Those Bad Ol' Iraqis?

Of course we should not sit back... we should get them the hell out of there.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Of course we should not sit back... we should get them the hell out of there.

As George W and our John Howard keep saying, it is not that simple. The whole Middle East would collapse into chaos (yes, more so than it already is), and it would probably spread into South Asia (Afghanistan would become even more of a disaster than it already is, and even Pakistan would be under threat).

I fully support our troops, and I also wish that they could be withdrawn, but the evidence and history, shows that this would be a disaster. Iraq is not Vietnam. We cannot just let go, and things will sort themselves out. I just wish that someone in authority had some answers. Vietnam showed us that supporting a government that does not have the support of the people, is a road to failure, but pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will create an explosion of violence. It is a real dilemma.

[Flint]

I want to make it clear that they had a parking lot before they chose to build a freakin' bowling alley or whatever on top of it, thus creating a "traffic problem" that wouldn't have existed if they played by the rules the rest of us have to follow, IE use your resources wisely, don't expect special treatment, and in a nutshell: "do unto others" etc. (I humbly suggest they build a pedestrian bridge, instead of shutting down a major road) ...

[Shawnee123]

I think they should rely on their faith to cross the street. I mean, would god let a pedestrian on his way to church get mowed over?
They could have T-shirts made: God Is My Crossing Guard.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They couldn't have turned the parking lot into a bowling alley without the blessing of the government/taxing authority. They did what any other business would do, the use the property for maximum return benefit.

The entity issuing the permits would certainly be required to revue the traffic impact study, by law. Evidently they felt it was acceptable and planned to adjust the traffic surveillance/control accordingly.

Did you attend the public hearings on the project the planning board holds before giving the green light, and voice your objections? Did you complain to the parking lot owner(supermarket?) that you don't feel they should be enabling these changes?

Originally Posted by bluesdave

As George W and our John Howard keep saying, it is not that simple. The whole Middle East would collapse into chaos (yes, more so than it already is), and it would probably spread into South Asia (Afghanistan would become even more of a disaster than it already is, and even Pakistan would be under threat).

I fully support our troops, and I also wish that they could be withdrawn, but the evidence and history, shows that this would be a disaster. Iraq is not Vietnam. We cannot just let go, and things will sort themselves out. I just wish that someone in authority had some answers. Vietnam showed us that supporting a government that does not have the support of the people, is a road to failure, but pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will create an explosion of violence. It is a real dilemma.

You want us to stay until they all get along!?
Not our problem.
They voted for that government.
Americans have got to quit obsessing with the whole "failure" thing with Iraq. We failed before we ever invaded & occupied a nation that was not a threat to us & did not want us there... the second BushCo. thought they could get away with it the failure was sealed. Now we need to control the damage done as best we can, every day we stay that damage gets worse.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You want us to stay until they all get along!?
Not our problem.
They voted for that government.

No, I don't want our troops to stay, but as I said, I can't see that withdrawing is going to make the situation better. Both the Iraqi Government, and the Afghan, are weak, but would you put someone like Saddam back into Iraq, and the Taliban back into Afghanistan - or maybe let Iran rule both, which is not an unforeseeable possibility, especially if we pull out?

[Ibby]

Churches get treatment. That's fine and just. I don't deny that some get too much. But any treatment is not too much treatment; a church should be, legally speaking, no different from any other event or gathering. Cops help out traffic problems at, to copy T3h Bruce, shows, rodeos, circuses, swap-meets, flea markets, etc; theres no reason not to do the same for churches.

[Hippikos]

Seems that finally the US guvmint is beginning to use brains instead of muscles. But too little, too late?

The US commander in Iraq today said military force alone was "not sufficient" to end the violence and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the US-backed government.

The announcement came as the Pentagon announced the deployment of an extra 2,200 US military police to Iraq to help deal with an anticipated increase in detainees during the latest US-led security crackdown, and the US day-to-day commander in Iraq was reported to have recommended current troop levels are maintained into 2008.

General David Petraeus, a counter-insurgency expert, was picked by Mr Bush in a last attempt to tackle the sectarian violence in Baghdad which is threatening to rip the country apart. US policy in Iraq is at present the deployment of 21,500 more troops to help the Shia-led government of Nuri al-Maliki.

A parallel increase in military police was requested by Gen Petraeus, but at his first news conference in Baghdad since taking charge of American forces last month, he said it was political negotiations with militants that "will determine in the long run the success of this effort".

He said he saw no immediate need for more US combat troops other than those already announced, but a report in the New York Times said his day-to-day commander, Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno, had made the confidential assessment that heightened troop levels be maintained until February 2008.

Gen Odierno's view reflects the counter-insurgency doctrine favoured by Gen Petraeus of leaving troops in areas they enter rather than withdrawing and letting insurgents return.

