Iraq steadily getting worse

Frederico

Sober reading from the Red Cross..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6543377.stm

Is there debate anymore on this?

Manic Moran

That the situation sucks? No, I don't think anyone's debating that bit.

NTM

Fratton Fred

what do you do though? I'm of the opinion that pulling all the western forces out would cause even more bloodshed, but maybe that's the answer, bring this to a bloody conclusion.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

That the situation sucks? No, I don't think anyone's debating that bit.

NTM

No, the debate has moved on from whether or not the war was right (and the pro war side completely lost that debate) and is now whether or not the occupation should continue (and the anti occupation side are being proven more correct every day)

Unfortunately, the decisions about these things are all made by people on the right, not in the right.

sovtek

Fratton Fred wrote:

what do you do though? I'm of the opinion that pulling all the western forces out would cause even more bloodshed, but maybe that's the answer, bring this to a bloody conclusion.

I disagree. It's the occupation that caused the situation and it's the occupation that's making it worse. It divides (as always) the population.
It's quite possible that the occupiers fomented the civil war in the first place. How they then can be any part of the solution is beyond me.

Akrasia

Fratton Fred wrote:

what do you do though? I'm of the opinion that pulling all the western forces out would cause even more bloodshed, but maybe that's the answer, bring this to a bloody conclusion.

It's all totally academic because the POTUS has no intention of pulling the troops out any time soon. (this was never about the Iraqi people, why should they care when hundreds of thousands of them die horribly)

marco murphy

There is one voice that unites Iraqis and thats fcuk the US.
If the troops leave and let Iraqis control their own borders then theres no reason for Al Qieda to see Shias as US allies. The fact that Iraq is occupied by US and Brit troops, the Shias are seen as collaborators.

Akrasia

Poblachtach wrote:

There is one voice that unites Iraqis and thats fcuk the US.
If the troops leave and let Iraqis control their own borders then theres no reason for Al Qieda to see Shias as US allies. The fact that Iraq is occupied by US and Brit troops, the Shias are seen as collaborators.

100% correct

Manic Moran

More like 70% correct.

There is little doubt that part of the objection that the Sunnis have is that because of American interference, the Shia are now generally in charge, and they've taken umbrage at this. However, Al Quaeda has outstayed its welcome amongst the Sunni population as well, and in places like Anbar province is in as much a state of conflict with the local Sunni population as the Sunnis are against the Shia in other locations. AlQ is trying to keep Sunni tribes in line by assasination of tribal leaders, and the tribes are ganging up on AlQ. It's really quite a mess.

NTM

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

More like 70% correct.

There is little doubt that part of the objection that the Sunnis have is that because of American interference, the Shia are now generally in charge, and they've taken umbrage at this. However, Al Quaeda has outstayed its welcome amongst the Sunni population as well, and in places like Anbar province is in as much a state of conflict with the local Sunni population as the Sunnis are against the Shia in other locations. AlQ is trying to keep Sunni tribes in line by assasination of tribal leaders, and the tribes are ganging up on AlQ. It's really quite a mess.

NTM

But if you take out the reason d'etre for al qaeda to be in Iraq, their support base will dissolve and they will fall apart.

The IRA would be long gone if the British hadn't been occupying the north of Ireland.....

Jimboo_Jones

Anyone see this on CNN over the weekend

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html

seems there is a large group of terrorists that the US are protecting, despite calls from the Iraq goverment for them to leave the country. I guess they are keeping them arround just incase they can be used against Iran at a later date....

Fratton Fred

Akrasia wrote:

But if you take out the reason d'etre for al qaeda to be in Iraq, their support base will dissolve and they will fall apart.

The IRA would be long gone if the British hadn't been occupying the north of Ireland.....

yeah, murdered in their beds by loyalist paramilitaries (Probably).

That is a very simpistic way of looking at things, read the accoutns in that news article, we are talking kids being blown up here, not a few paramilitary types slugging it out.

This has turned into a sectarian civl war, caused by the downfall of Saddam, people are targeting hospitals, schools and markets. someone needs to police the situation and the Iraqi police seem incapable at the moment.

