NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear about car bombings more than I hear about the real news. What is going on over there? Are the americans going to come home soon? Bush keeps on pushing back that day. Why?

No, the Americans are not coming back soon. It will be necesary to stay in Iraq for five more years, at minimum.

Bush doesn't keep pushing back the day. That implies that there was an exit timetable in the first place, which there was not. At the moment, it would be unwise to create one.

I hear about car bombings more than I hear about the real news. What is going on over there? Are the americans going to come home soon? Bush keeps on pushing back that day. Why?

Did you listen to the speach the President gave in front of the troops the other day? He answered your question about when the troops are coming home.

I don't think it should be publicly said when the troops are coming home, but there should be a plan. I think we should leave when Iraq is stable, and not any earlier to avoid allowing an Iraqi Taliban to seize power.

Overall, Iraq is stable. Only four provinces are chaotic, and the living standards/availability of utilities and infrastructure are growing. It is better off now than before the war, to say the least.

Ok, but puzzle me this. Why are the americans in there training troops? I mean if I have read everything correctly, the chaos is because america is in there. People don't like them in there. So why not let the British train the troops?

Ok, but puzzle me this. Why are the americans in there training troops? I mean if I have read everything correctly, the chaos is because america is in there. People don't like them in there. So why not let the British train the troops?
I don't really think it's a matter of whether Americans or Brits train troops, I kind of get a vague feeling the problem might be the fact that there are foreign troops there in the first place.

-snip-

It is better off now than before the war, to say the least.

Well, not for the Sunni's. Before they used to be king's, now they're normal. That's why people complain about the power shortage. Before the war, only the Sunni's got 24 hour electricity. Now everyone gets about 12 methinks(it's either 12 or 6, me can't remember...)

Ok, but puzzle me this. Why are the americans in there training troops? I mean if I have read everything correctly, the chaos is because america is in there. People don't like them in there. So why not let the British train the troops?

Well, the chaos is there because extremists who hate democracy and freedom want to overthrow the new government and impose another murderous theocracy or dictatorship. The insurgency does not have popular support or a strong leader. They are on their last legs and have to resort to murdering civilians rather than fighting because they would lose.

The British might not have been assigned to training the Iraqi troops, but they would do an excellent job if they were.

Well, not for the Sunni's. Before they used to be king's, now they're normal. That's why people complain about the power shortage. Before the war, only the Sunni's got 24 hour electricity. Now everyone gets about 12 methinks(it's either 12 or 6, me can't remember...)

Well, too bad for them. They lived well off the backs of the Shiites, which were treated like animals and murdered horribly and proceeded to slaughter the Kurds in their own version of ethnic cleansing. They need to get knocked down from power to prevent them from seizing it again.

Well, the chaos is there because extremists who hate democracy and freedom want to overthrow the new government and impose another murderous theocracy or dictatorship. The insurgency does not have popular support or a strong leader. They are on their last legs and have to resort to murdering civilians rather than fighting because they would lose.

The British might not have been assigned to training the Iraqi troops, but they would do an excellent job if they were.

Oh, for the love of propaganda. You believe such dribble, it bleeds of stupidity.

No, a great deal of the people who are fighting are fighting because they feel that they are being occupied by a foriegn enemy who is hell bent on destroying their way of life. Civilian deaths numbering in tens upon tens of thousand isn't actually painting a pretty picture to others who live there.

Bush saying that they hate freedom shows that he doesn't understand the enemy at all.

Bush doesn't have a clue what he's doing. He doesn't have a plan now and he never did. They really didn't understand the region when they went in and they don't understand it now. To think they actually thought this was going to be a cake-walk. :rolleyes:

Oh, for the love of propaganda. You believe such dribble, it bleeds of stupidity.

No, a great deal of the people who are fighting are fighting because they feel that they are being occupied by a foriegn enemy who is hell bent on destroying their way of life. Civilian deaths numbering in tens upon tens of thousand isn't actually painting a pretty picture to others who live there.

