Continuing the Iraq debate...

[V6Bob]

Pull out now and even more perfectly innocent people will die and the country fall into dismal defeat and chaos.

Like I said before, this is not fast food that we Americans are so use too. Let Iraq build up their military so they could competently take on their own battle with Terrorist and uphold their goverment. All this take time.

Pull out later, the exact same thing will happen. The military can defeat anybody in the world. But they can't make the three parts of Iraq live under one Iraqi government. They just don't want to, and they've already divided up the country into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd areas. Sunni police refuse to go into Shiite areas and vice versa. Many of the police are just sectarian militiamen working their day job.

The Iraqi military is totally sectarian, basically a shiite militia. The "insurgents" (not even Bush calls them terrorists any more) are the Sunni militias. Groups of Iraqis are fighting other groups of Iraqis. That's a civil war.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16150223.htm

So for the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives we've basically "succeeded" in transfering power in Iraq from Sunnis to Shiites and in the process made Iraq friendly to Iran's fundamentalist government, and a much more hospitable place for terrorists.

Bottom line. The Iraqis are in a civil war. Not something we can fix militarily except by taking sides and oppressing the other groups. Not a good thing for us to do. As I said elsewhere, we should try to set up defensible borders for the Kurds and Sunnis, so they don't (continue to) get massacred by the Shiite majority. We should ask Saudi Arabia to help the Sunnis, and we should help the Kurds.

We'll be paying for the biggest foreign relations disaster in American history for many years, in many ways.

[SilverRS96]

Re: Continuing the Iraq debate...

bob i think its a awesome idea that u took this out of ironrangers thread but its really gonna go nowhere and get locked...people r gonna say pull out and others will say that its no good to cuz things wont change there..

[3.4 slow to go]

Re: Continuing the Iraq debate...

by that reasoning, Bloods vs Crips is a civil war. Hatfeilds vs McCoys, Coke vs Pepsi, Tastes great vs Less Filling..... ok, my bad.

and the biggest foriegn relation disaster... you forgot NAFTA & CAFTA, Kosovo (region), JImmy Carter (whole N. Korea thing), & Carrot Top.


as for violence, I've still felt safer in my two tours there than in DC, or even some places in Dayton.

go figure.

[dafirebird]

Re: Continuing the Iraq debate...

pull out now, or later - we still want thier OIL!

[Mighty Thor]

Re: Continuing the Iraq debate...

Pull out later, the exact same thing will happen. The military can defeat anybody in the world. But they can't make the three parts of Iraq live under one Iraqi government. They just don't want to, and they've already divided up the country into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd areas. Sunni police refuse to go into Shiite areas and vice versa. Many of the police are just sectarian militiamen working their day job.

First of all I'm glad you did started a Thread out of respect for Ironranger. Second, it's true we can defeat anybody in the world but we are a very responsible nation unlike other nations that ravage a country and leave it in chaos. Third, Iraq is divided into 3 alright with some Catholic Christian as the minority. Fourth, they are not as far divided as we know. They're are just majority of people living in certain areas. Kinda like in S. Calif where Hispanics are the majority and N. have Whites. The great number of them do live in peace with their neighbor the problem are terrorist who see this weaken state of the country and gov. as an opportunity to preach their idiology. These are thugs who are the minority and will kill in order to est. their anarchy.

The Iraqi military is totally sectarian, basically a shiite militia. The "insurgents" (not even Bush calls them terrorists any more) are the Sunni militias. Groups of Iraqis are fighting other groups of Iraqis. That's a civil war.

Not true, Iraqi military is a mix of Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds with Shiite as the majority, which is understandable since the Shiites are the majority in population wise. Again these militia terrorist who are the minority in their idieology wants a divide because Al-Quida wants a haven with the Sunni's while Hezbolla wants it with the Shiite. Just a couple of weeks ago the border patrol here in S. Calif captured a couple of Hezbolla terrorist that crossed from Mexico. It is very important we don't allow them have a safe haven in Iraq. This is why Saddam (who happens to be Sunni)needs to go because he was providing havens for these terrorist.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16150223.htm

So for the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives we've basically "succeeded" in transfering power in Iraq from Sunnis to Shiites and in the process made Iraq friendly to Iran's fundamentalist government, and a much more hospitable place for terrorists.

