[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, is it technically an occupation when an ELECTED governance has asked for and approved of foreign troops, and continues to do so? Simply put, aren’t these ‘resistance fighters’ combating the will of it’s elected government?
[/quote]
Welcome back, Sloth! And yes, they are attacking the government for which the Iraqis voted in droves. The world should be applauding us and helping. The fact that they don’t says a lot about CHARACTER…
Applause to Sloth
I can tell you from personal experience, Driving past the same Mosque day after day, training my 50 .cal on it–waiting. The same Mosque where day after day you would find 2-3 IED’s. The same Mosque near where a suicide bomber drove into my convoy.
To me it is only common sense to take out target that repeatedly creates death and destruction to fellow soldiers–and yet the US commanders went out of their way to never fire or attack these places of Worship. If this hospital came under attack by US forces you can be Damn Sure there was a reason. Especially now that the war has become the political (missing a good word) that it is. It is interesting how these anomolies are pointed at as the norm and not the exception.
How about we try and apply some logic to these “freedom fighters”. How is attacking the US forces in Iraq expediting said forces redeployment from Iraq. “A” does not equal ~/ “B” nor will it ever yield such results.
Period. However…perhaps if you calculate in the Emperialism the US is “obviously” trying to create you will come up with a completely different answer.
How is attacking the US forces in Iraq expediting said forces redeployment from Iraq. “A” does not equal ~/ “B” nor will it ever yield such results.
I really don’t think these idiots have any idea what they are doing. They are taught to hate and taught to kill and there is no logic to their actions.
case in point, the deal in Pakistan. They are starting to kill each other. Which means, of course, the less we have to kill.
The situation about the insurgents hiding in Mosques is interesting. In Iraq, if we fired at a Mosque, there’d be hell to pay. In Somalia, the Ethopians are taking out the insurgents with howitzers and tanks (God bless um) and no one seems to care. You don’t hear anyone whining. Maybe cause their taking out non-arabic fighters, who knows?
One more thing, ever notice how the terrorists manage to kill hundreds of civilians in Iraq, with suicide and car bombers and nothing is said about it, but when the US strikes a target, there’s always a child dead in there somewhere. I suppose that’s true when you’re dealing with human shields, but I can’t stand the blatant anti-US propaganda.
[quote]Valentinius wrote:
How about we try and apply some logic to these “freedom fighters”. How is attacking the US forces in Iraq expediting said forces redeployment from Iraq. “A” does not equal ~/ “B” nor will it ever yield such results.
[/quote]
Welcome to the forum.
To answer your question, please see the democratic Congress.
The attacks have deeply shaken the code pinkers and they are running for the hills.
JeffR
[quote]Sloth wrote:
…
[/quote]
Thanks for putting out a well-thought post. It has the merit of making clear what I suspected. i.e: that you don’t differentiate between the two.
Yes, a lot of trouble-makers have hijacked the “liberation” cause to push their own agenda, but a legitimate resistance cannot be dismissed. I know some of the couple of millions of refugees who fled Iraq after the invasion, and all can attest to that fact.
Being realistic, do you expect people who lost their homes, families and friends due to US bombing, saw the Abu-Ghraib abuses and watched how the saw-called elected government is actively coerced by Washington into passing laws that legitimize the pillaging of their resources to sit quietly or applaude what’s happening? That’s a naive perspective.
Yet, most polls show the majority of Iraqis opposed to US presence on their soil. But then again, the majority of Americans oppose the war, combatting the will of it’s elected government…
[quote]40yarddash wrote:
I defenitely read somewhere that the Iranian people, most of whom are under 30, don’t really like their theocracy and they might revolt against their clergy someday[/quote]
It’s a self-evident truth.
It’s just that given the choice between the actual independent regime and one that is client of Washington, very few would support the latter.
I’m impressed at the level of insight you displayed in the second part of the post.
However, you’re assuming that Washington did nothing to support secessionist movements in the Arab region of Iran, nor did it interfere with every single mean at its disposal to destabilize the theocracy. Who’re you kidding?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Thanks for putting out a well-thought post. It has the merit of making clear what I suspected. i.e: that you don’t differentiate between the two.