Pulling the US, UK and other UN forces out surely will lead to an escalation of violence.

El Stuntman

Akrasia wrote:

But if you take out the reason d'etre for al qaeda to be in Iraq, their support base will dissolve and they will fall apart.

doesn't seem to have worked in Algeria

Jimboo_Jones

I thought that the trouble in Algeria started when the army canceled an election which an islamist party won?

I think it would be madness for America to pull out of Iraq at the moment, I think that they should have gone in with many more troops and that if anything they should pump even more troops in.

Of course, not going in in the first place would have been the best option. Waiting until Afghanistan was completed would have been the next best option. But I guess none of us have a time machine.

Akrasia

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I think it would be madness for America to pull out of Iraq at the moment, I think that they should have gone in with many more troops and that if anything they should pump even more troops in.

Do you still think America should stay in Iraq now that they're repeating the same disasterous policies that failed in Vietnam and Palestine

Faced with an ever-more ruthless insurgency in Baghdad - despite President George Bush's "surge" in troops - US forces in the city are now planning a massive and highly controversial counter-insurgency operation that will seal off vast areas of the city, enclosing whole neighbourhoods with barricades and allowing only Iraqis with newly issued ID cards to enter.

The campaign of "gated communities" - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq.

They're going to 'help the Iraqi people' by turning their communities into outdoor prisons and indiscriminately locking up men of military age and anyone who looks a little bit like a terrorist.

The latest "security" plan, of which The Independent has learnt the details, was concocted by General David Petraeus, the current US commander in Baghdad, during a six-month command and staff course at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Those attending the course - American army generals serving in Iraq and top officers from the US Marine Corps, along with, according to some reports, at least four senior Israeli officers - participated in a series of debates to determine how best to "turn round" the disastrous war in Iraq.

The initial emphasis of the new American plan will be placed on securing Baghdad market places and predominantly Shia Muslim areas. Arrests of men of military age will be substantial. The ID card project is based upon a system adopted in the city of Tal Afar by General Petraeus's men - and specifically by Colonel H R McMaster, of the 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment - in early 2005, when an eight-foot "berm" was built around the town to prevent the movement of gunmen and weapons. General Petraeus regarded the campaign as a success although Tal Afar, close to the Syrian border, has since fallen back into insurgent control....
FM 3-24 is harsh in its analysis of what counter-insurgency forces must do to eliminate violence in Iraq. "With good intelligence," it says, "counter-insurgents are like surgeons cutting out cancerous tissue while keeping other vital organs intact." But another former senior US officer has produced his own pessimistic conclusions about the "gated" neighbourhood project.

"Once the additional troops are in place the insurrectionists will cut the lines of communication from Kuwait to the greatest extent they are able," he told The Independent. "They will do the same inside Baghdad, forcing more use of helicopters. The helicopters will be vulnerable coming into the patrol bases, and the enemy will destroy as many as they can. The second part of their plan will be to attempt to destroy one of the patrol bases. They will begin that process by utilising their people inside the 'gated communities' to help them enter. They will choose bases where the Iraqi troops either will not fight or will actually support them.

"The American reaction will be to use massive firepower, which will destroy the neighbourhood that is being 'protected'."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2439530.ece

Ulster9

Of course the US should pull its forces out of Iraq.I think Iraq should now be left to the mercy of those you live there.The damage has been done, the Iraqi state has been ruined and the countries prospects destroyed for twenty years at least.
The only people who can remove the Al-Qaida influence are the Iraqis themselves but this will not happen while US forces remain in the country.I suspect the US will not withdraw until its oil interests are secured.
Its unbelievable that the US have been allowed to do this, and are even considering attacking Iran as well.I dont think its a exaggeration to suggest the current US administration as destructive on the world as the 3rd Reich.

