Key benchmark in Iraq achieved today! - Page 2 - 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 01-14-2008, 05:09 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Let me add to that.

To pull out weapons inspectors prematurely, before their job is done, and then to say that all other measures have been exhausted and we must go to war, claiming that the inspectors did their job, which they weren't allowed to finish, claiming that weapons were found, which weren't, and claiming that Iraq will give these (non-existant) weapons to al-Qaeda (which they won't), is irresponsible.
The weapons inspectors had nearly a decade to help resolve these issues of disarmament, but they alone cannot disarm Saddam if he does not want to be. They can't account for weapons Saddam either hid or dismantled in secret if Saddam refuses to either show where such weapons are or where their dismantled remains are. Saddam could have shown these things as well as the WMD related programs he was found to be hiding after he was overthrown. He had plenty of time to show the inspectors these things and any understanding of the UN inspection process throughout the 1990s shows this.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 05:16 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




what is so nice about this, as compared to Bush and the rest of the neocons, is that you don't pretend that it's about anything other than oil.

it is blood for oil. and you're fine with that.

i do appreciate the honesty.
Blood for oil. Its the term if not created in the fall of 1990 by Democrats and liberals, who opposed George Bush Sr deployment of the US military to Saudi Arabia as well as the subsequent use of that military to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait, was used by them at every rally and protest they had during the whole crises.

Insuring global security, whether it involves protecting countries that are economically vital to the global economy because of trade relations and other issues of interdependence or protecting the planets vital natural resources, is certainly in everyones interest regardless of whether they admit it or do not yet understand it.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 05:43 PM   #23
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Not intervening while Saddam continued to violate 17 UN security council resolutions vital to the security of the region and the world would have been irresponsible. But you have to move beyond typical two party politics in the United States to the fundamental security issues in the Persian Gulf and what they mean for the world to even begin to understand this.
Really, stop harping on the UN resolutions. The UN meant fuck all to you and Bush when they didn't support the war, but the resolutions which were breached are oh-so-important?
__________________
<a href=https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:18 PM   #24
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Blood for oil. Its the term if not created in the fall of 1990 by Democrats and liberals, who opposed George Bush Sr deployment of the US military to Saudi Arabia as well as the subsequent use of that military to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait, was used by them at every rally and protest they had during the whole crises.

Insuring global security, whether it involves protecting countries that are economically vital to the global economy because of trade relations and other issues of interdependence or protecting the planets vital natural resources, is certainly in everyones interest regardless of whether they admit it or do not yet understand it.
Oh yes, that's it Sting. Those who oppose the Iraq War fiasco either won't admit they're wrong or just don't understand the issue.

Of course. You nailed it.


Diemen is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:55 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


Really, stop harping on the UN resolutions. The UN meant fuck all to you and Bush when they didn't support the war, but the resolutions which were breached are oh-so-important?
Bush and company went to the UN to get a resolution (1441) which was actually unnecessary because prior resolutions had already given authorization for subsequent military action needed to enforce the resolutions. Colin Powell was the one who pushed going back to the United Nations for another resolution authorizing military action and he succeeded in getting it. The United Nations then authorized the occupation starting in the summer of 2003 with resolution 1483 and the United Nations has continue to approve of the occupation every summer since then despite the calls by many to essentially abandon the Iraq.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:58 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Oh yes, that's it Sting. Those who oppose the Iraq War fiasco either won't admit they're wrong or just don't understand the issue.

Of course. You nailed it.


