|
Iraq
Feb 10, 2007 10:08:59 GMT -5
Post by deovindice on Feb 10, 2007 10:08:59 GMT -5
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251279,00.html BAGHDAD, Iraq — The new top U.S. commander in Iraq said Saturday that the stakes are high but the situation is "not hopeless" as American and Iraqi forces move to end the sectarian violence threatening to tear apart the country.Gen. David Petraeus espouses a positive attitude that the situation regarding "sectarian violence" in Iraq can be addressed. Sectarian violence could be. Civil war cannot. One side must win and dictate the terms of peace. civil war n. 1. A war between factions or regions of the same country. To classify Iraq as a country in the traditional sense is a stretch, nevertheless, it is a legal entity. The country is comprised of three major factions. The Sunni, the Shiites, and the Kurds. The structure of the country is regional in nature. The factions of the Sunni and the Shiites are at war with one another, while both are combating our forces, which adds an interesting twist. Thus, the civil war definition applies, as well as one of a tangential war against an army of occupation. Our army. It is interesting that some call for unification of the factions. Should the Sunnis and Shiites ever manage to set aside their hostility toward one another for a time, and unify on their desire to rid the region of American influence, we will be driven out quickly. Once we are gone, the thousand-year-old hatreds will re-emerge and the fighting will begin anew. Thus, the situation is hopeless. Zero-sum. If we stay, we remain knowing that the vast majority of Iraqis do not want us there. Their animosity will continue to grow and the danger to our forces will only increase. It is our refusal to understand the situation for what it is that allows us to rationalize keeping our forces in Iraq. 3121 American troops dead, and over 20,000 wounded to establish a theocratic nation based upon a religion hostile to our own beliefs. Stupidity or insanity? ...or perhaps just plain criminal?
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 10, 2007 10:20:22 GMT -5
Post by killer on Feb 10, 2007 10:20:22 GMT -5
Criminal. The "low on the food chain" being used to further the greedy agenda of the power brokers.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 13, 2007 15:37:06 GMT -5
Post by killer on Feb 13, 2007 15:37:06 GMT -5
Iranian leader says we helped Saddam for years. What's that about? Was our government somehow backing him?
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 13, 2007 15:50:11 GMT -5
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 13, 2007 15:50:11 GMT -5
killer-
Yep, he's right. We did.
We did indeed support Saddam's regime in its war with Iran during the 1980s, just as the former Soviet Union support Tehran against Saddam. It was another in a very long line of proxy wars fought between nations aligned with the US versus those aligned with the USSR.
Now please don't construe that to mean we loved Saddam. It was strictly an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 13, 2007 15:57:52 GMT -5
Post by killer on Feb 13, 2007 15:57:52 GMT -5
Didn't we also help bin Laden?
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 14, 2007 13:19:49 GMT -5
Post by rugermk1 on Feb 14, 2007 13:19:49 GMT -5
Yes we helped the mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan that bin Laden was a part of. Supplied them supplies + weapons including the stinger missiles that they used to great effect on Soviet helicopters.
So many by proxy incidents/wars between the two superpowers, it'd be funny if people weren't getting killed.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 14, 2007 14:37:24 GMT -5
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 14, 2007 14:37:24 GMT -5
Whether or not we actually directly helped OBL is a matter of great dispute.
We did furnish weapons, particularly surface to air missiles like the Stinger, to the mujha'adeen so they could fight back against Soviet helicopters.
But the dispute arises when one tries to dig into the facts surrounding OBL's participation- or lack of participation- in putting his own worthless arse on the line fighting against the Soviets.
There are conflicting accounts as to whether or not he even visited the battlefield while it was under fire at all or whether he did so only at the very tail end of the fighting....and then only for photo ops.
We definitely supported his anti-Soviet cause- and for, I think, justifyable reasons- but our level of direct support for him in particular seems unclear.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 14, 2007 14:47:08 GMT -5
Post by killer on Feb 14, 2007 14:47:08 GMT -5
Another reason we should mind our own business!
Where in the constitution does it say we are supposed to get involved in the conflicts of others? Why are taxpayers supposed to buy weapons for other countries?
