The British Are Leaving.

[anitram]

So the British troops leaving is a victory and American troops leaving would be appeasing al Qaeda?

Is this not Dick Cheney's logic?

 

[ntalwar]

^Yes - I'm not saying objective equals logical or correct. E.g. constant statements about Res. 1441 and taking a "10,000 foot view" of the situation are overly rigid and naive.

 

[Teta040]

Just reading through this thread and wanted to make a personal observation of sorts...


Armenia has 46 men in Iraq?? Darn....as a half-Armenian American, the American part of me is utterly ashamed for my people. But that treacherous Armenian half of me--which is a big part of me at time-- is pragmatic, thinking that as a country that has lost fully one-fourth of its population (due to the Karabagh conflict, immigration, and ourtright starvation and exposure from the joint Turkish/Azeri blockade that began in 1994 and contnues to this day) in the since the creation of the newely independent Republic of Armenia in 1991, this is a wise move.

This ruthless pragmatic part of me says that Armenia needs the continued friendship of the United States, and more importantly, its annual $2.5 billion in foreign aid--Armenia is the country that gets the most US aid, after--you guessed it--Israel. And the only reason that the US govt has continued to grant this aid--which, like with Israel, basically allows the country to exist--is that we ethnic Armenians tend to live in states that are key to US electoral votes in presidential elections, like New York and California--(1.1 million in Cali alone). And the record shows that we vote. That is why the US gives a damn about the country at all, even token lip service, and did not allow Turkey, its NATO ally, to treat it like it treats Kurds.

THANK ASDVADZ for the Armenian Diaspora. Otherwise the world would care as little for us as it does for Botswana or any African nation.

So if Armenia decides to send a signal that it supports the US by sending a token 46 men, esp in the wake of Turkish public dissatisfaction with the US, I will tolerate it. (Wonder where they are serving?) It should be remembered too That Iraq has a large Armenian community and it would do good, I suppose, for ther Armenian gov't of having ethnic nationals in the place to keep track of them.

A lot of them have left for Jordan and Syria, BTW.

 

[Irvine511]

Actually - STING is always able to back up what he says. I almost always agree with what he posts. It's more objective than the emotional tirades I usually see.

yes, but when you bother to fact check, you see how unobjective and selective the "facts" presented are. it's like listening to Dick Cheney.

just look at his presentation of 1441. it's complete crap. and that's been demonstrated, over and over and over.

sorry, but it is.

fact-checking the indefatigable STING has only solidified my anti-war stance.

 

[Irvine511]

the coalition was always a fiction, its always been a US/UK presence, and now the UK element is leaving. and this might be the start of a good thing. there's no question that a Western presence in Iraq exacerbates terrorism in Iraq and worldwide. it is America's huge presence in the Middle East that inspires terrorism. a Western nation occupying an oil-rich Muslim country is absolutely incendiary. the Danes are going, the South Koreans are gone, the Spanish have left, the Italians have left. we are ALONE.

and what's going to happen in the south when the Iranians march in unhindered by British troops?

and how can Cheney say that it's good for the British to pull out when he says that Pelosi/the Dems are playing into the hands of Al-Qaeda. is he delusional? is there any way to spin this as either a good thing, or "not news," other than through sheer delusion?

 

[AEON]

the coalition was always a fiction, its always been a US/UK presence, and now the UK element is leaving. and this might be the start of a good thing. there's no question that a Western presence in Iraq exacerbates terrorism in Iraq and worldwide. it is America's huge presence in the Middle East that inspires terrorism. a Western nation occupying an oil-rich Muslim country is absolutely incendiary. the Danes are going, the South Koreans are gone, the Spanish have left, the Italians have left. we are ALONE.

and what's going to happen in the south when the Iranians march in unhindered by British troops?

and how can Cheney say that it's good for the British to pull out when he says that Pelosi/the Dems are playing into the hands of Al-Qaeda. is he delusional? is there any way to spin this as either a good thing, or "not news," other than through sheer delusion?

You wouldn't want it to be good news.

 

[STING2]

and we all know that if oil is controlled by an anti-American regime they will do this?


just look at Chavez in Venezuela
no one is more anti-American government than he

You can't take the risk of plunging the world into a global economic depression worse than the 1930s.