[/quote]
You misread my post then. As I said, there are continued talks with some “resistance” groups. There are some groups that may be approached differently.
My point was that most of these “reistance” groups are the biggest killers of Iraqis. And, that the remaining “resistance” groups are thwarting the will of an ELECTED Iraqi government. Therefore, prolonging the chaos and death Iraq will experience while that ELECTED Iraqi government tries to secure the streets of Iraq from sectarian death squads and Islamic extremists.
[/quote]
[quote]
"Yes, a lot of trouble-makers…[/quote]
Trouble-makers egg houses and pick fights at the local bar. That kind of stuff. Terrorists deliberately bomb markets and use children as suicide bombs. [quote]…have hijacked the “liberation” cause to push their own agenda, but a legitimate resistance cannot be dismissed.[/quote]
First, there is nothing liberating about these resistance groups, or they would have joined Iraq’s security forces to protect the ELECTED government and it’s citizens from the death squads and market bombers. Instead, they made the ability to secure Iraq much harder, and the common citizen now pays in blood due to this.
Second, there are no legitimate resistance groups in Iraq. Remember the elections? They are resisting the will of an elected government. A government elected by a HUGE turnout of Iraqi’s. There is a political outlet in Iraq for change.
[quote]
Being realistic, do you expect people who lost their homes, families and friends due to US bombing, saw the Abu-Ghraib abuses and watched how the saw-called elected government is actively coerced by Washington into passing laws that legitimize the pillaging of their resources to sit quietly or applaude what’s happening? That’s a naive perspective.[/quote]
Nope, but I also realize that many Iraqi’s know what would happen with an immediate withdraw of US troops…slaughter on a much grander scale, fall of elected governance, rise of warlords and their death squads…yeah, basically total chaos. Pretty much what we saw in our withdraw from Vietnam…slaughter, slaughter, slaughter.
Now, are you so naive as to believe the common Iraqi, one who wants no part in these resistance groups, doesn’t resent his life possibly ending in a market bombing? That he could be executed by a death squad and dumped in a ditch because he accepted food, clothing, or medical/school equipment from US troops? Or, because he helped the US build schools, hospitals, power plants?
And, that your “legitimate resistance groups” are thwarting his elected officials efforts in securing himself, family, and friends from the above mentioned dangers?
You know what the common man in Iraq is seeing now? He’s seeing that fellow Iraqis, and their foreign patrons (Iran, for example), are by far the greatest killers of Iraqi men, women, and children. Have you read the news lately? Iraqis are killing far more fellow Iraqis than the US is. By a large margin.
[quote]
Sloth:
By the way, is it technically an occupation when an ELECTED governance has asked for and approved of foreign troops, and continues to do so? Simply put, aren’t these ‘resistance fighters’ combating the will of it’s elected government?
Lixy:
Yet, most polls show the majority of Iraqis opposed to US presence on their soil. But then again, the majority of Americans oppose the war, combatting the will of it’s elected government…[/quote]
Of course they are. Why wouldn’t Iraqis want to be able to secure their own country. Unfortunately, your resistance groups are making that extremely difficult for the elected Iraqi government to do. However, the majority of polls I’ve seen on the subject did not favor immediate US/Ally withdraw either.
And, huh? How is the Iraq war combating the will of America’s elected government?
You do realize the elected US government authorized the Iraqi war? Your comparison would have been valid if, let’s say, some citizen group went to war against the approval of the elected US government.
By the way, you didn’t answer the question. Is it an occupation when the elected body has approved of, and asked for, the continued help of US/Ally troops to secure Iraq? Is it legitimate resistance when using violence and death to thwart the will of an elected government? When, there are future elections coming up to attempt to make a peaceful change?
Before you answer that just remember, there will be more elections. We are not discussing a situation in which anti-occupation factions have no political outlet. They can, and do, form peaceful anti-occupation parties to support nominees.
