Success in Iraq is dependent on Iraqis

  • Thread starter Thread starter MTAFFI
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 67
  • Views Views 8K
dictators are very good at holding countries together. tito in yugoslavia, for example.
i have yet to hear anyone say anything good about saddam hussein, but the fact is the u.s. has no problem with dictators.
to be opposed at what the u.s. is doing and its responsibility for what is happening is not the same as condoning the violence that is happening there, or relieving the perpetrators of any responsibility for their actions or thinking that saddam hussein was lovely, either for that matter.

Yes..but this is the real world. It is conveninetly glib to blame the US for the Shia/Sunni cauldron in Iraq when the pressure cooker has been heated above the boiling point for generations if not centuries.

It is a bit like blaming Reagan for the fall of the Soviet Union and the eventual collapse of Tito's Yugoslavia. It was an unnatural state. It was historically unsustainable. Evil institutions don't give up power willingly.

I suppose we should blame Lincoln for the deaths of the US Civil War? Mugabe is going to die or be assasinated and then there will be many deaths in Zimbabwe. It just has to be.

Everyone seems to be quick to predict WWIII..perhaps..or perhaps this is the first stage of a transformation toward a more peaceful world.
 
Yes..but this is the real world. It is conveninetly glib to blame the US for the Shia/Sunni cauldron in Iraq when the pressure cooker has been heated above the boiling point for generations if not centuries.

It is a bit like blaming Reagan for the fall of the Soviet Union and the eventual collapse of Tito's Yugoslavia. It was an unnatural state. It was historically unsustainable. Evil institutions don't give up power willingly.

I suppose we should blame Lincoln for the deaths of the US Civil War? Mugabe is going to die or be assasinated and then there will be many deaths in Zimbabwe. It just has to be.

Everyone seems to be quick to predict WWIII..perhaps..or perhaps this is the first stage of a transformation toward a more peaceful world.

i don't mean to be glib and i don't absolve the iraqis. and yes, it would be simplistic to blame it all on the u.s.
but i still think the u.s. bears a heavy responsibilty what iraq is today.
 
The U.S. made the mistake of using a fairly small and mobile force in Iraq, as opposed to the behemoth that participated in the first Gulf War. When the social order broke down in Iraq there weren't enough American soldiers available to turn 20,000 of them into instant cops. The war was planned well, the peace wasn't planned at all.
 
The U.S. made the mistake of using a fairly small and mobile force in Iraq, as opposed to the behemoth that participated in the first Gulf War. When the social order broke down in Iraq there weren't enough American soldiers available to turn 20,000 of them into instant cops. The war was planned well, the peace wasn't planned at all.

Agreed. We also failed to understand the ease that Al Quaeda would have in finding homicide bombers to eagerly kill the Shia.

The Shia guards of the Samara mosque have also failed to guard their treasure (twice) despite the fact that they would not let any US troops nearby.

The Iranians haven't exactly helped anything either.
 
i don't mean to be glib and i don't absolve the iraqis. and yes, it would be simplistic to blame it all on the u.s.
but i still think the u.s. bears a heavy responsibilty what iraq is today.


I would agree with this, the US does bear heavy responsibility for what is going on in Iraq today. However what should be added to that is the reason our troops are still in Iraq today is to help provide the security that is so badly needed, to train police and military personel, to help rebuild a country or in otherwords to help bear the responsibility for the state Iraq is in today. I do not think however that the US went in with the notion that an all out civil war would break out, nor do I believe the US gov. thought that Al-Qaeda would come to town killing everyone in sight. The US gov. was without a doubt caught off guard. But the Iraqi people also bear a heavy weight here as well, a brutal regime was ousted, they have had democratic elections, they are being helped with security, etc., but they are not doing anything for themselves.

What do people think is going to happen when the US leaves this country? Do you think that magically the violence will stop? Al-Qaeda, etc will all just pick up their mines and leave.... That is not only negligent but just plain wrong, the Iraqis will be left to defend themselves, which as stated in the original article, they cannot do, so then what will happen? Think about it, how many US troops have died in Iraq? Now how many Iraqis have died in Iraq? I would venture to say (because I cant find any real statistics) that 90% of the the Iraqi deaths are caused by insurgents, murderers, militias, Al-Qaeda or whatever label you would like to apply to them, and when the US leaves, they will take the country by hard force. Then who is to blame? Everyone who pushed the US out