I was not refering to the Iraq war specifically with that statement. In fact, in the above two paragraphs I don't even mention the Iraq war. I was refering to the worlds dependence on certain natural resources as well as the interdependent nature of the global economy.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 07:40 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,609
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Bush and company went to the UN to get a resolution (1441) which was actually unnecessary because prior resolutions had already given authorization for subsequent military action needed to enforce the resolutions. Colin Powell was the one who pushed going back to the United Nations for another resolution authorizing military action and he succeeded in getting it.
You mean Colin Powell, the British, the Australians and the Spanish. It's easier to limit it to "those who didn't give a f*ck about the UN and felt they didn't need their approval" ie Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc.... than try and isolate those who did as some tiny minority. It was the other way around. Tony Blair had his people working on a resignation speech and a timing and working for a smooth handover in the weeks leading into the war. The Spanish govt were pretty sure they wouldn't make it through either. Those governments certainly felt 1441 was VERY necessary. The belief that they were standing on very shady legal ground otherwise, the belief that their plan of containment and influence over the US would look to have completely failed otherwise, and that public 'support' for the war was running at easily 90%+ against in all three major ally countries meant that they didn't think they could get away with it without a very, very clear resolution behind them, rather than some washy 'consequences' resolution.
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 08:22 PM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 08:48 PM


i mean, really, what's the point?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 08:28 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

Insuring global security, whether it involves protecting countries that are economically vital to the global economy because of trade relations and other issues of interdependence or protecting the planets vital natural resources, is certainly in everyones interest regardless of whether they admit it or do not yet understand it.




you obviously think a few hundred thousand deaths and the establishment of a permanent American presence in the middle of the most volatile region of the world for the next 50-100 years is clearly preferable to the diversification of our oil portfolio and to the development of alternative forms of energy.

it's funny to call oil a "vital natural resource." i suppose it is if you want it to be, and if you're beholden to Exxon and Mobil.

just come out and say it: it's about oil, stupid.

don't dress it up. don't fabricate dangers. don't pretend like you actually care about iraqis. you just care about securing the oil and you think it's perfectly fine to go to war and slaughter thousands in order to secure natural resources as they did in the 19th century.

all i'm asking for is honesty (something you still can't provide when talking about either 1441 or pretty much everything else).

and ask yourself this: would the American public have supported a full scale invasion of Iraq if the Bush administration would have been as honest as you are and said that they are going into Iraq in order to secure the oil?

if you had been honest, would you have had the political capital to marshall support for an invasion? or do you agree with Bush -- a dictatorship would be a heckuva lot easier?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 08:34 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 08:48 PM
[q]Iraq war has ground forces stretched thin

By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Jan 13, 2008 17:47:49 EST

If the U.S. were to face a new conventional threat, its military could not respond effectively without turning to air power, officials and analysts say.

That is the ultimate upshot of the war in Iraq: a response elsewhere would consist largely of U.S. fighters and bombers — even, perhaps, some degree of nuclear strike — because so many ground troops are tied up in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

And that leaves at least some senior U.S. leaders and analysts crossing their fingers.

“I believe that we, as a nation, are at risk of mission failure should our Army be called to deploy to an emerging threat,” Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas, chairman of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee, said last year, basing his assessment on classified Army readiness reports.

“Iraq is sort of sucking all the oxygen out of the room,” said Tammy Schultz, who studies ground forces for the Center for a New American Security, a relatively new Washington think tank dedicated to “strong, pragmatic and principled” security and defense policies.

“My huge fear is that ... we’re really putting the nation at risk,” Schultz said. “It could reach absolutely tragic levels if the United States has to respond to a major contingency any time in the near future.”

The Army is bearing the brunt of the fight, and senior leaders readily acknowledge that.

“We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other contingencies,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Nov. 15.

The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2006 that Army readiness rates had declined to the lowest levels since the end of the Vietnam War, with roughly half of all Army units, active and reserve, at the lowest readiness ratings for currently available units. Casey told the Senate committee that training and readiness levels for nondeployed units have “actually stayed about the same since last summer — and it’s not good.”

The Marine Corps isn’t as heavily committed in Iraq in terms of raw numbers, but leathernecks’ shorter deployments come more frequently. And as the heavy requirements of Iraq shorten the time back home to train for missions other than counterinsurgency, most nondeployed forces simply are not ready for other types of combat, be it amphibious assault or combined-arms warfare.

