President: Iraqi forces to take over by year's end

[Navy Pride]

This is great news for President Bush and his administration....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/iraq.talabani/index.html

President: Iraqi forces to take over by year's end

Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Posted: 2:23 p.m. EDT (18:23 GMT)


President Jalal Talabani said Wednesday he foresees Iraqi forces taking over security in all 18 Iraqi provinces by the end of the year.....

 

[Goobieman]

I thought we weren't making progress in Iraq...?

 

[Iriemon]

It is great news for the Republicans -- and, imagine that, with national elections in 3 months - what a coincidence! LMAO!

We'll hear about this until the elections are over, and then there will be reasons why US troops are maintained there in "supporting" roles or some such thing.

 

[Yuleluder]

It is great news for the Republicans -- and, imagine that, with national elections in 3 months - what a coincidence! LMAO!

Actually this has been in the works for a while, where have you been?

 

[Iriemon]

Actually this has been in the works for a while, where have you been?

Oh I'm sure it has, Rove is a great strategist. But it's so obvious.

 

[Yuleluder]

Oh I'm sure it has, Rove is a great strategist. But it's so obvious.

Actually this issue has been in congress for a while.

 

[Deegan]

Oh I'm sure it has, Rove is a great strategist. But it's so obvious.

Gosh, such anger, such animosity, you really sound miserable. Perhaps this is just about a well thought out plan coming in to fruition, just perhaps.

 

[Iriemon]

Gosh, such anger, such animosity, you really sound miserable. Perhaps this is just about a well thought out plan coming in to fruition, just perhaps.

LOL! That is sounding angry and miserable? Maybe if I drank a couple gallons of that koolaid you got there I'd seem less agnry and miserable, eh?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It is great news for the Republicans -- and, imagine that, with national elections in 3 months - what a coincidence! LMAO!

We'll hear about this until the elections are over, and then there will be reasons why US troops are maintained there in "supporting" roles or some such thing.

Yes everytime good news comes out about Iraq it's a political ploy and a Republican conspiracy, saddam captured, zarqawi dead, etc etc

And no one said that the troops are going to withdrawal completely only that the Iraqi forces will begin to work independently of u.s. forces.

 

[Deegan]

LOL! That is sounding angry and miserable? Maybe if I drank a couple gallons of that koolaid you got there I'd seem less agnry and miserable, eh?

I'm not the one assuming the conspiracy here, perhaps someone slipped you a Mickey.

 

[tecoyah]

I seriously hope this is the Truth, and comes to pass. If it helps Republicans stay in power, regardless of my dislike of the Administration, it also mean our soldiers can begin to stop Dying. To me....that is what really matters at this point.

Oh...and a stable Iraq if possible.

 

[Navy Pride]

It is great news for the Republicans -- and, imagine that, with national elections in 3 months - what a coincidence! LMAO!

We'll hear about this until the elections are over, and then there will be reasons why US troops are maintained there in "supporting" roles or some such thing.

As usual with you liberals when you lose, its always a right wing conspiracy......:rofl

 

[Alex]

Political move, I'll believe it when it happens.

The president just recently agreed to sent in more troops.

 

[southern_liberal]

Political move, I'll believe it when it happens.

The president just recently agreed to sent in more troops.

Exactly. Why can't people see this.

If this is true, I wish the Iraqis well. But I doubt this will happen for two reasons:

The bulk of the Iraqi military and security forces are Shiites. Thats not going to go over well in the Sunnis in Al-Abnar provice; unless something major happens to stop the sectarian violence, this would only cause more bloodshed.

Baghdad area is utter chaos now with U.S. forces patrolling. Why do the Iraqis think they can do just as good? Especially when militias have infultrated the ranks?

This is wishfull thinking in my opinion. Even if they do take over security, there is no way we can leave Iraq until the Insurgency, death squads and militias are reigned in. Since the violence is escalating, it still may be a while.

Be there is always hope.

 

[Indy]

As usual with you liberals when you lose, its always a right wing conspiracy......:rofl

:lol: Good one. And what exactly happends when an independent or republican sees this as just a political ploy? Are they automatically liberal? No wait, don't answer, I know your response already.

NP, think about it. When does news usually come out that would make the current administration look good? Doesn't it seem just a little bit odd to you that all of our major breaks and advancements just HAPPEN to occure in a hot political season? Interesting that... just coincidence I suppose.

On the other hand it would be great news, war sucks and it kills more people than it saves. I don't, however, think that there is even a shred of a chance that they will be able to work independently by years end though. Wishfull thinking at its finest. I doubt that they'd even be able to hold onto the ONE providence that they have currently by the years end. Honestly, they aren't that good at leading themselves and tend to do better when they are led along by a stronger party; be that another country (arab or western) or a dictator/king who takes over. I think they'd do beter off with a system like Britain, where they have a King/Queen and a parliment as well. Although Britains Queen doesn't really have any power now, maybe Iraq would do better giving their King/Queen a bit of power. Another good idea would be to have a new King/Queen elected when the old one dies, that way you have a chance of preventing the whole dynasty thing.

