• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iraqi Leaders Want the US to Go!

Mohammed, an Iraqi on the ground in Iraq, posted this at his at "IraqtheModel" blog about the Cairo 'timetable'...

"No government in this world acts 100% independently and there are always internal and/or external factors and pressures that affect the decisions of any given government.

That’s why I think that Iraqi officials wouldn’t have agreed to the opposition’s demands if not for pressure from the US administration and I have a strong feeling that the US will announce a timetable for withdrawing the troops soon.
I think the US administration kind of drove the Sunni insurgency leaders to ask for this in a way that allowed the Iraqi and US government the chance to win a good deal of time while they can reach a reasonable progress in building Iraq’s army and police forces.

Everyone wants to see an end for violence but this violence comes from more than one group of fighters; one (al-Qaeda) can be dealt with only by military means but what about the other two? The local Islamic extremists, tribal fighters and former Ba’athists are also tired of fighting and they do want the power they lost (at least some of it) back and they had realized that there’s no way to do that with violence but they kept carrying out attacks as a way to voice their demands and to pressurize the US and Iraqi government to respond positively.

On the other hand, Iraqi and American governments kept saying that putting a timetable for pulling the troops (let alone an immediate step) would empower the terrorists and thus was considered a redline for a long time but now things have changed; Sunni insurgents and the factions that support them are saying that they are going to join the political process and they’re ready to stop targeting Iraqis if a timetable was defined and if their right to “resist” was recognized. [emphasis added]

Now, I don’t agree at all with legitimizing attacks on coalition troops but does legitimizing or illegitimating them make a difference in the on the ground situation? They have been attacking the troops for two and a half years and they will keep doing so whether we like or not…BUT, now Iraqi insurgents will not be able to justify or adopt an attack against Iraqi civilians and incase they do so in the future, they and their representatives and supporters will lose their bargaining power because it would be them who violated the agreement, not the government. Add to this that a period of cease-fire among Iraqis can possibly accelerate the reconstruction of the country and its security forces and this will consequently reflect on the size and number of missions required from the foreign troops."

...
If this moves as I’m expecting here, we will deal a powerful blow to foreign terrorism and to dictatorships in the neighborhood that want to destroy Iraq.
Giving everyone the chance to have their say under the law will certainly isolate terrorism and consequently reduce its power but not ending it.


IraqtheModel

Seems to me that all parties should view this postively. If indeed this is a move that is successful in bringing Sunni's more into the political process with a resulting cessation or at least a marked diminution of Sunni insurgency, then Al Qaeda becomes just that much more isolated from Iraqis.

Further attacks by Al Qaeda on innocent civilians should produce more antagonism on the part of Iraqis toward Al Qaeda terrorists which could go a long way toward kicking them out of the country and enhancing the chances for stability.

I think what we're looking for here is 1) a successful election on December 15, 2) installation of a new gov't for a 4-year term, 3) an agreement between the new govt and the US for the withdrawal of US troops over some agreed upon period of time, 4) continued presence of a contingent of US troops just 'over the horizon' just in case they are needed, 5) plans to increase and/or facilitate a more rapid build-up of Iraqi forces (the coalition will supply more equipment and training, perhaps along with some token assistance from NATO countries - with an announced timetable for the US out and a new Iraqi govt in, that might now be possible), and 6) the recognition of some contingencies that would call for the halting of the withdrawal and re-introduction of US troops.

It is a lot of speculation on my part, and perhaps even some wishful thinking. But it sort of hangs together, doesn't it?
 
I have to admit, I've been watching this thread sniggering.

Ironically it has been American military might that is the glue that holds Iraq together. That is why there is no timetable, even after this announcement.

This democracy of Iraq that we hear so much about:
Sunni votes for Sunni
Shia votes for Shia
Kurd votes for Kurd

Funny kind of democracy in a way. People would say it is religious more that Western.