“While the readiness of deployed units remains high, we have experienced a decrease in the readiness of some nondeployed units,” Gen. Robert Magnus, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, told Ortiz’s subcommittee March 13.

The Corps has “a limited ability to provide trained forces to project power in support of other contingencies,” Magnus said.[/q]
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 08:44 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,609
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and ask yourself this: would the American public have supported a full scale invasion of Iraq if the Bush administration would have been as honest as you are and said that they are going into Iraq in order to secure the oil?
They were honest though, you just have to read between the lines. Defending freedom, defending "the American Way of Life(c)" - those things run on oil buddy. To their credit, groups like PNAC/Heritage etc have always been pretty open an honest about seeing no issue with fighting wars for resources in the 21st Century, or the understanding that it would be a very tough sell.
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 08:45 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Bush and company went to the UN to get a resolution (1441) which was actually unnecessary because prior resolutions had already given authorization for subsequent military action needed to enforce the resolutions. Colin Powell was the one who pushed going back to the United Nations for another resolution authorizing military action and he succeeded in getting it. The United Nations then authorized the occupation starting in the summer of 2003 with resolution 1483 and the United Nations has continue to approve of the occupation every summer since then despite the calls by many to essentially abandon the Iraq.


it is up to the UN Security Council to enforce it's resolutions, it is not up to the United States to enforce Security Council resolutions. it was the US government, not the UN, that announced that "diplomacy has failed" and then started a war. for a resolution to pass, one needs 9 out of 15 votes. and many refer to 1441 as the "second" resolution, not the 18th, and Kofi Annan stated on 9/16/04 stated that the occupation was illegal. it was retroactively legalized, but that does not in any way mean that it was legal at the time.

what else was the UN to do in 2003 post occupation but deal with the reality and retroactively legalize the illegal occupation?

you bring up a good point about the interdependence of the global economy. after all, it was only because of economic ties with and pressure applied by the US that won the "support" of countries like Costa Rica and mighty Poland. your coalition is more accurately called the "coalition of the coerced" as most were won over by coercion, bullying, and bribery.

so, ask yourself this: if it is so thuddingly obvious and such a moral imperative to overthrow Saddam and secure the oil, why then did the US have to resort to such underhanded tactics, including secre surveillance done by the NSA, to secure any support at all?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 09:23 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


i mean, really, what's the point?


There really isn't a point. It is not like we are going to change the minds of these people. I say, those who still support the war and still support going in are not stupid, they definitely know whats going on, they are just stubborn, arrogant, radical American fundamentalists.
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 12:45 AM   #34
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers


You mean Colin Powell, the British, the Australians and the Spanish. It's easier to limit it to "those who didn't give a f*ck about the UN and felt they didn't need their approval" ie Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc.... than try and isolate those who did as some tiny minority. It was the other way around. Tony Blair had his people working on a resignation speech and a timing and working for a smooth handover in the weeks leading into the war. The Spanish govt were pretty sure they wouldn't make it through either. Those governments certainly felt 1441 was VERY necessary. The belief that they were standing on very shady legal ground otherwise, the belief that their plan of containment and influence over the US would look to have completely failed otherwise, and that public 'support' for the war was running at easily 90%+ against in all three major ally countries meant that they didn't think they could get away with it without a very, very clear resolution behind them, rather than some washy 'consequences' resolution.
If you look at the resolution (678) which authorized the 1991 Gulf War, it is not any more specific about the use of "military force" than resolution 1441 in 2002. In fact, in 1990 the United States had the words "military force" in the resolution and the Soviet Union demanded that the words be taken out before they would vote for it so the United States had those words taken out. So there is no reason to be jumping up and down because 1441 is just as clear about he use of military force as 678 was about the use of military force in 1990. If you think that 1441 did not authorize military force, then you can't be saying that 678 in 1990 did either.

