Iraq lawmakers want U.S. forces out as part of deal
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.
Or, in the words of Bob Marley, “me say war!”.
Why are you getting hostile about me defending my fellow soldiers.
I cannot comment on what happened in Haditha, because that was a VERY special situation, much like fallujah, or the 2nd fall of ramadi, I was not there. This is why i say that I cannot comment on it. I meant no offense, so there is no need to get defensive.
the answer to any more of your “teuf, what do you think about this?” is always going to be murderers are murders, and should be punished as such, with or without a uniform.
now about it being a “convenient attitude”. Who the hell are you talking to boy? have you ever walked into a village and wondered “why the hell are there only women, girls and very young boys here?” only to have your terp come up to you and tell you that AQI came to the village and demanded that the Imam have all men of fighting age (AQI’s version of fighting age is 10 and up) report to the cell leader. when this didnt happen, they killed all of them, every single male in the entire village, I know this because i saw the mass grave.
Did the media happen to report that? HELL NO! and why not? because why would people want to read about iraqis killing iraqis when we can read about a marine throwing a puppy off of a cliff. So dont come attacking me about “convenient attitudes”
furthermore, noone is being arrogant. the atrocities that occur in a country do NOT define it. the “real iraq” is full of people, not one liners that reuters reports on a weekly basis outlining “American war crimes”
just because im posting pictures of iraqis smiling you seem to be getting upset
[quote]lixy wrote:
Ive decided to take this forum in a new direction
TC? Is that you?
Don’t be this arrogant, Teuf.
[/quote]
man, you even threw some HTML in there, you must REALLY mean it. I forgot this was your thread. I didnt mean to get out of line lixy. sorry dude!!!
Have you ever had goats milk ice cream?
[quote]TeufelHundren wrote:
Why are you getting hostile about me defending my fellow soldiers.
I cannot comment on what happened in Haditha, because that was a VERY special situation, much like fallujah, or the 2nd fall of ramadi, I was not there. This is why i say that I cannot comment on it. I meant no offense, so there is no need to get defensive. [/quote]
I asked you simple questions. No need to have been there to answer them.
For convenience, I’ll paste the questions again hoping you read them this time.
[i]Teuf, I would also like to hear your opinion on this affair.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNUaTPsL6OBHarjCDUGxJ0EYsm9AD913LKJG3
Do you honestly believe the Iraqis whose loved ones were involved in this will just forgive and forget? That they’ll somehow accept the ruling? Do you think they’ll take the word of a judge wearing the colors of the military force that invaded them in 2003 over that of their fellow countrymen? Can you understand that they might get mad and seek retaliation? [/i]
I’m not sure I got any of that. Can you rephrase?
[quote]now about it being a “convenient attitude”. Who the hell are you talking to boy? have you ever walked into a village and wondered “why the hell are there only women, girls and very young boys here?” only to have your terp come up to you and tell you that AQI came to the village and demanded that the Imam have all men of fighting age (AQI’s version of fighting age is 10 and up) report to the cell leader. when this didnt happen, they killed all of them, every single male in the entire village, I know this because i saw the mass grave.
Did the media happen to report that? HELL NO! and why not? because why would people want to read about iraqis killing iraqis when we can read about a marine throwing a puppy off of a cliff. So dont come attacking me about “convenient attitudes”
furthermore, noone is being arrogant. the atrocities that occur in a country do NOT define it. the “real iraq” is full of people, not one liners that reuters reports on a weekly basis outlining “American war crimes”
just because im posting pictures of iraqis smiling you seem to be getting upset [/quote]
Trust me, I perfectly understand that. I’ll be quite pissed if I was in your situation. But where you draw a clear line and call yourself and your fellows “the good guys”, I question the motives that got you there in the first place. You see, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a consequence of the invasion, and it’s only one of the many I (and millions of others around the world) have been warning Americans about.
True, “the real Iraq” is full of people. But then again, so is every other country. I did not start the thread, nor did I condone the war of aggression that lead to our discussion. So don’t blame me for pointing out the gratuitous horrors that could have been averted. If nothing else, to ensure that reasonable people draw the appropriate lessons from them. If you want to downplay the crimes and horror that followed the invasion, be my guest. I would be happy to debate that. But don’t think for a second that it won’t be scrutinized, and if need be, challenged.