That's true but it's yet to be observe. The President of Iraq said he wants to est. friendship with other countries and they have done so with S. Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and even the two dominate nations right now Syria and Iran. In a way this would prevent such countries from invading Iraq because of the support of other Arab nations and to establish their economy and trades with these other countries. Iraq by the way is the 2nd largest oil producing nation.

Bottom line. The Iraqis are in a civil war. Not something we can fix militarily except by taking sides and oppressing the other groups. Not a good thing for us to do. As I said elsewhere, we should try to set up defensible borders for the Kurds and Sunnis, so they don't (continue to) get massacred by the Shiite majority. We should ask Saudi Arabia to help the Sunnis, and we should help the Kurds.

Don't be in hurry to say civil war. The generals over there have not said this. This is secretarian violence-kinda like gang wars. They are killing innocent people just like gangs would so they could push it to civil war and hope for what I have said above. This will become a civil war if there is an anarchy in place, gov. falls apart, our military and Iraqis no longer have power and our generals are declaring it to us, not some media and those who are seeking office.

We'll be paying for the biggest foreign relations disaster in American history for many years, in many ways.

That's why it's important that we help them succeed and let them est. their military power, economy and their gov. For all would be for naught. This thing to oust Saddam has been going on since Clinton was in office and he got critize for it heavily. Even when they tried to assissinate Bush Sr., Clinton did very little. We invaded Iraq and got Saddam out and America cheered. But we could not leave a country in dismal/choas that would be irresponsible. Right now we don't have total military power in Iraq, we are letting the Iraqis fight while we are the left hook puncher per say.

Notice how the Demo. have been preaching about let's get out of Iraq. Now that they are the majority, notice how quiet they are. I forgot but there is a Senator from I think either Michigan or Minnesota who said that his party stopped preaching about getting out of Iraq so he is running Pres. Even Obama who never supported this in the beginning said his party has stopped.

[V6Bob]

Re: Continuing the Iraq debate...

they are not as far divided as we know. They're are just majority of people living in certain areas. Kinda like in S. Calif where Hispanics are the majority and N. have Whites.

It's not like that at all. They used to live together a lot. Now Sunnis have fled Shiite areas, abandoning their houses, because they were (properly) afraid they'd be killed. And vice versa. Saddam held it all together with an iron hand. The present government has been powerless to keep it together, and there is no sign that's changing, except that it's getting worse. Note that the word "democracy" is no longer used to describe Iraq's future by most people. A Western style Iraqi democracy is out of the question. A separate Kurdish state might actually be democratic, but the Sunnis and the Shiites will never get together. If there is one Iraq, one side (likely the Shiites) or the other will rule, and it won't be pleasant.

It is very important we don't allow them have a safe haven in Iraq. This is why Saddam (who happens to be Sunni)needs to go because he was providing havens for these terrorist.

The CIA long around refuted this false claim (it's right up there with WMD). The Islamic terrorists hated Saddam, who ran a secular government and held down the religious leaders, and he feared them, didn't want them in his country. Terrorists simply weren't there in any numbers, nor were there training camps. We've _created_ a haven for terrorists in Iraq where there was none. And it will continue because eventually a religious government allied with Iran will take over. It will happen whenever we leave. Tomorrow or ten years from now. It's one of many reasons why this war has made us much less safe.

[Mighty Thor]

Re: Continuing the Iraq debate...

It's not like that at all. They used to live together a lot. Now Sunnis have fled Shiite areas, abandoning their houses, because they were (properly) afraid they'd be killed. And vice versa. Saddam held it all together with an iron hand.

