NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Thoughts:

1- Bush will be called on his hypocrisy soon.
2- Obama's campaign will benefit from this.
3- McCain's campaign won't.
4- Everyone wants Bush to GET THE HELL OUT!

Just curious, do you think the Iraqi state is currently stable enough to survive independently, and if not do you think it will be soon?

Ten Bucks says that McCain is going to compromise on the Iraq issue.

Also, Bush is an idiot, and everyone knew that.

Just curious, do you think the Iraqi state is currently stable enough to survive independently, and if not do you think it will be soon?

The Iraqis seem to think so, do they not?

Just curious, do you think the Iraqi state is currently stable enough to survive independently, and if not do you think it will be soon?
That depends, are you arguing "white man's burden?"

Ten Bucks says that McCain is going to compromise on the Iraq issue.

He's screwed if he does (flip-flopping, alienating the neocon base further) and screwed if he doesn't (loses appeal to independents, is at odds even with Iraqis).

This is only good news for the candidate that wanted to get out in the first place.

The Iraqis seem to think so, do they not?
Judging by the fact that the Iraqi army needed British and American airstrikes to 'succeed' against the Mahdi Army who are, after all, a militia, I don't know why we actually listen to Maliki and his friends any more.

The Iraqis seem to think so, do they not?

That's not what I'm asking however. Also, a security adviser =/= The Iraqis.

All the world's problems have stemmed from the improperly resolved disputes in WWI. Especially including the way the Ottoman Empire was split up, which did not take into account the ethnicities that are so important in the Middle East. That's been the root of all the fighting in the ME since that point in time.

I don't think that either Bush or McCain, or even Obama, will be able to directly help the situation.

That's not what I'm asking however. Also, a security adviser =/= The Iraqis.
For all intents and purposes, the Iraqi government == the Iraqis.

That depends, are you arguing "white man's burden?"

I don't think so, but it's not like an Iraq controlled by Islamic militants is good for anyone.

I don't think so, but it's not like an Iraq controlled by Islamic militants is good for anyone.

An America controlled by 'christian' militants hasn't done the world any favours, either.

Judging by the fact that the Iraqi army needed British and American airstrikes to 'succeed' against the Mahdi Army who are, after all, a militia, I don't know why we actually listen to Maliki and his friends any more.

Well, Bush didn't listen to anyone while invading, so he should listen to Maliki and get out. Especially because not doing so will turn the US into an ACTUAL OCCUPYING ENEMY INVADING FORCE. You leaving was the Iraqi people's to decide!

An America controlled by 'christian' militants hasn't done the world any favours, either.

What's your point?

Am I the only one that got Iraq's proposal out of this article? They want a rough timetable, but nothing specific, and even then it is still a very fluid request that could keep US forces in the country for years.

The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

Since we have already handed over 9 of the 18 provinces and are constantly working on handing more of them over to Iraqi government control it is easy to see that we should be able to have the vast majority of our troops out by the end of next year or sooner. Which is something Bush has said he believed was possible, if our military leaders agreed that Iraq was stable enough.

Still there this proposal has no specific timetable. All the Iraqi's want is a commitment to leave once all provinces are in their control and the nation is stable enough. Again this is something that Bush has already agreed to.

What's your point?

Seems a little precious to be worrying about the potential hazards of a theoretical regime, when the biggest single threat is us.

The only way it will ever be 'safe' for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, is to finish killing everyone there. We're doing a pretty good job at that so far, but I'd we didn't actually rely on the genocide option.

Did you even read the article? How would Obama's campaign benefit from the Iraqi government proposing that America stays for at least 3 to 5 more years, as opposed to the 16 months Obama kinda sorta supports. While it is a "timeline" it is a timeline far more in line with the Republican view than the Democratic one.

edit : Aurill beat me to it...

so Iraq stating what it expects from the next round of UN peacekeeping operations is some sort of "get the fuck out" message?

also Iraq seems to have growing confidence in its ability to hold security now, which means Bush actually hasn't got the coalition into a military disaster...and Iraq has been stabilized incredibly quickly :)

Well, Bush didn't listen to anyone while invading, so he should listen to Maliki and get out.
Don't be silly. Maliki doesn't know how to run a country, so why should we listen to him? In the last five years of being in power, he's failed spectacularly in every area, not least in creating a strong Iraqi army to keep down violence.
Especially because not doing so will turn the US into an ACTUAL OCCUPYING ENEMY INVADING FORCE. You leaving was the Iraqi people's to decide!
...You would rather have militias who may believe in Sharia law and other such ridiculous beliefs in charge of the Iraqi population rather than a trained military force which is trying to keep the peace?

Maliki doesn't know how to run a country, so why should we listen to him? In the last five years of being in power, he's failed spectacularly in every area...

Why does this sound so familiar...

Seems a little precious to be worrying about the potential hazards of a theoretical regime, when the biggest single threat is us.

not really considering the US has always been its own brand of batshit insane and the world is used to dealing with your rather friendly (to be honest) attitude now :)

The only way it will ever be 'safe' for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, is to finish killing everyone there. We're doing a pretty good job at that so far, but I'd we didn't actually rely on the genocide option.

got a source for that sugar? oh right you haven't because its a peacekeeping operation in support of the democratically elected Iraqi government which achieved massive voter turn-out from a population who believe it or not don't keep themselves warm with an explosive vest

Why does this sound so familiar...
To what, exactly?

Judging by the fact that the Iraqi army needed British and American airstrikes to 'succeed' against the Mahdi Army who are, after all, a militia, I don't know why we actually listen to Maliki and his friends any more.
Because he's the leader of a (supposedly) sovereign country which (supposedly) doesn't have an occupying army in it?

not really considering the US has always been its own brand of batshit insane and the world is used to dealing with your rather friendly (to be honest) attitude now :)


Still the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger. Vietnam. Greneda. Iraq. And that's just the 'declared' stuff....


got a source for that sugar? oh right you haven't because its a peacekeeping operation in support of the democratically elected Iraqi government which achieved massive voter turn-out from a population who believe it or not don't keep themselves warm with an explosive vest

Not being a legitimate war =/= a peacekeeping operation.

If the US didn't have about the same nuclear potential as everyone else combined, and a history of using them, Bush would be in a cell being tried for warcrimes.

Because he's the leader of a (supposedly) sovereign country which (supposedly) doesn't have an occupying army in it?
Yes, well it's not a sovereign state yet, and the more it proves itself to be a failure waiting to happen, the less likely it is that we'll ever leave it, to be honest.

not really considering the US has always been its own brand of batshit insane and the world is used to dealing with your rather friendly (to be honest) attitude now :)

Hey, don't forget how Britain was before WW2! You were (Almost) as crazy as we are now! :D

...You would rather have militias who may believe in Sharia law and other such ridiculous beliefs in charge of the Iraqi population rather than a trained military force which is trying to keep the peace?

I'd rather the US does what the Iraqi government told it to do and LEAVES.

I'd rather the US does what the Iraqi government told it to do and LEAVES.


I am am sure we will leave under the exact request of the Iraqi government.


once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces...all US forces will be removed from all Iraqi cities....the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely.

Far longer that Obama would like, but exactly what the Iraqi's want to see.

I am am sure we will leave under the exact request of the Iraqi government.

I'm trying to keep a straight face. I really am.

:)

:D

:p :p :p

I'm trying to keep a straight face. I really am.

You obviously have very limited vision, since you didn't read the entire post.

I am sure that within 36 to 52 months after we hand over all 18 provinces to Iraq we will remove our troops. After all, that is what they asked for.