[quote]TeufelHundren wrote:
lixy wrote:
Ive decided to take this forum in a new direction
TC? Is that you?
Don’t be this arrogant, Teuf.
man, you even threw some HTML in there, you must REALLY mean it. [/quote]
Not quite. It’s BBCode. It gets parsed by the server before getting rendered as HTML.
And technically, anything you type here follows the same process, markup tags or not. Even plain text gets parsed into HTML.
Do I detect sarcasm?
Look, threads are public. Nobody can claim ownership of any of them. Forums on the other hand are a different animal. You don’t get to decide what happens in them. Pick your words more carefully in the future.
Yes. And to quote Jake Harper, “everybody loves ice cream!”.
Incidentally, I must point out that kids in most third world countries all love football, and life does pause five times a day in majority-Muslim countries.
M’kay?
why would they trust military judges? but then again why would civilians in America trust military judges on a murder that occurred in the states.
My point is, who has jurisdiction? Would you have it that theyre turned over to the Iraqi court system? because Shi’a Iraqis do not even recieve due process. Why would anyone think that an American would.
and to rephrase. there is no differentiation between murderers, i put someone who rapes and kills an iraqi family on the same level as those who slaughtered the men and boys in that village.
I will tell you from my experience with the media is that they are uninterested with progress, to them death and destruction is process. Refute that if you will, but ive seen it with my two eyes. they dont want to know about civil programs that we implement, only when we are going on a combat patrol, or a raid on a terrorist safehouse.
[quote]lixy wrote:
TeufelHundren wrote:
lixy wrote:
Ive decided to take this forum in a new direction
TC? Is that you?
Don’t be this arrogant, Teuf.
man, you even threw some HTML in there, you must REALLY mean it.
Not quite. It’s BBCode. It gets parsed by the server before getting rendered as HTML.
And technically, anything you type here follows the same process, markup tags or not. Even plain text gets parsed into HTML.
I forgot this was your thread. I didnt mean to get out of line lixy. sorry dude!!!
Do I detect sarcasm?
Look, threads are public. Nobody can claim ownership of any of them. Forums on the other hand are a different animal. You don’t get to decide what happens in them. Pick your words more carefully in the future.
Have you ever had goats milk ice cream?
Yes. And to quote Jake Harper, “everybody loves ice cream!”.
Incidentally, I must point out that kids in most third world countries all love football, and life does pause five times a day in majority-Muslim countries.
M’kay?[/quote]
Yes of course there was sarcasm, come on now.
What is BBCode? I guess I should apologize for my lack of computer skill
Im pretty sure that Iraq is not a third world country, they have quite a bit of industry, and are more modern than a lot of countries.
but, I know this, my point was, is that Iraq is not this morose place where everyone hangs their heads because the “evil American invaders” are terrible to them.
ive been to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the southern Philippines, all of which, as i know you know, are predominately Muslim. Iraq is the only place where there i have seen complete reverence for their faith. and when I say the country closes, there is not a person on the street, and the call to prayer is the only sound to be heard. Except in Wahabist areas in Saudi, the Salah seemed more of a nuisance in all of those other countries. I was truly impressed with their conviction, so much so that it caused the renewal of my own faith.
[quote]TeufelHundren wrote:
why would they trust military judges? but then again why would civilians in America trust military judges on a murder that occurred in the states.
My point is, who has jurisdiction? Would you have it that theyre turned over to the Iraqi court system? because Shi’a Iraqis do not even recieve due process. Why would anyone think that an American would. [/quote]
True. I suspect there would be mob justice as when the Iraqis caught those Blackwater mercenaries red-handed.
I would hate for any good-faithed soldier (screw the money-grabbing mercenaries!) to experience injustice, and there’s no way in hell an American soldier would get justice in an Iraqi court. But you should also be able to understand that Iraqis will view this acquittal as outrageous, and will take the word of the Iraqi witnesses over that of your court martial anytime. Which will undoubtedly lead some to seek justice and retaliate against the military that invaded them in 2003. Not Al-Qaeda. Not a political group. Just plain ordinary people driven by revenge. I know I would consider it if I was in their place.
Yet, they get very different treatments. Not to mention that the bad apples in the U.S. military are acting in the name of the American people and operating on their dime. The monsters who slaughtered the men of that village are not (although it is likely that they’re financed by Saudi money).
