Iraqi PM: Iraq can defend itself

[LiberalNation]

Generally speaking, I've noticed that despite the Liberal's worded sentiments of equality, fairness, peace, prosperity, and freedom for all....they are also very negative.

Negative, I personally am not a negative person but when it comes to something like Iraq where I have been given more than ample reason to view it in a negative light I will.

Doing a bit of stereotyping and painting everyone with the same brush aren't you guys. I thought you were the one complaining about not doing such a thing with the military. I could easily have said most soldiers are violent people who murder innocent civilians, which would be the exact same thing as your blanket comment. After all that's just what I've noticed.

Liberal talking about what is wrong with this country, people, and the world does not make us all negative. Liberal not being optimistic about a very bad situation with people who give us plenty of rhetoric but nothing to back it up also does not make us negative people.

 

[LiberalNation]

Most Americans are just bored. They want their quick wars and when they don't get it they want to up and abandon it. It is very unlikely that we will ever see another "Gulf War." The future is very much the Somalias, Iraqs, and Afghanistans.

Americans want wars that are winnable, they want wars not based on false claims, they want a good leader to wage those wars, they want clear understandable reasons as to why that war is being fought and not have those reason changed every few months, they want good leader that will give them a plan for victory while leading the troops well. They are not getting that in the Iraq war, that is why they are not supporting it.


Americans are still supportive of the Afghanistan war, want to guess why.

 

[Kandahar]

Most Americans are just bored. They want their quick wars and when they don't get it they want to up and abandon it. It is very unlikely that we will ever see another "Gulf War." The future is very much the Somalias, Iraqs, and Afghanistans.

That's not true at all. The future is what we make of it. If we continue to make bad decisions like invading countries with no post-war plan and then staying around to babysit an insurgency, then that's what we'll get. If we decide to have short tactical wars, then that's what we'll get.

 

[Schweddy]

Question: How long did the insurgency last after Itally became a democracy 1948?

Hint: The last bombing linked to the original insurgency was in the late 70's!!

Question: How long did it take to create a constitution for the Itallian Republic after Mussolini's death?

Hint: Over two years.

If these are any indication of success, I say the situtation in IRAQ is doing damn good. This may not be an apples to apples comparision, but we need to remember that insurgents and governments do not stop over night.

 

[MSgt]

Negative, I personally am not a negative person but when it comes to something like Iraq where I have been given more than ample reason to view it in a negative light I will.

Doing a bit of stereotyping and painting everyone with the same brush aren't you guys. I thought you were the one complaining about not doing such a thing with the military. I could easily have said most soldiers are violent people who murder innocent civilians, which would be the exact same thing as your blanket comment. After all that's just what I've noticed.

Liberal talking about what is wrong with this country, people, and the world does not make us all negative. Liberal not being optimistic about a very bad situation with people who give us plenty of rhetoric but nothing to back it up also does not make us negative people.

Well....I did type "generally speaking."

 

[Iriemon]

Isn't this amazing?

Generally speaking, I've noticed that despite the Liberal's worded sentiments of equality, fairness, peace, prosperity, and freedom for all....they are also very negative.

Generally speaking, that just shows your bias.

It all depends on the issue being discussed. Go to a thread on Social Security, for example, and you see just how "positive" the conservatives are about that issue.

 

[Iriemon]

Question: How long did the insurgency last after Itally became a democracy 1948?

Hint: The last bombing linked to the original insurgency was in the late 70's!!

Question: How long did it take to create a constitution for the Itallian Republic after Mussolini's death?

Hint: Over two years.

If these are any indication of success, I say the situtation in IRAQ is doing damn good. This may not be an apples to apples comparision, but we need to remember that insurgents and governments do not stop over night.

Trying to compare a few radicals in Italy to the resistance in Iraq is silly.

 

[MSgt]

Americans want wars that are winnable, they want wars not based on false claims, they want a good leader to wage those wars, they want clear understandable reasons as to why that war is being fought and not have those reason changed every few months, they want good leader that will give them a plan for victory while leading the troops well. They are not getting that in the Iraq war, that is why they are not supporting it.


Americans are still supportive of the Afghanistan war, want to guess why.

Because it's not in the news every day. Besides that, plenty of Americans are protesting that one too.

America wants wars, because they are bored. Then when they get it, they realize what war is and protest. Same old story, different war. It has nothing to do with what they ignorantly perceive as "winnable." This war against Radical Islam is Chess, not Checkers.

 

[MSgt]

Generally speaking, that just shows your bias.

It all depends on the issue being discussed. Go to a thread on Social Security, for example, and you see just how "positive" the conservatives are about that issue.