Iran seems pretty insistent on a pull out as well. :roll:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122...7tX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

The question is what is it that the Shia want? Come what may it WILL be them who control Iraq. It WILL be them to decide the laws. More Islamic law, less liberalised. More Iranian.

But hey the breakup of Iraq has already begun, the constitution has condoned it, in two years time at the most their will be no such country as Iraq. Iraq has always been held together by a despot. As a democracy I can't see that happening.
 
Gibberish said:
Wrong word use on my part. Getting the Iraqi's established control of their country without relying on outside intervention should be "the" mission. Of course there are accomplishments which get us to the point of completing the mission.

So...
After WW2 we left troops in Europe and Asia to help protect the newly-founded democracies there from the various threats they faced. Does this mean we failed our mission in those places. or does it mean that our troops can remain there after a successful mission.

For whatever reason "success" is being defined as the ability to totally withdraw our troops - which is an invalid benchmark. if it were a vlaod benchmark, then we've been failing, miserably, since 1945.

These tend to have established governments, countries and armies.
So...ideologies CAN be defeated.
Thanks.

I am not saying trying to stop these people is a bad thing. They need to be stopped, but stopping them should not be part of the criteria for leaving a Iraq.
Why not?
 
GarzaUK said:
I have to admit, I've been watching this thread sniggering.

Ironically it has been American military might that is the glue that holds Iraq together. That is why there is no timetable, even after this announcement.

This democracy of Iraq that we hear so much about:
Sunni votes for Sunni
Shia votes for Shia
Kurd votes for Kurd

Funny kind of democracy in a way. People would say it is religious more that Western.

Iran seems pretty insistent on a pull out as well. :roll:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122...7tX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

The question is what is it that the Shia want? Come what may it WILL be them who control Iraq. It WILL be them to decide the laws. More Islamic law, less liberalised. More Iranian.

But hey the breakup of Iraq has already begun, the constitution has condoned it, in two years time at the most their will be no such country as Iraq. Iraq has always been held together by a despot. As a democracy I can't see that happening.

GarzaUK said:
I have to admit, I've been watching this thread sniggering.

Ironically it has been American military might that is the glue that holds Iraq together. That is why there is no timetable, even after this announcement.

This democracy of Iraq that we hear so much about:
Sunni votes for Sunni
Shia votes for Shia
Kurd votes for Kurd

Funny kind of democracy in a way. People would say it is religious more that Western.

Iran seems pretty insistent on a pull out as well. :roll:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122...7tX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

The question is what is it that the Shia want? Come what may it WILL be them who control Iraq. It WILL be them to decide the laws. More Islamic law, less liberalised. More Iranian.

But hey the breakup of Iraq has already begun, the constitution has condoned it, in two years time at the most their will be no such country as Iraq. Iraq has always been held together by a despot. As a democracy I can't see that happening.


Well, what do you expect? They have spent the last thirty years being slaughtered if they were Kurdish, beat down and executed if they were Shi'ite, and priviledged if they were Sunni. They are seperate. It will take time to see each other as equal. Their democracy will not mirror the west. Nobody should be under any illusions. The only democratic nation in the Middle East is Israel. It would be way too much to hope for to expect Iraq to be exactly what we want. Three points....

1) Saddam was given the right to vote as was all prisoners. This shows the world that they want even their prisoners to have the right to vote in their new government. What they vote for might not matter to the incarcerated, but they have family members who live under this government. You won't see this in our country.

2) The death penalty was declared outlawed for this new government. They have seen enough death. They have spent decades under a ruthless tyrant who executed at a whim and called it "legal." They were executed for not having enough pictures of Saddam in their houses. They are showing the world that despite Kuwait, Saudi, Iran, Jordan, Syria, and all of the others, that they will not continue the status quo of "legal" murder. Even in our country, most states do not recognize the death penalty, but some do.

3) The recent request for a "timeline" as an attempt to unite the Sunni with the Kurds and Shi'ites for peace. (I'll say no more on this as I've said enough.)