This is a differentiation that’s hard to accept in your condition. But think it through rationally, and you might get an insight on other people’s perspectives.
Absolutely! It must be frustrating to see the media only report on the murderers or rapists and ignore the ones who go out of their way to make Iraq a better place. But what are you going to do? The media are a business and the sensational sells.
Progress is evident to anyone with a brain. But to be fair, it was so bad some time post-invasion that the only way it could have gone was up.
Coming from a recently colonized country, I can tell you that the occupying forces were building schools, hospitals, railroads (in fact, upwards of 90% of the network is from that era). So civil programs may not be much of a rationale. Also, the rhetoric from Washington is almost word-for-word similar to what Paris was dishing out at the time. They claimed to be protecting us, you know.
[quote]TeufelHundren wrote:
Yes of course there was sarcasm, come on now. [/quote]
I take it you failed to detect the sarcasm in my question.
No need to apologize. I didn’t know it either until last year.
Bulletin Board Code. It’s used on many forums to extend the functionality of HTML. The tags have square brackets instead of the regular <>.
Iraq could have been high up there in the third world list prior to all the warring. Now, it trails the list on many aspects.
[quote]but, I know this, my point was, is that Iraq is not this morose place where everyone hangs their heads because the “evil American invaders” are terrible to them.
ive been to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the southern Philippines, all of which, as i know you know, are predominately Muslim. Iraq is the only place where there i have seen complete reverence for their faith. and when I say the country closes, there is not a person on the street, and the call to prayer is the only sound to be heard. Except in Wahabist areas in Saudi, the Salah seemed more of a nuisance in all of those other countries. I was truly impressed with their conviction, so much so that it caused the renewal of my own faith. [/quote]
Well, people turn to God in times of hardship. I’m guessing that if they had the wealth and business of the Kuwaitis, you may see a few people in the street at prayer time. Now, in many regions of Iraq, all they got is time. I don’t necessarily see this recent “Islamization” of Iraq as a good thing. What was once a secular country now has Shari’a law meddling with the civil legal system. Women are getting the shorter end of the stick as a result. But I’m glad that the expression of their faith is helping you revive your own.
I didnt mean that they should be treated the same.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people who commit war crimes, against anyone, If it was up to me and i was a UCMJ judge I more than likely would have turned those boys over to the family whose daughter they raped, and let them do what they will.
but, on the other hand if we were to do that, or put them to death by firing squad (which is what those 101st guys got…i hope) what separates us from the assholes on Al-Jazzeera chopping people up with a dull knife.
Hey guys, I just read an editorial in today’s WSJ and I thought you might be interested in it. Cheers, ~katz
Iraq and the Election
June 6, 2008
This spring, the Iraqi army routed insurgents in three of their most important urban strongholds. These gains follow the success of the surge in crushing al Qaeda in the Sunni triangle, meaning that we are at last on the verge of winning in Iraq and securing a strategic victory in the Middle East. Question: Is this emerging victory �?? achieved at a cost of more than 4,000 American lives �?? something we are prepared to abandon after November?
The good news in Iraq is increasingly undeniable, even to the media. In March, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered Iraqi troops to retake the southern Shiite city of Basra from Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. After a shaky start, the city has now been liberated from Sadrist goon squads, and it is mostly peaceful. “The presence of the Iraqi army has made people safe, not 100%, but 90%,” a Basra barber told the Washington Post. The army is pursuing the Sadrists in their last redoubt, Amarah, while other radicals have followed Moqtada to Iran.
Mr. Maliki then repeated the exercise in Sadr City, the Mahdi Army’s Baghdad stronghold. Mr. Sadr backed down from a full-scale confrontation, following an Iranian-brokered “truce” that had all the hallmarks of a de facto surrender. Meanwhile, Iraqi army operations in the northern city of Mosul recently netted more than 1,000 suspected Sunni insurgents in al Qaeda’s last major urban sanctuary. The remaining terrorists were forced to scatter to the countryside or flee for Syria. “They’ve never been closer to defeat than they are now,” says U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who is not given to claims of premature progress.