 

[danarhea]

This is great news for President Bush and his administration....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/iraq.talabani/index.html

President: Iraqi forces to take over by year's end

Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Posted: 2:23 p.m. EDT (18:23 GMT)


President Jalal Talabani said Wednesday he foresees Iraqi forces taking over security in all 18 Iraqi provinces by the end of the year.....

Ahh yes. Troops out by the end of an election year.

Meanwhile, the building of 14 permanent bases in Iraq, designed to house many thousands of American troops, continues.

Another day, another lie. So what else is new?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This is great news for President Bush and his administration....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/iraq.talabani/index.html

President: Iraqi forces to take over by year's end

Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Posted: 2:23 p.m. EDT (18:23 GMT)


President Jalal Talabani said Wednesday he foresees Iraqi forces taking over security in all 18 Iraqi provinces by the end of the year.....

Let's see, sectarian violence is increasing, there are not about 3000 Iraqis being killed a month due to it. The Iraqis cannot even secure Baghdad, yet somehow, miraculously the Iraqi forces are going to be able to do what the world's greatest super power cannot, and do it in just a few short months. :roll:

It would seem that Saddam's old Iraqi Information Minister might be writing Talabani's speeches these days.

I noticed that Talabani prefaced these predictions with "God Willing". From the look of how things have been going in Iraq, Allah doesn't want it.

 

[Paul]

Ahh yes. Troops out by the end of an election year.

Meanwhile, the building of 14 permanent bases in Iraq, designed to house many thousands of American troops, continues.

Another day, another lie. So what else is new?

Did you even read the date of your source? March 23, 2004!

That is 2 and a half years old and has no implication on this story. Just more liberal fear mongering. I guess another day, another liberal lie.

As for the Iraqi army, I would be happy if they took over half. I think that would be a reasonable accomplishment given the time table.

 

[Iriemon]

Ahh yes. Troops out by the end of an election year.

Meanwhile, the building of 14 permanent bases in Iraq, designed to house many thousands of American troops, continues.

Another day, another lie. So what else is new?

Whatever happened to the assertion earlier this year or late last year that they would start withdrawing troops later this year? I remember the neocons here braying when I suggested that was a political ploy too.

 

[Navy Pride]

Whatever happened to the assertion earlier this year or late last year that they would start withdrawing troops later this year? I remember the neocons here braying when I suggested that was a political ploy too.

Our pull out of troops depends on the security situation and has always been that.........We will not cut and run..............Get use to it.......

 

[MSgt]

It never ends. So many people run around clueless yet base their insignificant opinions on such ignorance.

One of the problems have been our inabilities to be everywhere. Once we take, secure, and control a sector or province, we have to leave it to take another. In the mean time, the insurgence wind up hopping ahead of us and just work their way into areas that they were once ran out of. It's a cycle that has very recently been blocked and one that we have been working towards.

One of the sectors is under complete Iraqi security control and it is doing well. It also happens to be in the Al-Anbar Province (the most violent probvince for insurgents and sectoral terror). This occurred two weeks ago. By leaving a prepared Iraqi force, U.S. forces are free to move onto other areas where troop strength is needed (Baghgdad, Ramadi, etc.), while Iraqi forces remain to fend off any insurgents that leave Baghdad for a safer HQ local. As the other areas surrounding these hot cities are handed over, the more easier it will be to secure these cities.

The long standing plan this year has always been to give Iraq over to Iraqi control by the end of the year (Last year, I actually thought it was going to happen by the end of the summer to fall time frame based largely on troop movements and gear shifts). However, things like military logistics and payrolls had been an unforseen problem that crept up. Under Saddam, the soldiers dared not "quit" over such a rediculous thing like no pay, no food, or no leave. In some sectors, this has been addressed and there are no "quitters." The Iraqi government have been clueless as to how to set up such a system across the country. It is hurdle that is being addressed.

I don't see all of Iraq being under Iraqi control by the end of the year, but certainly a significant to a vast majority of it. I'm sure political posturing is going to be exploited to Republican and Presidential advantage during this time as Democratic sponsership exploit every single weakness for their agendas as well. There is an outside possibility that this might happen, but not likely. They are training many Iraqi units. They are training all over the country simultaneously. Soon we will see much more Provinces and sectors standing up. However, idiot politicians will damage and endanger just to give a perception that things are closer to an end than they are. Forcing an Iraqi unit to standup before it is ready will only get Iraqis killed and Americans killed when they have to be sent back in to calm a situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if only 60~70 percent of Iraq is under Iraqi control by January. Certainly it could easily be more than this. But any more is really pushing it and is an unnecessary gamble. But, to satisfy the impatience of American voters and the negative media, politicians will gamble with anything. Largely, because they expect Americans to act stupid and draw lines between political parties to define this world. So many gladly substitute understanding for partisan slavery. The hard core Conservative slaves preach on perfect success while the hard core liberal slave preaches on total and devistating failure. The future belongs to the intelligent..not the slaves. What good will it be to force Iraq to fall under Iraqi control before they are ready? How many Iraqis and American troops will be killed to satisfy the idiot Amercian voter who seeks the magic wand that will fix the Middle East?