The alleged domestic fears of various governments and countries and that governments would fall is not to much different from 1990 when Democrats were predicting that more than half of the governments in the middle east would fall do to revolution by the populations which were said to be heavily against the US led war to retake Kuwait.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 01:30 AM   #35
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511






you obviously think a few hundred thousand deaths and the establishment of a permanent American presence in the middle of the most volatile region of the world for the next 50-100 years is clearly preferable to the diversification of our oil portfolio and to the development of alternative forms of energy.

it's funny to call oil a "vital natural resource." i suppose it is if you want it to be, and if you're beholden to Exxon and Mobil.

just come out and say it: it's about oil, stupid.

don't dress it up. don't fabricate dangers. don't pretend like you actually care about iraqis. you just care about securing the oil and you think it's perfectly fine to go to war and slaughter thousands in order to secure natural resources as they did in the 19th century.

all i'm asking for is honesty (something you still can't provide when talking about either 1441 or pretty much everything else).

and ask yourself this: would the American public have supported a full scale invasion of Iraq if the Bush administration would have been as honest as you are and said that they are going into Iraq in order to secure the oil?

if you had been honest, would you have had the political capital to marshall support for an invasion? or do you agree with Bush -- a dictatorship would be a heckuva lot easier?

First, a few hundred thousand people have NOT died in Iraq from the US invasion, although well over a few hundred thousand people did die during Saddam's rule of Iraq.

Once again, protecting the energy reserves, in the Persian Gulf(oil and natural gas) is not something the United States does in lieu of diversifying its oil portfolio and the development of alternative forms of energy. Its a basic fact that the planet is currently dependent upon the Persian Gulf for this energy. The economy depends on it. The global economy has to continue to properly function in order for countries around the world to be able to have the funds to invest in finding alternative forms of energy that would be cheaper and more efficient than oil. Its also vital to foreign aid budgets of countries around the world that would quickly dry up if the global economy was thrown into a depression through the siezure or sabotage of Persian Gulf oil supply.

If you value finding an alternative form of energy, stopping aids in Africa, aiding poor nations, supporting your family, then you should be in support of maintaining the current global economic environment which at the current time is dependent on Persian Gulf oil. You can't abandon the resources that currently sustain you while you look for an alternative. That would be foolish and actually puts at risk your chances of finding an alternative. This is not the 19th century when the global economy was not interdependent and energy was not a requirement for economic survival, at least not in the way that it is today.

The American public supported the 1991 Gulf War because they understood the threat to US and global energy supply from Saddam. They supported the continued US presence in the Persian Gulf after 1991 as well as the invasion and overthrow of Saddam in 2003 essentially because of these facts. Most people understood why it was important to insure that Saddam was disarmed of all WMD and why it was important to defend the Persian Gulf from Saddam given recent history.

American jobs, America's standard of living, America's society is dependent on relatively stable energy prices. A global economic depression, worse than the 1930s, caused by the sudden loss of Persian Gulf oil would essentially destroy the country as we know it. Every President since World War II has understood how vital Persian Gulf oil is to the economy. Jimmy Carter stated he was ready to use Nuclear Weapons to defend the Persian Gulf and that was 30 years ago when the United States and the world were not as dependent on Persian Gulf oil as they are today. Defending Persian Gulf Oil supply has been a central part of US military strategy for nearly 60 years now. Anyone who has been in the White House has understood this. The Clintons both supported operation Iraqi Freedom despite occasional revisionism that we see from time to time by both of them.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 01:42 AM   #36
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




it is up to the UN Security Council to enforce it's resolutions, it is not up to the United States to enforce Security Council resolutions. it was the US government, not the UN, that announced that "diplomacy has failed" and then started a war. for a resolution to pass, one needs 9 out of 15 votes. and many refer to 1441 as the "second" resolution, not the 18th, and Kofi Annan stated on 9/16/04 stated that the occupation was illegal. it was retroactively legalized, but that does not in any way mean that it was legal at the time.

what else was the UN to do in 2003 post occupation but deal with the reality and retroactively legalize the illegal occupation?

