Is the current surge working? - Page 5

Gladiator · 07-21-07, 07:30 PM

Dear Southern Democrat.

How are you definining Insurgency? Iraqi vs US roadside bombs? Al Qaida vs Western Sniper Shootings? Al Qaida vs Shiite suicide bombings in Mosques and markets? Shiite vs Sunni murders of young Sunni men in Baghdad? Beheadings and torture of non-terrorist Sunnis by al Qaida?

Iraq is volatile and can change quickly.

The "last throws" is not applicable to Iraq, because there are ample weapons and bomb making materials, and short tempers, so violence can erupt when a segment of the Iraq society gives up hope for a better future.

I understand your sarcasm, but Iraq is more of a tough road, than a joke. Helping the Iraqi people to stand up against the barbaric Islamic Militants can be a beacon of hope for success for all Moderate Muslims in the world.

.

Billo_Really · 07-21-07, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladiator
Helping the Iraqi people to stand up against the barbaric Islamic Militants can be a beacon of hope for success for all Moderate Muslims in the world.

The best way for us to help the Iraqi people is to leave!

mikhail · 07-21-07, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

The best way for us to help the Iraqi people is to leave!

I feel this is wishful thinking for the best case scenerio as was the war in the first place.

If we pull out now the only future i see is a taliban style government.

Gladiator · 07-21-07, 08:23 PM

Dear Billo Really,

How do we manage the gains and losses in leaving?

I asked a supporter of the Islamic State of Iraq, ISI:
"Do you feel that Iraq would be better off if Western soldiers left Iraq?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaguar b. p.

That would depend, a miss for the hunter is not necessarily a miss for the rabit.
My goal is to transform Iraq into a launching pad for attacks against the U.S., because I'm really pissed at Americans for murdering so many people and this has to be washed in blood

So of course the Coalition should be expelled and Iraq handed to America's enemies.
Also I'm upset with Iraqi collaborators for giving legitimacy to the US-led slaughter, so a Coalition withdrawal would also mean a holocaust of these traitorous rats

Billo_Really · 07-21-07, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gladiator
Dear Billo Really,

How do we manage the gains and losses in leaving?

I think we have already lost enough. We gain by righting a wrong. There is only one way to fix an occupation, end it!

Quote:

Originally posted by Gladiator
I asked a supporter of the Islamic State of Iraq, ISI:
"Do you feel that Iraq would be better off if Western soldiers left Iraq?"

Most reports I've seen say the majority of Iraqis want us gone. The only ones who want us to stay, are those in the Green Zone and al Qaeda. The CIA intercepted an al Qaeda letter expressing concern if the US leaves, the reason for Iraqis tolerating them in their country, we be gone.

I think if we leave, al Qaeda forces will either be jailed or kicked out of the country. They only make up 3-5% of the fighting insurgency. They don't have the manpower to take over that country. Or look at it this way, if WE can't take over the country with the military WE have, how could al Qaeda?

Iraqi's want us out...

Quote:

U.S. concept of victory in Iraq is laughable
By Fatih Abdulsalam Azzaman, December 7, 2006

Nearly four years after President Bush declared victory in his ill-fated invasion of Iraq, U.S. officials are still dealing with our country as a real battlefield.

Despite the quagmire, the current U.S. administration has failed to design a road map or new strategy on how to salvage its own image and standing as a superpower.

To say the invasion and subsequent occupation were for the sake of delivering the Iraqis from a brutal dictator is a big lie.

And the reason is evident. Until the publication of the report of Iraq Study Group Washington seemed to have no strategy.

But what victory the U.S. would like to achieve in an already broken Iraq and after four years of bloody battles that have almost touch every corner of the country.

The U.S. administration must first define the concept of victory it wants to achieve in Iraq. In the lack of a proper definition, any strategy is doomed.

The word ‘victory’ is so frequently used in the U.S. political rhetoric that it has almost lost its meanings.

For example, U.S. officials call the opening of a hair dressing saloon led by a Muslim woman in Afghanistan a victory even if they are certain that the hapless woman will eventually lose her life as a result.

And the talk of victory over ‘terrorists’ in Iraq has been these officials’ mantra since the fall of the former regime.

But they hide the fact that the country was free of all forms of their so-called terror.

The war on ‘terror’ which the U.S. wants others to believe it is waging in Iraq has no basis. For many Iraqis it is a pretext to have them tormented further.