Akrasia

Ulster9 wrote:

Of course the US should pull its forces out of Iraq.I think Iraq should now be left to the mercy of those you live there.The damage has been done, the Iraqi state has been ruined and the countries prospects destroyed for twenty years at least.
The only people who can remove the Al-Qaida influence are the Iraqis themselves but this will not happen while US forces remain in the country.I suspect the US will not withdraw until its oil interests are secured.
Its unbelievable that the US have been allowed to do this, and are even considering attacking Iran as well.I dont think its a exaggeration to suggest the current US administration as destructive on the world as the 3rd Reich.

Well, considering that Hitler was elected in 1933 and by his 6th year in office he had taken over Austria and Czech, and he didn't attack France until 1940, his political career is following a similar trajectory to George W at the moment (Bush still has 2 years to start world war 3 and then start his own islamic holocaust or whatever his twisted administration will think of as 'the final solution' to 'islamofascism'

Frederico

Yeah the main problem is the occupiers, but I firmly believe that Al Qaeda will push very hard for an Islamic state if/when the Americans leave.

In a strange turn of events, Bush can stick by his guns and still get out of Iraq (the dems choosing withdrawal date).

I think people forget that groups like Al Qaeda are making a huge sacrifice and massive effort to fight the great Satan and chiefly to turn Iraq into a huge mess, they really are going to want their cake after this is done. Something perhaps like Mogadishu.

CPT. SURF

Bush will veto the bill calling for complete troop pullout by March 08.

There is not enough support of the bill in Congress to get the 3/4 majority needed to override that veto.

That means the troops will be there for at least another year. Probably till the end of the Bush Presidency. If a Democrat wins the office (Clinton/Obama) there will most likely be troop pullout then.

Akrasia

CPT. SURF wrote:

Bush will veto the bill calling for complete troop pullout by March 08.

There is not enough support of the bill in Congress to get the 3/4 majority needed to override that veto.

That means the troops will be there for at least another year. Probably till the end of the Bush Presidency. If a Democrat wins the office (Clinton/Obama) there will most likely be troop pullout then.

Not if Bush starts another conflict with Iran there won't and there is still every chance of that happening.

Zambia

They increased the tour of Duty from 12 months to 15 for regular US troops.

I would love to hear someone come up with a decent plan to resolve this rather than harking back to the scene of the crime. As ark said the debate over the war is over is was a bad move.

Pulling out all troops would leave just another lawless country where anything can fester. Plus remove any security the Iraqis have.

Retaining troops provides a big open wound attracting every dis affected Anti- american terrorist.

CPT. SURF

Not if Bush starts another conflict with Iran there won't and there is still every chance of that happening.

The US military is more stretched at present than it has ever been.
The money and troops have run out.

And that is why Iran has been so aggressive lately... THEY KNOW THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT!

To say there is "every chance" of a conflict with Iran is an incorrect statement.

marco murphy

Anyone who says the US pulling out would result in escalation of violence is wrong in my opinion. Soon enough, we're going to see, just like Vietnam, the US closing off parts of Baghdad, with walls of fences or what have you. This is according to the Independent anyway. Desperation.

About starting war with Iran.. I doubt that will happen. What could happen IMO is that the US will fight a proxy war, behind Israel.

purple'n'gold

Just imagine
1. The USA went into Iraq (to secure their huge oil reserves) with absolutely no plan as to what to do when they won the “war”
2. An educated man, the prime minister of the United Kingdom was so in awe of that gob****e Bush that he just blindly followed him.
Scary and sad.

sovtek

CPT. SURF wrote:

And that is why Iran has been so aggressive lately... THEY KNOW THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT!

Compared to the US they've been quite tame. Read Iranian diplomats kidnapped in Arbil and Iranian intelligence agents kidnapped elsewhere in Iraq.

nacho libre

Zambia232 wrote:

They increased the tour of Duty from 12 months to 15 for regular US troops.

I would love to hear someone come up with a decent plan to resolve this rather than harking back to the scene of the crime. As ark said the debate over the war is over is was a bad move.

Pulling out all troops would leave just another lawless country where anything can fester. Plus remove any security the Iraqis have.

Retaining troops provides a big open wound attracting every dis affected Anti- american terrorist.