....and? Truth is truth. The loudest complainers in America are usually "Liberal." The dreamers and idealogues who voice about what life should be instead of facing it for what it is. They are also the most hypocritical.

 

[Schweddy]

Trying to compare a few radicals in Italy to the resistance in Iraq is silly.

There were much more than a 'few' radicals.

Are you trying to say that Iraq is unique? That is equally silly.

It is also silly to suggest that as soon as we "leave" everything would be happy happy overnight.

Nope, we are in there for years to come. After all, we are still in Germany are we not?

 

[Iriemon]

There were much more than a 'few' radicals.

Are you trying to say that Iraq is unique? That is equally silly.

Of course Iraq is not unique. It's not the first time in history an occupying nation has had to deal with a guerrilla style civil war. Look at Vietnam. It's not the first time an occupying nation has had to deal with an insurgency using terrorist tactics. The British had to deal with Jewish terrorists when they occupied Palestine.

You're argument is we should have invaded Italy in the 70s because of the "insurgency"?

It is also silly to suggest that as soon as we "leave" everything would be happy happy overnight.

Of course not. Obviously there will be consequences for this mistaken and ill thought out misadventure.

Nope, we are in there for years to come. After all, we are still in Germany are we not?

We are not in Germany to quell an insurgency and haven't been since 1945.

We are in there for years to come only if we are stupid enough to continue to compound a mistake with continued further mistakes. I am confident you are correct we will be there for several more years as long as this pass the buck President is in office, as he will let thousands of Americans and Iraqis die rather than admit and address his mistake, and will pass the buck of this problem to the next president. That is the kind of guy he is.

 

[Deegan]

The fact is that the Arab world is no different then the Japanese, who thought they would become a democracy, or the Germans, look at the elected leaders they followed, that was some of the most disgusting behavior the world has ever recorded, now, look at them today. What about Russia, was not very pretty what their leaders did now was it, it certainly wasn't "Islamist" but it was just as brutal, just as horrific, seemed just as hopeless, it still does today. But I guess those people are somehow different, better class of folks huh?:roll:

Racist trash, I didn't realize how bad it was.


These people need not be isolated, it is growing more dangerous by the day, they need to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the 21 century if needed.

 

[Volker]

There were much more than a 'few' radicals.

There is a good chance, there was much more.

How about this?

NATO, CIA and MI-6 hired fascists to form a secret underground army. These fascists committed terrorist acts. They did it at their own decision or by order from other organizations, I don't know, but they did it. People should think "There are terrorists, we need more security".

Does it sound like a conspirational theory to you?

There are hints, it happened this way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

 

[Schweddy]

Of course Iraq is not unique. It's not the first time in history an occupying nation has had to deal with a guerrilla style civil war. Look at Vietnam. It's not the first time an occupying nation has had to deal with an insurgency using terrorist tactics. The British had to deal with Jewish terrorists when they occupied Palestine.

The British had to deal with our insugency guerrilla style warfar as well. A Mel Gibson movie comes to mind.

You're argument is we should have invaded Italy in the 70s because of the "insurgency"?

No sir, I was stating a fact that the insurgency was *still* in existance in the 70's - 20 years after the downfall of their facist dictator. We can expect no less in this situation.

Of course not. Obviously there will be consequences for this mistaken and ill thought out misadventure.

There are consequences for every action regardless of they are favored or not.

We are not in Germany to quell an insurgency and haven't been since 1945.

Interesting, everything was not happy in 1945. It took years to rebuild the confidence in that country as well. But the question remains - why are we still there? Economic reasons actually. Iraq will be no different.

We are in there for years to come only if we are stupid enough to continue to compound a mistake with continued further mistakes. I am confident you are correct we will be there for several more years as long as this pass the buck President is in office, as he will let thousands of Americans and Iraqis die rather than admit and address his mistake, and will pass the buck of this problem to the next president. That is the kind of guy he is.

Sadam was not a good guy. It needed to be done. There are mistakes in any war. Bush just had the balls to do something about those 17 UN sanctions.

 

[Kandahar]

There were much more than a 'few' radicals.

I'm thinking back to my history classes, and I can't recall ever reading about car bombs going off every day on the streets of Italy following the end of WWII, with tens of thousands of post-war casualties, and a civil war brewing between the Tuscans, Venetians, and Romans. Perhaps that's because it didn't happen?

Are you trying to say that Iraq is unique? That is equally silly.

Every military situation is unique, and should be treated as such.

It is also silly to suggest that as soon as we "leave" everything would be happy happy overnight.

It would be happy happy overnight in terms of American national security, which is what our president gets paid to worry about.

Nope, we are in there for years to come. After all, we are still in Germany are we not?