Bush saying that they hate freedom shows that he doesn't understand the enemy at all.

The North Vietnamese were fighting for freedom. They didn't capture and behead innocent people, nor did they blow up schools and street corners to advocate a message of hate. They were fighting a foreign enemy who was supporting a corrupt regime. These murderers want to impose tyranny and suffering on the people, and they do it through fear and cowadly strikes against those who can't defend themselves.

Most insurgents are eithe foreign fighters, former regime members or Al-Qaeda remanats. There is no insurgency that only wants to drive out the Coalition. They want to seize power for their own ends. These people do hate freedom.

Bush doesn't have a clue what he's doing. He doesn't have a plan now and he never did. They really didn't understand the region when they went in and they don't understand it now. To think they actually thought this was going to be a cake-walk. :rolleyes:

Overconfidence, plain and simple. This will be a lesson for the future, to say the least.

Oh, for the love of propaganda. You believe such dribble, it bleeds of stupidity.

No, a great deal of the people who are fighting are fighting because they feel that they are being occupied by a foriegn enemy who is hell bent on destroying their way of life. Civilian deaths numbering in tens upon tens of thousand isn't actually painting a pretty picture to others who live there.

Bush saying that they hate freedom shows that he doesn't understand the enemy at all.
Most Iraqis don't support the insurgents, because most of the civilians being killed in Iraq are being killed by the jihadists. I'm sure that are are many of them also motivated by opposition to an occupying power, but they are also fighting for Muslim ideological reasons.

I think that t's a reasonable assertion that they are against freedom. Look at their style of government, seen in Afghanistan 1996-2001. People would be executed for the slightest of deviations from Muslim dogma. Being controlled by some authoritarian maniac's interpretation of religion is not my idea of freedom.

Oh, for the love of propaganda. You believe such dribble, it bleeds of stupidity.

No, a great deal of the people who are fighting are fighting because they feel that they are being occupied by a foriegn enemy who is hell bent on destroying their way of life. Civilian deaths numbering in tens upon tens of thousand isn't actually painting a pretty picture to others who live there.

Bush saying that they hate freedom shows that he doesn't understand the enemy at all.

So all those carbombers who blow themselves up at the places where Iraqis are going about their daily tasks - not to mention those Iraqis who are queuing to join the security forces in order to make the country better, safer, and to ensure the coalition can leave sooner and thereby RESTORE Iraqi sovereignity - they're all about freedom?

Overconfidence, plain and simple. This will be a lesson for the future, to say the least.

Agreed. There is a difference between pushing an invading force out of another country which was the case in 1991. Pushing Iraq out of Kuwait, and invading a country to depose the leader (even if unpopular) and trying to impose a political view (democracy) on a country that's never had it. Because as much as they hated Saddam, they probably hate the idea of a foreign force even more. Because no matter what country you go to and no matter how bad off the people may be, there will always still be very nationalistic people within that country.

Ok, but puzzle me this. Why are the americans in there training troops? I mean if I have read everything correctly, the chaos is because america is in there. People don't like them in there. So why not let the British train the troops?
No, the chaos is because a new type of government is forming. Some of the insurgents want to sabotage the new government because they will lose all the power they heald under Saddam, some want to sabotage it because it goes against their twisted version of Islam.

If America left today the insurgency wouldn't go away, it would only become more agressive.

Oh, for the love of propaganda. You believe such dribble, it bleeds of stupidity.

No, a great deal of the people who are fighting are fighting because they feel that they are being occupied by a foriegn enemy who is hell bent on destroying their way of life. Civilian deaths numbering in tens upon tens of thousand isn't actually painting a pretty picture to others who live there.

Bush saying that they hate freedom shows that he doesn't understand the enemy at all.
Destroying their way of life. That's the key phrase. Many of the sunnis see being a privelaged class in Iraq as their way of life. Many of the foreign fighters see Islamic theocracy as the correct way of life. Neither wants secular democracy.

