So much for "Security in Iraq is improving."

[Pardalis]

I just don't see that happening for the reasons I mentioned in the above post. They're not making any friends in either the Shia population or with the Sunni tribal sheiks with their attacks on Iraqi civilians. If anything, the lack of a presence of foreigners might make the Iraqis more likely to turn on Al Queda.

You may have a point, I certainly hope the Iraqis turn their attention to their real enemies, which are not the US.

The current situation in Iraq is more analogous to Northern Ireland than anything else. Two religiously divergent native populations who hate each other and a foreign occupying military trying to enforce order which isn't making either side happy.

Never thought of it that way. But the difference is the region, the Middle East is a much more volatile area, and also there this damned Al Qaeda...

 

[SezMe]

That's a good idea, I can go with that.

Having just seen SezMe's idea, that seems to be spot on. I'll go with that - another six months is fine.

While I await my Nobel Peace Prize for getting Pardalis and The Atheist to agree on something, I'd like to point out what's wrong with my own proposed strategy:

It cannot happen under the Bush Administration. Bush, himself, has gone on record so stridently against any timetable for withdrawl that he has threatened to veto current war funding legislation that contains such a timetable. I take this threat seriously. Which means setting a timetable for withdrawl is effectively off the table until January, 2009. Who knows what Iraq will look like 18 months from now?

It cannot happen under the Bush Administration. Bush implicitly rejected the Baker Commission recommendations when they were initially promulgated. For him to accept one of the core recommendations now would be tatamount to him admitting an error. He does not do this. End of point.

It cannot happen under the Bush Administration. Telling the Middle East power brokers to solve their own regional problems might well cede power to Chine, India and others who want a role in determining who controls the regional oil resources. We have clearly demonstated that we will do everything we can to insure that we have control over these resources. And we have the military to enforce our preferences, the middle eastern powers be damned. Bush Cheney will see to it that our access to middle eastern oil is unfettered.

It assumes that a peace agreement (however tenuous) is preferable to a civil/sectarian war. I have no evidence to support such an assumption.

It assumes that sectarian and ethnic rivalries can be subsumed to a middle eastern hegemony. There is, of course, no evidence to support this assumption. The Sunnis and Shia have an ongoing strife that extends over a millenia. The Kurds don't trust anybody - a statement that (falsely) assumes that there is one group called the "Kurds". The Turks fear a Kurdistan. Iraqi and Irani forces have fought each other even though both are Shia because Irani Persians have no natural alliance with Iraqi Arabs. I cannot find a situation that could more accurately be defined as a clusterf**k.

It assumes a stateman of the stature of Anwar Sadat exists who can rise above sectarian/regional/temporal limitations and can drive the peace process. This assumption is false on its face. More's the pity.

So, while I stand by my proposal, I have no illusions that it has any chance of realization.

 

[Daylight]

There is a war on terror, believe it or not, and WW2 was a war against fascist states (as you mentioned Germany and Italy).

I think Germany was Socialist. Italy was indeed Fascist, but was defeated early on.

 

[The Atheist]

While I await my Nobel Peace Prize for getting Pardalis and The Atheist to agree on something, I'd like to point out what's wrong with my own proposed strategy:

It cannot happen under the Bush Administration. Bush, himself, has gone on record so stridently against any timetable for withdrawl that he has threatened to veto current war funding legislation that contains such a timetable. I take this threat seriously. Which means setting a timetable for withdrawl is effectively off the table until January, 2009. Who knows what Iraq will look like 18 months from now?

It cannot happen under the Bush Administration. Bush implicitly rejected the Baker Commission recommendations when they were initially promulgated. For him to accept one of the core recommendations now would be tatamount to him admitting an error. He does not do this. End of point.

It cannot happen under the Bush Administration. Telling the Middle East power brokers to solve their own regional problems might well cede power to Chine, India and others who want a role in determining who controls the regional oil resources. We have clearly demonstated that we will do everything we can to insure that we have control over these resources. And we have the military to enforce our preferences, the middle eastern powers be damned. Bush Cheney will see to it that our access to middle eastern oil is unfettered.