you bring up a good point about the interdependence of the global economy. after all, it was only because of economic ties with and pressure applied by the US that won the "support" of countries like Costa Rica and mighty Poland. your coalition is more accurately called the "coalition of the coerced" as most were won over by coercion, bullying, and bribery.

so, ask yourself this: if it is so thuddingly obvious and such a moral imperative to overthrow Saddam and secure the oil, why then did the US have to resort to such underhanded tactics, including secre surveillance done by the NSA, to secure any support at all?
The UN security council did authorize the war through the passing of resolution 1441 which I might add was passed 15-0. The vote on resolution 678 for the 1991 Gulf War passed but did have some opposition. What Kofi Annan thinks is his opinion and essentially irrelevent since he does not have a vote in the security council. From a legal standpoint, the United Nations would never authorize an occupation brought about through illegal means. When the United Nations sees an operation that it finds illegal, it passes a resolution stating that fact, or at least makes an attempt at one. The United Nations NEVER did this in regards to the invasion of Iraq. Instead it approved of the occupation which makes sense because it just months earlier approved and invasion that would lead to such an occupation.

The whole idea of a "coalition of the coerced" was brought up in 1990-1991 along with terms like "blood for oil" and other attempts to discredit the coalition and the UN authorization to go to war, nearly all of which came from the US Democratic party which overwhelmingly opposed the US and coalition military action to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait. In 1990, the United States forgave nearly 10 Billion dollars of debt that Egypt owed it, and passed around plenty of favors in order to secure the support of many nations back in 1990. If your going to attack the necessity and legitamacy of the war with this line of thinking, your going to have to do it to nearly every coalition the US has built and nearly every war it has been involved in.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 02:44 PM   #37
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 07:48 PM
1991 ≠ 2003. Using the first Gulf War and people's opposition to it as some sort of justification or rebuttal to their opposition to the current Gulf War does not work.

And this line?

Quote:
If your going to attack the necessity and legitamacy of the war with this line of thinking, your going to have to do it to nearly every coalition the US has built and nearly every war it has been involved in.
Would you mind expanding on that logic, please?
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 03:04 PM   #38
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
1991 ≠ 2003. Using the first Gulf War and people's opposition to it as some sort of justification or rebuttal to their opposition to the current Gulf War does not work.

And this line?



Would you mind expanding on that logic, please?
Simply pointing out the same lines, phrases, and reasoning that went into the opposition to the first Gulf War and has been seen again in the second Gulf War is informative and does shed some light on the general ideas and thoughts of the opposition who in many cases are the same crowd as the one in 1991.

The line you question was in reference to the idea that somehow the US effort could be regarded as illegitimate because certain countries were "bribed" or "coerced" into siding with the United States, when in fact these things are typical of coalition building for any war that the United States has fought in. The United States did what ever it could to bring countries into the coalition it formed in 1990-1991, just as it did in 2003.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 03:09 PM   #39
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Iraq's largest province and the prior base of the Sunni insurgency with the towns of Fallujah and Ramadi has been pacified to such a degree that the Iraqi military will take over security for it this spring. When it does, it will bring the number of Iraqi provinces where all the security is provided by the Iraqi military and security services to 10 out of the 18. This hand over is very significant given it was the one time base of the Sunni insurgency and where Al Quada had its deepest inroads into Iraq. Another coalition victory for liberals and Democrats to either attempt to explain away or ignore all together.



US sets timetable to hand over Iraq's largest province

by Ben Sheppard
Tue Jan 15, 5:40 AM ET



RAMADI, Iraq (AFP) - The US military will hand over to Iraqi control the huge province of Anbar within three months, a senior officer said, reflecting a sharp turnaround for a region once a hotbed of insurgency.

Colonel John Charlton, the top US officer in the provincial capital Ramadi, about 100 kilometres (60 miles) west of Baghdad, told AFP that Anbar would be officially returned to Iraqi authorities in March or April.