BTW that is 20 to 36 months longer than Obama wants to see troops there and perfectly within what the Bush administration has proposed.


P.S. That is also assuming that we are able to hand over the remaining 9 provinces in the next 9 months.

Seems a little precious to be worrying about the potential hazards of a theoretical regime, when the biggest single threat is us.


I think that's a little simplistic, it's not like if the US was to just disappear we wouldn't have any problems, in fact we would probably end up having more. But that's irrelevant anyway, Iraq is a serious problem and can become even more serious, the US' aggressive foreign policy is not by any means whatsoever a reason to not care about Iraq.


The only way it will ever be 'safe' for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, is to finish killing everyone there. We're doing a pretty good job at that so far, but I'd we didn't actually rely on the genocide option.

What point are you trying to make with these cynical rantings? "Everyone's fucked anyway so there's no point in trying to stop people from getting fucked"?

Still the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger. Vietnam. Greneda. Iraq. And that's just the 'declared' stuff...

1) which is fairly justified
2) how dare the US protect its interests!

seriously as long as the US views you as a friend rather than foe you have it made

Not being a legitimate war =/= a peacekeeping operation.

its a good thing we are not at war then :)

also UN peacekeeping operation:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sc8879.doc.htm

If the US didn't have about the same nuclear potential as everyone else combined, and a history of using them, Bush would be in a cell being tried for warcrimes.

would he fuck :p

I guess we should start calling up all those Russian war veterans as well whilst we still live in fantasy land...hell lets go get Kim!

Hey, don't forget how Britain was before WW2! You were (Almost) as crazy as we are now! :D

pfft when you randomly end up owning a good chunk of the Earth surface what else are you supposed to do? go into real estate like we did and make a fortune?

I'd rather the US does what the Iraqi government told it to do and LEAVES.

which is not what the Iraqi government has told it to do

You obviously have very limited vision, since you didn't read the entire post.

I am sure that within 36 to 52 months after we hand over all 18 provinces to Iraq we will remove our troops. After all, that is what they asked for.

BTW that is 20 to 36 months longer than Obama wants to see troops there and perfectly within what the Bush administration has proposed.


P.S. That is also assuming that we are able to hand over the remaining 9 provinces in the next 9 months.
NEVER assume. Don't assume that Obama is going to win either. Don't assume McCain is going to win. Don't assume Barr is going to win. Don't assume anything.

I think that's a little simplistic, it's not like if the US was to just disappear we wouldn't have any problems, in fact we would probably end up having more. But that's irrelevant anyway, Iraq is a serious problem and can become even more serious, the US' aggressive foreign policy is not by any means whatsoever a reason to not care about Iraq.


On the other hand, maybe it should be handled in some other way. Like - letting the area sort out the problem for itself. That's where US foreign policy drops into the mix - we're making the situation worse.


What point are you trying to make with these cynical rantings?


I think we need to work on the NS voabulary level. Not every post is a rant.


"Everyone's fucked anyway so there's no point in trying to stop people from getting fucked"?

No. More along the lines that, we're pretending to be some kind of stabilising influence... but the situation only exists because we're there, will continue as long as we're there, and won't really reach any kind of level ground until we get out.

Yes, there might be unhappy circumstances in the wake of our departure. But there were unhappy circumstances in the wake of our arrival.

By practically every objective measure of 'victory in Iraq', it's what they had before we started killing people there.

No. More along the lines that, we're pretending to be some kind of stabilising influence... but the situation only exists because we're there, will continue as long as we're there, and won't really reach any kind of level ground until we get out.

Really, and that is why, as the article states:

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Thoughts:

1- Bush will be called on his hypocrisy soon.
2- Obama's campaign will benefit from this.
3- McCain's campaign won't.
4- Everyone wants Bush to GET THE HELL OUT!Gee, it sounded like a good thing to say when they didn't want us to leave...

On the other hand, maybe it should be handled in some other way. Like - letting the area sort out the problem for itself. That's where US foreign policy drops into the mix - we're making the situation worse.


Which circles back to my original question, do you think they can actually sort it out all by themselves?


No. More along the lines that, we're pretending to be some kind of stabilising influence... but the situation only exists because we're there, will continue as long as we're there, and won't really reach any kind of level ground until we get out.


The fighting wont stop if we leave. The fighting against the NATO forces will just turn instead to the now independent Iraqi secular(ish) government controlling Iraq. And a lot of the fighting isn't even aimed at NATO forces anyway. I don't think it's sensible to leave unless it is reasonable to assume that the Iraq gov will be able to get it under control, do you have any way of showing this?


Yes, there might be unhappy circumstances in the wake of our departure. But there were unhappy circumstances in the wake of our arrival.


But at least Saddam wasn't really by this stage (despite faulty intelligence saying otherwise) a threat to anyone.

Really, and that is why, as the article states:

And? You highlight one of three clearly stated points, and make like it's somehow of special importance?

As long as American troops are in Iraq, there will be a resistance to occupation. It can be sent underground by increasing the number of troops, but that won't disperse it - just hide it from the statistics.

Tribal resistance is a much bigger factor, because it is grassroots, and inherent in the landscape.

The fighting wont stop if we leave. The fighting against the NATO forces will just turn instead to the now independent Iraqi secular(ish) government controlling Iraq. And a lot of the fighting isn't even aimed at NATO forces anyway. I don't think it's sensible to leave unless it is reasonable to assume that the Iraq gov will be able to get it under control, do you have any way of showing this?


Personally, I don't see why the options are US-occupation or go-it-alone. Why shouldn't we drop this in the lap of the Middle East? It's in their interests to keep the peace.

Our occupation isn't 'keeping it under control' - it's sending it elsewhere, and it's hiding it... and it's claiming victory for the achievements of a number of different factors.

Personally, I don't see why the options are US-occupation or go-it-alone. Why shouldn't we drop this in the lap of the Middle East? It's in their interests to keep the peace.


Are you talking about using middle eastern forces instead? It's not like the middle east is a particularly unified force, and it's militarily less advanced. What would be the advantage of that?


Our occupation isn't 'keeping it under control' - it's sending it elsewhere, and it's hiding it... and it's claiming victory for the achievements of a number of different factors.

If you can force it deep underground permanently then that is effectively keeping it under control. The resistance will eventually wither away or relocate with in 50 years or so. Problem is, our occupation is doing a crap job at even forcing the resistance under ground, although it is improving slightly. If I'm in optimistic mode, I don't think it'll be too long until US forces are able to hand over Iraq, but we should probably wait and see.

Personally, I don't see why the options are US-occupation or go-it-alone. Why shouldn't we drop this in the lap of the Middle East? It's in their interests to keep the peace.
Because there is absolutely no middle eastern military force I, for one, would consider a) cabable and experienced enough to actually do any peacekeeping work or b) without its own personal idea of what they want from an Iraqi state.

Yeah, fine, the US certainly has its own idea about what it wants from the Iraqis, i.e. a client state as a US outpost in the region. But then of the two ME powers nearby - the Saudis would have it to expand their oil wealth even further, the Persians would take it for the oil wealth and as a kind of repayment for the Iran-Iraq war.

Do we want a Saudi Arabia with even more of the world's most precious resource under its belt? No, no we do not, because it's a very volatile state. Do we want Iran to take yet more oil, and to have an even larger area of the middle east under its control? No, no we do not, because they are not exactly our mates, and essentially giving them land access to Israel isn't going to calm them or the Israelis down in the slightest.
Our occupation isn't 'keeping it under control' - it's sending it elsewhere, and it's hiding it... and it's claiming victory for the achievements of a number of different factors.
Uhu...