These people are trying their hardest in a difficult time to persevere. Give them credit. In the end it won't have been American and British military might that made them succeed or fail. All we did was oust the regime that oppressed them and gave them a chance through temporary occupation. I'm proud of what they have achieved, yet so many don't even know what has been progressed. They've gone from being deathly afraid of removing pictures of Saddam from their houses to publicly voting regardless of possible deadly repercussions by those who would make life difficult for the freed.

...also, you're a little off in regards to the Shia and Iran. They aren't stupid. They consider the Iranian theocracy as being on borrowed time. They have no wish to model themselves after a failing government. If anything, Iraq will have a greater influence on Iran. 70 percent of the Iranian population is disenchanted youth under thirty years old who do not subscribe to the Mullahs or their current government. There is much more to this. Incidentally, Syria is also going through growing pains and Iraq is being watched. A successful Iraq is more important to our securities than people think.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by GySgt:
1) Saddam was given the right to vote as was all prisoners. This shows the world that they want even their prisoners to have the right to vote in their new government. What they vote for might not matter to the incarcerated, but they have family members who live under this government. You won't see this in our country.

2) The death penalty was declared outlawed for this new government. They have seen enough death. They have spent decades under a ruthless tyrant who executed at a whim and called it "legal." They were executed for not having enough pictures of Saddam in their houses. They are showing the world that despite Kuwait, Saudi, Iran, Jordan, Syria, and all of the others, that they will not continue the status quo of "legal" murder. Even in our country, most states do not recognize the death penalty, but some do.
In light of your first two points, maybe there is something Iraq can teach us.
 
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
So...ideologies CAN be defeated
So when does it end? How do we know when the war is over?
 
Billo_Really said:
In light of your first two points, maybe there is something Iraq can teach us.

Iraq has a lot to teach, especially to the rest of the Middle East. (Which is the most important to our future securities with regards to preventing future 9/11s.) It is important that we give them every chance we can. The people of Syria and Iran are watching and they are future battle sites that we would not like to have to undertake.
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
So when does it end? How do we know when the war is over?

When your grandchildren can look at a changed Middle East that embraces education and peace over religious oppression and persecution.

As far as Iraq...one thing is for sure. When we leave, we will have done everything we can, which has pretty much been done presently. The insurgency is a shadow of what it was and the lasting enemy is the local fighters who do not want their current government. That's what the Iraqi "request" was all about. Stopping this violence. I keep saying that we are closer than so many know. Next year is key.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
I keep saying that we are closer than so many know. Next year is key.


The only reason next year is key is because elections are on the line. Therefore, I have no doubt republicans will insist on some sort of withdrawal, symbolic though it may be, if only to save their political hides.
 
M14 Shooter said:
So...
After WW2 we left troops in Europe and Asia to help protect the newly-founded democracies there from the various threats they faced. Does this mean we failed our mission in those places. or does it mean that our troops can remain there after a successful mission.

For whatever reason "success" is being defined as the ability to totally withdraw our troops - which is an invalid benchmark. if it were a vlaod benchmark, then we've been failing, miserably, since 1945.
Leaving troops to establish a democracy in a country where the last standing are just needed to be flushed out is different then establishing a democracy on a country under attack by hidden radicals vowing to never stop untill we are out of the country.

In the aftermath WW2 the nazi parties recruitment was minimal is not declining to nothing. In Iraq the Radicals are doubling and tripling their recuitments.

M14 Shooter said:
So...ideologies CAN be defeated.
Thanks.
I said they cannot be defeated because they have no established goverments, countries, armies. From this you concluded that I said they can be defeated? How did you come to that conclusion?


M14 Shooter said:
Well we can make it a requirment of success but we will most likely be there till the end of WW3 or we go financially bankrupt.
 
Billo_Really said:
So when does it end? How do we know when the war is over?

When the Sunnis decide to work with the Iraqi government in driving the Islamofascists out.