It assumes that a peace agreement (however tenuous) is preferable to a civil/sectarian war. I have no evidence to support such an assumption.

It assumes that sectarian and ethnic rivalries can be subsumed to a middle eastern hegemony. There is, of course, no evidence to support this assumption. The Sunnis and Shia have an ongoing strife that extends over a millenia. The Kurds don't trust anybody - a statement that (falsely) assumes that there is one group called the "Kurds". The Turks fear a Kurdistan. Iraqi and Irani forces have fought each other even though both are Shia because Irani Persians have no natural alliance with Iraqi Arabs. I cannot find a situation that could more accurately be defined as a clusterf**k.

It assumes a stateman of the stature of Anwar Sadat exists who can rise above sectarian/regional/temporal limitations and can drive the peace process. This assumption is false on its face. More's the pity.

So, while I stand by my proposal, I have no illusions that it has any chance of realization.

Marvellous summary & nominated.

As well as being a brilliant summary, I agree with you 100%.

There is no western answer to the ongoing situation in the Middle East. It pains me to say it, but the never-ending billion or so muslims who see this as a holy war are going to make it impossible for the coalition to "win". This is Northern Ireland^1000. Take into account the havoc that a relative handful of renegade Provos & Ulstermen were involved in terrorist activity, yet they tied up the British Army for decades.

I think we need a new adjective to describe the level of ####-up that is Iraq. The best-equipped army of all time, a huge, seemingly unstoppable force has failed, in a time period the length of WWI, to subdue a poorly-armed, ill-trained bunch of low-life raving muslim nutters.

In future, when you've just gotten the sack for sending pornographic messages to the boss' wife the day after you caught your own wife in bed with the pool-boy, then on the way home crash your car into a Rolls Royce, realising as you hit, going through a red light, that your insurance expired last week, and after that, someone asks how your day's been; just say "Iraq".

 

[Mephisto]

(mine) Iraqi blood was being shed by the dictator who kept some semblance of peace better than we're doing now, AND the blood that was spilled wasn't on our hands.

He kept "some semblance of peace" with a cruel regime that oppressed the ethnic minorities and the Chia majority, was that better? At least now they have somewhat of a democratic government, which is much more worth fighting for.

If their democratic government is worth fighting for - let THEM fight for it, the same way we did. Maybe it will be worth something to them. I believe that we're the catalyst for the continued violence in Iraq, if we leave they'll either kill each other off, or sit down and straighten out their differences. Whatever happens AFTER we leave can't be blamed (directly) on us.

Also, I think the Iraqi deaths directly attributed to our invasion at least EQUAL what they were under Hussein's rule:

Iraq Deaths: Saddam vs. U.S.

SFGate.com: Scientists estimate 100,000 Iraqis may have died in war
MoreOrLess.au.com: Saddam Hussein Profile

Saddam: between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis killed (includes Kurds)
U.S. Occupation: about 100,000 killed directly or indirectly (includes Kurds)
What this means is that if the U.S. invasion has lead to an average of about 70,000 deaths per year -- based on the survey that finds Iraqi death rate increased by 100,000 over the first 18 months of the occupation -- then it is likely that Iraqis are dying at a higher rate under the U.S. occupation than they were under Saddam's regime.
If we take the estimates that between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis died during Saddam's rule (1979 - 2003), it yields an annual death rate of between 25,000 to 50,000 per year under Saddam.

http://www.stinkzone.com/cgi-bin/archives/000184.html

(mine) All things the little monkey in the White House should have thought of BEFORE he set his heart on invading.

, but what about now? Set aside your very well earned hatred of Bush and try to think more positively. All I'm getting from you is bitterness over what is happening, which is very understandable especially for you as an American. But what could be done to improve the situation?