If you keep movements that are expensive to keep up from doing anything, they will eventually run out of support, both in terms of personnel, but also pretty crucially in terms of money and materiel, and setting up a new anti-Iraqi government, or anti-Coalition movement will become increasingly difficult for people.

Will we see a rise in violence when the troop surge is over? Probably. Will violence eventually fall to a 'respectable' level? Should do.

And? You highlight one of three clearly stated points, and make like it's somehow of special importance?

Yes, I did because I was tyring to highlight the point that the increase in troops helped, not harmed, the stability of the country and helped to decrease the level of violence.

As long as American troops are in Iraq, there will be a resistance to occupation. It can be sent underground by increasing the number of troops, but that won't disperse it - just hide it from the statistics.

That isn't what the statistics show. In fact, it shows that the increase in troops helped to allow the Sunni Tribal revolt. Because there were more troops in the country, there was more protection, and the Tribal leaders were able to rebel against the cruelty of al-Qaida. In other words, more troops enabled the tribal resistance to be turned against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Tribal resistance is a much bigger factor, because it is grassroots, and inherent in the landscape.

Which only proves my point. The fact that the tribal resistance is grassroots and has now been turned against al-Qaida, thanks to the increase in troops, gives a boost to the American support and bolster the Iraqi government.

Now if Malaki will only accept the Sons of Iraq into the military. The sooner he does this the sooner we will be able to hand more of the provinces over to his government and the sooner (4 or 5 months) we will be able to pull all of our troops out.

NOTE: that will still roughly be within 36 to 52 months after the handover is complete.

I don't think so, but it's not like an Iraq controlled by Islamic militants is good for anyone.

Erm, what does that have to do with whether or not the deal being brokered is legitimate? If we accept that Iraq is a republic, then it is a republic whose population votes for elected members to represent them. Note that nowhere in there did I mention a veto in place if those elected officials, with or without public support, do something contrary to the interests of the United States. In other words, if we accept the governing body of Iraq, then we have to accept that they may and probably will have views concerning their national interest that either do not square with or directly contradict our national interests, and further that it is their decision as to what their national interests are, not ours.

Given that we supported and endorsed a popularly-elected government, to put it bluntly, it seems as if Iraq has a legitimate governing body. If the governing body is legitimate, then whether or not the composition of their leadership serves their interest or ours is irrelevant to us, however pertinent it may be to them. As such, your admonition seems beside the point. . .unless you want to pick up that white man's burden and say their government isn't really legitimate unless we can ratify their decision at the time they make it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Thoughts:

1- Bush will be called on his hypocrisy soon.
2- Obama's campaign will benefit from this.
3- McCain's campaign won't.
4- Everyone wants Bush to GET THE HELL OUT!

Bush doesn't give a damn what Iraqis think. If the Iraqi government itself set a timetable, he would probably authorize a "regime change."

World to bush: wmd's or gtfo

Ok, but as an actual response to the topic, as much as I hate to admit it, most of the people here are right... the truth is, the article says nothing about leaving now. It says leave when we say. Which is exactly what the Bush admin said they would do, which you even quoted in the title of this thread.

Of course, it is still a massive debacle. But I don't know either way which is an appropriate way to fix it. All I know is that this article does nothing to help your cause, H2. Which is a damn shame.

World to bush: wmd's or gtfo
You're a bit late.

...You would rather have militias who may believe in Sharia law and other such ridiculous beliefs in charge of the Iraqi population rather than a trained military force which is trying to keep the peace?

A trained military force with zero training in peacekeeping mind you.

A trained military force with zero training in peacekeeping mind you.

...who may be propping up an unpopular regime thats given away the bulk of its nations oil wealth for the next three decades.....

...who may be propping up an unpopular regime thats given away the bulk of its nations oil wealth for the next three decades.....

Source on the oil?

Anyway, I'd have to disagree, that the Iraqi's want anything drastically different from what Bush has said. They want a timetable, of sorts, in that it would still be dependent on what the situation in Iraq is like, now Bush and the Iraqis may have a different definition for when that is exactly, but they seem to want the same thing, the US to withdraw when Iraq is ready for it. There are three possibilities here(as I see it), between what they're saying and what they mean:

1- they could mean it
2- they want to send a message to the Iraqi's that the US won't be around forever, but substantively they aren't really pushing for anything
3- they want the US out ASAP, but don't want to embarrass us, because that'd be a bad move politically.

Sounds like Maliki is getting a little too independent, maybe it's time for the US to do a 'Diem' on him?

Source on the oil?


Few and far between, hence the bolded and underlined "may".

One week after the no-bid service deals were announced, the world caught its first glimpse of the real prize. After years of backroom arm-twisting, Iraq is officially flinging open six of its major oilfields, accounting for half of its known reserves, to foreign investors. According to Iraq's oil minister, the long-term contracts will be signed within a year. While ostensibly under the control of the Iraq National Oil Company, foreign corporations will keep 75% of the value of the contracts, leaving just 25% for their Iraqi partners.

That kind of ratio is unheard of in oil-rich Arab and Persian states, where achieving majority national control over oil was the defining victory of anti-colonial struggles. According to Greg Muttitt, a London-based oil expert, the assumption up until now was that foreign multinationals would be brought in to develop new fields in Iraq - not to take over those which are already in production and therefore require minimal technical support. "The policy was always to allocate these fields to the Iraq National Oil Company," he told me. "This is a total reversal of that policy, giving the Iraq National Oil Company a mere 25% instead of the planned 100%."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/04/oil.oilandgascompanies

Considering that the surge worked, the overall violence level is way down, al-Sadr isn't causing shit for no reason, the Iraqi PM has finally grown a set of testicles, al-Qaeda in Iraq is essentially defeated, and the Iraqi Army seems capable of kicking some ass on its own now, and we've already shipped most of the surge troops home already (the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd ID is the last surge brigade left in Iraq, and it's slated to come home this month), we should wind this all down and bring the rest of them home.

It would take months, largely because of logistical considerations (while you could bring the actual people home quickly, there's a little matter of thousands of vehicles and piles of supplies that collectively are worth billions of dollars that need to come back as well).

If Bush were actually smart, he could take the wind right out of the sails of Obama's anti-war rhetoric, and declare "it's over and we're coming home" and get about 1/3 of the stuff home before people even vote in the election.

Probably make for good relations with Iraqis as well.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece

Erm, what does that have to do with whether or not the deal being brokered is legitimate? If we accept that Iraq is a republic, then it is a republic whose population votes for elected members to represent them. Note that nowhere in there did I mention a veto in place if those elected officials, with or without public support, do something contrary to the interests of the United States. In other words, if we accept the governing body of Iraq, then we have to accept that they may and probably will have views concerning their national interest that either do not square with or directly contradict our national interests, and further that it is their decision as to what their national interests are, not ours.

Given that we supported and endorsed a popularly-elected government, to put it bluntly, it seems as if Iraq has a legitimate governing body. If the governing body is legitimate, then whether or not the composition of their leadership serves their interest or ours is irrelevant to us, however pertinent it may be to them. As such, your admonition seems beside the point. . .unless you want to pick up that white man's burden and say their government isn't really legitimate unless we can ratify their decision at the time they make it.