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 21, 2007 10:37:04 GMT -5
Post by killer on Feb 21, 2007 10:37:04 GMT -5
As the British plan to withdraw troops, Cheney says this is a good sign -- it means progress (he says.) What BS!! His comments are to calm fears here and try to curb demand from Americans that our troops come home.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 21, 2007 10:46:25 GMT -5
Post by dixiepixie on Feb 21, 2007 10:46:25 GMT -5
As the British plan to withdraw troops, Cheney says this is a good sign -- it means progress (he says.) What BS!! His comments are to calm fears here and try to curb demand from Americans that our troops come home. So, it's NOT a good thing that the Iraqi military might one day be able to take over for themselves? I am confused. I thought the goal was to train their military and police to take over.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 21, 2007 10:55:11 GMT -5
Post by killer on Feb 21, 2007 10:55:11 GMT -5
The U.S. administration recently called for more troops to go to Iraq. This means they feel they need more troops there. So now as troops plan to leave (the British troops), this means fewer troops on ground and Cheney is saying this is a good thing. Do they think more troops should be in Iraq or less?
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 21, 2007 16:09:03 GMT -5
Post by lawman on Feb 21, 2007 16:09:03 GMT -5
As the British plan to withdraw troops, Cheney says this is a good sign -- it means progress (he says.) What BS!! His comments are to calm fears here and try to curb demand from Americans that our troops come home. I SAW THIS FROM Yahoo.com YESTERDAY, and my blood boiled! U.S. wants to leave Iraq "with honor" -Cheney By Caren Bohan 1 hour, 33 minutes ago TOKYO (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday the United States wants to finish its mission in Iraq and "return with honor," despite the war's growing unpopularity at home and doubts among U.S. allies. Cheney's visit to Tokyo comes just weeks after Japan's defense minister said starting the Iraq war was a mistake and its foreign minister called the U.S. occupation strategy "immature." The remarks forced Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whom Cheney meets later in Wednesday, to scurry to reassure Washington that Tokyo's backing for U.S. policy in Iraq was unchanged. But a survey released on Tuesday showed most Japanese voters agreed with Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma when he said President Bush was wrong to start the war. In a speech delivered aboard the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier at Yokosuka Navy Base near Tokyo, Cheny said: "We know that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength, they are invited by the perception of weakness." "We know that if we leave Iraq before the mission is completed, the enemy is going to come after us. And I want you to know that the American people will not support a policy of retreat," he added. "We want to complete the mission, we want to get it done right, and we want to return with honor," said Cheney, who heads on Thursday for Australia to meet Prime Minister John Howard, another staunch supporter of Bush's Iraq policy. ASIA-PACIFIC PRESENCE Bush is sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq, but Democrats in charge of U.S. Congress are pressing for a change in strategy. British media reported that British Prime Minister Tony Blair was set to announce on Wednesday that Britain would start to withdraw its 7,100 troops from Iraq within weeks. Blair was expected to say the withdrawal reflected Britain's success in southern Iraq, where control of security is being handed back to Iraqi forces, according to the media reports. In talks earlier with Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki, Cheney thanked Japan for the roughly 550 non-combat troops it sent to southern Iraq in 2004 as part of Tokyo's largest and riskiest overseas mission since World War Two. The soldiers returned home last July, but about 200 Japanese air force personnel based in Kuwait are still transporting supplies to the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. Cheney also sought to allay any fears that Washington's commitment to Japan and the Asia-Pacific would falter. "The president asked me to make this journey, first to Japan, then to Guam, and then to Australia ... to reaffirm America's deep commitment to a forward presence in the Asia-Pacific region," he said in his speech. The United States has about 50,000 troops based in Japan, about half its total military presence in the region. The two allies agreed last year to reorganize those forces, including shifting 8,000 Marines from Japan's southern island of Okinawa to the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam by 2014. NORTH KOREA Cheney and Shiozaki agreed in their talks that a multilateral energy-for-arms forged in Beijing last week was a step in the right direction, a statement by the Japanese side said. Abe insists Tokyo will not provide economic aid to fund the deal until progress is made on resolving a feud over Japanese citizens kidnapped by the North's agents decades ago. Under the deal among the United States, China, Japan, the two Koreas and Russia, Pyongyang will receive fuel aid in return for shutting down and eventually disabling its nuclear facilities. Cheney, who last visited Japan in 2004, is not scheduled to meet outspoken Defense Minister Kyuma. He will, however, find time in his tight schedule to meet with the parents of one abductee early on Thursday morning, before leaving for Australia.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 21, 2007 21:50:44 GMT -5
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 21, 2007 21:50:44 GMT -5
Actually, the fact that Britain is going to begin pulling their troops out is a sign that the Bush strategy- that being we will stand down as the Irais stand up- is a reasonable and, by this yardstick, realistic goal.