I'm only thinking of our troops. Gates recently announced that for every year our troops spend at home they have to serve 15 months in Iraq. AND they're forced to serve multiple tours with constant redeployments. To top it all off, IF they do make it home it'll be to shoddy medical care, V.A. budget cuts and unemployment. I think the only thing (now) that can be done to improve the situation is to admit we were wrong AND LEAVE.

Otherwise, we're proving to the American people that we care more about Iraqis than we do our own military. This administration has already proven that they care more about rebuilding Iraq than they do rebuilding the U.S.

My beef here is that the incessant polical bickering is going nowhere, from one end of the spectrum to the other. It's just counter-productive to point fingers (even if you are right, and you are).

The problem is; this administration DOESN'T want to admit that it was wrong, AND is doesn't want to admit that a "surge" or anything else they've come up with is anything but "stay the course." It's no secret to anyone in the world that we CAN'T stay in iraq indefinitely (in spite of what Halliburton wanted). We can't win a war against indigenous insurgents because they are fighting at home whereas it costs us millions of dollars a day to simply stay in country.

The only beneficiaries of this internal feud that is going on in the US is Al Qaeda. This is what bugs me, really bugs me.

Haven't you heard, the Iraqis don't like invaders of ANY flavor:

Friday, Apr. 06, 2007
Iraqi Insurgents Chastise Al-Qaeda
By Brian Bennett/Baghdad

Al-Qaeda has overstayed its welcome among a powerful group of Iraqi insurgents. One of the most influential nationalist insurgent groups in Iraq has asked Osama bin Laden to remember his religious duty to his fellow Muslims and "bring in line" his organization in Iraq. An open letter from the Islamic Army in Iraq posted on its affiliated website, Al Badil, has demanded that the new al-Qaeda-led alliance reform its ways and stop its attacks on Sunni Muslims and rival jihadi groups.

The letter comes at a time of upheaval inside insurgent circles in Iraq. In the fall, al- Qaeda created a new jihadi super-group called the Islamic State of Iraq to unite the disparate cells fighting the U.S. and Shi'ite militias in the country. Al-Qaeda demanded all insurgent groups swear loyalty to the new organization, but some of the most active Iraqi nationalist groups refused. These included the Islamic Army in Iraq, the Brigades of the 1920 Revolution and the Mujahideen Army, all of which include many well-trained military officers of the former regime. These groups tend to shun sectarian warfare and are more focused on attacking the U.S. and the current Iraqi government with the objective of ending the occupation and restoring a Sunni-led regime.

Over the past several months, al-Qaeda has retaliated by targeting the leaders of these independent groups and killing their members. Al-Qaeda "went too far," says the letter, "by killing 30 mujahideen brothers." In doing so, al-Qaeda is beginning to spark a wildfire of tribal vendettas that will be difficult to put out.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1607603,00.html

You'll also have to admit that President Butthole's assertion that if we don't defeat the Iraqi insurgents there, we'll have to fight them here is pretty preposterous - what are they going to do, SWIM over here?

 

[The Atheist]

You'll also have to admit that President Butthole's assertion that if we don't defeat the Iraqi insurgents there, we'll have to fight them here is pretty preposterous - what are they going to do, SWIM over here?

The trouble with ridiculous assertions like that is that the proles often believe them.

How many people in USA thought USA might be a target for Saddam's pseudo-SCUDs during the Gulf War?

How many people believed Saddam was making and owned WMD before the invasion?

How many people thought Saddam and bin Laden were buddies prior the invasion?

When a monkey who goes by the title of "president" speaks, other monkeys listen.

And let's not be too silly about swimming - these Iranians have boats. After all, they used heavily-armed launches to capture those British Naval types, so they could attack USA using a fleet of small craft! If the Poms could evacuate Dunkirk in rowboats in WWII The War on Fascism, Iran can attack America in rowboats to start WWIII! Sink all Iranian rowboats, immediately!

 

[SezMe]

WARNING: Rant ahead.