United States policy since World War II has been to deny any hostile power total control of that regions oil, and this policy started back when its impact on the global economy was much less than it is today.

Chavez may be anti-American, but I'm not really sure you could say that he is hostile to American interest in the way that Saddam was. More importantly his ability to impact the global economy and the United States is far less than Saddam's ability given that Saddam was in close proximity to the majority of the planets oil reserves and had a large military force and several other capabilities that put in danger the security of these oil reserves.

The amount of oil that Venezuela has is not anywhere near enough to impact the global economy in the way that Persian Gulf Oil or just the oil in Saudi Arabia can impact it.

 

[STING2]

and why do you think that is?

Because they feel the issue is important and serious enough that it warrents at least the attempt at a passing a resolution, even if the United States ends up using its veto power.

 

[STING2]

so many posts, so many words, so many poorly understood facts ... and you've yet to convince a single person of, well, anything, really. and if your reasoning were as blindingly obvious to everyone else as it seems to you, then, goodness, you should have no problems convincing peole in FYM, let alone the far less discerning American public at large. but they think you're full of shit, STING. why do they think that? where do you think you're falling short?

why, then, if you're so certain and smug, is Iraq widely considered a failure by everybody -- including the president. why does Congress not agree, why do the american people not agree, why does the military not agree? how long are you going to continue to lie to yourself? will it be for the next 30 years so you can continue to blame "liberals" -- like, you know, McCain who has said that if the "surge" doesn't work, he's for redeployment, and he says this when he's not bashing Cheney and Rumsfeld -- for undermining Iraq? are you going to be hanging Cindy Sheehan in effigy the same way the military likes to mock Jane Fonda? what scapegoats and boogey men are you going to have to creat ein order to excuse yourself of responsibility for this catastrophe?

The President admits there are things in Iraq that have not gone well and that mistakes have been made, but I don't think he ever said the mission in Iraq was a "Failure". Rebuilding Iraq is something that is going to take much longer than just 3 years, plus there have been a large number of accomplishments and progress continue's even though it is slow. This is a process that is going to take 10+ years at a minimum, and will continue even after US forces have withdrawn.

Plenty members of Congress agree. Hell, even with the majority, the Democrats are struggling to get a non-binding resolution passed.

The American people agreed in 2003, 2004, the re-election of George Bush, and into 2005 a bit as well. But as is the case with long wars involving insurgencies, the domestic population becomes impatient because of the cost and the slowness of the progress and naturally begins to doubt the whole exercise. Public opinion is also impacted by those who opposed the mission and are working day and night to turn public opinion against the war. Basic insurgent tactics also play a role here, and their strategy is designed to maximize public opposition on the domestic front by causing as many casualties and disruption of the rebuilding effort, so as to convince the US population that victory is either not possible or not worth the cost. This is the only way any group in Iraq who does not support the process can even have a hope of succeeding since none of the groups there have the ability to defeat and push the US military out of the country.

But provided the United States does not withdraw prematurely from the country, and continues to provide the resources necessary for a successful nation building and counter insurgency effort, the United States will accomplish its main objectives in Iraq, and US troops will be gradually withdrawn. Public opinion will then gradually move back to where it had been prior to 2005.

The military continues to support the mission in Iraq and you will find more support and understanding of the mission in Iraq in the military than you will from any other organization or group in the United States.

I have yet to see McCain say that if the surge does not work than he is for the "redeployment option" democrats are calling for. I did here McCain say a few weeks ago that withdrawal was not an option in Iraq until the United States had accomplished its mission there.

 

[STING2]

So the British troops leaving is a victory and American troops leaving would be appeasing al Qaeda?

Is this not Dick Cheney's logic?

Well, the situation in Baghdad and Northwestern Iraq is very different from the situation in Basra and other area's of the south. Al Quada is active in the Al Anbar province and Baghdad, not in Basra. One can debate whether continued British withdrawal from the south is because of conditions on the ground there or the political situation in the United Kingdom, but the fact remains that its wrong to lump in the situation there with what is going on much further North. The British had a far more difficult time in North Ireland and suffered 5 times as many casualties. Key US military supplies lines run through the British sector, and if the situation was as terrible as many claim in the south, the United States military would be sending troops to replace British forces.