Displaced people are the result of militia or terrorist and this happened when they started attacking and kidnapping them. What you're saying is mostly true on major cities but the minor cities are living in peace. Car bombs are not happening all over the place and killing thousands of people they are happening on specific places, mostly in major cities. Remember that Iraq has some 20 + million population. Not all of that population are at each others throat.

The present government has been powerless to keep it together, and there is no sign that's changing, except that it's getting worse. Note that the word "democracy" is no longer used to describe Iraq's future by most people. A Western style Iraqi democracy is out of the question. A separate Kurdish state might actually be democratic, but the Sunnis and the Shiites will never get together. If there is one Iraq, one side (likely the Shiites) or the other will rule, and it won't be pleasant.

60% of Iraqi citizens turned out to vote. That more percentage than here in the US. Iraq is a young democratic nation now ofcourse there will be turmoil in the beginning. How did it took us a century to be a country and to be recognized as a country. It is very important that we back them up and allow them to build up their military, economy, and est. a strong country. I agree with Bush and McCain we should see to it that they succeed. To leave early would mean to see fall into chaos.

The CIA long around refuted this false claim (it's right up there with WMD). The Islamic terrorists hated Saddam, who ran a secular government and held down the religious leaders, and he feared them, didn't want them in his country. Terrorists simply weren't there in any numbers, nor were there training camps.

What the CIA were looking for were paper works that would link Saddam with Al-Quida. But they did conducted secret meetings and Saddam provided Havens for them. Saddam is not a true secularist (I explained this in the other Thread)like Saudi, Jordan, or any other Arab nation. Even if he is terrorist don't really care about that as long as they have a haven.

So there's Al-Quida all over the world, except Iraq?

No such camp thing exist. I'm sure 3.4 Slow to Go and my relative will back me up by saying there is and they've been flushed out and most got out before they were discovered.

We've _created_ a haven for terrorists in Iraq where there was none. And it will continue because eventually a religious government allied with Iran will take over. It will happen whenever we leave. Tomorrow or ten years from now. It's one of many reasons why this war has made us much less safe.

Terrorist is already there. Its part of Saddam's party, Al-Quida and such.

Think of the OIL for FOOD scandal, the misleading or WMD inspectors, the games he played with the UN. The mass killing of people without trail or killing for the hell of it.

People who have lost their pride, hope and faith makes them easy to recruit. We are become less safe if we leave now. We'll only let them build them up.
-----------------------

This is the base of my argrument that we stay and help Iraqi government firmly est. themself. This may take 10 years (Rome is not built in a day). Help their military and build them up accordingly and help them with their economy.

Now if we leave now like you said or would like to see. This will happen--"Civil War." Terrorist Anarchy is the outcome, Mass killing, More Terrorist Threat to us and we SUCK big time with other nations for destroying Iraq and its people. Plus a never ending blaming game in our part. Politician blaming each other.

Now let's hear your bases for agrument.

[V6Bob]

Re: Continuing the Iraq debate...

I've said my piece.

Iraq is engaged in a civil war. The government and the military you want to build up is simply one side of the war. The country has divided itself, and our military is not going to put it back together. It's not a task they're suited for.

There's no way this will last ten years. The American people will see to that. The next presidential election will be won by the guy the public trusts most to get us out of Iraq fastest.

Everything you fear will happen. Iraq will be chaotic. Nothing will stop that. The ultimate result will be a Shiite government, dominated by clerics, and quite possibly a puppet state of Iran. If we leave now or ten years from now, that will be the result.

And conservatives will blame the Democrats for the failure. As if. With enough troops to maintain order, with diplomacy with the surrounding countries, and rebuilding Iraq and its' economy, starting right after the fall of Saddam, the task of building a cohesive and democratic Iraq would have been difficult. The Shiites have been waiting a long time to get even. So have the clerics Saddam suppressed. But now it's impossible.

And we'll pour more money and lives down this hole in those two years. The ultimate costs will include a new haven for terrorism, hundreds of billions of dollars, many lives, and the lack of respect of most of the world.