You've totally missed the point of everything I've said. This 'legitimate' government is very likely not going to survive in my opinion if we leave at this very point in time and it will be replaced by an unpopular (except popular with the young extremists with the bigger guns than everyone else) militia who will very likely have an agenda against the west and will endorse and possibly supply AQ and similar organisations, hell if the Taliban manage to regain their strength they may be able to claim Iraq. Not only would this be a threat to the west but it will cause much instability in the middle east and may even result in a middle eastern war (although I've heard some neocons argue that this is exactly what they want, which is causing them to support an immediate withdrawal). In which case, I think it's only reasonable to leave when we can be absolutely sure of the Iraqi elected government to be able to handle the situation, otherwise principles of self determination and elected government don't mean shit if they have no hope of survival anyway.

You've totally missed the point of everything I've said. This 'legitimate' government is very likely not going to survive in my opinion if we leave at this very point in time and it will be replaced by an unpopular (except popular with the young extremists with the bigger guns than everyone else) militia who will very likely have an agenda against the west and will endorse and possibly supply AQ and similar organisations, hell if the Taliban manage to regain their strength they may be able to claim Iraq. Not only would this be a threat to the west but it will cause much instability in the middle east and may even result in a middle eastern war (although I've heard some neocons argue that this is exactly what they want, which is causing them to support an immediate withdrawal). In which case, I think it's only reasonable to leave when we can be absolutely sure of the Iraqi elected government to be able to handle the situation, otherwise principles of self determination and elected government don't mean shit if they have no hope of survival anyway.

Um... The Taliban are not in Iraq...

Considering that the surge worked, the overall violence level is way down, al-Sadr isn't causing shit for no reason, the Iraqi PM has finally grown a set of testicles, al-Qaeda in Iraq is essentially defeated, and the Iraqi Army seems capable of kicking some ass on its own now, and we've already shipped most of the surge troops home already (the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd ID is the last surge brigade left in Iraq, and it's slated to come home this month), we should wind this all down and bring the rest of them home.

It would take months, largely because of logistical considerations (while you could bring the actual people home quickly, there's a little matter of thousands of vehicles and piles of supplies that collectively are worth billions of dollars that need to come back as well).

If Bush were actually smart, he could take the wind right out of the sails of Obama's anti-war rhetoric, and declare "it's over and we're coming home" and get about 1/3 of the stuff home before people even vote in the election.

Probably make for good relations with Iraqis as well.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece

Hmm, strange, the reports I've been hearing paint a much grimmer picture. It's hard for me to tell though what the situation there is really like, the reports tend to be a little ambiguous.

Um... The Taliban are not in Iraq...

I know, and they're almost out of Afghanistan, but what does that have to do with it?

Hmm, strange, the reports I've been hearing paint a much grimmer picture. It's hard for me to tell though what the situation there is really like, the reports tend to be a little ambiguous.

Read the article.

ABC News did a big piece on World News Tonight last night. They showed plummeting figures for insurgent attacks over the course of the surge.

Yes, Iraq will have its own internal political struggles to contend with, and some may think we need to stay and nursemaid them. But I think that will make them weaker in the long run if we do so.

We have crushed the al-Qaeda in Iraq group, and quieted al-Sadr. The Iraqi PM finally has a pair of testicles, so it's time to saddle up and ride home.

I know, and they're almost out of Afghanistan, but what does that have to do with it?

Read the part of your post that I put in bold print.

Read the article.

ABC News did a big piece on World News Tonight last night. They showed plummeting figures for insurgent attacks over the course of the surge.

Yes, Iraq will have its own internal political struggles to contend with, and some may think we need to stay and nursemaid them. But I think that will make them weaker in the long run if we do so.

We have crushed the al-Qaeda in Iraq group, and quieted al-Sadr. The Iraqi PM finally has a pair of testicles, so it's time to saddle up and ride home.

I'll read it, and may end up agreeing you if the situation is as good as you say it is. But AQ are not the only problem, and these 'internal political struggles' may be struggles the Iraq gov have no hope of overcoming.

Read the part of your post that I put in bold print.

I didn't mean the Taliban were in Iraq, I meant they may be able to regain their strength after NATO leaves Afghanistan and they stop getting beaten back into the Pakistani border. After this they may march into Iraq for strategic advantages and try to take control, they may be running out of people but, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe they're still receiving a lot of funds from contraband smuggling.

Don't be silly. Maliki doesn't know how to run a country, so why should we listen to him? In the last five years of being in power, he's failed spectacularly in every area, not least in creating a strong Iraqi army to keep down violence.

...You would rather have militias who may believe in Sharia law and other such ridiculous beliefs in charge of the Iraqi population rather than a trained military force which is trying to keep the peace?

You could have left Saddam Hussein in charge if those are your goals. Sure it would have been less messy.

What part of the Sharia law you find "ridicolous"?

I'll read it, and may end up agreeing you if the situation is as good as you say it is. But AQ are not the only problem, and these 'internal political struggles' may be struggles the Iraq gov have no hope of overcoming.


Part of the problem is that Iraqis have become sceptical of their leadership, and rightly so. Remember they lived under the harsh regime of Saddam Hussain for 30 years. Add to that the fact that Sunni's largely chose not to take part in the elections when they were held so you have a portion of the population that isn't completely represented. Combine that with the fact that Maliki's government has refused to allow a majority of the former Baath Party members to take part in a variety of political and military positions. Then there is the rampant corruption that Maliki hasn't been able to curb, probably because he is also on the take, and you have a bad situation for the poor people of Iraq.

The only solution is really for the US to make nice, give the Iraqi government what it needs to operate, keep and eye on the situation on the ground, and wait until after the next elections in Iraq to make any formal commitments.

I didn't mean the Taliban were in Iraq, I meant they may be able to regain their strength after NATO leaves Afghanistan and they stop getting beaten back into the Pakistani border. After this they may march into Iraq for strategic advantages and try to take control, they may be running out of people but, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe they're still receiving a lot of funds from contraband smuggling.

The Taliban can hardly "march" into Iraq.

The Taliban can hardly "march" into Iraq.

If Iraq turns into an unstable mess, I don't see why not.

The only solution is really for the US to make nice, give the Iraqi government what it needs to operate, keep and eye on the situation on the ground, and wait until after the next elections in Iraq to make any formal commitments.

I can agree with this.

Im surprised bush wasnt assastinated yet :sniper:

If Iraq turns into an unstable mess, I don't see why not.


Could the fact that they would have the march through Iran (http://i.infoplease.com/images/mapmiddleeast.gif)have anything to do with it?

I doubt Iran would willing allow a militant organization to march through its borders with ease.

Such a move would not be in their best interest.

I suppose our government as a whole has "flip-flopped" on the issue of leaving Iraq. Our leader once said that we will stay in Iraq until they don't want us anymore. Well, Iraq has said they want a hard date for us to leave. How does the US state department respond to this...? "We'll tell you when it's time for us to leave!"

US rejects Iraqi demand for troops' withdrawal timeline

1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States on Tuesday rejected a demand from Iraq for a specific date for pullout of US-led foreign troops from the country, saying any withdrawal will be based on conditions on the ground.

"The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said.

Iraq said on Tuesday it will reject any security pact with the United States unless it sets a date for the pullout of US-led troops.

"We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops," national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie told reporters in the holy city of Najaf.

The controversial demand from Baghdad's Shiite-led government underlines Iraq's new hardened stand in complex negotiations aimed at striking a security deal with Washington.

Flip-flop? It is in line with the policy that has always been held: that we will not give a date for withdrawl. If Iraq says leave we most certainly will but we will not broadcast such intentions.

What is being done right now is called "negotiation". Understand that concept?

