Iraq Demands a Withdraw Date
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7496294.stm
What the fuck? First we invade the country under false pretenses, then we justify our aggression by calling ourselves liberators, and now we tell the very people we "liberated" to fuck off when they want us to get out of their backyard? -
dont you think there are opportunities for us to do good over there gov? violence and attacks are at 4-year lows, sunnis approve of maliki for cracking down on shiite militias, 15/18 benchmarks have been met with satisfaction, al qaeda in iraq has been pushed out of town after town and is in its last stand in mosul, sadr is no longer popular, UAE just forgave $7 billion of iraq's debt, oil prices are high and igniting the iraqi economy, THINGS ARE GOOD. Maliki mentioned a US pullout only to help get the deal passed.. its a freaking carrot to those against it. He sees the iraqi army as increasingly self sufficient and is showing his people that he has confidence in it. however, there is a difference between saying your army is getting better and saying your army is completely ready to fend for itself.QUOTE"Our stance in the negotiations under way with the American side will be strong," he said, but added that it was proving "very difficult" to set a pullout date.
Pretty much proves he is going to the bargaining table with a strong position knowing it will be parred down. -
In fact here are some recent good pieces of news:
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/iraq-marines...-boy-just-that/QUOTEFALLUJAH, Iraq (July 1, 2008) – Sounds of joy and laughter resonate through a police station’s narrow hallways. A young boy slowly enters through a doorway at the end to greet the boisterous group of Marines, but the sounds of excitement quickly diminish as they see him gasping for air after walking just a short distance.
The boy, five-year-old Ahmed, is the son of Warrant Officer Othman Mallouki, an Iraqi policeman with Fallujah Headquarters District. Since his birth, Ahmed has suffered from a rare but fatal heart condition that if left untreated, will eventually kill him at an unthinkable, young age.QUOTEOnly recently did the light begin to peak through at the end of a dark tunnel for Ahmed and his family when Marines from Company B, Police Transition Team 8, Regimental Combat Team 1, and a charitable organization called “Gift of Life,” based in Tampa, Fla. intervened.
Ahmed’s condition was diagnosed at Fallujah Surgical when Marines took him in for an examination, said Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Craig W. Pasanen, a corpsmen with the team. Doctors discovered a hole in the septum of his heart that causes oxygen and deoxygenated blood to pass through the heart and not the lungs.
Mallouki and his son have been working with Coalition forces for the past year in attempts to get the money and medical attention that they so desperately need to help Ahmed.
The operation to mend Ahmed’s heart will be extensive and will require a specialist to stitch the hole inside his heart that is causing his condition.
But medical expenses for the family soon became too much. The nearest qualified specialist who can perform the surgery locates at a surgical clinic in Jordan. The family had no way of earning the money they need to travel and pay for Ahmed’s medical expenses.
Several months ago, members of the team contacted representatives at “Gift of Life,” who began sponsoring Mallouki and Ahmed. In June, Mallouki was able to apply for Visas that would allow the father and son access into Jordan. Their travel expenses were also covered by the charitable organization, and Transition Team members organized several convoys to Baghdad, Iraq, to assist.
Ahmed will finally undergo the surgery he’s needed sometime this month.
“Before I could not hope for anything at all and I was depressed all the time,” said Mallouki. “Now I feel in my heart a sense of hope that my son will grow up normal. I would not have this hope in my life if it weren’t for the Marines here.”
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/joint-chiefs...ass-with-video/
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/the-two-bigg...n-the-msm-news/QUOTEIraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn’t tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we’ve defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.
London’s Sunday Times called it “the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.” A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.QUOTENow, in Operation Lion’s Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.
Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside.
Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government has achieved “satisfactory” progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks — a big change for the better from a year ago.
Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad — an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.
But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news?QUOTEIt’s a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad.
In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel — thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region.
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/iraq-may-set...-us-withdrawal/QUOTEMaliki, dismissed as weak and ineffective for most of his tenure since taking over as prime minister in May 2006, has been increasingly assertive in recent months.
He has launched crackdowns on Shi’ite militias and also al Qaeda, with U.S. forces playing a mainly supporting role.
He has also called on Arab states to re-engage with Iraq.
Sunni Arab countries have long been reluctant to extend full legitimacy to the Iraqi government because of the U.S. presence, as well as Baghdad’s close ties to non-Arab, Shi’ite Iran.
But Arab ties have begun to improve.
The United Arab Emirates has cancelled almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, officials said on Sunday. And Jordan’s King Abdullah is expected to visit Baghdad this week, the first Arab leader to do so since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/hakim-the-ma...replacing-sadr/QUOTEMr. Ameri’s announcement marks a stark departure from ISCI’s strategy during the January and December 2005 elections when it was the pivotal player in assembling a grand Shiite coalition, known as the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA). That bloc swept the largest number of seats in parliament and ushered into power the Shiites and Kurds, who came in second.
