction.

iraq addresses NONE of these issues. NONE.

perhaps this should have been done in 1998 (and we'd at least have a competent executive in office). but considering the threats faced by the US in a post-9/11 world where 3,000 people can be murdered on the streets of NYC on sunny Tuesday morning in September, your geostrategic worries about oil in the Gulf pale in comparison to the real and the immediate.



[q]I've already demonstrated how the removal of Saddam has been an improvement for the region and key US security interest in the region. You have yet to explain how some rag tag Shia militia's are more of a threat to Kuwait than Saddam's military was. [/q]

it would be the IRAQI army, controlled by the Shiite majority and funded by the Shiites in Iran. or the "Shiiteistan" military.

again, why are the Saudis so nervous?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 10:22 PM   #295
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


it's been well over 3 years since Saddam was overthrown, and Condi Rice STILL has to wear a bulletproof vest at the freaking airport. there's been a collapse of civil order in iraq. there are no reliable Iraqi troops to impose order. and the Iraqis themselves grow more pessimistic with each passing day and wish for the US to withdraw.

no one is asking for Iraq to be France. but for Iraq to resemble anything other than a failed, insanely violent society ensconsced in a Civil War (that, yes, Colin Powell and NBC News and pretty much everyone else agrees with), a whole bunch of things are going to have to happen, and there don't seem to be any of these signs. for your grand 10 year project to work, there needs to be at least some sort of framework and successes to build upon after 3.5 years, but there isn't. we need the following:

1. Maliki to be a sort of unifying national leader
2. American troops to calm the civil war
3. American-trained Iraqi troops to fight for a united democratic government rather than for tribal/religious vengeance

and these are just the basics! this isn't even approaching oil exportation, Iranian influence, or the electricity in baghdad. this isn't even beginning the long, slow process of democratic nation building. it's not even the beginning of the beginning of that process. it's something totally different -- show me the sectarian strife in post-WW2 German or Japan.

and STING, you're going to have to face the reality that whatever threats you present as being posed by Saddam to the rest of the world (and where's your urging for oil independence and movement away from a petroleum based economy?), they pale in comparison to the real threats: AIDS, Palestine, NoKo, and the metastisizing threat from Islamist terrorism aided by genuine weapons of mass destruction.

iraq addresses NONE of these issues. NONE.

perhaps this should have been done in 1998 (and we'd at least have a competent executive in office). but considering the threats faced by the US in a post-9/11 world where 3,000 people can be murdered on the streets of NYC on sunny Tuesday morning in September, your geostrategic worries about oil in the Gulf pale in comparison to the real and the immediate.



[q]I've already demonstrated how the removal of Saddam has been an improvement for the region and key US security interest in the region. You have yet to explain how some rag tag Shia militia's are more of a threat to Kuwait than Saddam's military was. [/q]

it would be the IRAQI army, controlled by the Shiite majority and funded by the Shiites in Iran. or the "Shiiteistan" military.

again, why are the Saudis so nervous?
Most Iraqi's do not wish for the USA to withdraw and there are thousands of Iraqi troops who are well equipped and reliable enough to impose order in the area's in which they operate. No, there are not nearly enough of them yet, but say that none exist is simply false.

After 3.5 years you have the following:

1. two successful democratic elections in which the majority of the population participated.
2. the passing of a constitution
3. Iraq's first elected government coming into office.
4. Over 300,000 military and police forces trained.
5. compromises between the various ethnic groups of Iraq including Sunni acceptence of Maliki as the new leader of the government when Jafferi was seen as unacceptable.
6. Iraqi military units that have performed very well in combat in various operations in Anbar province with little or no support from the US military.
7. The continued professionalism of the Iraqi military and non-sectarianism compared with police forces which have sometimes been caught in engaging in sectarian violence. The problems in the police forces are not seen anywhere near to that degree in the military.
8. Substantial GDP growth across the country.
9. Relative calm and peace in 13 of the 18 provinces of Iraq.
10. Polls in those provinces showing that "security" is not a top concern for the people that live there.
11. The distribution of humanitarian aid, electricity, and other services to many parts of Iraq that had often been denied such items for decades.
12. The standard of living of the average Iraqi is higher than that of the average person in Afghanistan, yet Iraqi's are perceived to be worse off than people in Afghanistan.

There are plenty of things to build on in Iraq, plenty of accomplishments made by coalition troops, plenty of accomplishments made by Iraqi's, but for various reasons, some people do not want to acknowledge that these things have happened.


The following threats:AIDS, Palestine, NoKo, and the metastisizing threat from Islamist terrorism aided by genuine weapons of mass destruction would NOT impact the planet to the degree that the immediate siezure and sabotage of Persian Gulf Oil Supply would. We live in an industrialized society that is dependent on the Persian Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia, in order to survive. Aids, Palestine, North Korea, Islamist terrorism, will NOT immediately cause a global economic depression, but the seizure or sabotage of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia would! A Global economic depression from which the world might not recover from would end all aid efforts for solving the AIDS crises, worsen the plight of Palestinians as all aid dries up for them, do nothing for the Korean security situation, but perhaps make it worse as supplies to feed starving North Koreans stops coming in, in the quantities needed and would certainly create more opportunities for Islamic terrorism which takes advantaged of impoverished destablized situations which would be rampent across the globe in such a situation. A global economic depression would kill millions of people for a variety of reasons.