History shows that ideologies -can- be defeated by people willing to make the efforts in doing so. The war in Iraq is no exception, nor is the war against terrorism.
 
Gibberish said:
Leaving troops to establish a democracy in a country where the last standing are just needed to be flushed out is different then establishing a democracy on a country under attack by hidden radicals vowing to never stop untill we are out of the country.
You make a distinction without a difference.
We left troops in any number of countries after WW2 in order to maintain security for those countries while they were reconstructed. Any argument you make regarding our leaving troops in Iraq applies to those countries as well.

In the aftermath WW2 the nazi parties recruitment was minimal is not declining to nothing. In Iraq the Radicals are doubling and tripling their recuitments.
So you say.
Not sure how that relates to much of anything here.

I said they cannot be defeated because they have no established goverments, countries, armies. From this you concluded that I said they can be defeated? How did you come to that conclusion?
My conclusion has nothing to do with what you said.
Its not necessary for an ideology to have a government, etc, to be defeated -- National Socialism, as an IDEA, was defeated during WW2, not just the state of Nazi Germany.

Well we can make it a requirment of success but we will most likely be there till the end of WW3 or we go financially bankrupt.
Wait... i thought out mission was complete and its time to bring the troops home...?
When will you people make up your minds?
 
Hoot said:
The only reason next year is key is because elections are on the line. Therefore, I have no doubt republicans will insist on some sort of withdrawal, symbolic though it may be, if only to save their political hides.

Oh. This is what is called a bi-partisan or a political party enslaved opinion. Finishing up Iraq has nothing to do with your needs to parade around political bull **** or your need to hate. It has nothing to do with Democrats whining for a pull out or Republicans "saving their political hides." The job is near complete. Anything after that is just loser rhetoric that is used to desperately exploit anything possible for 2008. However each political party or individual chooses to continue to exploit the troop is of no importance to the mission. Battling the insurgency wasn't spread out for political reasons. The insurgency being a shadow of what it once was wasn't timed to coincide with elections. They didn't decide to stop coming across the Syrian border because the Republican Party needs to "save their hides." The December elections wasn't timed to coincide with Republican needs.

The military community has been looking towards a pull out next year since the beginning of the summer, because we know what is occurring over there.

Try not to be boring and do the predictable thing that your kind are going to inevitably do. Let them be the stupid ones. Rise above it.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Oh. This is what is called a bi-partisan or a political party enslaved opinion. Finishing up Iraq has nothing to do with your needs to parade around political bull **** or your need to hate. It has nothing to do with Democrats whining for a pull out or Republicans "saving their political hides." The job is near complete. Anything after that is just loser rhetoric that is used to desperately exploit anything possible for 2008. However each political party or individual chooses to continue to exploit the troop is of no importance to the mission. Battling the insurgency wasn't spread out for political reasons. The insurgency being a shadow of what it once was wasn't timed to coincide with elections. They didn't decide to stop coming across the Syrian border because the Republican Party needs to "save their hides." The December elections wasn't timed to coincide with Republican needs.

The military community has been looking towards a pull out next year since the beginning of the summer, because we know what is occurring over there.

Try not to be boring and do the predictable thing that your kind are going to inevitably do. Let them be the stupid ones. Rise above it.

We can't all be as smart and interesting as you, Sarge. They told me not to iron my BDU's...can't help it if I have wrinkled shirts.

I gotta tell ya, your last paragraph is so biased and one sided and narrow minded, I'm beginning to think it's pointless conversing with someone who has been so brainwashed, not only by your upbringing, but by your military life.

If I was truely offended, I would've reported your last paragraph as a deliberate personal attack, but I prefer to attack back, and perhaps give you some revelation into your inclination to believe that you are a better person then anyone who doesn't hold your views.

Stop speaking for the entire military, too. It's annoying and smacks of egotism.

As far as Iraq, most of us do not see the improvement.

Have a nice day.
 