What about a redistribution of the oil wealth to include the Sunnis in Anbar, and a semi-autonomous Anbar too? Along with a time table for the Americans to withdraw. surely with the Sunnis on board it would be easier to
defeat Al-Qaeda. or it is a case that among the Sunni insurgents there isn't a unified objectve to the insurgency. Are a good deal of Iraqi Sunnis fighting for a salafist islamic state alongside Al-qaeda rather than fighting for nationalistic reasons and for greater political influence in the running of the country?

nacho libre

purplengold wrote:

Just imagine
1. The USA went into Iraq (to secure their huge oil reserves) with absolutely no plan as to what to do when they won the “war”
2. An educated man, the prime minister of the United Kingdom was so in awe of that gob****e Bush that he just blindly followed him.
Scary and sad.

Whar irks me is Tony is going to make millions on the lecture circuit in America out of this catastrophe.

Manic Moran

CPT. SURF wrote:

If a Democrat wins the office (Clinton/Obama) there will most likely be troop pullout then.

Honestly, I'm not so sure. It wouldn't be the first time that a politician has run on one platform to get into office, then when he got there realised that perhaps he'd better leave things alone for a while.

Besides, if there's a D I want to win office, it's Richardson. Sod Clinton/Obama...

NTM

marco murphy

I dont reckon any US president will just pull out.

CPT. SURF

Besides, if there's a D I want to win office, it's Richardson. Sod Clinton/Obama...

Richardson does not have the money to go anywhere and will be trounced in the primaries.

A Democrat might change their tune once in office, but you can guarantee a Republican will not support a timed pullout.

John McCain is running a pro-war campaign and is suffereing for it. He is not getting financial support. His campaign announced yesterday that they let some staff go to save money...

sovtek

nacho libre wrote:

Whar irks me is Tony is going to make millions on the lecture circuit in America out of this catastrophe.

That's assuming he doesn't get banged up in the Hague one day.

CPT. SURF

I dont reckon any US president will just pull out.

-Not the point

The Congress is the most powerfull branch of government and they have voted for a troop pullout. Bush will veto the bill, but another President may not.

Anyway by the time the next President is in office the state of Iraq may convince enough of the representatives to override any potential Presidential veto.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

Honestly, I'm not so sure. It wouldn't be the first time that a politician has run on one platform to get into office, then when he got there realised that perhaps he'd better leave things alone for a while.

NTM

Unfortunetly I think you're right. As soon as Pelosi and her ilk got into power off the backs of the anti-war vote they caved PDQ.
Hillary/Obama/Edwards are all corporate campaign money whores.
Hopefully Nader stays in good health for a while.

CPT. SURF

As soon as Pelosi and her ilk got into power off the backs of the anti-war vote they caved PDQ.

How did they cave?

They voted for a timed troop pullout.

sovtek

CPT. SURF wrote:

How did they cave?

They voted for a timed troop pullout.

They voted for a non-binding, watered down pullout next year. They also voted to continue funding the war and haven't done anything to stop an attack on Iran.

CPT. SURF

They voted for a non-binding, watered down pullout next year.

Remeber they only have the very slightest of majority in the House. A more aggressive resolution would not have passed. Then that would have been nothing.

They also voted to continue funding the war

As you know Bush said he would veto any troop pullout. Defunding the troops would thus put the people in uniform over there is even more life threatening danger. This option is also universally unpopular in the US, even amongst people who do not support the war.

haven't done anything to stop an attack on Iran.

What?

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

They voted for a non-binding, watered down pullout next year.

Well lame duck George Bush does have the same veto power his prececessor had,thats true-what can congress do about that given you need what a 2 thirds majority or the like to vetoe the vetoe.

They also voted to continue funding the war and haven't done anything to stop an attack on Iran.

Thats eternal pesimism if ever I saw it.
What have they done to start an attack on Iran?

Come to think of it,what have I done to stop an attack on my neighbour? I must be in favour of it right ? given that I've done nothing to stop it... I'm not outside their house right now waving a banner that says "robbers or potential robbers stay away from my neighbours house"...
Damn! You know what, you've just convinced me that I'm in favour of larceny.
Tut tut to me , Tut tut to me...