"The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said.

omg should I feel bad if that makes sense to me? At the worst I can read of this the US wants to withdraw troops on conditions and the Iraqi govenrment wants a troop withdraw based on a time scale

fairly simple to make both parties happy really

Flip-flop? It is in line with the policy that has always been held: that we will not give a date for withdrawl. If Iraq says leave we most certainly will but we will not broadcast such intentions.

What is being done right now is called "negotiation". Understand that concept?

Traditionally one negotiates before going to war.

Traditionally one negotiates before going to war.

Really? How do you suggest negotiating with Maliki and the Iraqi government before it was established? Or perhaps you are saying this is a prelude to war? All in all this statement is idiotic.

omg should I feel bad if that makes sense to me? At the worst I can read of this the US wants to withdraw troops on conditions and the Iraqi govenrment wants a troop withdraw based on a time scale

fairly simple to make both parties happy really
So you think that when a supposedly sovereign country tells another country "Thanks, you can pack up and leave now, we want your tanks, soldiers and fighters out by the end of the year" the other country is entitled to say "no, we'll only leave when condition X is satisfied"?

Because, you know, it's not as if it's in complete and utter opposition with everything in the international right.

Then again, not the first time a superpower ignored the law entirely because it suited its own purposes. Even when said superpower pretty much wrote said laws to begin with.

Really? How do you suggest negotiating with Maliki and the Iraqi government before it was established? Or perhaps you are saying this is a prelude to war? All in all this statement is idiotic.

Of course it is, because I the only negotiation I could have been referring too was the same as the one you were referring to. I certainly wasn't suggesting that there should have been negotiation with Saddam and more attempts to peacefully determine the existence of WMDs in Iraq. Oh my no.

Of course it is, because I the only negotiation I could have been referring too was the same as the one you were referring to. I certainly wasn't suggesting that there should have been negotiation with Saddam and more attempts to peacefully determine the existence of WMDs in Iraq. Oh my no.
That would be communist hippy pacifist bullshit. Clearly the only people who would suggest such a thing actually want the terrorists to win. :rolleyes:

Of course it is, because I the only negotiation I could have been referring too was the same as the one you were referring to. I certainly wasn't suggesting that there should have been negotiation with Saddam and more attempts to peacefully determine the existence of WMDs in Iraq. Oh my no.

I am glad that you are owning up to the stupidity of believing that further negotiations was an option with Saddam. By the way, WMDs were not the major reason for entering Iraq in the first place. I know this lie, this meme, has been pushed into your fragile head but it remains a lie. Believe it if you wish but don't expect people possessing actual, accurate memories to.

That would be communist hippy pacifist bullshit. Clearly the only people who would suggest such a thing actually want the terrorists to win. :rolleyes:

Not communists, not hippies, not pacifists but you are quite correct on the bullshit aspect.

I don't believe such idiots really want terrorists to win but I do believe they didn't factor in the aspect of giving 25 million Iraqis the chance to create a government not based on tyranny. Apparently negotiating with tyrants is considered "peace" these days. Sorry if I don't go along with that.

So you think that when a supposedly sovereign country tells another country "Thanks, you can pack up and leave now, we want your tanks, soldiers and fighters out by the end of the year" the other country is entitled to say "no, we'll only leave when condition X is satisfied"?

of course that not what happening at all is it

I think Iraq should be left alone. What's right for one country is not necessarily right for all of the world. It's a shame leaders of Western countries in particular do not see this. Instead, they're trying to create a world modelled on western society - it will not work. It'll merely implode the societies upon which the western ideals are conferred.

I don't believe such idiots really want terrorists to win but I do believe they didn't factor in the aspect of giving 25 million Iraqis the chance to create a government not based on tyranny. Apparently negotiating with tyrants is considered "peace" these days. Sorry if I don't go along with that.
Except that you do. Or at least your government does in your name. And it has been doing so for several decades now.

See the coup d'état of September 11, 1973, in Chile, for example. A great classic.

The US government only overthrows Tyrants when it's in its own interest to do so. It also does not hesitate to undermine or flat-out coup any legitimately elected government that it dislikes, sometimes replacing it with puppet Tyrants who will abide by the US economic interests.

I think Iraq should be left alone. What's right for one country is not necessarily right for all of the world. It's a shame leaders of Western countries in particular do not see this. Instead, they're trying to create a world modelled on western society - it will not work. It'll merely implode the societies upon which the western ideals are conferred.

its a good thing western ideals are not being imposed then (take that how you will) and the democratic votes installed have had massive participation :)

What is different from terrorists and western society? The answer is simple:
terrorists do not kill 250,000 people each day in Africa because of needless exploitation of land and lack of sharing resources. Western societies do this to Africa each day. Terrorists are at least acting for a cause - they're rebelling against the enforcement of western ideals we are forcing upon their societies and they're using the only form of protest that will make the west pay attention. Who are the real terrorists in this world now?

its a good thing western ideals are not being imposed then
Are you blind, or just stupid? Of course they're being imposed, the west has forced yet another country to be like itself in the model of wonderful democracy that's oh so good at creating societies. That's why so many dislike the "new regime". Media is edited. Truth is not.

What is different from terrorists and western society?

buh...

terrorists do not kill 250,000 people each day in Africa because of needless exploitation of land and lack of sharing resources.

ah this old piffle about how if the world magically completely changed its entire social and economic structure it would achieve some sort of utopia...honey think about what your theory involves

Western societies do this to Africa each day.

what of Zimbabwe? Robert Mugabe is that you?

Terrorists are at least acting for a cause - they're rebelling against the enforcement of western ideals we are forcing upon their societies and they're using the only form of protest that will make the west pay attention. Who are the real terrorists in this world now?

and these ideals would be?

Are you blind, or just stupid? Of course they're being imposed, the west has forced yet another country to be like itself in the model of wonderful democracy that's oh so good at creating societies. That's why so many dislike the "new regime". Media is edited. Truth is not.

1) the US (the term west is rather dated no?) isn't some magical democracy machine, you either get along with it which is rather easy or you make yourself a pain

2) 79.6% of the Iraqi population votes...thats higher than most established democracy's

My theory is actually very complete. Me and my lecturer (an extremely intelligent man) discussed this to great lengths. It would be impossible to write every ideal that western society imposes on other countries. All you need to do is simply look at western society - the "fundamentals" of law, ecomonics and politics are all key areas which are constantly imposed on other societies. That and a large host of other areas. You, and the majority of western society, do not wish to accept that the west (I am using this term as it is not just america that is responsible) is ultimately the root cause of the majority of not only its own problems, but the world's problems.

You should take a look at the works of Thomas Pogge - he very distinctly talks about the self imposed, self willed ignorance and pure blindness that the majority of those in western society display towards what their countries are doing to Africa. You demonstrate that ignorance perfectly.

Traditionally one negotiates before going to war.

that is so 2002.

So you think that when a supposedly sovereign country tells another country "Thanks, you can pack up and leave now, we want your tanks, soldiers and fighters out by the end of the year" the other country is entitled to say "no, we'll only leave when condition X is satisfied"?

Because, you know, it's not as if it's in complete and utter opposition with everything in the international right.

Then again, not the first time a superpower ignored the law entirely because it suited its own purposes. Even when said superpower pretty much wrote said laws to begin with.

of course they can.

but then they would have to admit that they are NOT there with permission of the govt. that the govt is NOT in control of the country and that they are, in fact, occupiers not liberators.

I am glad that you are owning up to the stupidity of believing that further negotiations was an option with Saddam. By the way, WMDs were not the major reason for entering Iraq in the first place. I know this lie, this meme, has been pushed into your fragile head but it remains a lie. Believe it if you wish but don't expect people possessing actual, accurate memories to.

yeah we really went in for the fallafel!

we were all alive then, smiling. we know the justifications for the war. i dont know what YOU think the real reason was but its pretty hard to get past that "OHMYGOD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS GOING TO KILL US ALL WITH HIS WMD" bullshit that the bush administration put out.