At that time, Mr. Hakim brought Sadr into the coalition in the second round of elections. Sadr’s partisans clinched 32 seats and were instrumental in the selection of Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister. In the end, the Sadrists received six cabinet posts.
But acrimonious intra-Shiite disputes precipitated the UIA’s unraveling last year. First, the Fadhila Party quit, then Sadrist ministers left the government in April and the UIA altogether in September.
Even though fighting between Sadr’s Mahdi Army and American and Iraqi forces has largely quieted, ISCI and Badr have not relented from castigating the young cleric’s movement.
“The Sadrist movement used to cover up its illegal actions with the excuse that they were engaged in a political struggle with (ISCI). They can’t say this anymore,” says Badr’s Ameri. “At the end, it’s a struggle between the government and gangs of outlaws that belong to their movement.”
Ameri, who met with Sadr in Iraq in March during the height of the Basra battles with the Mahdi Army, says he believes that the cleric bowed to intense pressure at the time and that his statement last month urging his militiamen to turn to more charitable activities is “effectively dissolving the Mahdi Army without losing face.
In unusually blunt language, Ameri says Sadr would bear the consequences if his militia were to be implicated in any further acts of violence, including action against US troops. “This will be a strategic mistake, and he will be responsible for all the legal and judicial consequences of the actions of these groups.”
At the stadium rally, as ISCI and Badr leaders exited, throngs of men clamored over an iron fence to touch Ammar al-Hakim, Abdul-Aziz’s son and the movement’s next presumptive leader. Some managed to grab his hand and kiss it in a sign of extreme deference.
ISCI is projecting itself as being uncompromising on security and the one party to be trusted to fight corruption, revive the country’s crumbling infrastructure, and elevate the masses, particularly in the south, out of poverty.
Badr’s Ameri says the sectarian conflict, insurgents, and the Mahdi Army are to blame for why many Iraqis are disillusioned with elected officials. “If there is a lack of services it’s because of security. If there is no security, how can we attract foreign investors?”
Another big selling point that ISCI and Badr are hoping to make is that they are the wisest and most prudent in protecting the achievements of the once-oppressed Shiite majority population.
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/replacing-te...e-in-san-diego/QUOTEFor now, it may be only reporters and military contractors who would care, but Abbawi thinks wider need could be coming soon.
If Iraq has turned the corner on security, as Abbawi believes, tourism should follow.
“We hope the day will not be too long where you’ll be able to come and have a walk in Baghdad quite freely,” Abbawi said. “I hope this will not be long.”
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/hawijah%e2%8...ention-in-iraq/QUOTEHAWIJAH — In the month which marked the birth of the United States of America and the liberation of other nations, July 5, will be remembered in Hawijah, Iraq, as the day its country’s deputy minister of education Nehad Al-Juburi and the prime minister’s education advisor Zaid Chaid paid a historic visit to bring national attention to a pilot literacy program underway here.
Five-hundred SoI members in four of the sub-districts of Hawijah, Iraq - Zaab, Abassi, Riyadh and Hawijah city - are currently participating in this program, which teaches students up to a 3rd to 4th grade reading level.
“Education is the foundation to rebuilding,” Dr. Nehad told the audience, which included close to 100 of Hawijah’s SoI students in the program in Hawijah. “You should be proud of what you are accomplishing here and know that you are setting the example for your country to follow,” he said.
According to its Ministry of Education, 5.6 million Iraqis are illiterate –30 percent of the population in Hawijah falls into that category.
The pilot program was envisioned by Gen. David Petraeus, the commanding general of the Multi-National Force – Iraq, and is being facilitated by Soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division. Its initial design is to prepare SoI members for transition into the Iraqi security forces. The application process for both the Iraqi police and its army requires applicants to be literate.
The program kicked off in Hawijah, June 15, and is already fulfilling the dreams of some participants.
“I do not have the words to explain this great feeling I have when I was able to write and show my family my name for the first time,” Abdulkarem Khalif Faris, 24, said. “It was like flying. I want to thank God and my government for this chance.”
Faris had to quit at the elementary school level to help his family farm in this agricultural based economy. He hopes to apply to the IP Academy in Kirkuk City when the 4-month program ends.
Hawijah Mayor Sabah Khalaf Ali praised the combined efforts of the CF and ISF for the security gains measuring around a 90 percent reduction in violent attacks against CF, ISF and its citizens in this region which “will now allow us to focus our efforts on jobs and education,” he said.
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/uae-hosts-ir...mes-ambassador/QUOTEThe Emirates’ official news agency quotes Sheikh Khalifa as saying the UAE has canceled about $4 billion in debt owed by Iraq. Once interest is factored in, Emirati officials say that figure reaches about $7 billion.