The British have had more success than we have had in pacifying their zone and in training Iraqi security forces to take responsibility for their own protection. But then, Basra is hardly comparable to Baghdad by any measure you want to take:
Baghdad has a population roughly 6 times that of Basra.
Baghdad is home to all three major ethnic groups, while Basra is home to principally one.
al Qeida's influence in Basra is very limited, especially when compared to Baghdad.
There is much less evidence of Iranian meddling in Basra.
Now this isn't to minimize the effort that the Brits put forth. they've done an outstanding job with better results than we have had. But, to be fair to the US forces, the job was a smaller one for the Brits than for us.
But the real story here is that Iraqis security forces CAN and HAVE been trained to take over from the "occupying forces".
And that's something the MSM won't tell you.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 21, 2007 23:23:38 GMT -5
Post by lawman on Feb 21, 2007 23:23:38 GMT -5
More CYA'ing by the 'Oil barron'..........Whaddya expect? news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraqCheney slams Iraq plan advocated by Dems By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 44 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized Democrats' attempts to thwart President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would "validate the al-Qaida strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) fired back that Cheney was questioning critics' patriotism. "I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks," Pelosi said. She said she tried to complain about Cheney to President Bush but could not reach him. "You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said. The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq. "I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit." In the interview, Cheney also said Britain's plans to withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq — while the United States adds more troops — was a positive step. "I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," the vice president said. Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support." "And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said. Later, Pelosi said she had tried to reach the president but was only able to get through to White House chief of staff Josh Bolten. Bolten said he was certain no one was questioning her patriotism or commitment to national security, she told reporters. "I said to him perhaps when he saw what the vice president said he might have another comment," Pelosi said. White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Cheney "was not questioning anyone's patriotism." But she said Bush and Cheney believe that Pelosi and Murtha's "position to immediately pull out our troops would be harmful to our national security and that it is the wrong strategy to pursue." As for Cheney's assertion that the partial British pullout is a sign that things are going well in Iraq, Pelosi said: "If it's going so well, we'd like to withdraw our troops as well." Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, said Britain's withdrawal, coupled with a Denmark's announcement to pull out its 460 troops by August, "accelerates the breakup of the coalition in Iraq." He said the United States should reduce its forces "as a way of pressuring the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future and to reach the political settlements that are essential to end the sectarian violence and defeat the insurgency." Administration leaders, however, said Britain's decision was good news. "The British have done what is really the plan for the country as a whole, which is to transfer security responsibility to the Iraqis as the situation permits," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a news conference in Berlin, where she was in meetings on the Mideast peace process. National security adviser Stephen Hadley, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, said the decision "reflects the progress that has been made on the ground in Basra and in the south," where British troops were stationed. "So this is basically a good news story, an indication that progress is being made, and that events on the ground permit this kind of adjustment in forces," Hadley said. Still, he acknowledged the violence in Baghdad and said, "I'm not saying this is an unalloyed picture of progress." ___ Associated Press writer Scott Lindlaw contributed to this report from San Francisco.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 22, 2007 10:35:27 GMT -5
Post by killer on Feb 22, 2007 10:35:27 GMT -5
W.O.M.I.,
Do you believe the British troops are going home because they feel their mission has been accomplished or because of the public cries in their homeland for them to return?
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 22, 2007 12:31:57 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 22, 2007 12:31:57 GMT -5
Thank goodness W proved to be totally incompetent with his war. We invaded a third-rate country. Actually crossed their borders and attacked them based on bad intelligence. And now it looks like we're going to lose.
The way the right-wing in the country tried to deify W, if he had proved to be a capable commander-in-chief they would have made him king.
Now can we go back to concentrating on Britney?
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 22, 2007 13:05:30 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 22, 2007 13:05:30 GMT -5
My opinion is that if we leave Iraq prior to the goals being met in relation to Iraq directly and Terrorism indirectly, then we didn't lose, we gave up. Big difference. The reasons for giving up, being unacceptable to me, in relation to our nation.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 22, 2007 14:32:52 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 22, 2007 14:32:52 GMT -5
If we leave or "give up" we lose.