I care about the people of Iraq, I think that they have lived so many years in oppression and violence and have never had a chance to experience a day without some sort of fear. It is truly sad. What is even more saddening is that people on this forum and around the world, care more about the insurgents stated religion than what their actual role has been in Iraq. Many Muslims I see here say may Allah help our brothers kill the occupiers in Iraq. Just because they say they are Muslim does not make them Muslim, and that does not make them anyones brother, especially when day after day we find evidence that they are in fact not, it makes us fools. The insurgents are not there for the good of the Iraqis, they are there for themselves. I hope God can help the Iraqis find a way to peace one day
 
frankly, i don't think the u.s. gave much thought to what would happen after we invaded iraq or even who are the people of iraq. (despite all the bogus concern about the "liberation" of the iraqis).
however, though i was strongly opposed to the u.s. invasion of iraq in the first place as well as just about everything we have done since and felt very sure about all that....now that we have done it and are there, i honestly have no idea what we should do next. no matter what we do or don't do, it is hard to imagine things getting better there any time in the near future...trouble is, i don't think anyone else knows either.
 
it is because a secular, murdering, souless, sociopathic dictator brutally suppressed any Shia dissent.Other than that everything was fine....well except for the Kurds too..

60% of Saddams government and forces were comprised of Shia. So, they partook in the suppression of their own.

Let's not forget that Bush Sr. lured the Shia & Kurds into uprising after the first Gulf War, and his promise of military aid never materialized.

He Just left them to be slaughtered. In the end, it was less Muslims alive.

We have a history of breaking our promises. Remember the Bay of Pigs fiasco?
 
Dems call for combat to end by 2008 By ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writers
20 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A senior Democrat said Tuesday it was obvious the Iraqi government has made no progress and the only way to propel it was to begin pulling out U.S. troops.

In a countermove, President Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley and war adviser Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute arrived on Capitol Hill to consult with members.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, proposed legislation with Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., that would order President Bush to begin pulling out troops in 120 days and end combat by April 30, 2008.

The measure would allow for some troops to remain to conduct counterterrorism, train the Iraqi security forces and protect U.S. infrastructure.

"There is much too little pressure on Iraqi leaders to do what they have to do," Levin, D-Mich., told reporters.

Democrats are reviving their push for troop withdrawals as a progress report on the war finds Baghdad has not met key targets for security, economic and political reform.

Members said they planned to receive details on the assessment Thursday morning, just as they likely will vote on the Levin proposal.

Rebuffing all such talk, President Bush said he won't succumb to political pressure. During a visit to Parma, Ohio on Tuesday, he reiterated that troop levels in Iraq "will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C."

"I fully understand that this is a difficult war. It's hard on the American people but I will once again explain the consequences of failure," he said.

White House spokesman Tony Snow earlier Tuesday confirmed that the coming administration report to Congress would say that Iraq has not met all the benchmarks set for it. The nature of that report was revealed earlier to The Associated Press by a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But Snow argued that the assessment is only "a look at the starting line" of the U.S. troop surge and shouldn't be used by critics to demand withdrawal.

"What Congress will get this week is a snapshot of the beginning of the retooling of the mission in Iraq," he said.

Levin's proposal, offered as an amendment to a $649 billion defense policy bill, is expected to fail because Republicans say they still oppose setting a timetable on troop withdrawals.

But in a sign that GOP frustration with the war is growing, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine said she was considering switching her position and backing the measure. Also considered likely supporters were Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon.

Sen. Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and other moderates said they were considering an alternative proposal that would demand an end to combat and allow U.S. troops to conduct only a narrow set of missions. The measure would not identify a date.

"What many of us are looking for is a new strategy that would not be a precipitous pullout with all of the problems that would cause, but rather a plan to exit over the next year," said Collins, R-Maine.

Sen. John McCain, upon his return from Iraq, on Tuesday defended Bush's troop build up, contending that reinforcements had only just recently been put in place.

"I believe that our military in cooperation with our Iraqi security forces are making progress in a number of areas," he said, noting specifically a dramatic drop in attacks in Ramadi in the western Anbar province.

"Make no mistake. Violence in Baghdad remains at unacceptably high levels," McCain added. But the U.S. and Iraq seem to be "moving in the right direction," he said.

Reed of Rhode Island, who also visited Iraq last week, said he did not see enough progress to warrant the U.S. commitment there. Reed said that Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, told him that the limits of U.S. military resources will factor into his recommendation on what to do next.

"Come next spring, the ability to generate 160,000 soldiers and Marines in country virtually comes to an end," said Reed.

The administration, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has stressed a September time frame for a wide-ranging assessment of operational strategy after about 4 1/2 years of battle, and has said such a review would be more appropriate then.

Gates planned to talk to various lawmakers on Tuesday, after abruptly canceling a trip to Latin America this week so he could help shape this week's report to Congress.

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said that military commanders believe that, "we would be able to be in a better place in September to be able to provide some assessments and make some decisions with respect to the way forward."

So far, he said, commanders are saying the build up — which brought troops levels to about 157,000 — has had a "positive" effect.

But concern about continued U.S. troop losses, indications of drift within the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad and declining public support in this country for the war have driven some key Republicans closer to the position of Democrats demanding withdrawal.