Finally, I’d ask you the following. What kind of Iraq will most likely exist if your ‘legitimate’ fighters succeed? A free and democratic Iraq? Do you really think the ELECTED government can secure Iraq on it’s own? Do you honestly think these ‘resistance’ groups give a damn about a ‘FREE’ and ‘DEMOCRATIC’ Iraqi governance for all it’s people?
Or, do you predict a chaotic and sectarian/tribal warlordism? One with completely unopposed sectarian death squads ruling regions of Iraq, under the command of clerical warlords.
Of course, one of these sectarian Warlords might be able to kill enough people to force his version of Islamic totalitariansim upon the whole of the nation, thus ending sectarian conflict. Which future do you honestly feel Iraq will have with a hasty US withdraw?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, you didn’t answer the question. Is it an occupation when the elected body has approved of, and asked for, the continued help of US/Ally troops to secure Iraq? Is it legitimate resistance when using violence and death to thwart the will of an elected government? When, there are future elections coming up to attempt to make a peaceful change?
…
Finally, I’d ask you the following. What kind of Iraq will most likely exist if your ‘legitimate’ fighters succeed? A free and democratic Iraq? Do you really think the ELECTED government can secure Iraq on it’s own? Do you honestly think these ‘resistance’ groups give a damn about a ‘FREE’ and ‘DEMOCRATIC’ Iraqi governance for all it’s people? [/quote]
Here’s my take on it; If US troops withdraw, the majority of Shiites will take power. That will give Iran more momentum in the region, and that’s something Washington cannot allow.
Now, I understand that having wrecked the country in the first place, Bush argues that he feels obligated to “secure it”. Hardly a solid argument.
I don’t know if those resistance groups care much about a “Free and Democratic Iraq”, but I’m certain US planners don’t give a damn. The number of democracies that were overthrown by the US clearly show that the only thing Washington cares about is a docile and obedient regime.
I’m also pretty certain that terrorists will have a harder time recruiting suicide bombers if US troops withdrew from Iraq. Didn’t you lose sight of the publically presented motive for the war?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Here’s my take on it; If US troops withdraw, the majority of Shiites will take power. That will give Iran more momentum in the region, and that’s something Washington cannot allow.
[/quote]
Not much to your answer. What kind of a Shia faction? They’re not some monolithic group. One that will continue a democratic type of governance, or not? One that will aim for a non-sectarian governance, or not? How will they take power? Surely the Kurds and Sunni won’t just stand back and watch these Shiites soley take power. So you do predict much more in the way of slaughter, right?
Those resistance groups are using terror and violence to thwart an elected governance’s ability to eventually and reasonably secure that country. On the contrary, the US and ISF are the one’s protecting that ELECTED governance. It’s not the other way around.
[quote]
I’m also pretty certain that terrorists will have a harder time recruiting suicide bombers if US troops withdrew from Iraq. Didn’t you lose sight of the publically presented motive for the war?[/quote]
But didn’t you pretty much admit that one side would end up making a grab for sole dominance? You honestly thank the Kurds and Sunni will just watch that happen? The recruitment of suicide bombers would sky rocket, if anything. Sectarian conflict would spread dramatically as one side attempted to take home all the chips.
Have you lost site of the fact that many, if not most, of these bombers are used in markets, pilgrimages, funerals, weddings, schools, etc.? Those are sectarian/terroristic targets. How could you think suicide bombing could get anything but worse?
Now please, expand on your prediction regarding Iraq after a hasty US withdraw.
What will it be like? Don’t just say, “Shiites will take sole power.” How? What will happen while they attempt to do this?
What kind of governance will they install once they’ve accomplished it? Will the other sects of Iraqi’s stop fighting them once it’s happened?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Here’s my take on it; If US troops withdraw, the majority of Shiites will take power. That will give Iran more momentum in the region, and that’s something Washington cannot allow.
[/quote]
Washington cannot allow? Or, Iran SHOULDN’T be allowed to gain more momentum in the region? Interested in your opinion on that.
Lixy:
Here’s my take on it; If US troops withdraw, the majority of Shiites will take power. That will give Iran more momentum in the region, and that’s something Washington cannot allow.