Today (4/16/2007) Bush spoke at the White House at a gathering of military support groups and familes who had kin who had died in Iraq. The full transcript is here. He said, in part:

The families gathered here understand that we are a nation at war. Like me, they wish we weren't at war -- but we are. They know that the enemies who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001 want to bring further destruction to our country. They know that the only way to stop them is to stay on the offense, to fight the extremists and radicals where they live, so we don't have to face them where we live.

Families gathered here understand that America is not going to be safe until the terrorist threat has been defeated. If we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won't leave us alone -- they will follow us to the United States of America.

There he goes again, directly linking the Iraq war with 9/11. Damn, that really pisses me off. We had a thread here a while ago where some argued that this Administration had never made such a link (I'm too lazy to try to find it). Well, here is an example.

And he again repeats the nonsense about fighting them there instead of here. I see no evidence that the Iraq war has Al Quada pinned down. Most of the stuff I've read says, in fact, that Iraq is a great recruiting tool. I have every expectation that the USA will get hit with another attack whether or not we remain in Iraq.

And, yes, he once again said:

And it's hard work.

 

[The Atheist]

QED

 

[The Atheist]

And they spend billions of dollars on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war

Oh god, there are some priceless bits in that piece of junk. Thanks for the link - Propaganda 101^Dubbya.

 

[Upchurch]

There he goes again, directly linking the Iraq war with 9/11. Damn, that really pisses me off. We had a thread here a while ago where some argued that this Administration had never made such a link (I'm too lazy to try to find it).

I'm guessing you mean this thread, but Zig would probably argue that the Bush Administration never actually linked the two and, anyway, people came to that conclusion on their own and ...yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Mephisto]

WARNING: Rant ahead.

Today (4/16/2007) Bush spoke at the White House at a gathering of military support groups and familes who had kin who had died in Iraq. The full transcript is here. He said, in part:



There he goes again, directly linking the Iraq war with 9/11. Damn, that really pisses me off.

And just as The Atheist said, when the monkey in charge speaks, the other monkeys listen.

I'd also like to add to The Atheist's list another ridiculous lie that too many other people believed - and from the President's own propaganda station:

Iraqi Drones May Target U.S. Cities

Monday, February 24, 2003

WASHINGTON — Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps, according to U.S. intelligence.

The information about Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program has caused a "real concern" among defense personnel, senior U.S. officials tell Fox News. They're worried that these vehicles have already been, or could be, transported inside the United States to be used in an attack, although there is no proof that this has happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html

Also, regarding the idiot's recent speech, the second sentence is what really burned my ass!

 

[Upchurch]

Also, regarding the idiot's recent speech, the second sentence is what really burned my ass!

"Please be seated"? Wow. You are a bitter, bitter man.

 

[Pardalis]

A reminder.

 

[The Atheist]

A reminder.

Yep, a terrible day in humanity, right down there in the halls of human infamy with the Holocaust, the nuclear bombing of Japan and Rwandan genocide, etc., ad nauseum.

Wtf does it have to do with Iraq?

Other than the well-established, internationally-recognised position that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with them.

 

[Pardalis]

We are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq right now.

 

[Mephisto]

"Please be seated"? Wow. You are a bitter, bitter man.

You're right of course.

I just can't see how Bush could even USE a statement like this to the families and friends who lost a loved one in this war.

Like me, they wish we weren't at war -- but we are.

Apparently, he's already absolved himself of starting the war.

 

[SezMe]

We are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq right now.

Not according to official US Military statements. They have estimated that approximately 7% of the people who are captured or killed (or both; I don't have specifics at hand) are non-Iraqi.

What evidence do you have that a significant component of the fighting - however you want to measure it - is directed against Al Qaeda?

 

[Pardalis]

It's not their number that is important, but what they are doing.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1609521,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Asking how many lives an objective is worth is only meaningful if spending those lives means you actually get the objective. It's looking more and more like Iraq is lost no matter what and we've manged to waste untold money and lives and somehow make the place far worse than when we started.

 

[The Atheist]

Drowning man

Clutching

Straws

Organise 'em as you see fit.

It's not their number that is important, but what they are doing.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1609521,00.html?xid=rss-topstories