The plan would mean local rule for both Ramadi and Fallujah, Anbar's major cities which were reduced to ruins in battles between US forces and an alliance of tribes, nationalists, Saddam Hussein loyalists and Al-Qaeda fighters.

Security has been transformed in the western province over the past year after Sunni tribal leaders turned against Al-Qaeda and switched loyalty to the US military, their former enemy.

The tribal "Awakening" groups also backed the rapidly-expanding Iraqi police, which now monitors movement into and within the province through a dense web of checkpoints.

Ramadi alone now has 5,100 Iraqi soldiers, 8,100 district police and 1,700 other official security personnel, according to the US military.

"There is going to be a big level of handover," Charlton said at the US base west of the city on Sunday.

"Provincial Iraqi control means just that: Iraqis will be in charge of all aspects of the province from security to governance, and our role becomes purely advisory at that point," he said.

"We are not going to do the handover all at once. This has been a process that has started months ago and each day we take a step closer towards that, and then it becomes official in March or April."

Charlton said Iraqi soldiers and police were already in charge of most of the province's security, and US-led coalition troops now made virtually no arrests.

Coalition troops would be ready to step in at any time should Iraqi commanders ask for assistance.

"The only time we would not agree to something is if it puts coalition lives at risk. Otherwise it is up to them, and they are already making the decisions to a large degree," he said.

Charlton said he expected a grand handover ceremony similar to the one held when Iraq formally took security control of the southern oil province of Basra from British forces in December.

If the Anbar handover takes place in March, it would coincide with the fifth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Sunni-dominated Anbar province was the centre of the fierce resistance against the presence of US forces in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

In 2004, Fallujah was the scene of battle between US troops and insurgents during which residents fled and two-thirds of the city was destroyed.

Under Saddam Hussein's regime, Anbar had provided many of the officers in the Iraqi army and Al-Qaeda in 2006 declared Ramadi the capital of its so-called "Islamic State of Iraq."

But, over the past year, attacks in Ramadi have dropped from 25-30 every day to less than one a week.

The number of roadside bombs has declined by 90 percent, according to latest US military figures, with the efforts of the Anbar Awakening being mainly credited for the turnaround.

"This will be a huge step forward," said Charlton. "Anbar being the largest province will make the handover pretty noteworthy -- especially given it was one of the worst areas in Iraq, and was an Al-Qaeda stronghold for years."

If Anbar is handed over on schedule, it will be the 10th of Iraq's 18 provinces to be returned to local control by the coalition.

Sheikh Ahmed Abu Reesha, leader of the "Anbar Awakening", warned at the weekend that a rapid US withdrawal from Iraq would spark a return of savage sectarian violence because the Iraqi army was not capable of ensuring peace.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 03:23 PM   #40
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Simply pointing out the same lines, phrases, and reasoning that went into the opposition to the first Gulf War and has been seen again in the second Gulf War is informative and does shed some light on the general ideas and thoughts of the opposition who in many cases are the same crowd as the one in 1991.
Exactly what light does it shed? Please, enlighten us, Sting.

As I see it, it sheds little to no light. Some of the same people who opposed the 1991 War oppose this war. That is true. If the '91 war and the current one were very much the same kind of war, then you might have something. But they are very much not the same kind of war (other than trying to protect our oil). They were not entered into under similar circumstances, they did not have the same level of support, their missions were not the same, they were not sold the same way, etc, etc.

Quote:
The line you question was in reference to the idea that somehow the US effort could be regarded as illegitimate because certain countries were "bribed" or "coerced" into siding with the United States, when in fact these things are typical of coalition building for any war that the United States has fought in. The United States did what ever it could to bring countries into the coalition it formed in 1990-1991, just as it did in 2003.
So we're just continuing in the fine line of bribing and coercing then? Well then everything must be fine!

Except you'll notice that this time around we had a much harder time gaining the same size and strength of a coalition as we did in previous engagements.
__________________

Diemen 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 07:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×