It may also be important to note that the Wahhabist’s in Saudi Arabi will not allow this either. So there is an even greater risk to destabilization in the region. Of course…this could be our answer to the whole problem…If you like paying $10 for a gallon of gas…Let’s just let Iran and Saudi duke it out.
Now, I understand that having wrecked the country in the first place, Bush argues that he feels obligated to “secure it”. Hardly a solid argument.
Yes, because it was all gumdrop smiles and lollipop lanes before the Evil Empire arrived. If Bush weren’t fixing it, the point of your post would be…Oh those crummy Americans just bomb the country and leave the infrastructure demolished. So now being proactive and taking responsibility for you actions has become a bad thing. Interesting.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Now, I understand that having wrecked the country in the first place, Bush argues that he feels obligated to “secure it”. Hardly a solid argument.
[/quote]
Sorry, this caught my eye too. Did Bush wreck the country? Or, did your resistance groups wreck the country? Think about that one very carefully. What would we have by now had the ‘resistance’ groups remained peaceful?
Well, for sure utility (electric/water), schools, and hospital projects would be much, much further along. Reason being is that a huge portion of Ally provided funds have been diverted to protect these projects instead of getting them finished.
And, when they’re finished, they’re attacked, over and over again. Yep, the ‘resistance’ groups have really screwed over their fellow Iraqis.
Also, had your resistance groups not chosen the path of violence, instead of political avenues, the elected Iraqi government would need to only spend lives and resources on fighting foreign fighters. Which would reduce violence in that nation considerably.
Now, having said that, you’d see an Iraq with better medical care, education, and utilities. You’d also have a much safer Iraq. And, you’d be see an elected government able to get down to the business of advancing Iraq’s prosperity. Instead, they have to put the vast majority of their time attempting to secure Iraq from your ‘resistance’ groups.
Further, you would have already seen a continued downsizing of American troops as Iraqi forces would have been able to take over security at a much, much, much faster rate. Remember some of the earlier predictions at when we’d see redeployment of troops out of Iraq?
It was these ‘resistance’ groups that thwarted the ability to do so. Again, those groups have done nothing but bring and prolong chaos. While, taking actions completely counter productive to their supposed goal…the mere removal of US troops.
Now, I’ll ask you. Who is CAUSING the slaughter and chaos. Who is CAUSING the US, and the elected Iraqi government’s forces, to be not be able to secure Iraq quickly and painlessly, therefore, prolonging the Iraqi government’s need for outside troops.
Imagine two scenarios, if you will. The ‘resistance’ groups lay down all arms and go the route of using political outlets. What is the future for Iraq? It’s economic, educational, medical, and security future?
Now, imagine they don’t lay down their weapons. Instead, the US cuts and runs. What now for Iraq’s future?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not much to your answer. What kind of a Shia faction? They’re not some monolithic group. One that will continue a democratic type of governance, or not? One that will aim for a non-sectarian governance, or not? How will they take power? Surely the Kurds and Sunni won’t just stand back and watch these Shiites soley take power. So you do predict much more in the way of slaughter, right?[/quote]
I can’t tell what type of governance will result from the Shiites taking power, but it will obviously not be friendly to the US.
I also think the slaughter will decrease once you withdraw.
C’mon, you can’t be seriously considering that the US is there to protect anything else but its interests in the region. The US is notorious for using terror to thwart and overthrow elected governments.
Here’s my logic; Shiites are more numerous, so they’ll end up winning in a democratic vote. If the violent way is chosen, they still come out on top because Iran will support them. Sunnis won’t ally themselves with the US for obvious reasons.
You think? Funny thing is that you dismissed all the warnings from the international community about that happening and went to war anyway.
Islamist terrorism in Iraq will go down if you withdrew. Am I the only one to remember something called “war on terror”?
[quote]Now please, expand on your prediction regarding Iraq after a hasty US withdraw.