My theory is actually very complete. Me and my lecturer (an extremely intelligent man) discussed this to great lengths. It would be impossible to write every ideal that western society imposes on other countries. All you need to do is simply look at western society - the "fundamentals" of law, ecomonics and politics are all key areas which are constantly imposed on other societies. That and a large host of other areas. You, and the majority of western society, do not wish to accept that the west (I am using this term as it is not just america that is responsible) is ultimately the root cause of the majority of not only its own problems, but the world's problems.

1) lecturer =/= intelligence
2) go on gives us some examples
3) if you actually did study you would be using the term North at the very least
4) again examples?

You should take a look at the works of Thomas Pogge - he very distinctly talks about the self imposed, self willed ignorance and pure blindness that the majority of those in western society display towards what their countries are doing to Africa. You demonstrate that ignorance perfectly.

I'm sorry but Thomas Pogge is your voice of wisdom?

but then they would have to admit that they are NOT there with permission of the govt. that the govt is NOT in control of the country and that they are, in fact, occupiers not liberators.

so the whole U.N peacekeeping operation thing is lost on you?

so the whole U.N peacekeeping operation thing is lost on you?

wow yes it is.

i had no idea that there is a un peacekeeping operation going on in iraq.

when did that happen?

1) lecturer =/= intelligence
2) go on gives us some examples
3) if you actually did study you would be using the term North at the very least
4) again examples?
I'm sorry but Thomas Pogge is your voice of wisdom?

1) I have no idea what you mean by this *see my last sentence in this post.
2) I gave you some already.
3) Fine, north america, USA, whatever - you know what I'm talking about
4) I'll forward you my 4,000 word essay which discusses Western ignorance, bias and the pure imposition Western society puts on other societies, for which I achieved a first class degree result if you are that enticed by my viewpoints.

Thomas Pogge, alongside my lecturer, is also an extremely intelligent man. I wasn't using the fact my lecturer is indeed a lecturer as confirmation of intelligence, he just is extremely intelligent.

yeah we really went in for the fallafel!

we were all alive then, smiling. we know the justifications for the war. i dont know what YOU think the real reason was but its pretty hard to get past that "OHMYGOD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS GOING TO KILL US ALL WITH HIS WMD" bullshit that the bush administration put out.

1-I fucking love fallafel. mmmm, fallafel. :D
2-I remember when we went into Iraq, cus I was sick that day, and just cus I was in elementary school at the time doesn't mean I don't remember Wolf Blitzer telling me that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, was a danger to society, and would be using said WMDs on our troops.
Which was the cue for the scene to cut to a bunch of U.S. troops wearing chemical wargear outfits.
In short, Ashmoria is right.
:p

when did that happen?

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1511.html

2) I gave you some already.

huh?

3) Fine, north america, USA, whatever - you know what I'm talking about

not really

4) I'll forward you my 4,000 word essay which discusses Western ignorance, bias and the pure imposition Western society puts on other societies, for which I achieved a first class degree result if you are that enticed by my viewpoints.

go ahead I could do with a laugh

Thomas Pogge, alongside my lecturer, is also an extremely intelligent man. I wasn't using the fact my lecturer is indeed a lecturer as confirmation of intelligence, he just is extremely intelligent.

given seemingly intelligent mens record when it comes to being batshit insane I'm not sure you want to roll with that dice

1-I fucking love fallafel. mmmm, fallafel. :D
2-I remember when we went into Iraq, cus I was sick that day, and just cus I was in elementary school at the time doesn't mean I don't remember Wolf Blitzer telling me that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, was a danger to society, and would be using said WMDs on our troops.
Which was the cue for the scene to cut to a bunch of U.S. troops wearing chemical wargear outfits.
In short, Ashmoria is right.
:p

exactly.

im sure there was some OTHER real reason why mr bush felt the need to take his opportunity to invade iraq. i dont know what that reason was.

but the reason the US public was in favor of it was because the administration scared the crap out of us with the notion that we could have another 9/11 if we didnt take care of iraq.

"the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cMSTJNroEI just in case anyone would like to feel sick remembering the bullshit that was spewed back then.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1511.html



what part of that makes what is going on in iraq a UN peacekeeping operation?

what part of that makes what is going on in iraq a UN peacekeeping operation?

Recognizing that international support for restoration of conditions of
stability and security is essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq
as well as to the ability of all concerned to carry out their work on
behalf of the people of Iraq, and welcoming Member State contributions in
this regard under resolution 1483

Resolves that the United Nations, acting through the Secretary-General,
his Special Representative, and the United Nations Assistance Mission in
Iraq, should strengthen its vital role in Iraq, including by providing
humanitarian relief, promoting the economic reconstruction of and
conditions for sustainable development in Iraq, and advancing efforts to
restore and establish national and local institutions for representative
government;

13. Determines that the provision of security and stability is essential to
the successful completion of the political process as outlined in paragraph
7 above and to the ability of the United Nations to contribute effectively
to that process and the implementation of resolution 1483 (2003), and
authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all
necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and
stability in Iraq, including for the purpose of ensuring necessary
conditions for the implementation of the timetable and programme as well as
to contribute to the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission for
Iraq, the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi
interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure;

14. Urges Member States to contribute assistance under this United Nations
inundate, including military forces, to the multinational force referred to
in paragraph 13 above;

tee hee

go ahead I could do with a laugh


It's not a laugh, it's a serious academic paper, for which I achieved the highest grade possible. On the back of your disregard for the fact I may be able to write something of this calibre, I highly doubt you will even understand the thesis of the paper, let alone the complex academic arguments put forward by myself. Anyway - I do not want to risk the paper being put forward into the public domain where it may be plagarised (it is not copyrighted as it was for a final year undergraduate module).

tee hee

yeah

what 1511 did was to recognize the US/UK efforts to install a (puppet) new legitimate govt in iraq and to have the US deal with whatever UN reconstruction money (or whatever kind of un money goes into iraq, if any) goes to iraq.

IF the govt of iraq is legit, then THEY and only they can authorize the continutation of foreign troops on their soil. as soon as they say GO, the coalition forces must go.

if we decide to stay, which i contend that we can (but shouldnt), it would be at the cost of admitting that the maliki government is NOT the sovereign government of iraq and that WE and only WE decide what goes on there because we are the military occupiers of that country.

the UN has zero to say about it. they didnt get us in there and they arent continuing our presence. it would be wonderful if we could get the UN to bring in actual peacekeeping troops and we--all coalition forces--could get the hell out so as to stop the terrorist magnet effect of our being there.

It's not a laugh, it's a serious academic paper, for which I achieved the highest grade possible. On the back of your disregard for the fact I may be able to write something of this calibre, I highly doubt you will even understand the thesis of the paper, let alone the complex academic arguments put forward by myself. Anyway - I do not want to risk the paper being put forward into the public domain where it may be plagarised (it is not copyrighted as it was for a final year undergraduate module).

your so amusing :p

yeah

oh yeah!

what 1511 did was to recognize the US/UK efforts to install a (puppet) new legitimate govt in iraq and to have the US deal with whatever UN reconstruction money (or whatever kind of un money goes into iraq, if any) goes to iraq.