For three consecutive weeks, the number of violent incidents have been at their lowest level since the spring of 2004. The number of U.S. combat fatalities last month, 19, was the lowest of the entire war, and Iraqi military and civilian deaths are also sharply down. In the first five months of this year, 4,500 insurgent weapons caches were found, compared to 6,900 for all of 2007. These numbers have sometimes moved in the wrong direction and may do so again, particularly during major combat operations. But the trend is unmistakably positive.
The military gains have, in turn, had salutary political consequences. Mr. Maliki’s decision to take Basra forced Iraq’s political class to take sides �?? either with the government, or the Sadrist militias. All but the Sadrists chose Mr. Maliki, even some who had thought of trying to topple the government. The prime minister has emerged stronger and with more support from all ethnic groups, not merely from fellow Shiites. Insofar as “political reconciliation” is supposed to be the acid test of progress in Iraq, it is happening.
The Iraqi military is also improving, partly from the confidence gained from its recent successes. The government now counts more than half a million men under arms, and the army is emerging as a reliable and multiethnic national institution. The lead division that took Basra in March was largely led by Sunni officers, who were nonetheless welcomed by the city’s Shiites.
All of this means that it is now possible to foresee not merely a stable Iraq, but also one that can achieve our original strategic goals in the region. The strategist Frederick Kagan �?? an architect of the surge �?? makes the analogy to West Germany during the Cold War. A secure and pro-American Iraq would be crucial to expanding U.S. influence in the Arab heart of the Middle East, and especially to containing Iran. A democratic Iraq can serve as an alternative pole of Shiite power in the region, as well as an alternative political model to theocratic, radical Tehran.
All of this depends, however, on securing the progress of the last 18 months, and this means not departing too soon. The gains of recent weeks mean that the five surge brigades can return home this summer without sacrificing security. But both al Qaeda and Iranian-backed Special Groups are likely to stage some kind of offensive in the fall �?? not least to influence the Iraqi provincial and U.S. elections.
The insurgents know they’ve lost militarily, so their goal will be to make enough violent noise to prevail politically. Inside Iraq, the Sadrists will try to intimidate Iraqis from supporting competing Shiite groups. But the bigger immediate prize will be in the U.S., where they hope that a President Barack Obama would follow through on his pledge to abandon Iraq.
That kind of withdrawal is the only way we can now lose in Iraq. The minute it is announced, the Iraqis who have allied themselves with us would have to recalculate their prospects in a post-U.S. era. Iran and its proxies would immediately leap in influence �?? precisely the kind of outcome that Mr. Obama now claims to want to prevent. Progress toward political reconciliation might well stop, as the various Iraq factions worry about their own security without America’s mediating presence.
By contrast, a permanent U.S. military presence �?? albeit one reduced over time �?? would give Iraqis the confidence to continue their political maturation. Another Iraq national election is scheduled for next year, and it is an opportunity for democracy to put down even deeper roots. It’s crucial for Americans to understand that, apart from the Sadrists, all factions of Iraqi politics now support some kind of U.S.-Iraq status of forces agreement to succeed the U.N. mandate that expires later this year.
We are winning in Iraq. Indeed, we can now say with certainty that we will win, as long as we don’t repeat our earlier mistakes and seek to draw down too soon. This is the improving Iraq that the next U.S. President will inherit, and it is the heart of the Iraq debate Americans should have in November.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Hey guys, I just read an editorial in today’s WSJ and I thought you might be interested in it. Cheers, ~katz[/quote]
The Wall Street Journal? Seriously?
What’s next? FOX News? PNAC’s newsletter?
See, this is the kind of rubbish I’m talking about.
The only people who won anything out of Iraq are Islamists. That includes Al-Qaeda style groups who saw their potential recruiting base go through the roof, and the Iranian government whom gained stronger regional power status with Hussein gone.
The rest of talk about “winning” is bollocks. Iraqis lost so much it would be indecent to even start talking about it. Americans (besides the piles of bodies and disabilities) had their money poured in the sand and exhausted all the credibility and sympathy capital the rest of the world had to offer.
You can speak of progress if you will and it is undeniable that some has been made, but to speak in terms of victory or winning is insulting people’s intellects.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Do you honestly believe the Iraqis whose loved ones were involved in this will just forgive and forget? That [/quote]
You seem to excuse the terrorist scum who fired upon these soldiers. If they soldiers were not fired upon by terrorists from these people’s homes, the soldiers would have had no reason to go on a search and destroy mission there.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Do I detect sarcasm?