CPT. SURF

Funny Tristrame,

I also do not know what Congress should do about a war that exists inside the mind of a poster on boards.ie

Sesshoumaru

I wouldn't say Iraq is getting worse. A brutal dictator who oppressed the Shia majority is dead and the Iraqi people can vote in free elections now. We just need to make sure America gets the support she needs to finish cleaning out those muslim terrorists from Iraq. The only people who see nothing positive in Iraq are extremist left wingers in the West who have an irrational hatred for America/Israel/Freedom/Western culture.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

What have they done to start an attack on Iran?

Come to think of it,what have I done to stop an attack on my neighbour? I must be in favour of it right ? given that I've done nothing to stop it... I'm not outside their house right now waving a banner that says "robbers or potential robbers stay away from my neighbours house"...
Damn! You know what, you've just convinced me that I'm in favour of larceny.
Tut tut to me , Tut tut to me...

They were going to pass a resolution prohibiting Bush from pursuing any military activity against Iran without congressional approval but they pulled it at the last minute under the pretext that Bush needed all options on the table to aid negotiations with Iran.

The thing about using a credible threat as a tool for negotiation (bullying) is that for the threat to be credible, there has to be a good chance that military force will be used and once threats are made, it backs the aggressors into a corner where they have to follow through in order to maintain the 'credible threat' in future political engagements with other countries.

The refusal of the Democrats leadership to prohibit Bush from attacking Iran is a tacit form of support for military action. There is no other interpretation that makes sense.

nacho libre

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I wouldn't say Iraq is getting worse. A brutal dictator who oppressed the Shia majority is dead and the Iraqi people can vote in free elections now. We just need to make sure America gets the support she needs to finish cleaning out those muslim terrorists from Iraq. The only people who see nothing positive in Iraq are extremist left wingers in the West who have an irrational hatred for America/Israel/Freedom/Western culture.

you must have missed the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6543377.stm

Akrasia

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I wouldn't say Iraq is getting worse. A brutal dictator who oppressed the Shia majority is dead and the Iraqi people can vote in free elections now. We just need to make sure America gets the support she needs to finish cleaning out those muslim terrorists from Iraq. The only people who see nothing positive in Iraq are extremist left wingers in the West who have an irrational hatred for America/Israel/Freedom/Western culture.

What's so good about voting when you have no other control over your own life, and the people you vote for are 100% answerable to a foreign occupying force?

That is not democracy. There were elections in Iraq under saddam too you know. elections does not equal democracy. Not by a very long shot

wes

Iraq is sadly probably going to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better. The invasion was botched simple as that. They didn't plan for what to do after and messed up the country. The situation in Iraq is tragic and sadly I don't think anything can or will be done about it.

marco murphy

I wouldn't say Iraq is getting worse. A brutal dictator who oppressed the Shia majority is dead and the Iraqi people can vote in free elections now. We just need to make sure America gets the support she needs to finish cleaning out those muslim terrorists from Iraq. The only people who see nothing positive in Iraq are extremist left wingers in the West who have an irrational hatred for America/Israel/Freedom/Western culture.

Well the majority of Iraqis would disagree with your first analysis there.
In place of a dictator who oppressed Shias you know have a shia dominated police force running about murdering sunni muslims.
What do you mean by giving America support? Cleaning out those muslim terrorists? The US deserves no support. They embarked on a war that was botched from the beginning. They have left that country in a total mess with thousands of civilians dead. The oil thirsty administration will get no support from me. Thats funny. I see nothing positive in Iraq, therefore I have a hatred for western culture and freedom.

So in order to support freedom, I must support the US in ''cleaning out the muslim terrorists'', even though it America and Britain who invaded for oil in the first place?

I suggest you revise the definintion of freedom mister.

CPT. SURF

The refusal of the Democrats leadership to prohibit Bush from attacking Iran is a tacit form of support for military action. There is no other interpretation that makes sense.

I am sorry but this is some of the worst nonsense I have heard lately.

I do not think you even understand how the US government works.

The Congress is the most powerful branch. So if Bush was to attack Iran he would need Congressional approval, like he got from them for Iraq. This makes your point about passing some resolution completely moot.