The official news agency also quotes the president as saying he made the gesture in an effort to help Iraq carry out reconstruction projects.
In another development, diplomatic sources say that the UAE has named its envoy to India, Abdullah Ibrahim al Shehhi, as the new ambassador to Iraq. The decision to open an embassy in Baghdad and appoint an ambassador was announced last month. -
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/major-genera...%e2%80%9d-iraq/ or http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4276486.ece
[.quote]American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.
After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.
A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.
Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.
The group has been reduced to hit-and-run attacks, including one that killed two off-duty policemen yesterday, and sporadic bombings aimed at killing large numbers of officials and civilians.
Last Friday I joined the 2nd Iraqi Division as it supported local police in a house-to-house search for one such bomb after intelligence pointed to a large explosion today.
Even in the district of Zanjali, previously a hotbed of the insurgency, it was possible to accompany an Iraqi colonel on foot through streets of breeze-block houses studded with bullet holes. Hundreds of houses were searched without resistance but no bomb was found, only 60kg of explosives.
American and Iraqi leaders believe that while it would be premature to write off Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul and its remnants have been largely driven into the countryside to the south.
Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi’ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had “defeated” terrorism.
“They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it,” Maliki said. “But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them.”
The number of foreign fighters coming over the border from Syria to bolster Al-Qaeda’s numbers is thought to have declined to as few as 20 a month, compared with 120 a month at its peak.
Brigadier General Abdullah Abdul, a senior Iraqi commander, said: “We’ve limited their movements with check-points. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they’re mostly not succeeding.”
Major-General Mark Hertling, American commander in the north, said: “I think we’re at the irreversible point.”
[/quote]
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/pm-maliki-we...ated-terrorism/
[.quote]Iraq’s prime minister said Saturday that the government has defeated terrorism in the country, a sign of growing confidence after recent crackdowns against Sunni extremists and Shiite militias.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched the crackdowns to extend the authority of the government over areas in Baghdad and elsewhere that have largely been under the control of armed groups since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
[/quote]
[.quote]Such attacks plagued Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion, but violence in the country has now fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al Qaeda in Iraq and al-Maliki’s crackdowns, among other factors.
“Under the national unity government, the Iraqis have achieved national feats … that are now lighting the course of our march,” said al-Maliki.
Bolstered by this confidence, the prime minister plans to visit the United Arab Emirates on Sunday and also Italy and Germany later in the month - apparently hoping improved security at home will pay dividends in greater international support.
Iraq is also enjoying a surge in oil revenue driven by record crude prices and the highest production levels since Saddam’s ouster. The government expects to earn a total of US$70 billion from oil in 2008 if prices remain high.
Planning to put some of this money to work, the Iraqi government held a groundbreaking ceremony Saturday for a major project to refurbish the main road to the Baghdad airport. The road was once considered one of the most dangerous in the world but has become safer with the decline in violence in the country.
[/quote]
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/ap-exclusive...nium-from-iraq/
[.quote]The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
[/quote]
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/syria-were-t...e-are-trust-us/
[.quote](CNN) — Syrian commanders say their troops along the border with Iraq are making strides in nabbing militants intent on staging suicide attacks in Baghdad.
[/quote]
all from the past 4 days -
It doesn't matter if we're doing good or not. Even if we disregard the fact that we preemptively invaded their country to begin with, they're asking us to set a timetable for our withdraw, and we're trying to dictate to them how it is going to work.
France really came to our aid in the Revolutionary war. We desperately needed their assistance and without their help, our fine nation would be nothing more than a 250 year old dream. When the British were defeated, we asked France to leave, and they did. That is how it is done. They came to our country and helped us, and they left when we no longer wanted their help. It's not like our situation was great. We had to build our entire country from the ground up and had to defend vast stretches of incredibly rich land from outside invaders all while simultaneously developing a new system of stable government. We've been involved in various wars ever since in the guise of defending our country. We've had our lands pillaged and our capital burned to the ground; we've slaughtered each other in our own backyards; we've been invaded by natives and foreigners; we've warred all around the world. Millions have died and many more will die in order to sustain and protect this great nation.
The point is, we were willing to fight for our freedoms and our right to build a self-governed nation, and we still fight that battle today (very literally). There isn't going to be some nice, peaceful time when Iraq is suddenly OK to be set free. They are free, and as free men trying to form their own nation, they have demanded that we, the people that have helped them to overthrow their oppressors and whom have given them the opportunity to build their own nation with their own sweat and blood, leave their country. It is, after all, their country, and we are its guests (surely we're not occupiers, correct?).