I would like to see a military man like Colin Powell or Wesley Clark in the oval office.
Great generals of the past have succeeded under worse conditions. We need a Napoleon or Caesar (George H. W.?) to clean up this mess.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 22, 2007 21:29:24 GMT -5
Post by solinvictus on Feb 22, 2007 21:29:24 GMT -5
Because he had to be to maintain order in the country. All these people understand is rule by sheer brutality. All these platitudes about democracy, free elections, blah blah blah are nothing but empty words. We need to re-install the Sunni minority and give them free reign to control the nation again. Our worst mistake was purging the Baathists who'd maintained order for decades.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 24, 2007 6:37:49 GMT -5
Post by deovindice on Feb 24, 2007 6:37:49 GMT -5
Because he had to be to maintain order in the country. All these people understand is rule by sheer brutality. All these platitudes about democracy, free elections, blah blah blah are nothing but empty words. We need to re-install the Sunni minority and give them free reign to control the nation again. Our worst mistake was purging the Baathists who'd maintained order for decades. As absurd as it may sound to some, you are absolutely right. It is unfortunate in our eyes, but it is reality in theirs.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 24, 2007 10:24:58 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 24, 2007 10:24:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 24, 2007 10:28:23 GMT -5
Post by lawman on Feb 24, 2007 10:28:23 GMT -5
Hey, blondie! You just made a very 'thought-provoking' post!
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 25, 2007 12:23:56 GMT -5
Post by solinvictus on Feb 25, 2007 12:23:56 GMT -5
That's all my perspective is based upon: the tangible reality that sometimes, it takes fear to maintain order. Ever heard of the Chinese euphemism "kill 100 to control 100,000"? Same principal applies here: if Iraqi authorities executed each and every suspected terrorist (with our help, but not overt complicity), the endless well of Jihadists would dry up pretty quickly. Now, to go further, if you executed their entire family in a summary manner and buried them with pig guts, then it would cease entirely because being buried with pig remains trumps the 40 virgins. Many of my views are characterized as liberal: I support civil unions for gays, labor unions, and such. However, if I had to choose between the rest of the world fearing or loving my country, I'll take fear any day. The best example in history of dealing with enemies was the Punic War. After the Punic War, Carthage was nothing more than a footnote in history.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 25, 2007 15:38:38 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 25, 2007 15:38:38 GMT -5
The best example in history of dealing with enemies was the Punic War. After the Punic War, Carthage was nothing more than a footnote in history. Sure, but Carthage actually invaded Rome.
|
|
|
Iraq
Mar 1, 2007 18:43:26 GMT -5
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 1, 2007 18:43:26 GMT -5
killer-
Honestly, I think this was a case whereby the practical and the pragmatic met.
If you think the war on terror is unpopular here, you ought to read some of the British press reports on how unpopular it is there. The appeasers are every bit as large a majority now as they were in, say, 1936-1938 but what makes it even more unstable is the presence of what is essentially a native 'fifth column' in Britain: native-born or emigrated Muslims are a pretty large minority, with voices even louder than their numbers might suggest. Blair is basically in a completely no-win situation there; the real amazing point is how long he was able to maintain any measurable support there.
The fact is that the situation on the ground in southern Iraq is, by all accounts, pretty good. Maybe not as utopian as the Kurdish areas in the north but far, far better than the central areas in Annbar and around Baghdad. In the south, there is more than a small grain of truth to the proposition that Blair can 'declare victory and bring 'em home' because they have been far more successful (admittedly against lesser oppostion) in pacifying/stabilizing the soth than we have been in the center.
So Blair is going to be able to tell his constituents that Britain has fulfilled, to a large degree, their role in Iraq and that they can begin to bring their troops home with true honor. I have no doubt that Blair does this with an eye towards giving the next PM the best situation possible- thus the pragmatism aspect of the plan.
But what's been largely ignored in the MSM's rush to say that our 'last' prominent ally is 'giving up' is that Blair is actually increasing the number of British troops deployed to Afghanistan....which is another theater in the overall War on Terror. It's actually very little different than in WW2 when the British redeployed their troops from Italy to participate in Normandy. Would the MSM have said that Briatin was 'giving up' then? Of course not...nor are they now.
But of course that doesn't advance the agenda....
|
|