The U.S. war allegedly waged to crush ‘terror’ in Iraq is an excuse to disparage the country’s resistance fighters. It is also part of a political game which has its adherents inside Iraq.

Billo_Really · 07-21-07, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikhail
I feel this is wishful thinking for the best case scenerio as was the war in the first place.

If we pull out now the only future i see is a taliban style government.

I really don't care what their government is. I don't want my tax dollars going to another country's democracy when it is systematically being stripped from me in my own country.

As far as the Taliban, they didn't become the bad guys until they said no to the pipeline deal. Before that, we were sending them quite a bit of cash...

Quote:

the U.S. committed $43 million in aid to Afghanistan in May 2001, it brought the total of U.S. aid to the country that year alone to $124 million.

...5 weeks before 9/11, we told them "...either they accept our carpet of gold, or we will bury them under a carpet of bombs".

SouthernDemocrat · 07-22-07, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladiator

.

I understand your sarcasm, but Iraq is more of a tough road, than a joke. Helping the Iraqi people to stand up against the barbaric Islamic Militants can be a beacon of hope for success for all Moderate Muslims in the world.

.

It certainly could be, if the majority of Iraqis were actually interested in having a unified Iraq. They are not though, their allegiance lies first and for most with with various tribal and ethnic factions.

Democratizing the Middle East is a worthwhile goal, but we could not have picked a worse nation in the entire Middle East to try to democratize. Moreover, our presence there according to the last couple of intelligence estimates bolsters radical islam throughout the Muslim world and has set the forces of moderation back significantly. Indeed, Bin Laden probably passed out cigars the day we went into the country.

That all said, its a total Catch 22 at this point, and I don't think there are any good answers on the left or the right.

Gladiator · 07-22-07, 09:51 AM

Dear Billo Really,

Saddam Hussein was not free of Terror. 300 Suicide Bomb belts were found by invading US troops in an Iraq Government warehouse.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...172572228.html

Saddam Hussein gave $25,000 to families of sucide bombers.
Salaries For Suicide Bombers, Iraq Pays $25,000 To Families Of 'Martyrs' - CBS News

How much did Sadam give to 9-11 bomber families?

The whole Military budget is only 4% of GNP. The price of Gasoline is $7.00 a Gallon if you factor in the cost of US military operations that are undertaken to keep oil shipping lanes safe. So advocate an increase in the gasoline and oil tax, and stop driving or using electricity from burning oil, then your tax dollars will not be going for the war in Iraq.

Gladiator · 07-22-07, 10:11 AM

Dear Southern Democrat,

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

It [Iraq success over Islamic Militants] certainly could be [a beacon of hopte to all Moderate Muslims], if the majority of Iraqis were actually interested in having a unified Iraq. They are not though, their allegiance lies first and for most with with various tribal and ethnic factions.

Democratizing the Middle East is a worthwhile goal, but we could not have picked a worse nation in the entire Middle East to try to democratize. .

The Provincial govenments , cities and town councils have started to meet and function in 2007. In 2006, the atmospehre of violence was a substantial factor in keeping the local governments from meeting or funtioning.

The US surge in 2007 has provided sufficient security for the local and provincial governments to start meeting and functioing. The local control might lessen the need for bigger compromises at a National level for Iraq. Variations in Local government funding/investing priorites and regulations may be able to reflect ethnic diversity, thus avoiding the need to address those issues on a national level.

Multi-National Force - Iraq - Provincial Iraqi Control

Search Provincial Government's Iraq

The substantial decrease in Sunni support for al Qaida and the Islamic State of Iraq, and the improvement in the functioning of local and Provincial governments in Iraq, in 2007, have coincided to make the surge more successful, now, in July, 2007.

From a Sociological standpoint, the debates and discussions at the local level in Iraq, builds social skills, teamwork skills and enlightens ethical conceptulization skills for the people of Iraq. As people practice self-government, they become better at governing themselves.

.

Gladiator · 07-22-07, 10:40 AM

Transcript of Marine Corps General Gaskins briefing. In an earlier post on this thread, Post #30, 7-20-07, I had given my memory of the General Gaskins briefing.

DefenseLink News Transcript: DoD News Briefing with Maj. Gen. Gaskins from Iraq

This is the home page of Iraqi Freedom for the Multinational Forces. There is a link on the home page to slides of briefings by other Generals briefings and some videos:

Multi-National Force - Iraq

.