NationStates Jolt Archive

We must evaluate the situation and ask ourselves what our true objective is in Iraq. If we want a Democracy then prepare for 20+ years of occupation until this is a possibility. If we we want to turn the government over to the Iraqis and allow them to choose then we should start a phased withdrawal now. It is clear that the Iraqis are greatful that we have rid them of Saddam but are they happy with us being in their country for this long? I always supported the Afghan campaign but never the Iraq one. %18 of the people trust us and our leaders talk about winning the hearts and minds of the people. Four years later and only %18 trust us. Do you see this as an insurmountable obstacle? How do you propose that we change this trend so the Iraqis see us as the liberators we wish to see ourselves to be?

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in U.S.-led forces, a new poll showed on Monday, four years after the invasion that toppled
Saddam Hussein.


With Iraq bogged down in sectarian violence that threatens to tip the country into civil war, President Bush announced a strategy shift this year and is sending some 26,000 reinforcements for a security crackdown focused on Baghdad.

Bombers struck in the city of Kirkuk, to the north, on Monday, with five bombs killing 18 people and wounding dozens, police and medical source said. The city is a volatile mix of Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs, ethnic Kurds and Turkmen and has seen growing sectarian violence.

A bomb in a bag near a Shi'ite mosque in central Baghdad killed four people and wounded 25 on Monday, police said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday it was too early to evaluate whether the latest U.S. strategy was working but "so far, so good."

U.S. generals say it will probably be summer before the impact of the extra troops can be fully assessed, and have warned the troop increase could have a "squirting effect" where al Qaeda and insurgents would operate elsewhere, Gates said.

With American public opinion turning increasingly against the Iraq war, a poll published by the BBC on Monday showed only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in U.S.-led forces.

The poll of more than 2,000 people, commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, ARD and USA Today, indicated Iraqis have become less optimistic about the future compared to a similar survey in 2005 when respondents were generally hopeful, the BBC said.

The Iraqi government inspired more confidence than U.S.-led forces, with opinion almost evenly split on whether people had confidence in the U.S.-backed administration headed by Shi'ite Islamist Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

DISAPPOINTMENT

About 86 percent were concerned about someone in their household being a victim of violence. Iraqis were also disappointed by reconstruction efforts since the invasion, with 67 percent saying efforts had not been effective.

Anti-war sentiment propelled Democrats into the majority in the U.S. Congress last November and the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war this week was marked by anti-war protests around the United States during the weekend.

U.S. and Iraqi forces launched a major crackdown in Baghdad in mid-February that commanders say has already halved civilian deaths, largely through a reduction in the number of victims of death squad killings blamed on militias.

But al Qaeda and other militants appear to have stepped up efforts to stage car bombings and other dramatic attacks, including many targeting Iraqi police and security forces.

A police source in Dhuluiya, a town 80 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad in Salahaddin province, said suspected al Qaeda militants blew up two police stations early on Monday after warning police to leave the town.

(Additional reporting by Aseel Kami in Baghdad and Sherko Raouf in Kirkuk)

You're the one who says that you know what we did wrong, and how to fix it.

Where did he say that then genius? :rolleyes:

You're the one who says that you know what we did wrong, and how to fix it.

Go ahead genius. Tell us what would turn that around - and prove it.

He's the one who brought up the problem, and says that Bush is doing the wrong thing.

Never bring up a problem unless you have a solution - otherwise, you're just a wanker who is bitching.

He's highlighting a problem and asking for people's opinions on it. So stop bitching, wanker

Where did he say that then genius? :rolleyes:

He's the one who brought up the problem, and says that Bush is doing the wrong thing.

Never bring up a problem unless you have a solution - otherwise, you're just a wanker who is bitching.

We already know it's a problem - the question is, by the British poll, the poll numbers are better than they were even a month ago (before the surge).

It would appear then, that the surge has engendered a positive reaction amongst Iraqis (although it is arguable that it will not solve the problem long term).

We already know, long term, that Iraq is unstable. That's like shouting that the sun will come up tomorrow - what are we going to do about it?

Well when the sun coming up becomes a problem we'll mention it.

He's highlighting a problem and asking for people's opinions on it. So stop bitching, wanker

We already know it's a problem - the question is, by the British poll, the poll numbers are better than they were even a month ago (before the surge).

It would appear then, that the surge has engendered a positive reaction amongst Iraqis (although it is arguable that it will not solve the problem long term).

We already know, long term, that Iraq is unstable. That's like shouting that the sun will come up tomorrow - what are we going to do about it?

We already know, long term, that Iraq is unstable. That's like shouting that the sun will come up tomorrow - what are we going to do about it?

Well, I believe the technical term is "fuck off", or "withdraw" whichever pleases you.

Well, I believe the technical term is "fuck off", or "withdraw" whichever pleases you.

Prove that would work without resulting in widespread death and mayhem in Iraq. Since it's your solution, you own it, and the burden of proof is on you.