1) hmm so what your saying is the UN isn't a peacekeeping organization at all but a secret organization of international super villains! only getting involved with things like international aid and defending the democratic Iraqi government because of the coalition yelling at them

2) please go ahead with this un-money Ilm sure we can go over that whilst we are here

IF the govt of iraq is legit, then THEY and only they can authorize the continutation of foreign troops on their soil. as soon as they say GO, the coalition forces must go.

good thing they are not saying go then

if we decide to stay, which i contend that we can

we can but that doesn't mean its going to happen does it?

Iraq wants more clarity on exactly when the coalition will be doing what however the coalition wants to maintain some degree of flexibility on the issue and so talks will happen:)

the UN has zero to say about it. they didnt get us in there and they arent continuing our presence. it would be wonderful if we could get the UN to bring in actual peacekeeping troops and we--all coalition forces--could get the hell out so as to stop the terrorist magnet effect of our being there.

1) actually the UN does have a presence in Iraq(:p), however the coalition has managed to maintain overall control over the individual members troops and zones much like in Afghanistan

2)

A) insurgent =/= terrorist
B) what do you think UN peacekeeping troops are exactly?

Traditionally one negotiates before going to war.

Unless you're a neocon.

Flip-flop? It is in line with the policy that has always been held: that we will not give a date for withdrawl. If Iraq says leave we most certainly will but we will not broadcast such intentions.

What is being done right now is called "negotiation". Understand that concept?

Are you always this friendly? Listen, I have advanced degrees and I have been on the ground there. I know all about the "no timetables" edict. I also know about

This is what McCain has to say on Iraq:

Aides to Sen. John McCain sought on Wednesday to clear up their boss' position on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's recent insistence that a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops be included in any security agreement between the two countries.

President Bush back in 2007 made some comments.

In 2007, Bush promised Iraq withdrawal if asked by Maliki: 'I don't see how we could stay.'

As far as Bush's EXACT words back in 2007:

In an April 24, 2007 interview with Charlie Rose, however, President Bush said he would remove troops if asked by Iraq, but he predicted that Maliki would not ask for a withdrawal:

ROSE: But if he said get out now, we don’t want you anymore–

BUSH: I don’t see how we could stay. It is his country.

ROSE: But if he said that, it would lead to the catastrophe that you have suggested.

BUSH: That’s why he’s not going to say it.

ROSE: You don’t think he’ll say it?

BUSH: I don’t. No, I don’t.

"John McCain has always been clear that American forces operate in Iraq only with the consent of that country's democratically elected government," Michael Goldfarb, a McCain spokesman, told the Huffington Post. "The Senator speaks frequently with Iraq's leaders and they have made clear that they share his belief that any timeline for withdrawal must be dictated by the facts on the ground. He met with the foreign minister and President separately within the last month...He met with Maliki on his last trip to Iraq sometime in late March."

I understand what negotiation is. Bush's comments are clear and this is a FLIP FLOP whether you and your smug attitude want to admit it or not.

You've totally missed the point of everything I've said. This 'legitimate' government is very likely not going to survive in my opinion if we leave at this very point in time and it will be replaced by an unpopular (except popular with the young extremists with the bigger guns than everyone else) militia who will very likely have an agenda against the west and will endorse and possibly supply AQ and similar organisations, hell if the Taliban manage to regain their strength they may be able to claim Iraq. Not only would this be a threat to the west but it will cause much instability in the middle east and may even result in a middle eastern war (although I've heard some neocons argue that this is exactly what they want, which is causing them to support an immediate withdrawal). In which case, I think it's only reasonable to leave when we can be absolutely sure of the Iraqi elected government to be able to handle the situation, otherwise principles of self determination and elected government don't mean shit if they have no hope of survival anyway.

Erm, actually I already presented a counterargument to your post right here. Our estimation of the ability of the Iraqi Parliament to survive a civil war between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish factions (if you haven't noticed, Al Queda has been more or less completely discredited in Iraq since they started bombing fellow Muslims indiscriminately) is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because our estimation does not outweigh their right to choose, unless of course their right to choose has been suspended and their government isn't really legitimate.

Seriously, I want you to look at what you just proposed there and tell me if it is at all sensible: you've just suggested that we need to, at best, ignore and disempower, and at worst fight their government in order to save their government from a significant amount of people who don't want their government. Now tell me how that's not the preferred strategy of the heir to the throne of a kingdom of idiots; at least in Vietnam, we were trying to save a puppet regime.

...You would rather have militias who may believe in Sharia law and other such ridiculous beliefs in charge of the Iraqi population rather than a trained military force which is trying to keep the peace?

You do realize that, apart from brainwashing, you're quite likely to have Iraqis with "ridiculous beliefs" who ARE trained military forces?

If Iraq turns into an unstable mess, I don't see why not.

You're insane.

Let me boil down in very simple terms:

The US invaded Iraq unfairly and illegally.

The US then claimed that if the Iraqis wanted them out, they'd leave.

So, if the Iraqi people want the US to leave, the US HAS TO LEAVE. SIMPLE. AS. THAT.

Judging by the fact that the Iraqi army needed British and American airstrikes to 'succeed' against the Mahdi Army who are, after all, a militia, I don't know why we actually listen to Maliki and his friends any more.

While I agree that they need our help I disagree that we should not listen. We supposedly liberated Iraq so they could have a democratically elected government right? They have that now and that government is telling us to take a hike. It's a bit of a pickle don't you think? Next country to liberate: Germany :(

I am glad that you are owning up to the stupidity of believing that further negotiations was an option with Saddam. By the way, WMDs were not the major reason for entering Iraq in the first place. I know this lie, this meme, has been pushed into your fragile head but it remains a lie. Believe it if you wish but don't expect people possessing actual, accurate memories to.

I have an actual, accurate memory of this:
Colin Powell: The Speech that led to WAR 1/8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p2RXWvy4Vs)

EDIT: Oh, and it is peculiar that Colin powel would say that "...I think that it's doubtful that without the weapons of mass distruction case the President, the Congress, The United Nations and those who joinsed us in the conflict, the British, the Italians, the Spanish, the Australians, would have found a persuasive case enough to support us in the decision to go to war."
Source - Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FejQH_VCB24)

your so amusing :p


You're very strange...

That's not what I'm asking however. Also, a security adviser =/= The Iraqis.

For all intents and purposes, the Iraqi government == the Iraqis.

What are you asking for, Hydesland? A plebiscite? Does it have to be unanimous, or will a simple majority suffice?

It's not a laugh, it's a serious academic paper, for which I achieved the highest grade possible. On the back of your disregard for the fact I may be able to write something of this calibre, I highly doubt you will even understand the thesis of the paper, let alone the complex academic arguments put forward by myself. Anyway - I do not want to risk the paper being put forward into the public domain where it may be plagarised (it is not copyrighted as it was for a final year undergraduate module).

"I have proof of my intelligence right here, but you're not cool enough so I won't show it".

What are you asking for, Hydesland? A plebiscite? Does it have to be unanimous, or will a simple majority suffice?

Elected leaders. Just like with any other democratic country.

So is Maliki in Iraq a more legitimate leader than Mugabe is in Zimbabwe?

Let me boil down in very simple terms:

The US invaded Iraq unfairly and illegally.

The US then claimed that if the Iraqis wanted them out, they'd leave.

So, if the Iraqi people want the US to leave, the US HAS TO LEAVE. SIMPLE. AS. THAT.

it will be interesting to see what we do when that day comes.

george bush might stay. i dont think mccain or obama will.

as it is all we have to do is SAY that we have won, and we have won. staying forever is not the measure of success in this war. all our goals have been met long ago. all we need now is an excuse to get out. the democratically elected government of iraq saying "thank you but we've got it now" is a great time to declare success.