Maybe we could do a lot of good there. Maybe we could help them build a prosperous nation that is the pinnacle of freedom to be admired throughout the world. But it's not our nation to build. -
Hey, their government is mature when we say it is. And that's FINAL.
ps. Seriously Eve, settle down with the good news. No matter what happens to be going on now this whole thing was a travesty. It's one of the most poorly planned military operations in our countries history, and just because all the insurgents went over to Afghanistan where they can inflict more damage on more poorly equipped American soldiers doesn't mean we're winning in Iraq. -
hah as if:
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/us-winning-o...city-residents/QUOTEBAGHDAD (AP) - Hundreds of women in black abayas crowd outdoor food markets, snapping up groceries and fresh vegetables. Stores are open again. Children play soccer on dirt fields until dusk—or later, when there’s electricity.
This is Sadr City, where black-clad militiamen of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army once enforced discipline across the sprawling slum of 3 million people—half of Baghdad’s population. The Iraqi army won control of the district in May after weeks of battles that damaged scores of houses and emptied the streets.
“Security is better without the Mahdi Army,” said a 42-year-old resident who wanted to be identified only by his nickname, Abu Israa. “We don’t want them back.”
Most residents do not seem to miss the Mahdi Army, and the U.S. and Iraqi governments hope that sentiment sticks. So Sadr City is witnessing a flurry of public works projects—part of an effort to build confidence in the government and make it more difficult for the extremists to return.QUOTETaking no chances in Sadr City, hundreds of city workers have spread out across the district to spruce it up. They are resurfacing roads and sidewalks, repairing the sewer system and collecting garbage.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pledged $100 million to upgrade the quality of life. The U.S. military is also providing some reconstruction and economic aid to help rebuild parts of Sadr City—with about $4 million already being spent and more on the way.
“The Iraqi government is rebuilding Iraq, one area at a time,” says a large billboard on one of Sadr City’s main roads—part of a U.S.-backed propaganda effort.
To make sure everything goes smoothly, Iraqi troops man scores of checkpoints and are even directing traffic. They have set up small outposts deep inside the district, complete with blast walls and sandbags.
U.S. troops continue to stay in the area’s outlying neighborhoods, but residents report nightly forays by American forces and their Iraqi allies to arrest Mahdi Army commanders—moves the government once roundly condemned and the Mahdi Army pledged never to allow.
On Monday, the top U.S. military officer visited Sadr City, where he met with U.S. troops at a coalition observation post and strolled through a market.
“We saw extraordinary progress there,” said Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “A few months ago no one could go into Sadr City. I was able to walk openly down a street that until recently was extremely unsafe, and I’m encouraged by that.”QUOTEThe recent fighting in Sadr City ended with a truce that allowed the government to take control of the vast district and obliged al-Sadr to take his soldiers off the streets.
It is unclear if the smaller, more mobile force foreseen by the commander would have trouble controlling Sadr City the way the full Mahdi Army did. But it would likely give al-Sadr better control over the proposed fighter cells. His aim likely is to bolster his standing as Iraq’s top anti-American figure.
Publicly, the Mahdi Army has melted away.
Gone are the small groups of militiamen hanging out on major roads or racing through dusty streets in pickup trucks. They have even stopped guarding al-Sadr’s office and manning checkpoints to search worshippers headed to outdoor Friday prayers.
Many commanders have gone into hiding or fled.
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/iraq-terrori...from-last-year/QUOTEThe Iraqi military said Wednesday that the number of “terrorist attacks” in June declined 85 percent from the same period a year ago.
An average of 25 attacks took place each day in June, compared with 160 during the same month in 2007, said Iraqi army spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Mousawi during a news conference. He did not provide details on the individual attacks included in the figures.
The second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq said Wednesday that the number of rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq that can be linked to Iranian-sponsored fighters has fallen in recent weeks.
Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin attributed the decline mainly to efforts by Iraqi forces to choke off radical elements of Shiite militias in the southern cities of Basra and Amarah.QUOTEIn Washington, the U.S. general who led efforts to train Iraq’s army and police units said Wednesday that progress is mixed and long-term U.S. help is needed.
In Washington, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik said Iraq’s security forces have grown from 444,000 to 566,000 since he assumed command of the Multi-National Security Transition Command in June 2007 and are better able to execute operations on their own.
oh and about afghanistan where you say all the jihadis are going:
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/marines-400-...ed-since-april/QUOTEKABUL, Afghanistan — A Marine commander said Wednesday his troops have killed 400 insurgents in southern Afghanistan since late April.
Col. Peter Petronzio, the commander of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, said the figure came from the governor of the southern Helmand province, where his troops have been deployed since late April.
Some 2,200 Marines moved into the town of Garmser in Helmand province to clean the area of insurgents. -
Pat Dollard has appeared on such prestigious programs as Hannity & Colmes, Fox and Friends, Pundit Review and jumped happily on the Michelle Obama "Whitey" manufactured controversy. So basically I think he's a hack. A hack who writes well, but a hack nonetheless.