As responsible Americans, we have a duty to understand our world and all that is going on. As Americans that are worth a damn, we have a responsibility to understand what our troops are going through and what impact it will have on our futures (as we pay lip service - "support the troop"). It's what allows us to make the right decision (right isn't always easy). However, as we have all learned, most Americans are quite content with letting their foolish politicians preach to them their opinions. Some even regurgitate it on web sites.

 

[Hoot]

Iraq will be lost if we continue to allow Iran to pursue its present course. Iraq means little in the war on terror...we should've been focusing on Iran all this time.

 

[SixStringHero]

For the love of god, stop politicizing everything and just accept some good news when you see it.

 

[MSgt]

Iraq will be lost if we continue to allow Iran to pursue its present course. Iraq means little in the war on terror...we should've been focusing on Iran all this time.

This is exactly what I just typed about.

Iran has been a focus the whole time. Do you need a politician to tell you this? Bases in Afghanistan? Bases on the border of Iraq and Iran? Think about it. Iraq was about a host of reasons. Ahmenadejad's rise was a surprise, but Iran's quest to remain in the past still remains on borrowed time.

It's all the same thing anyway. The House of Saud, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Queda, Saddam, Ahmenadejed, Arafat, PLO, etc.........they are all symptoms of the same disease. We can seperate these organizations and countries by drawing lines on a map and calling them by sect, but in the end they are all a part of the same environment, culture, and failure.

The "war on terror" is not merely about attacking today's threats. It is about reforming a safer future in place of where we are heading. Saddam's Iraq offerred us and the Muslims in the Middle East our best chance at reform. It had to start somewhere.

Now Iran sits between Iraq and Afhganistan. Now the House of Saud is under more pressure than before to reform. Now the Jordanian King is embracing a democracy more than before. Now the terrorist organizations and their terror masters are more desperate to lash out ever than before. The winds of change in the Middle East are blowing - the Islamic Radical knows it, hates it, and is reacting violently....the ignorant westerner is still lost about it all and eager to declare every death as a failure.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This is exactly what I just typed about.

Iran has been a focus the whole time. Do you need a politician to tell you this? Bases in Afghanistan? Bases on the border of Iraq and Iran? Think about it. Iraq was about a host of reasons. Ahmenadejad's rise was a surprise, but Iran's quest to remain in the past still remains on borrowed time.

It's all the same thing anyway. The House of Saud, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Queda, Saddam, Ahmenadejed, Arafat, PLO, etc.........they are all symptoms of the same disease. We can seperate these organizations and countries by drawing lines on a map and calling them by sect, but in the end they are all a part of the same environment, culture, and failure.

The "war on terror" is not merely about attacking today's threats. It is about reforming a safer future in place of where we are heading. Saddam's Iraq offerred us and the Muslims in the Middle East our best chance at reform. It had to start somewhere.

Now Iran sits between Iraq and Afhganistan. Now the House of Saud is under more pressure than before to reform. Now the Jordanian King is embracing a democracy more than before. Now the terrorist organizations and their terror masters are more desperate to lash out ever than before. The winds of change in the Middle East are blowing - the Islamic Radical knows it, hates it, and is reacting violently....the ignorant westerner is still lost about it all and eager to declare every death as a failure.

This is all well and good, but it is a bit overly think tank inspired for the real world. That is the problem with this whole social experiment. It was thought up in neo-conservative think tanks in the 90s, was overly optimistic, never took into account that democratizing the Middle East might end up with the Islamic world electing radical Islamic theocracies that were even less friendly to western interests than the old dictatorships were, and never took into account that the majority of Muslim world could end up siding with radical Islam over western societies.

Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and other radical Islamist organizations have more support in Muslim world today than ever before. In fact, if Iran were to become a true democracy tomorrow, by all indications the Iranian people would elect a government that would be at least as radical if not more radical than the current Iranian government. Prior to our going into Iraq, that would have been much less likely. If Saudi Arabia were to become a democracy tomorrow, the Saudi people would elect a government every bit as hostile to the west as the Iranian government is.

My point is that I understand the intentions of the neo-conservatives, and for the most part, I think they are noble. However, in reality, their ideology has thus far been an abysmal failure, and by all indications, we would have been better off under the status quo.