The US government only overthrows Tyrants when it's in its own interest to do so. It also does not hesitate to undermine or flat-out coup any legitimately elected government that it dislikes, sometimes replacing it with puppet Tyrants who will abide by the US economic interests.

This is true. Remember the US helped Saddam to gain power in Iraq because he opposed Iran, which was in the best interest of the US at the time.

Unfortunately, Saddam became a liability when he attacked Kuwait in the 90s. We should have ousted him then, especially after his troops gassed the people of Basra when they rebelled.

We didn't help the Iraqis when we should have. Regardless of the reasons we were given publicly, this was the real reason for invading. We owed it to the Iraqis to liberate them from Saddam's tyranny.

Finally, we came to our sense and did help them and although the initial invasion was brilliant, the planning for rebuilding the country and maintaining stability to severely flawed and poorly executed.

If the Bush Administration had handled the situation better by sending in more troops initially, and equiping those troops better in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion. In all likelihoodm, we would be praising the actions of Bush for his compassion and efforts to free oppressed peoples of the world.

Since the administration screwed up planning, and had no idea what they needed to do to rebuild the country or protect it properly. Things have turned out for the worse, and Bush is seen as an idiot with no foresight on what his actions will affect. This is just a fact of life, though the story still isn't finished. If in 20 years Iraq is a penacle of Democracy in the Middle East, Bush will be praised. If we pull out too early, and the country collapses into civil war, Bush and the next President will be laughed at. Only time will tell.

Terrorists do not kill 250,000 people each day in Africa because of needless exploitation of land and lack of sharing resources. Western societies do this to Africa each day.

So you are referring to the Imperialist European countries like Great Britain, France, and Spain right. They are the countries that laid claim to the Americas, Africa, Australia and the Middle East, until a little rebellion split off a portion of the British Empire and formed a nation, thanks to the help of the French.

Terrorists are at least acting for a cause - they're rebelling against the enforcement of western ideals we are forcing upon their societies and they're using the only form of protest that will make the west pay attention. Who are the real terrorists in this world now?


I do not know a single Western country that has troops in Africa and are killing that many people. On the other hand, in Darfor there is a genocide happening. There the government, not a western power, is responsible for this many deaths, not that many a day but still the number are staggering.

It's irrelevant because our estimation does not outweigh their right to choose, unless of course their right to choose has been suspended and their government isn't really legitimate.


Right to choose what? What style of government they want? Because the faction with the bigger guns who win the civil war has absolutely 100% fuck all to do with choice. Or are you talking about the Iraqi governments choice to ask NATO to leave (something they haven't even done yet)? Why is this choice so fundamentally important regardless of the cost? I know it's nice to stick to absolute values (something that doesn't exist) the same way right wingers do when it suits your argument, but being such an absolutist in the face of such possible dire consequences is negligible.


Seriously, I want you to look at what you just proposed there and tell me if it is at all sensible: you've just suggested that we need to, at best, ignore and disempower, and at worst fight their government in order to save their government from a significant amount of people who don't want their government. Now tell me how that's not the preferred strategy of the heir to the throne of a kingdom of idiots; at least in Vietnam, we were trying to save a puppet regime.

What the hell are you talking about? I want NATO to help the legitimate government protect itself from illegitimate factions taking power until it can protect itself without help (which it may be able to do already, hence the security chiefs hastening of the NATO forces to provide a timetable). How could this possibly involve fighting the Iraq government unless you believe they would actually want to waste troops and resources on fighting NATO (completely ensuring victory for the factions and defeat for themselves), which of course would never happen. But for the record, if that were bizarrely to be the case, then I would support an immediate withdrawal of course, because any attempt at stabilization would be fruitless.

You're insane.

I find that hilarious coming from you, someone who supports such brutal genocidal dictators and goes even further into insanity by pretending they even come close to communist.

1) "I have proof of my intelligence right here, but you're not cool enough so I won't show it".

2) So you are referring to the Imperialist European countries like Great Britain, France, and Spain right. They are the countries that laid claim to the Americas, Africa, Australia and the Middle East, until a little rebellion split off a portion of the British Empire and formed a nation, thanks to the help of the French.

3)I do not know a single Western country that has troops in Africa and are killing that many people. On the other hand, in Darfor there is a genocide happening. There the government, not a western power, is responsible for this many deaths, not that many a day but still the number are staggering.

1) Firstly, there is no such thing as intelligence, just differing levels of ignorance and stupidity. I would release it, except it does not have legally recognisable copyright.
2) Yes, I am, and we were bastards. However, Western society now comprises of Europe, North America, Canada, Austrailia etc
3) I never said that Western countries have troops in Africa, there are many more indirect methods Western society kills the people of Africa with. Severe exploitation of land, resources and lack of sharing resources are only the start of the problem.

If the Bush Administration had handled the situation better by sending in more troops initially, and equiping those troops better in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion. In all likelihoodm, we would be praising the actions of Bush for his compassion and efforts to free oppressed peoples of the world.

Since the administration screwed up planning, and had no idea what they needed to do to rebuild the country or protect it properly. Things have turned out for the worse, and Bush is seen as an idiot with no foresight on what his actions will affect. This is just a fact of life, though the story still isn't finished. If in 20 years Iraq is a penacle of Democracy in the Middle East, Bush will be praised. If we pull out too early, and the country collapses into civil war, Bush and the next President will be laughed at. Only time will tell.

I would not, I would STILL say that the invasion was wrong, and I will NEVER accept it. If the Iraqi people tells you to leave, you LEAVE, especially given that the war was wrong in the first place!

And when the US leaves Iraq with its tail between its legs for destroying a country unduly, I will rub it in the faces of everyone that called me anti-American for being against this bloodshed in the run-up to the war that I WAS RIGHT!

I will NEVER praise Bush. EVER. Bush is a genocidal maniac, he should be judged for war crimes. That's THAT.

I would not, I would STILL say that the invasion was wrong, and I will NEVER accept it. If the Iraqi people tells you to leave, you LEAVE, especially given that the war was wrong in the first place!

The Iraqis still haven't told us they want us a leave They said they wanted us to leave within 36 to 52 months after handing over the last province to the control of their military.

Granted they have asked for a timetable, but the timetable they want is very broad with nothing specific. In other words, they understand that at the moment they cannot control the country so they want someone there to make sure that they are able to handle the situation.


And when the US leaves Iraq with its tail between its legs for destroying a country unduly, I will rub it in the faces of everyone that called me anti-American for being against this bloodshed in the run-up to the war that I WAS RIGHT!

Whether this happens depends on who wins the election, unless someone does some flip-flopping between now and November. However, if we leave according to the timeframe requested by the Iraqi goverment, this won't happen. We will leave as a liberator from tyranny.

The Iraqis still haven't told us they want us a leave They said they wanted us to leave within 36 to 52 months after handing over the last province to the control of their military.

Granted they have asked for a timetable, but the timetable they want is very broad with nothing specific. In other words, they understand that at the moment they cannot control the country so they want someone there to make sure that they are able to handle the situation.




Whether this happens depends on who wins the election, unless someone does some flip-flopping between now and November. However, if we leave according to the timeframe requested by the Iraqi goverment, this won't happen. We will leave as a liberator from tyranny.

1- That's because the US destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure.

2- If that doesn't happen I'll still know that I was right and they were wrong. There were no WMDs and the war made you less safe. It will still probably happen, however, as Obama is elected. And you will not leave as liberators. You will leave as the occupying army you were.