 

[anitram]

Well, the situation in Baghdad and Northwestern Iraq is very different from the situation in Basra and other area's of the south. Al Quada is active in the Al Anbar province and Baghdad, not in Basra.

So wouldn't the logical conclusion then be to send them to Baghdad?

 

[AEON]

So wouldn't the logical conclusion then be to send them to Baghdad?

It wasn't their mission.

 

[STING2]

yes, but when you bother to fact check, you see how unobjective and selective the "facts" presented are. it's like listening to Dick Cheney.

just look at his presentation of 1441. it's complete crap. and that's been demonstrated, over and over and over.

sorry, but it is.

fact-checking the indefatigable STING has only solidified my anti-war stance.

Resolution 1441 was written by the United States and was done so in light of previous resolutions that already essentially authorized the use of military force. There is no mention of a requirement for a second resolution in the body of 1441 and serious consequences given the situation that Iraq was already could only mean military force. Resolution 678 was used by the Clinton Administration to justify its large scale use of military force in November 1998 after the UN inspectors were forced to leave. It and resolution 687 are both reafirmed in 1441 clearly ending the theory that resolutions from 1990 were no longer in effect.

The fact that 1441 does not mention the words "military force" is not any different than resolution 678 which orginally had the words "military force" in the body, but the United States took it out because of the objections of the Soviet Union. All the arguements used to dispute that 1441 authorized the use of military force to bring Iraq into compliance with the UN resolutions in 2003 could be used to dispute the fact that resolution 678 authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991.

Kenneth Pollack
Michael O Hanlon
Colin Powell

None of these people would ever fit the "right wing" labels so many in the democrat party like to attach to anyone that supports the war, but they all don't consider the invasion of Iraq to have been illegal.

Finally, where are the UN resolutions condemning the invasion of Iraq? The UN always attempts to pass resolutions condemning Israel. Why not immediately attempt to pass a resolution calling for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq if the invasion was in fact illegal? Say all you want about it not having much impact or being relevant, its never stopped the UN on multiple issues in the past. The "illegal" invasion and occupation of another country is a far bigger issue and violation than many of the resolutions that the UN has attempted to pass against Israel.

Then there is the UN approval of the occupation of Iraq by the coalition. Why approve an occupation of a country brought about through the "illegal invasion" of the country, one of the worst, if not the worst violation in international law?

 

[STING2]

So wouldn't the logical conclusion then be to send them to Baghdad?

Some British units have moved north and participated in operations in the Sunni triangle, even though its a small number. There is still of course a mission to be performed in the south. Political pressure in the United Kingdom may be preventing more extensive British participation in the north, even though Al Quada is actually conducting daily attacks there and not in Afghanistan whose troubles come from local Taliban groups.

 

[STING2]

the coalition was always a fiction, its always been a US/UK presence, and now the UK element is leaving. and this might be the start of a good thing. there's no question that a Western presence in Iraq exacerbates terrorism in Iraq and worldwide. it is America's huge presence in the Middle East that inspires terrorism. a Western nation occupying an oil-rich Muslim country is absolutely incendiary. the Danes are going, the South Koreans are gone, the Spanish have left, the Italians have left. we are ALONE.

and what's going to happen in the south when the Iranians march in unhindered by British troops?

and how can Cheney say that it's good for the British to pull out when he says that Pelosi/the Dems are playing into the hands of Al-Qaeda. is he delusional? is there any way to spin this as either a good thing, or "not news," other than through sheer delusion?

The 1991 coalition, consider to be the greatest coalition since World War II had the United States contributing 75% of the total forces. For most of its duration, the coalition in Iraq has had about 85% of its forces coming form the United States. Very little difference.

Then, when you look at forces that actually did the fighting in the 1991 Gulf War, you'll find that it was mainly US and UK forces that did the fighting to a degree higher than you would find in the occupation of Iraq. Far more countries have suffered casualties in Iraq this time than the grand coalition of 1991.


The western presence in Iraq does not exacerbate terrorism any more than the western presence in Afghanistan exacerbates terrorism.

Perhaps Cheney unlike Pelosi/the Dems actually understands the differences between the various provinces's in the country as well as where Al Quada is active, has support and is launching attacks. Al Quada is very active in the Al Anbar province where you would like to see US troops withdraw from. They have little if any activity in Basra where British troops are stationed.