And anyway why would the US just flatly rule out military action against Iran?
The UN has increased sanctions for their failure to cooperate with THE REST OF THE WORLD (not just the US) on the nuclear issue.
They kidnapped British soldiers in international waters.

What if Iran pulls some other crazy **** and the US has some resolution against any military action that they have to go back on?


Look there will not be military action against Iran anyway,and the US military is so strapped for cash that if there is some action it would be out of absolute necessity.

This is a situation that is entirely unlikely

CPT. SURF

That is not democracy. There were elections in Iraq under saddam too you know. elections does not equal democracy. Not by a very long shot

I agree with 100% on this though

stevedublin

CPT. SURF wrote:

So if Bush was to attack Iran he would need Congressional approval, like he got from them for Iraq.

Thats not what I understood in the run up to the Iraq war. Case of rewriting history.

CPT. SURF

He got approval in the House actually.

Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Iraq war, among other democrats. The issue was that he lied to them about Iraq's nuclear capability.

Sesshoumaru

Poblachtach wrote:

Well the majority of Iraqis would disagree with your first analysis there.
In place of a dictator who oppressed Shias you know have a shia dominated police force running about murdering sunni muslims.
What do you mean by giving America support? Cleaning out those muslim terrorists? The US deserves no support. They embarked on a war that was botched from the beginning. They have left that country in a total mess with thousands of civilians dead. The oil thirsty administration will get no support from me. Thats funny. I see nothing positive in Iraq, therefore I have a hatred for western culture and freedom.

So in order to support freedom, I must support the US in ''cleaning out the muslim terrorists'', even though it America and Britain who invaded for oil in the first place?

I suggest you revise the definintion of freedom mister.

I don't recall anyone in the US saying they wanted Iraqi oil??? If Saddam had merely co-operated with the international community there would have been no war. Now Saddam is dead and the Iraqi people live in a Democracy. Thats great progress! Only those extreme left wingers who have an irrational hatred for America see nothing positive in Iraq. I mean sure the road to freedom will be a bit bumpy for the Iraqi people. But freedom is messy

wes

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I don't recall anyone in the US saying they wanted Iraqi oil??? If Saddam had merely co-operated with the international community there would have been no war. Now Saddam is dead and the Iraqi people live in a Democracy. Thats great progress! Only those extreme left wingers who have an irrational hatred for America see nothing positive in Iraq. I mean sure the road to freedom will be a bit bumpy for the Iraqi people. But freedom is messy

Are you serious? 1 Million Iraqi's are estimated to be dead. The Neo-con project in Iraq is a total failure. Just look at at any decent news outlet and you will see that Iraq is a mess. They botched the entire thing. The list of the failures is huge. How you can not see the absolute tragedy that the botched neo-con project has caused in Iraq, is very hard for me to understand.

marco murphy

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I don't recall anyone in the US saying they wanted Iraqi oil???

Yeh... But Bush told us Iraq has all of these WMDs, it was bullshlt though was'nt it.

If Saddam had merely co-operated with the international community there would have been no war.

Co-operate how exactly? Did'nt he co-operate? Did he have anything to hide?

Now Saddam is dead and the Iraqi people live in a Democracy. Thats great progress!

What good is a democracy when you have a police force that wipes out whole communities, children suicide bombers, and being occupied by US/Brit

Only those extreme left wingers who have an irrational hatred for America see nothing positive in Iraq. I mean sure the road to freedom will be a bit bumpy for the Iraqi people. But freedom is messy

I see NOTHING positive in Iraq. But I'm not an extreme left winger. This troop surge brought in not so long ago was a total failure. And again as nacho libre said, have you missed the
LINK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6543377.stm

You have some distorted view of freedom IMO.

time.com

However sanguine the majority of Iraqis feel, patience with the U.S. occupation seems to be wearing thin. Nearly 60% of respondents said the U.S. and its allies have done a bad job carrying out their responsibilities in Iraq, while 65% said they oppose the troops' presence in the country.

Heres your American Freedom/Democracy