Look, threads are public. Nobody can claim ownership of any of them. Forums on the other hand are a different animal. You don’t get to decide what happens in them. Pick your words more carefully in the future.
[/quote]
Now you’re a mod?
He did not change the topic. The thread is called “the real Iraq”. That is what he is posting about.
I didnt mean that they should be treated the same.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people who commit war crimes, against anyone, If it was up to me and i was a UCMJ judge I more than likely would have turned those boys over to the family whose daughter they raped, and let them do what they will.
but, on the other hand if we were to do that, or put them to death by firing squad (which is what those 101st guys got…i hope) what separates us from the assholes on Al-Jazzeera chopping people up with a dull knife.
I didnt mean that they should be treated the same.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people who commit war crimes, against anyone, If it was up to me and i was a UCMJ judge I more than likely would have turned those boys over to the family whose daughter they raped, and let them do what they will.
but, on the other hand if we were to do that, or put them to death by firing squad (which is what those 101st guys got…i hope) what separates us from the assholes on Al-Jazzeera chopping people up with a dull knife.[/quote]
I read it alright. I just didn’t see any question nor anything worth commenting on.
We clearly don’t define war crimes the same way. I extend that to bombing and invading countries unnecessarily, while for a soldier of the invading force, it is limited to what happened afterwards.
You’ll find that wars of aggression are universally considered crimes though. It’s a truism and there ain’t much point quibbling about it. It’s been done to death and neither of us would be learning anything new.
I must also point out that never, oh never, will I take “the assholes on Al-Jazzeera chopping people up with a dull knife” as moral reference. Once you start comparing your actions to the scum of the earth, you cross a dangerous line and can justify any action.
Up to recently, it was done with Nazis. Now, the door has been opened to every possible abuse that’s less outrageous than “chopping people up with a dull knife”.
I wasn’t trying to justify any action. I was saying that by handing people over to be tortured or left to the mercy of the people they have offended, THEN what separates us from the “scum of the earth”
[quote]TeufelHundren wrote:
I wasn’t trying to justify any action. I was saying that by handing people over to be tortured or left to the mercy of the people they have offended, THEN what separates us from the “scum of the earth” [/quote]
I know.
But how about NOT creating the environment where foreigners in boots “offend” others? How about going to war only when it’s absolutely necessary? How about thinking rationally instead of buying into the propaganda, giving in to the “patriotism” fever and rushing into wars of aggression?
All of this was, only predictable, but predicted and shouted out to anyone who would listen by MILLIONS of people around the world.
The US army isn’t special. Kids in arms put in a position of authority will abuse their position. That will in turn breed hatred. It’s bloody common sense!
[quote]lixy wrote:
I know.
But how about NOT creating the environment where foreigners in boots “offend” others? How about going to war only when it’s absolutely necessary? How about thinking rationally instead of buying into the propaganda, giving in to the “patriotism” fever and rushing into wars of aggression?
All of this was, only predictable, but predicted and shouted out to anyone who would listen by MILLIONS of people around the world.
The US army isn’t special. Kids in arms put in a position of authority will abuse their position. That will in turn breed hatred. It’s bloody common sense![/quote]
Lixy, im going to keep my cool even though you keep getting fired up. Im asking politely, please chill.
Now
Again, as you know, the initial invasion of the war in Iraq was a direct result of Saddam Hussein not allowing weapons inspectors into his country to prove his innocence.
Its quite simple. He has used chemical weapons before, both on Iranian forces, Americans in the first gulf war, and on his own people. Now, that being said, the United Nations imposed the laws that Hussein allow the weapons inspectors to conduct their checks of his weapons facilities. Instead of working with the U.N he instead denied access and hid behind the fact that he may indeed have WMD’s and who are we to care.
well, again we’re arguing the cause of the war and that would be just petty quibbling.
As far as the soldiers, you cannot say that because someone is given power that they will abuse it, THAT is bloody common sense. These are good kids, and there isnt something in that desert that turns them into mindless killing zombies.
The U.S Army has had over 220,000 troops deployed to Iraq, and I cannot think that even the smallest fraction have commited the crimes you like to think are regular occurences