/just sayin'
And the point remains. The government we said would have the right to sovereignty is being denied that sovereignty indefinitely? I'm sorry that's wrong. -
all he does is post stories from other places (like the AP or the NYT or WSJ). he doesn't write anything, but sometimes makes comments in bold before the story with his own opinion.
and about iraq asking us to leave. that was one guy saying he wants us to leave. we are in the process of negotiating an agreement allowing our forces to stay. that agreement will go to the iraqi parliament for further debate. there is no way the end product will be that they ask us to leave and they decide on a date when it must be done. if that happens, then yes i agree we should leave. but thats not going to happen. -
I'm not really as concerned with what al-Rubaie or Maliki is saying as much as what the US government is saying in response. Hell, I think we should pull all of our troops out today, but that's neither here nor there.
What right do we have to set any conditions for our withdraw from their country? If the Iraqi government asks us to leave whether it be immediately, in a gradual fashion by a specific date, or in a 100 years, we better damn-well respect their sovereignty and do it. Anything else is at best an act of aggression and at worst an act of oppression. -
That's what Markos Moulitsas does too and he's also an partisan idiot. Here's a hint. If, when reading somebodies blog, you feel like things are sunshine and rainbows, they are lying. If you're reading someone's blog and it feels like armageddon, they are lying.
About the 400 insurgents. Replace that word with one that means something... like i donno... men and women, mothers and fathers. Now, does that sound like a victory to you?
but you do have a point. This dude is not the end all be all of Iraqi sentiment. But we COMPLETELY disregarded it. And that doesn't instill confidence that when a full on sovereign declaration gets pushed out of the parliament there we'll adhere to it. -
Realistically, it doesn't matter what the Iraqi President or military think they are ready for. Until the US military feels that Iraq is ready to handle the Iraqi insurgents then we can't leave, because they need to be able to handle it without us having to worry about them failing. They may be close, but they aren't there yet, and the worst thing we can do is leave before they can contain themselves. That only leads to future chaos and problems that we will likely have to deal with again.
You may want to say they are a liberated country, but the reality is they are a conquered country in our control, and when we see that they are fit to rule themselves without causing a new civil war then we will leave. -
QUOTE (Pheylan @ Jul 11 2008, 01:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Realistically, it doesn't matter what the US President or military think they aren't ready for. If they feel that they are ready to handle the Iraqi insurgents then we should leave, because they need to be able to handle it without us having to worry about them failing. They may be close, and they aren't there yet, but the worst thing we can do is leave before they can contain themselves ignore their wishes and treat them like a conquered territory. That only leads to future chaos and problems that we will likely have to deal with.
You may want to say they are a conquered country, but the reality is they are a liberated country under our supervision, and when they think they are fit to rule themselves without causing a new civil war then we should leave.
FTFY.
for the record, presenting your opinion in absolutes like "can't" and "need" and "reality" your argument appears really disingenuous.
-
okay lets say we leave tomorrow. obama has said he would be willing to have forces nearby to conduct pinpoint strikes on alqaida in iraq bases/activities. what if 1- iraq degenerates to the point that AQI is operating with impunity and able to raise tons of oil money and have a safe haven or 2- iran uses its influence over the fledgling state to completely dominate it and take profits from the 2 states with the largest oil reserves in the world in order to fund more terror (feeds it to groups like hamas and hezbollah, or acquires new missile techonology and nukes to hit israel or the US). would you be willing to reinvade? and if not, at what point would you reinvade?- after an attack on an American city originating from iraq/iran? why wait? i know these are hypotheticals but any President would never want to be responsible for that. withdrawing from iraq NOW and having to reinvade AGAIN would be an even bigger blunder than going in in the first place.
-
What if one of the many poorly protected nukes that Russia has slipped into the hands of Al-Qaeda and they smuggle it to the US while our borders are left extremely under-protected while our troops are overseas and annihilate one of our coastal metropolises. We should probably just invade Russia now, so we can make sure that a situation like that never happens.
Obviously that scenario is pretty radical, but so is yours. You're making two extremely large assumptions:
1. The Iraqi government, army, and people suffer from raging ineptitude and incompetence, are unwilling to fight for their own freedoms, and are incapable of resisting the awesome lure of people who blow up their schools and markets.
2. We, somehow, have the right to fuck up any country we wish if there is any chance that, if given the absolute worst circumstances, they could potentially pose a threat in the future.
That's ridiculous! It's barbaric and very un-American. A policy of preemptive intervention is the type of policy that led to an empirical globe that ultimately resulted in World War I. The very idea is absolutely insane, but somehow a twisted form of manifest destiny or something is leaving a thick coating of retarded around the brains of many Americans.