One U.S. official said late Monday that the July report would push the administration to consider its next move. Another senior official, however, said that Bush and his advisers had already decided no change in policy was justified as yet because there was not enough evidence from Iraq.

Whether conditions merited a course shift, such as troop reductions or other scaling back of U.S. operations, would be decided after the September report, said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to talk more freely about internal deliberations.

This spring, Congress agreed to continue funding the war through September but demanded that Bush certify on July 15 and again on Sept. 15 that the Iraqis were living up to their political promises or forgo U.S. aid dollars.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
 
If there is a vote of no-confidence by the Iraqi parliament for Maliki, two things could occur. Either a new president is chosen by election...which would be a bloodbath, or the parliament chooses one themselves, which will harm the legitimacy of the government. Either way, I see this Iraqi government falling. If that happens the U.S. will have no choice by to re-deploy and re-think our commitment to this affair.
 
If there is a vote of no-confidence by the Iraqi parliament for Maliki, two things could occur. Either a new president is chosen by election...which would be a bloodbath, or the parliament chooses one themselves, which will harm the legitimacy of the government. Either way, I see this Iraqi government falling. If that happens the U.S. will have no choice by to re-deploy and re-think our commitment to this affair.

The current iraqi gov't is illegal and can't be recognized. No gov't can be formed while a nation is under occupation. This is international and UN law. All occupying forces have to leave the country and only then can a true and legtimate gov't be formed and recognized.
 
Iraq will never calm down from violence and bloody civil war it is in until the Americans leave then Malaki will be overthrown and Ansar al sunna and the Mahdi army Suni and Shia will rule Iraq together.
 
Suni and Shia will rule Iraq together
What have you been smoking?
Suni and Shia are not killing each other because the US is there.
They kill each other because the hate each other.
When the US leaves there will be blood shade like never before.
 
Good point but were they killing each other before foreign invaders came?

there were some killings but nothing like what is going on there now. Even if they do attack each other, it's nothing compared to wat bush has done. Bush killed 655,000 in 3yrs where as saddam allegedly killed 250,000 in 20yrs. If saddam and his army could kill only that many in 20yrs, how much do you think people can going against each other? it's all cries from the kuffars to stay there to steal more oil, kill more innocents and rape some more.

There are plenty of big groups there like mahdi army and iraqi army and few other ones. The moment this occupation ends, their illegtimate gov't will be toppled and trashed and these armies will put a more legtimate gov't in place. They will inshallah provide better security then these kuffars have done, who only care about their green zone which is size of a city for only their own kind.
 
Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;

I can’t imagine what Bush and Blair were thinking, they apply economic sanctions against Iraq for years, they bomb the country into submission looking for fictitious WMD. In the meantime thousands of Iraqi have lost a mum, dad, brother, sister, son or daughter, huge amounts of infrastructure have been destroyed, and there are around two million Iraqi refugees living in fear and squalor.

Iraq did not ask to be invaded, they did not ask the American and British to depose Saddam. why should we expect the Iraqi people to accept an invading army with an apparent unjust cause to invade their country

At some time both Bush and Blair will have to stand before God and try and justify their actions.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
 
Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;

I can’t imagine what Bush and Blair were thinking, they apply economic sanctions against Iraq for years, they bomb the country into submission looking for fictitious WMD. In the meantime thousands of Iraqi have lost a mum, dad, brother, sister, son or daughter, huge amounts of infrastructure have been destroyed, and there are around two million Iraqi refugees living in fear and squalor.

Iraq did not ask to be invaded, they did not ask the American and British to depose Saddam. why should we expect the Iraqi people to accept an invading army with an apparent unjust cause to invade their country

At some time both Bush and Blair will have to stand before God and try and justify their actions.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

i agree.
 
Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;

I can’t imagine what Bush and Blair were thinking, they apply economic sanctions against Iraq for years, they bomb the country into submission looking for fictitious WMD. In the meantime thousands of Iraqi have lost a mum, dad, brother, sister, son or daughter, huge amounts of infrastructure have been destroyed, and there are around two million Iraqi refugees living in fear and squalor.

Iraq did not ask to be invaded, they did not ask the American and British to depose Saddam. why should we expect the Iraqi people to accept an invading army with an apparent unjust cause to invade their country

At some time both Bush and Blair will have to stand before God and try and justify their actions.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
I too agree, but we don't get do-overs.
And drilling holes in your neighbor's joints before he is shot in the head and dump him on the streets will not solve the problems.
 
what the iraqis are doing to each other is horrendous.
but it was the u.s. who brought them the gift of anarchy.
no good guys anywhere in sight.
 
what the iraqis are doing to each other is horrendous.
but it was the u.s. who brought them the gift of anarchy.
no good guys anywhere in sight.
Again total agreement. But if we stay more will die. If we leave more will die. I have a hard time trying to figure out which is the least bad.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top