YNKYH8R said:
What was the last ideology that was defeated by US military action?

Silly you, trying to set up a strawman. Why don't you ask a question relevant to the statement I made?

The question is not what ideologies were defeated by US military action, but what ideologies were defeated, period

Fascism, National Socialism and Comminism were all defeated; the former two by military action (in which the US participated and played a key role), the third though various means including direct and indirect military action (in which the US participated and played a key role).
 
I'm beginning to think it's pointless conversing with someone who has been so brainwashed

And you wonder why several people have you on ignore...
 
M14 Shooter said:
And you wonder why several people have you on ignore...

If people have me on ignore it's because they know they can't compete! ROTFL!!!! J/K

I'd be willing to bet you have a higher number of "ignores" then I ever will?

Personally, I would never put anyone on "ignore." I'm interested in hearing what people have to say...especially those with different views.

However, there comes a time when you realize some people are so far gone and so far over the edge, they will never be reachable...no matter the clarity of the argument...they don't wanna hear it.
 
M14 Shooter said:
Silly you, trying to set up a strawman. Why don't you ask a question relevant to the statement I made?

The question is not what ideologies were defeated by US military action, but what ideologies were defeated, period

Fascism, National Socialism and Comminism were all defeated; the former two by military action (in which the US participated and played a key role), the third though various means including direct and indirect military action (in which the US participated and played a key role).
LOL! YOu're inability to answer the question makes me laugh. Because that is just what the US Military is trying to do; defeat Isalmic Militism with brute force.
And Communism is not dead, nor is Fascism.

PS. Fascism: Suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
 
Last edited:
YNKYH8R said:
LOL! YOu're inability to answer the question makes me laugh.
As I said - your question isnt relevant to my argument. As such, I have no need to answer it.

PS. Fascism: Suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Fascism is far more encompassing than that.
 
M14 Shooter said:
What makes you say that?

And if the mission will be complete in 9 months, doesnt that kinda negate the idea that the war in unwinnable, etc?
No, because the troops will be leaving even when the war on terrorism rages on. The mission being complete will be the government in tact and the security defense forces able to hold thier own ground.
 
M14 Shooter said:
When the Sunnis decide to work with the Iraqi government in driving the Islamofascists out.

History shows that ideologies -can- be defeated by people willing to make the efforts in doing so. The war in Iraq is no exception, nor is the war against terrorism.
This was your qoute. So my question about which ideologies were defeated was not irrelevant. The type of ideology that is being faught in the middle east is not going to go away just as communism isn't gone just as fascism isn't gone. I'm not saying to stop fight it I'm just saying it's not going to go away. So whatever your agruement might be (as pleasent as it is) we have to face facts the "war on terror" is just another thing we can ad to the list of cliches. Look at Isreal they've been dealing with it for more than 2 decades. Nothings changed.
 
YNKYH8R said:
No, because the troops will be leaving even when the war on terrorism rages on. The mission being complete will be the government in tact and the security defense forces able to hold thier own ground.
I see - trying to have it both ways, eh?
"We can leave because we have set the Iraqi government up so it can win an unwunnable war."
 
M14 Shooter said:
I see - trying to have it both ways, eh?
"We can leave because we have set the Iraqi government up so it can win an unwunnable war."
In a sense yes. Leave Iraq let them take care of themselves. If they have a civil war then they have a civil war; there's not much we can do about that. The fight with terrorist organizations should be a completely seperate issue.
You have two factions the Sunni minority who might lead them to civil war. ANd the terrorsits who bomb the country and train in thier camps to wreck havok elsewhere.

With good espionage and counter intellegance; along side of a change in foregin relations we can put a stop to islamic militism. But America won't do that. They'd rather use a sword where a scalple should be used.
 
YNKYH8R said:
In a sense yes. Leave Iraq let them take care of themselves.
Yes. Set them up to fail.

Why would we do that?
 
Back
Top Bottom