The world is dangerous. When we decide to get into everyone's affairs and try to dictate how shit will work (almost always with our own best interests in mind), it only gets more dangerous for us. Now, we're on a slippery slope as we try to solve our "dangerous" problem by getting more involved with the people that hate us.
We ended the goddamn cold war -- the only war to ever pose the threat of wiping out all life across the entire globe without invading Russia. And for some reason, we think that freshly-graduated-from-the-third-world countries are going to threaten our very existence. PLEASE. If Iran suicidally sent a missile our way, we would level their fucking country to the ground and the whole world would be satisfied. They know it. We know it. And believe it or not, they're not out of their fucking minds.
Blegh. I'm done with this conversation. -
QUOTE (Governor @ Jul 12 2008, 09:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>What if one of the many poorly protected nukes that Russia has slipped into the hands of Al-Qaeda and they smuggle it to the US while our borders are left extremely under-protected while our troops are overseas and annihilate one of our coastal metropolises. We should probably just invade Russia now, so we can make sure that a situation like that never happens.
Obviously that scenario is pretty radical, but so is yours. You're making two extremely large assumptions:
1. The Iraqi government, army, and people suffer from raging ineptitude and incompetence, are unwilling to fight for their own freedoms, and are incapable of resisting the awesome lure of people who blow up their schools and markets.
2. We, somehow, have the right to fuck up any country we wish if there is any chance that, if given the absolute worst circumstances, they could potentially pose a threat in the future.
That's ridiculous! It's barbaric and very un-American. A policy of preemptive intervention is the type of policy that led to an empirical globe that ultimately resulted in World War I. The very idea is absolutely insane, but somehow a twisted form of manifest destiny or something is leaving a thick coating of retarded around the brains of many Americans.
The world is dangerous. When we decide to get into everyone's affairs and try to dictate how shit will work (almost always with our own best interests in mind), it only gets more dangerous for us. Now, we're on a slippery slope as we try to solve our "dangerous" problem by getting more involved with the people that hate us.
We ended the goddamn cold war -- the only war to ever pose the threat of wiping out all life across the entire globe without invading Russia. And for some reason, we think that freshly-graduated-from-the-third-world countries are going to threaten our very existence. PLEASE. If Iran suicidally sent a missile our way, we would level their fucking country to the ground and the whole world would be satisfied. They know it. We know it. And believe it or not, they're not out of their fucking minds.
Blegh. I'm done with this conversation.
I'm sure the dod has drawn up many scenarios of how to protect Russian nukes. If Russia proves that it cannot handle protecting its own stockpile, then we can use one of our many plans to secure what nukes we need to. We do not need to invade Russia. If the Taliban in Afghanistan had 100 nukes and gave 1 to AQ which got set off in America then the story would be different. The Taliban would not feel bad and would not cooperate with the US and we would need to invade for fear of them hiding their nukes to use later. Russia is friendly so an invasion would be useless.
In the same way, I'm sure we have plenty of plans on the drawing board for Pakistan. If the government there falls to extremists, then I'm pretty sure we should damn well get in there and prevent them from getting access to the Pakistani 'Muslim' bomb. If the extremist regime resisted, then a full-on invasion might be necessary unless they prove their peaceful intentions that they only need their nukes for retalitory purposes.
I guess my big difference with you lies in the idea that the Iranian leadership is not out of their minds. I'm scared they buy into a particular form of twelver Shiism that believes the 12th Imam will return when as much chaos as possible comes into the world- ie Iran nukes Israel, Israel nukes back..thats some heavy chaos. In Iran there is this well that Shias believe the 12th imam will come out of. Ahmadinejad has built a railroad from that well to a newly built palace, so that the 12th imam can come out of that well and use the railroad meant only for him to go to a palace meant only for him to rule the world. Doesn't that sound like he thinks the time is near? Doesn't that sound like he thinks he can usher in the new era if he makes enough chaos himself? He has stated that he is willing to lose half the Iranian population if it means destroying the state of Israel...pretty chaotic sounding, no? -
QUOTE...James Banford observes that the leadership of al Qaeda hoped to lure us into a "desert Vietnam," an enormously expensive war that would deplete our resources and help their own recruitment by stirring up the locals against us. And that is just what happened. The war's ultimate cost is being estimated in the trillions. The dollar is collapsing. And more terrorists are being created. According to a study by the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel, the vast bulk of the foreign fighters in Iraq are people who had never been involved in terrorist activity before but have been radicalized by the U.S. presence in Iraq -- the second holiest place in Islam.
The terrorists, in short, have played us like a fiddle. With the unnecessary and unprovoked attack on Iraq, our government gave them just what they wanted.