He's the one who brought up the problem, and says that Bush is doing the wrong thing.

Never bring up a problem unless you have a solution - otherwise, you're just a wanker who is bitching.

oh EO, this is going to be a fun one to bring about a massacre on you on multiple threads. Here are my original questions.

Do you see this as an insurmountable obstacle? How do you propose that we change this trend so the Iraqis see us as the liberators we wish to see ourselves to be?

I asked your opinions and you have simply resorted to a personal attack.

My solutions are these: First, you should have had a plan to keep the peace so whose fault is that, mine or the man in charge? Next, Engage the Arab world and allow them top assist in creating a secure nation in Iraq as it is part of their interest to do so. This means actually creating a real partnership with Iran (who helped us in Afghanistan) and Syria. Thirdly, the security forces need to be sped up with training Iraqis to be capable of securing themselves. The longer we stay there as a band-aid the more they'll rely on us. They may falter and fail, but in order to be successful they must rely on themselves to gain the power they need to secure a democracy in their country. Lastly, there must be a reasonable power sharing agreement between rival factions. If we allow the majority to rule the minority there will be constant terrorism and power struggles. There must be a balance of power, similar to the checks and balances put into our system. We cannot allow one group to dominate the other group or power will be in the hands of a few and we'll be right back where we started. Lasting occupation never creates stability, only resentment. It's evident all throughout history and the world. My primary example would be India and the British crown but there are many other parallels to be found. What are your suggestions as I asked for them in the first place?

My solutions are these: First, you should have had a plan to keep the peace so whose fault is that, mine or the man in charge?

See the Surge. Next? I guess your running away plan wouldn't keep the peace but, it's on you to prove that they wouldn't keep killing each other after we left.

Next, Engage the Arab world and allow them top assist in creating a secure nation in Iraq as it is part of their interest to do so.

They have conflicting interests in this regard. See the promise by Saudi Arabia to arm and train Sunni insurgents to take over Iraq if the US withdraws - out of fear of Iran and Syria taking the place over.

See the Gulf States undertaking an 45% increase in their weapons spending this year, out of a publicly stated fear of Iran.

Show me how you would resolve that, and prove it.

You're just quoting talking points - "a plan to keep the peace" is a Kerry talking point.

We must evaluate the situation and ask ourselves what our true objective is in Iraq. If we want a Democracy then prepare for 20+ years of occupation until this is a possibility. If we we want to turn the government over to the Iraqis and allow them to choose then we should start a phased withdrawal now. It is clear that the Iraqis are greatful that we have rid them of Saddam but are they happy with us being in their country for this long? I always supported the Afghan campaign but never the Iraq one. %18 of the people trust us and our leaders talk about winning the hearts and minds of the people. Four years later and only %18 trust us. Do you see this as an insurmountable obstacle? How do you propose that we change this trend so the Iraqis see us as the liberators we wish to see ourselves to be?

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in U.S.-led forces, a new poll showed on Monday, four years after the invasion that toppled
Saddam Hussein.


With Iraq bogged down in sectarian violence that threatens to tip the country into civil war, President Bush announced a strategy shift this year and is sending some 26,000 reinforcements for a security crackdown focused on Baghdad.

Bombers struck in the city of Kirkuk, to the north, on Monday, with five bombs killing 18 people and wounding dozens, police and medical source said. The city is a volatile mix of Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs, ethnic Kurds and Turkmen and has seen growing sectarian violence.

A bomb in a bag near a Shi'ite mosque in central Baghdad killed four people and wounded 25 on Monday, police said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday it was too early to evaluate whether the latest U.S. strategy was working but "so far, so good."

U.S. generals say it will probably be summer before the impact of the extra troops can be fully assessed, and have warned the troop increase could have a "squirting effect" where al Qaeda and insurgents would operate elsewhere, Gates said.

With American public opinion turning increasingly against the Iraq war, a poll published by the BBC on Monday showed only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in U.S.-led forces.

The poll of more than 2,000 people, commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, ARD and USA Today, indicated Iraqis have become less optimistic about the future compared to a similar survey in 2005 when respondents were generally hopeful, the BBC said.

The Iraqi government inspired more confidence than U.S.-led forces, with opinion almost evenly split on whether people had confidence in the U.S.-backed administration headed by Shi'ite Islamist Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

DISAPPOINTMENT

About 86 percent were concerned about someone in their household being a victim of violence. Iraqis were also disappointed by reconstruction efforts since the invasion, with 67 percent saying efforts had not been effective.

Anti-war sentiment propelled Democrats into the majority in the U.S. Congress last November and the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war this week was marked by anti-war protests around the United States during the weekend.

U.S. and Iraqi forces launched a major crackdown in Baghdad in mid-February that commanders say has already halved civilian deaths, largely through a reduction in the number of victims of death squad killings blamed on militias.

But al Qaeda and other militants appear to have stepped up efforts to stage car bombings and other dramatic attacks, including many targeting Iraqi police and security forces.