Destroying their way of life. That's the key phrase. Many of the sunnis see being a privelaged class in Iraq as their way of life. Many of the foreign fighters see Islamic theocracy as the correct way of life. Neither wants secular democracy.

Perhaps some elaboration is needed. I was referring to low-level grunts who do the actual work, not the high level people using the situation for personal gain. I was also referring to the idea that in order to fight the enemy we must first understand the enemy. By labelling all of those who fight us as freedom haters we certainly do not understand the enemy, and thus we cannot fight them.

I was not saying they are in the right, that what they do is justified.

Just that many do not understand why they fight. They do not all fight because they hate freedom, many fight because they feel that they are being threatened by a foreign enemy.

Pushing Iraq out of Kuwait, and invading a country to depose the leader (even if unpopular) and trying to impose a political view (democracy) on a country that's never had it.
The fact that Saddam was a dictator was not enough reason to get rid of him; however, the fact that he was also a mass murderer and torturer was.

I was not saying they are in the right, that what they do is justified.

Just that many do not understand why they fight. They do not all fight because they hate freedom, many fight because they feel that they are being threatened by a foreign enemy.
That may be true. In that case, what the low-levellers do is not justified, but it is understandable. Just as the people who smashed planes into New York in 2001 were understandable, but certainly not justified.

Keep in mind that many of the "grunts" are also non-Iraqis fighting as jihadists.

The North Vietnamese were fighting for freedom.

The NVA (North Vietnamese Army) and the VC (Viet Cong) were fighting to take over the sovereign country of South Vietnam.

Bush doesn't have a clue what he's doing. He doesn't have a plan now and he never did. They really didn't understand the region when they went in and they don't understand it now. To think they actually thought this was going to be a cake-walk. :rolleyes:

And what would your plan be?

If America left today the insurgency wouldn't go away, it would only become more agressive.

You are so right. At least some people understand what is going on there.

And what would your plan be?

Well first of all I wouldn't of disband the army, thus Iraq would have security now from the Iraqi army instead of fighting them as insurgents.

In that case, what the low-levellers do is not justified, but it is understandable. Just as the people who smashed planes into New York in 2001 were understandable, but certainly not justified.


Swimmingpool, I can agree with you on many things but how can you, or anyone else say what the people who smashed the planes into NY, Washington DC, and PA was understandable? How can the brutal killing of over 3,000 innocent civilians during a time of peace, not war be understandable? It is less understandable than the attack on Pearl Harbor. At least the Japanese had a military target in mind while the terrorists did not. Please explain yourself.

Swimmingpool, I can agree with you on many things but how can you, or anyone else say what the people who smashed the planes into NY, Washington DC, and PA was understandable? How can the brutal killing of over 3,000 innocent civilians during a time of peace, not war be understandable? It is less understandable than the attack on Pearl Harbor. At least the Japanese had a military target in mind while the terrorists did not. Please explain yourself.

I have to disagree with you regarding your line about the Pentagon and the terror attack there. It was the only legal target hit in the whole attack. That I can understand. It is the seat of our military and a symbol of strength. It is understandable why that was hit.

They also wanted to cripple our economy. That was why the WTC was hit. It was a symbol of economic strength. Though our economy did cripple, it wasn't destroyed. The corporate scandles did far more damage to the economy than the 9/11 attacks did.

Ok, but puzzle me this. Why are the americans in there training troops? I mean if I have read everything correctly, the chaos is because america is in there. People don't like them in there. So why not let the British train the troops?
When the iraqis alone were the ones creating the insurgency it could have been argued that it was being caused by the american presence. Now, however, they are mostly foreigners who are intent on destroying an iraq that does not blindly follow theological dictates. They would not stop the bombing until all vestiges of american action and thought were erased.