-The Revolution: A Manifesto, Ron Paul
I'm glad that America is looking like the hero of Iraq. -
the 3 holiest places in Islam are Mecca, Medini and Jerusalem. There are places in Iraq that are very holy for Shiites, but thats just wrong to call Iraq the second holiest site in all of Islam. And yes our presence there has created radicals. But Iraqis are getting sick of hardline clerics for their rules and violence. If Iraqis take the chance we have given them to be successful, then radicalism there will be very low. Imagine the example they would set for the entire Middle East. An Arab country at peace with the world and gaining prosperity under a democracy. If other countries take up the example, then where will the foreign jihadis come from? Transforming the reasons for radicalism seems like the only long-term solution to me.
-
QUOTE (Evestay @ Jul 12 2008, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm sure the dod has drawn up many scenarios of how to protect Russian nukes. If Russia proves that it cannot handle protecting its own stockpile, then we can use one of our many plans to secure what nukes we need to. We do not need to invade Russia. If the Taliban in Afghanistan had 100 nukes and gave 1 to AQ which got set off in America then the story would be different. The Taliban would not feel bad and would not cooperate with the US and we would need to invade for fear of them hiding their nukes to use later. Russia is friendly so an invasion would be useless.
In the same way, I'm sure we have plenty of plans on the drawing board for Pakistan. If the government there falls to extremists, then I'm pretty sure we should damn well get in there and prevent them from getting access to the Pakistani 'Muslim' bomb. If the extremist regime resisted, then a full-on invasion might be necessary unless they prove their peaceful intentions that they only need their nukes for retalitory purposes.
I guess my big difference with you lies in the idea that the Iranian leadership is not out of their minds. I'm scared they buy into a particular form of twelver Shiism that believes the 12th Imam will return when as much chaos as possible comes into the world- ie Iran nukes Israel, Israel nukes back..thats some heavy chaos. In Iran there is this well that Shias believe the 12th imam will come out of. Ahmadinejad has built a railroad from that well to a newly built palace, so that the 12th imam can come out of that well and use the railroad meant only for him to go to a palace meant only for him to rule the world. Doesn't that sound like he thinks the time is near? Doesn't that sound like he thinks he can usher in the new era if he makes enough chaos himself? He has stated that he is willing to lose half the Iranian population if it means destroying the state of Israel...pretty chaotic sounding, no?
Here are the problems with what you're saying. To start off, calling Russia friendly, or stable, as of current is just fallacy. Russia is a nation struggling after almost a century of being one of two superpowers. Putin did more in his terms to revert Russia to a soviet type state than I had previously thought would be possible. I especially love it when journalists just "disappear" now for saying unattractive things about the government.
What I'm trying to get at, is that we likely do not have any idea where all of the former Soviet Union's nukes are. I would put money on it. So, claiming that "we know where all their nukes are" or thinking "they're friendly, so we don't even have to worry about it" are both pie in the sky bullshit. On top of that, Court was pointing out that the Russian government probably doesn't even know where all the former nukes are, never mind us. You do realize how many sovereign states the USSR dissolved into, right? And that not all the nukes were stocked in Moscow.
Moving on, the fact that you feel it is somehow acceptable to begin invading countries because they have a nuke, and the government is overthrown, boggles the mind. If you're really hell bent on overthrowing someone, why not head to North Korea? Oh, wait, you mean we already did? And we kind of... tied... that war?
Finally, your critique of the coming of the 12th Imam is hilarious. As much chaos as possible eh? Gee, that sounds awfully familiar. Sounds a lot like... Armageddon? The fact that almost the entirety of Christianity believes that the world will end in a stunningly similar fashion, involving incredible chaos, and then the rapture, means that clearly we can't have born agains running the country. They might start trying to blow shit up just to make the rapture happen. Something like... I don't know, help return Israel to it's biblical boundaries because when all the jews get back to the holy land and reclaim it Jesus comes down in a leather jacket and starts shooting laser beams from his eyes, or something. That's pretty fucking crazy, and yet, half of these conservative pundits that you apparently worship are listening to the same crazy ass religious right preachers that actually believe this. But yeah, that railroad was nuts...
Anyway, it seems like your entire view on this stems from one of two things. Either you really believe the horseshit these people are feeding you, or you want to because you're racist. If you really believe it, I don't know what to say. The other option stems from the fact that after one tears apart your poorly constructed, talk show educated, arguments, it becomes clear that you really just don't think brown people can rule or govern themselves. That seems to be an issue here specifically because the brown people in question are situated above oil, and that just won't do. N. Korea is CLEARLY a bigger threat than anything else in the world right now, at least visibly. Why aren't you waving the banner to shove a few cruise missiles up Kim Jong Il's ass?