Only for good public relations. Somehow I doubt Germany would descend into Nazism or communism if we pulled our troops out tomorrow. That's entirely the point; I wouldn't CARE if we had troops in Iraq, if Iraq was Germany.

 

[Iriemon]

Interesting, everything was not happy in 1945. It took years to rebuild the confidence in that country as well. But the question remains - why are we still there? Economic reasons actually. Iraq will be no different.

Iraq is not Germany. We stayed in Germany not to quell an insurgency or to prop up its government but to defend Germany against the threat posed by the S.U. Now that that threat is gone, I agree it is a good question as to why we still have troops there.

There is no such external threat for Iraq. We invaded Iraq with the explicit promise that a long term occupation was not our goal. We invaded based on a mistake and are now staying beyond our promise. Our continued occupation is counter-productive to our efforts to impede radical Islamism.

Sadam was not a good guy. It needed to be done. There are mistakes in any war. Bush just had the balls to do something about those 17 UN sanctions.

Saddam was not a good guy. But if it "needed to be done" it should have been done with the mandate of an international organization. There was no attack or threat of attack to the US justifying our invasion and occupation. We should not be running ourselves into debt we cannot afford to go around playing the bully to every nation that doesn't toe our line.

 

[MSgt]

Iraq is not Germany. We stayed in Germany not to quell an insurgency or to prop up its government but to defend Germany against the threat posed by the S.U. Now that that threat is gone, I agree it is a good question as to why we still have troops there.

Intellectual habit. It is just like the Middle East. We have been conditioned to look there for decades. But if we want to strike a blow to Radical Islam, we must focus on the fringes of Islam, where diversity is still developing and conflicting. The Islam in the Middle East is poured in concrete. We are doing this, but not nearly enough.

We have Army in Europe, because that's the way it has always been. As an institution, the Army always fights tooth and nail to prevent change (some of the little known public issues with Rumsfeld). Also, there is economic gains these countries get by gaving 10,000 Americans on their soil.

 

[Schweddy]

I'm thinking back to my history classes, and I can't recall ever reading about car bombs going off every day on the streets of Italy following the end of WWII, with tens of thousands of post-war casualties, and a civil war brewing between the Tuscans, Venetians, and Romans. Perhaps that's because it didn't happen?

Perhaps I was a little off by calling them "car" bombings. These were not daily events 20 years after the event, but occational.
http://www.emergency-management.net/bombings.htm

1973 May 17th. - Italy, Milan, Police Headquarter: a grenade exploded at the entrance killing 1 person and injuring 200.

1974 June 17th. - Italy, Brescia: bomb detonated at an anti-Fascist rally; 7 people died and 93 were injured.

The gist is that insugency is not resolved or fixed over night. It will take years (purhaps a full generation) for the insurgency to calm down in Iraq.

 

[Iriemon]

Perhaps I was a little off by calling them "car" bombings. These were not daily events 20 years after the event, but occational.
http://www.emergency-management.net/bombings.htm

The gist is that insugency is not resolved or fixed over night. It will take years (purhaps a full generation) for the insurgency to calm down in Iraq.

A 30 year occupation of Iraq? Sounds like imperialism, not that they don't have any reason to be insensitive to that sort of thing in the Muslem world. Costing a hundred billion and thousands of lives lost each year? In the meantime an ongoing war of attrition and a source of inflaming Muslems against us?

Doesn't sound like a very good strategy to me.

 

[Navy Pride]

No and I have good reason to be negative about the Iraq situation. Why don't you refute the points I made and maybe you can change my mind. I believe this war is going badly, will continue to go badly, and will end badly along with the majority of Americans at this point.

I don't have to refute your points because they are only left wing talking points......Because you say it over and over again does not make it so.......

 

[Schweddy]

Iraq citizens grew up under a repressive government. That creates hostility. Not unlike our own areas of cities that are run down, old, and forgotten about. The crime rates in those areas are significantly higher. Saying that this is a *Muslim* issue is akin to saying that crime rates in those run down areas of our cities are contributed to only blacks, Chinese, or hispanics. Not a well thought out argument.

In Muslim governments that are kind to their citizens and treat them like human beings while still acknowleging the Qur'Ran, you never hear about crime rates or terrorist Muslims. For some reason, you don't hear about terrorists from those countries.

The issue is not Muslim or Iraq really, the issue is poverty. When captiolism and democracy takes off (which is already has) in a much broader way and the common man can own a business or land - that insugency will faulter.

 

[Kandahar]

Perhaps I was a little off by calling them "car" bombings. These were not daily events 20 years after the event, but occational.
http://www.emergency-management.net/bombings.htm



The gist is that insugency is not resolved or fixed over night. It will take years (purhaps a full generation) for the insurgency to calm down in Iraq.