Well guess who thinks Iraq is doing ok......Kofi Annan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001176.html

Also see this

http://www.radioopensource.org/2005/06/26/tonight-the-war-in-first-person/

Now, can we start to shut the hell up about how bad Iraq is and how the US should pull-out? How about we talk about how the insurgents are ruining the chances for innocent Iraqis to have a stable and democratic government....oh wait I forgot, this is a liberal controlled forum, everything is Bush's fault or the fault of the United States of America, freedom, or democracy.

Well first of all I wouldn't of disband the army, thus Iraq would have security now from the Iraqi army instead of fighting them as insurgents.

OK, that was in the past. What would you do now?

Swimmingpool, I can agree with you on many things but how can you, or anyone else say what the people who smashed the planes into NY, Washington DC, and PA was understandable? How can the brutal killing of over 3,000 innocent civilians during a time of peace, not war be understandable?
Note that I said it was not justified. It's understandable that Middle East Muslims are angry with America for propping up governments that they hate and are oppressive.

One thing I don't like about the conservative attitude to terrorism is the belief that any attempt to understand their motives is equivalent to surrender. The police try to find out a criminal's motives. Why should this be any different?

Bush doesn't have a clue what he's doing. He doesn't have a plan now and he never did. They really didn't understand the region when they went in and they don't understand it now. To think they actually thought this was going to be a cake-walk. :rolleyes:

And Mr. Bush plans on taking over China next. He says that he believes it will be much easier than Iraq.

Bush doesn't have a clue what he's doing. He doesn't have a plan now and he never did. They really didn't understand the region when they went in and they don't understand it now. To think they actually thought this was going to be a cake-walk. :rolleyes:

I must disagree that President Bush has no plan. He has, as has Rumsfeld, consistently articulated this, which I paraphrase loosely in approximate order of timing:

To free the Iraqi people from a tyrannical dictator and to protect the US from terrorism (obviously this is hotly debated)

To provide the Iraqi people an opportunity for a democratic government.

To train Iraqi police and military so they can manage their own security and defense.

Don't like the plan or think it won't work - fine. But it has been stated ad nauseum what the plan is. It has not been stated if/when withdrawal of US forces will occur.

Regarding keeping Saddam's military intact - that's just plain lack of common sense. It was full of Saddam loyalists who would be more dangerous in some respects inside the military then they would be as terrorists. Any military/police must be composed of people loyal to the regime they serve. How do military coups occur?

Now, can we start to shut the hell up about how bad Iraq is and how the US should pull-out? How about we talk about how the insurgents are ruining the chances for innocent Iraqis to have a stable and democratic government....oh wait I forgot, this is a liberal controlled forum, everything is Bush's fault or the fault of the United States of America, freedom, or democracy.

Well if America had daily terroristatacks wouldn't you both hate the terrorist and the goverment that didn't give you protection. Because the simple truth is that two years after the war Iraq still faces terrorist atacks. So maybee you could piss of Bush because he either failed to see it as a possibility or that his plan to counter the insurgents didn't work.

So...America can't pull out of Iraq, because if they do, Civil War (by the way, if America pulled out, it would be known as a revolutionary war, because the government would change), a very natural extension of democracy, will ensue?

oo noes...imagine if the British never pulled out of America in fear of civil war...

Iraq? Why, everything's marvellous. Baghdad has never known a longer period of sustained peace amid the summer blossom and everything is sunny and rosy and insurgents and government ministers sit down together over picnics on the banks of the Euphrates. All in all, it's a neverending paradise where ecstatic iraqis and there american friends are working toether to build a place of infinite joy and tolerance.

oo noes...imagine if the British never pulled out of America in fear of civil war...
They didn't. They fought the insurgency for seven years, reaching an agreement with them in 1783.

Iraq? Why, everything's marvellous. Baghdad has never known a longer period of sustained peace amid the summer blossom and everything is sunny and rosy and insurgents and government ministers sit down together over picnics on the banks of the Euphrates. All in all, it's a neverending paradise where ecstatic iraqis and there american friends are working toether to build a place of infinite joy and tolerance.
If only. :(