Thankfully, the major threat to energy supplies in the Persian Gulf has been removed and the immediate security situation for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is the best it has been in years. But if the United States withdraws prematurely from Iraq, its unknown how many years it will take before a new threat would to the Persian Gulf would come from Iraq.



"it would be the IRAQI army, controlled by the Shiite majority and funded by the Shiites in Iran. or the "Shiiteistan" military."

What Iraqi army? The Shia militia's in Iraq are any thing but professional military organizations. The Iraqi army that is being created by the coalition, is currently not equipped for an operation such as large armored manuevers hundreds of miles through the deserts of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia with all the logistical requirments that would entail. Most Iraqi units are still training as infantry battalions for counter insurgency warfare and basic security duties. Most do not have armored vehicles, tanks, artillery, helicopters etc. at this time. The United States has the capacity to supply and train and equip the Iraqi military in the size required, the Iranians do not as their own military is actually underequipped for large scale conventional military operations such as the ones Saddam launched that overran Kuwait in 12 hours. Most of Irans major weapon systems have been supplied by OTHER countries over the years, and much of it is old and inoperable especially equipment from the Shah era. Its one thing to supply militia's with training and equipment, its another to build a professional military force of the size needed for Iraq. Iran may be 10 years away from getting a nuclear weapon, but that does not change the poor quality and neglect of their conventional military forces, or a standard of living roughly the same as that for Palestinians in the occupied territories.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 10:36 PM   #296
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and this is postively delusional.

as if "liberals" are the only ones who want either a change in strategy, or a withdrawal.

and please show me where i've argued for withdrawal. i haven't.

but many prominent "Conservatives" have.

but, then, what slurs could you toss at them?
There is nothing delusional about all the evidence that has been found from insurgents and Al Quada on their plans and activities in regards to creating sectarian violence in the hopes that it would cause a Civil War. In addition to this and other insurgent activities, the goal is the create the perception in the United States that the cause is not worth it and that a pullout from Iraq is the best option. Insurgencies usually succeed not by defeating the occupier on their own turf, but by convincing the occuipier that the occupation is somehow not worth it causing them to pullout prematurely.

Its good to see that you don't support withdrawal like the majority of Democrats do.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 02:04 AM   #297
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Quote:
Most Iraqi's do not wish for the USA to withdraw and there are thousands of Iraqi troops who are well equipped and reliable enough to impose order in the area's in which they operate. No, there are not nearly enough of them yet, but say that none exist is simply false.
Just to correct the polls switched about a year ago, the majority do want US troops out but support or terrorists is still <10%.
Quote:
Their final paper and advice is the result of a compromise and not what Baker himself would have advised independently
Which would probably be bring a genocidal dictator to power as a counter against Iran.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 11:31 AM   #298
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Just to correct the polls switched about a year ago, the majority do want US troops out but support or terrorists is still <10%.Which would probably be bring a genocidal dictator to power as a counter against Iran.
In the general sense of withdrawal eventually, that would be correct. But the only Iraqi's who really desire an immediate US pullout are the insurgents and terrorist. The Iraqi people would not benefit from an immediate US pullout.

Don't have enough information yet on this, but I think Baker's own idea's are closer to the administrations than a lot of people think.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 12:01 PM   #299
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,497
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


There is nothing delusional about all the evidence that has been found from insurgents and Al Quada on their plans and activities in regards to creating sectarian violence in the hopes that it would cause a Civil War. In addition to this and other insurgent activities, the goal is the create the perception in the United States that the cause is not worth it and that a pullout from Iraq is the best option. Insurgencies usually succeed not by defeating the occupier on their own turf, but by convincing the occuipier that the occupation is somehow not worth it causing them to pullout prematurely.

Its good to see that you don't support withdrawal like the majority of Democrats do.


well, you're deliberately obfuscating the democrats position, but the more important point here is the fact that you've completley misunderstood the violence in Iraq. while "the insurgency" is certainly happy about a civil war, they are not the ones doing the fighting. in fact, Al Qaeda is extremely disorganized in Iraq and they only make up 2 to 3% of the enemy forces in Iraq. the other 97% of the combatants in the war (that has no gone on longer htan our involvement in WW2) are ordinary Iraqis now engaging in what must be termed ethnic cleansing.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 12:05 PM   #300
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:41 PM
The documents intercepted to and from Zarqawi before his death show that the objective was to set the wheels of sectarian violence going; and to that end the Bin Ladenists have been extremely successful.
__________________

__________________
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 12:41 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