I only see four Italian incidents on that list since WWII. I hardly think that qualifies as a "insurgency."

If it's going to take a full generation for the insurgency to calm down in Iraq, we can and must get out now. We have other, more pressing national security concerns. We can't just babysit them for the next 50 years while they continue to kill our troops.

 

[Kandahar]

In Muslim governments that are kind to their citizens and treat them like human beings while still acknowleging the Qur'Ran, you never hear about crime rates or terrorist Muslims. For some reason, you don't hear about terrorists from those countries.

It depends what you mean by "treating them like human beings." Jordan is one of the most progressive Arab Muslim countries, yet it is the home of al-Zarqawi and has an extremely radical population. Yemen is also relatively progressive, and is the birthplace of Osama Bin Laden. Even in Saudi Arabia, the home of radical Wahabbism, the dictatorship treats people a lot better than a democracy would.

You're right that there are some examples of "nicer" Muslim countries that don't have a terrorist problem. The point is that there's not much (if any) correlation between the way these countries treat their citizens and the amount of terrorists they breed.

The issue is not Muslim or Iraq really, the issue is poverty. When captiolism and democracy takes off (which is already has) in a much broader way and the common man can own a business or land - that insugency will faulter.

When was the last time 19 guys from Zimbabwe crashed four airplanes into three buildings? The issue is most *definitely* Islam.

 

[MSgt]

A 30 year occupation of Iraq? Sounds like imperialism, not that they don't have any reason to be insensitive to that sort of thing in the Muslem world. Costing a hundred billion and thousands of lives lost each year? In the meantime an ongoing war of attrition and a source of inflaming Muslems against us?

Doesn't sound like a very good strategy to me.

Oh c'mon. Where's your sense of history? From all the noise generated by individuals who protest Bush for anything, we might have thought that the notion of U.S. troops being stationed on foreign soil long after a war was over was some kind of a first.

WWII ended over 60 years ago. Yet, more than 100,000 U.S. troops are still stationed in Germany and Japan. Smaller groups are arrayed throughout Europe at NATO or U.S. bases in Italy, Britain, Spain, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, and Portugal.

The Korean truce was signed in 1953(?). But South Korea is still host to roughly 35,000 U.S. troops.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was halted in 1991. Nearly 40,000 U.S. Troops are still there.

Seven years after a peace accord was reached in Kosovo, 1500 U.S. troops are still there as peacekeepers.

Right now, there are about 133,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The war against religious fanaticism wages on. As Iraq strengthens and the Iraqi military begin to mesh and Sunni and Shi'ites begin to work together, Iraqi forces will assume positions and roles as the U.S. troops begin to fall back.

That's near 400,000 U.S. service men and women deployed in foreign countries. Of course that doesn't include all the U.S. tropps spread out in smaller conflicts that do not don the headlines. Also not included are the sailors cruising international waters across the globe.

The only recent war in which U.S. troops withdrew completely was Vietnam. We lost that one.

 

[Iriemon]

Oh c'mon. Where's your sense of history? From all the noise generated by individuals who protest Bush for anything, we might have thought that the notion of U.S. troops being stationed on foreign soil long after a war was over was some kind of a first.

WWII ended over 60 years ago. Yet, more than 100,000 U.S. troops are still stationed in Germany and Japan. Smaller groups are arrayed throughout Europe at NATO or U.S. bases in Italy, Britain, Spain, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, and Portugal.

The Korean truce was signed in 1953(?). But South Korea is still host to roughly 35,000 U.S. troops.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was halted in 1991. Nearly 40,000 U.S. Troops are still there.

Seven years after a peace accord was reached in Kosovo, 1500 U.S. troops are still there as peacekeepers.

Right now, there are about 133,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The war against religious fanaticism wages on. As Iraq strengthens and the Iraqi military begin to mesh and Sunni and Shi'ites begin to work together, Iraqi forces will assume positions and roles as the U.S. troops begin to fall back.

That's near 400,000 U.S. service men and women deployed in foreign countries. Of course that doesn't include all the U.S. tropps spread out in smaller conflicts that do not don the headlines. Also not included are the sailors cruising international waters across the globe.

The only recent war in which U.S. troops withdrew completely was Vietnam. We lost that one.

In none of those countries, save perhaps Kosovo, did we maintain troops to quell insurrections, establish Governments, or maintain civil order. Germany and Japan as examples we have discussed. Our troops were sent to NATO countries not to install governments but as part of an alliance and defense against the Warsaw Pact. In none of those countries was there a sustained political insurrection against forces there and our forces were not there for the purposes of maintaining order. Our troops were not in Spain to put down the Basque insurgency or in Britain to quell the IRA.

Different situations.