What will it be like? Don’t just say, “Shiites will take sole power.” How? What will happen while they attempt to do this?[/quote]
I explained above that both ways, the Shiites will ultimately take power. Thru ballots if possible and spilling blood if necessary. As long as there are US bases and troops in Iraq, there will be unrest.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I can’t tell what type of governance will result from the Shiites taking power [/quote] So what are you basing your further statements on? [quote]but it will obviously not be friendly to the US.
I also think the slaughter will decrease once you withdraw.[/quote]
How can you possibly believe it would decrease? You honestly think the Sunni, Kurds will sit back and allow the Shia to rule? No way that will ever happen. I don’t care how big the Shia population is , it’s not going to happen. It will be all out open sectarian war, dwarfing the violence you see now.
And you can’t dispute that the US is protecting the elected government, trying to build utilites, hospitals, schools, secure the streets, etc. And, you can’t dispute that your resistance fighters are opposing and disrupting all of those things.
In a representative democracy, population won’t mean as much. And, the Shia were more populous than the Sunni in the past, yet were ruled by the Sunnis. Furthermore, Saudia Arabia has already stated that they’d pump resources into the Sunni side in any such event of a Shia/Iran total power grab.
[quote]
Islamist terrorism in Iraq will go down if you withdrew. Am I the only one to remember something called “war on terror”? [/quote]
You state that the Shiites would make an attempt to take control power solely. Yet, you turn around and state terrorism would go down? Are you kidding me? You act like the Kurds, Sunni, Saudi Arabia, etc. would just hand the keys to the Shia . Sectarian terrorism would absolutely dwarf what we see today. Are your sincere in your posts? It just seems like you’re willing to overlook reality just to belittle the US. I’m having a hard time believing, you honestly believe, your last responses.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Washington cannot allow? Or, Iran SHOULDN’T be allowed to gain more momentum in the region? Interested in your opinion on that.[/quote]
In the international scene, the US is a bully. For that reason, it cannot allow succesful defiance to go unpunished or it’s the end of its “bully” line of business.
Do I think a stronger and more influential Iran is good for the stability of the region or the world? You bet I do. Its neighbors are belligerent, all very powerful militarily (Iraq and Afghanistan are currently occupied by the US) and all could use its oil or its strategic location. An able Iran will deter any such attempts and strenghten stability in the region.
My 2 cents.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And you can’t dispute that the US is protecting the elected government, trying to build utilites, hospitals, schools, secure the streets, etc.[/quote]
Well, that’s the US official line…
If you mean US-style oligarchical reprentative democracy, then you’re right. Otherwise, I have a hard time seeing what you mean.
A Sunni dictator, might I add.
Saudi support is nothing. They have virtually no military expertise and no weapon industry.
I understand your confusion. Note that I said Islamist terrorism. That means Al-Qaeda style bastards. Those are currently thriving thanks to US interventionism.
Lixy said:
“Saudi support is nothing. They have virtually no military expertise and no weapon industry.”
They don’t need any. They are funding al-qaeda and the ruskies are supplying the arms. Al-qaeda has terrorist military expertise.
As far as your statement about Iran stabilizing the region, let me ask you something, are you a sunni or a shite? How come you think Saudi Arabia and their terrorist Wahabbis are nutjobs and Iran and their terrorist extremists are a stabilizing force?
As far as the US withdrawing and terrorist attacks stopping, it didn’t stop when Israel withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza, what makes you think it will stop if the US withdraws from Iraq?
This is the reason why we haven’t attacked Iran yet.
http://ortiz.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=267&Itemid=78
This assumes that the conditions were ideal before we went to war. Alot of people in the military will tell you it was hard to get even a toothbrush under the cutbacks that the Clinton administration made. You can’t rebuild an Army overnight. I understand that going to war will not help this any.
However the one positive thing i will note–We at least now have a battle tested and trained Army. Something that was waining w/ the retirement of Soldiers from the Vietnam-and later Desert Storm Era.
And just to agree w/ the outrageous amounts of money being thrown at re-enlistment–i have seen bonuses cap out at $150,000. But I think it’s worth it in order to retain Experienced professional leadership-who could be making that in one year easy on the outside.