We could salvage something by splitting up the country. The violence would be less, unless the Shiite part decides to make war on the Sunni part. But Saudi Arabia could protect the Sunnis militarily, and deter the Shiites. The Kurds would be an ally of the US. The civil war hasn't affected them that much, and they're truly grateful for us getting rid of Saddam.

[BLLDOGG]

Re: Continuing the Iraq debate...

Saddam did have WMD. I saw the images of American soldiers pulling them out of the sand and I believe there was a congressional meeting about them. The non war supports tried barring the subject, which worked, by saying they were not lethal enough anymore. either way, he had them and has been proved and convicted of using them on his own people. The reason why Saddam wasn't even more of a world wide threat himself is because he had absolutely no military abilities. The Iraq/Iran war is a perfect example...one of the reasons we are in these situations today.

[Mighty Thor]

Re: Continuing the Iraq debate...

Saddam did have WMD. I saw the images of American soldiers pulling them out of the sand and I believe there was a congressional meeting about them. The non war supports tried barring the subject, which worked, by saying they were not lethal enough anymore. either way, he had them and has been proved and convicted of using them on his own people. The reason why Saddam wasn't even more of a world wide threat himself is because he had absolutely no military abilities. The Iraq/Iran war is a perfect example...one of the reasons we are in these situations today.

Exactly, this is something liberal media is not going to mention or beat to death. Remember when they discovered more at the basement of the hospital and their university in late '04? That's why I get my source of news somewhere else.

There's a book written by an Iraqi who now lives here in the US. Don't quote me on the title but I think the title was "W.M.D. something, something", what Saddam did to them. He used to work for Saddam and he witness how he and his sons moved those weapons around to avoid WMD inspectors and UN scrunity. I think he concluded that he gave some of it to the terrorist, particularly the ones from Iran.

V6Bob, this is my last post. Neither one of us will change but its good we have out on the thread here instead of disrupting other people's thread. I appreciate your point of view and I respect you for it. A lot of people feel the same as you do and that's good. That's what democracy is all about. You can express your view point without the fear of being persecuted.

I strongly feel that this is not a civil war because our generals over there have not said it. Like they said, we are entertaining this notion and dancing around on a pin point. We leave now like you recommend would cause that young gov. and military to fall apart. Terrorist would flourish even more and their propaganda of bombing us here on our turf would be great. Plus I think of the genocide and ethnic cleansing that can go on. All because of a few terrorist militia would be able to do so. This downfall would be forever on our conscious and other nations would think of us as plunderers.

Our confrontation with Saddam was bound to happen. Now that we won this war, we must secure it and help Iraq build up their gov., military, and economy. Once this is firmly est. we can leave. Whatever else they do with themselves is up to them.

Remember Blackhawk Down during Clinton's era. We were quick to bail out in order to prevent anymore death. What did Osama said to our media in the cave, "America has a weakness." Next thing you know, USS Cole was bombed and so was the US Embassy. Clinton did nothing because he wants to finish his term without this on his hands.

Soldiers have told me that things are not as bad as the media have said--like our members here Sargent Nathan aka 3.4 Slow to go and Ironbanger, my friends and relatives. But like you I do worry about them and I don't like hearing about our own losing their lives over there.

I like to think of our soldiers as warriors who protect us. It is a duty for the few. It's like being a police officer, it's not for everyone and those who did sign up as a police officer put their lives on the line when they go out there on the streets in order to protect us, directly or indirectly..not only that but they also run the risk of scrutunity from our Liberal, negative media. Which is becoming very popular now (kinda like now with our soldiers).

I'm sure if I meet you in person I won't talk about this, because I'll just come out with a headache. We'll just have a beer and talk about cars.

[V6Bob]

Re: Continuing the Iraq debate...

Thanks for you sentiments. I believe there was mutual respect here.

I do have some final words that occurred to me.

"All the kings' horses and all the kings' men, couldn't put Humpty together again."