A police source in Dhuluiya, a town 80 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad in Salahaddin province, said suspected al Qaeda militants blew up two police stations early on Monday after warning police to leave the town.

(Additional reporting by Aseel Kami in Baghdad and Sherko Raouf in Kirkuk)

To clean up that big mess we made. We can't go forward and we can't go back. Ya gotta love times like these.

Prove that would work without resulting in widespread death and mayhem in Iraq. Since it's your solution, you own it, and the burden of proof is on you.


Can't be proved. However as the US presence is already resulting in widespread death and mayhem, and is also being used to threaten Iran, I think it would be best for all concerned if America packed up its arrogance, its Burger king concessions, and went home.

See the Surge. Next? I guess your running away plan wouldn't keep the peace but, it's on you to prove that they wouldn't keep killing each other after we left.



They have conflicting interests in this regard. See the promise by Saudi Arabia to arm and train Sunni insurgents to take over Iraq if the US withdraws - out of fear of Iran and Syria taking the place over.

See the Gulf States undertaking an 45% increase in their weapons spending this year, out of a publicly stated fear of Iran.

Show me how you would resolve that, and prove it.

You're just quoting talking points - "a plan to keep the peace" is a Kerry talking point.

So Bush going and fucking the whole process up is my fault now? All Arab nations have a stake in keeping the peace in Iraq. A radical Iraq is bad for them as it creates more tension and destruction of their economy and infrastructure. Moderate nations are developing a more global economy through their resources. All moderate countries that wish for peace are threatened by any country that is under radical control. Interestingly enough you bring up Saudi Arabia who is a problem in the region because they are our biggest "ally" but also our worst enemy. Who is it that won't do anything about them? Must be me again. As for the surge, only %18 of the Iraqis trust US led forces so you want to... increase the number of US led forces. How does this help? Of course these people have conflicting interests. Are you that naive to believe they7 would all have the same thing in mind? The point is that diplomacy is supposed to bring people of divergent views to the table and form a compromise. Thanks for pointing this out captain obvious as we couldn't tell that people with the same interest and opinion wouldn't need to be convinced to work together :headbang: Finally, stop the "running away" bullshit as questioning others' gumption and patriotism is so passed tense. It was a good strategy for while but now it's just tired. So what are the answer to my questions? What is your plan, to stay there forever? Prove to me how placing more occupying forces will cause people to hate the forces less.

You're the one who says that you know what we did wrong, and how to fix it.

Go ahead genius. Tell us what would turn that around - and prove it.

He's the one who brought up the problem, and says that Bush is doing the wrong thing.

Never bring up a problem unless you have a solution - otherwise, you're just a wanker who is bitching.

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20060619broken.png

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20060619broken.png

beautiful example of what is currently going on in the world and this thread.

The US cant win this war.

Its useless. THe only way they would be able to win it is through information warfare.

Otherwise, guns are pretty damn useless.

when the day comes that the democratically elected government of iraq asks us to go, will we go?

when the day comes that the democratically elected government of iraq asks us to go, will we go?

and if the democratically elected government is a horror in and of itself, do we re-invade? Defining winning is a hard thing to do here.

and if the democratically elected government is a horror in and of itself, do we re-invade? Defining winning is a hard thing to do here.

it certainly is.

im just thinking that we need an "honorable out". that out might well be leaving when we are asked to leave by the democratically elected govt of iraq. (they havent asked us to leave yet have they?) when they feel stable enough to continue without us, we have won and its time to withdraw.

it certainly is.

im just thinking that we need an "honorable out". that out might well be leaving when we are asked to leave by the democratically elected govt of iraq. (they havent asked us to leave yet have they?) when they feel stable enough to continue without us, we have won and its time to withdraw.

Unfortunately, I dont expect any "honorable out" for us. There are so many here bent on making it a total loss,a total waste, rather than trying to salvage some honor or even a "win".
Too much time and effort is being expended to make its outcome bad, to make the victories into losses and to prove one group is smarter than another.

They want us to remain divided,at each other's throats, so we will appear defeated.

Unfortunately, I dont expect any "honorable out" for us. There are so many here bent on making it a total loss,a total waste, rather than trying to salvage some honor or even a "win".
Too much time and effort is being expended to make its outcome bad, to make the victories into losses and to prove one group is smarter than another.

They want us to remain divided,at each other's throats, so we will appear defeated.

i know what you mean.

but since we will still be in iraq in '09 when a new president takes office im holding some limited hope that the new guy might salvage something good out of it.

doesnt seem likely does it?

i know what you mean.

but since we will still be in iraq in '09 when a new president takes office im holding some limited hope that the new guy might salvage something good out of it.

doesnt seem likely does it?

I fear they may spend most of their time citing the previous administration's failure,rather than working together with the other party to correct.

Its like two parties can never be on the same page. You assume they both want what is truly best for America? They should be able to agree some of the time.