-
geezuz i must be hitting some buttons. the multilateral talks with north korea are showing some signs of working, so i definitely do not advocate invading them while diplomacy is still on the table. same for iran, diplomacy could work and i definitely do not advocate an invasion. if diplomacy does fail, then i would argue for bombing. there is no country in the world that i think we should currently invade, so please dont put me into some crackpot box. as for russia, i agree that they probably have loose nukes lying around and that it is dangerous. my only point was to highlight the difference between russia and the taliban. if the taliban had the same number of nukes then an invasion would be fine by me.
-
QUOTE (Bill @ Jul 13 2008, 11:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Finally, your critique of the coming of the 12th Imam is hilarious. As much chaos as possible eh? Gee, that sounds awfully familiar. Sounds a lot like... Armageddon? The fact that almost the entirety of Christianity believes that the world will end in a stunningly similar fashion, involving incredible chaos, and then the rapture, means that clearly we can't have born agains running the country. They might start trying to blow shit up just to make the rapture happen. Something like... I don't know, help return Israel to it's biblical boundaries because when all the jews get back to the holy land and reclaim it Jesus comes down in a leather jacket and starts shooting laser beams from his eyes, or something. That's pretty fucking crazy, and yet, half of these conservative pundits that you apparently worship are listening to the same crazy ass religious right preachers that actually believe this. But yeah, that railroad was nuts...
Yes, all or most religions believe in an end-of-times scenario. But NO, I do not know of any Christian sect or subsect that believes creating chaos in the world will bring about the end of days any sooner. The closest thing I have heard of is the Jewish group the Temple Mount Faithful who believe that rebuilding the Jewish Temple will bring about the end of times sooner. A side consequence might be chaos as tearing down the alAsqa mosque would make people angry, but the purpose is to make the messiah come sooner because he has a temple to come to NOT to create chaos. And yeah those people are loonies too. -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Jul 12 2008, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm scared
Hadn't noticed. Hey, I'm scared too. Terrified actually. The difference is I'm not willing to compromise my principals and those of this country to provide me with a false sense of security just so I can feel less scared.
I call that cowardice. But that's just me. -
You don't think there is such a thing as Apocalyptic Rapture Philosophy in Christianity? Hagee, one of the most influential Christians in the world subscribes to the idea that when Israel is DESTROYED the rapture will come. And millions of Americans see his program on sunday morning and hear him outline "god's playbook" and eat it right up.
-
Here is an article from the LA Times that talks about Hagee, Ahmadinejad, and different Christian groups that believe they can make the end times come sooner.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/22/local/me-endtimes22
And yes I am scared. Arent I allowed to be scared? If Iran gets a nuke under its current administration, why cant I be scared for Israel? Me being scared does not mean I want to invade Iran. It only means I would want to bomb Iran's nuclear sites if diplomacy didnt work out and/or the next Iranian administration did not take a more peaceful approach. -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Jul 15 2008, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...
And yes I am scared. Arent I allowed to be scared? If Iran gets a nuke under its current administration, why cant I be scared for Israel? Me being scared does not mean I want to invade Iran. It only means I would want to bomb Iran's nuclear sites if diplomacy didnt work out and/or the next Iranian administration did not take a more peaceful approach.
Is it just me... or does bombing nuclear sites sound like a bad idea? -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Jul 15 2008, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Here is an article from the LA Times that talks about Hagee, Ahmadinejad, and different Christian groups that believe they can make the end times come sooner.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/22/local/me-endtimes22
And yes I am scared. Arent I allowed to be scared? If Iran gets a nuke under its current administration, why cant I be scared for Israel? Me being scared does not mean I want to invade Iran. It only means I would want to bomb Iran's nuclear sites if diplomacy didnt work out and/or the next Iranian administration did not take a more peaceful approach.
I declare this response rational. You're most definitely allowed to be scared. God knows I sure am. But a much wiser man than myself once said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I'm not nearly as scared of what Iran is going to do as I am of what Israel or we would do out of fear. Bombing sites would be seen as an egregious act of aggression and no matter how we tried to spin it there's no way it wouldn't be clear who was behind it. The US and Israel are putting more pressure on Iran than any other countries so action by any party would be perceived as being endorsed by either or both parties. That would DESTROY any credibility we have left in the region and would more than likely incur aggression against Israel.
Bombing sites would result in a ground invasion sooner or later. And what's a nuclear site? Refineries? Materials warehouses? Do you know how hard it is to distinguish a power plant refinery from a weapons refinery? Do you know how bad it would look to destroy 20 power plants, shutting down the countries power grid for months if not years? And lastly, what more peaceful approach would you suggest? We're the ones who are warring all over the region shooting civilians in countries we have no sovereign right to stay in. I think it's fair for the leadership in the Middle East to ask US to take a "more peaceful approach".
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!