Gen Petraeus today said Baghdad had seen encouraging signs of progress despite "sensational attacks", pointing to a fall in sectarian killings and fewer people leaving their homes in recent weeks in the capital.

But nine US soldiers were killed in two separate roadside bombings this week in spite of a security crackdown now in its fourth week.

And the increase in US forces has not prevented a spate of attacks in the past three days on Shia pilgrims making their way to the holy city of Kerbala. At least 150 have been killed, including more than 100 outside the capital. It was "too early to discern significant trends, [but] there have been a few encouraging signs", Gen Petraeus told reporters.

The attacks - mostly blamed on Sunni insurgents - are seen as attempts to provoke a civil war with Shia militia.

Gen Petraeus said it was "critical" for leaders to halt any drift toward sectarian conflict and added that US forces were ready to help provide additional security for the pilgrims if asked by Iraqi authorities.

But he saw no role for the Shia militia known as the Mahdi Army, whose fighters guarded pilgrims in the past two years.

He said "extremist elements" in the militia had been engaged in "true excesses" in the past - a reference to suspected gangs killing Sunnis.

The Guardian

Must say, I've seen an interview with Gen.Petraeus some years ago as a group commander and he came over as a down to earth, practical guy who seems to know what job he's doing. Was thinking when I saw the interview, why isn't he in charge?

It will force them to stop blaming their problems on the occupying force and to deal with each other on their own terms.
They are not weak, they have a scape-goat.
Who they put into power is not our problem.
As a libertarian I do not feel it is our job to be the world's babysitter.
They shoot our kids, say they don't want us there... fine. Plus, they are right, we have no right to be there. I am talking about Iraq... this thread is not about Afghanistan. That is more complex and I agreed with the invasion but am disgusted with the FUBAR it turned into.... but, OT.
Iraq is simple, really, we had no business doing it and no business being there now that we helped them vote their govt. in.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I am talking about Iraq... this thread is not about Afghanistan.

It is not that simple any more. You cannot isolate Afghanistan from the equation. Iran and Pakistan tie the two together. The situation is so complicated now, that you cannot only consider Iraq. I agree that in an ideal world, the troops should be pulled out of Iraq, but it is not that simple. I wish is was, believe me.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

It is not that simple any more. The situation is so complicated now, that you cannot only consider Iraq. I agree that in an ideal world, the troops should be pulled out of Iraq, but it is not that simple. I wish is was, believe me.

And that my friend is a very true statment. In fact the most insightful one I have read on here. We are all from the armchair quarterback club. Hindsight is a guilt free position on most issues.

[Perry Winkle]

I can't find the quote about being careful about starting a fight, because you cannot chose when it ends.

So here's a word from old Nicky that I think fits our situation in Iraq:
"Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself."

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

It is not that simple any more. You cannot isolate Afghanistan from the equation. Iran and Pakistan tie the two together. The situation is so complicated now, that you cannot only consider Iraq.

Continuing the mistakes in Iraq rather than maintaining a status quo; rather than do what the informed have been saying (as paraphrased in the Iraq Study Group) means Afghanistan may be right behind Iraq. Taking the we fear all mentality; automatically labeling everyone in black and white; for example, automatically labeling Iran as an enemy; will only lead to more American deaths and further loss of American influence.

One should never forget who the wild card in that region is and who the greatest threat to American interests is: Pakistan.

Ironic that a closest American ally is also a greatest threat? Not just a liability - a threat. As bluesdave notes, the situation is so complicated now which is also why the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group demanded coordinated actions from most of the American government. But how many understood how complicated as to understand that Pakistan (not Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, or the K'stan nations) is the greatest threat - the big wild card.

As long as we continue this status quo, then the potential threat of, around, and in Pakistan only becomes larger. Status quo ("Mission Accomplished") is a guaranteed source of things worse. That was made quite clear from the Iraq Study Group.

One need only learn lessons of history. The Wise Men said a same thing in Vietnam. So we ignored that hard reality out of fear - as if might makes right. It only meant 30,000 massacred Americans, millions of massacred Vietnamese, and even created the killing fields in Cambodia. Welcome to what happened in 1968 when we did in Vietnam what we are now doing in Iraq - maintaining the status quo only because no one in American power was willing to accept hard facts.

[bluesdave]

tw, you are quite correct about fearing Pakistan, but I do not think you should dismiss Iran. You can also add Syria for that matter, though its influence is mainly in Lebanon and Palestine, and to a lesser extent, Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that one day we will have to get out (of Iraq). What worries me, is: 1, the method of our withdrawal, and 2, what sort of mess will be left behind. I know that we can take the stand of who cares, it's not our country, but we took it upon ourselves to invade both countries, so whether we agreed or disagreed with the original actions of our governments, we as people, have a moral obligation to the Iraqis and Afghanis. Iran has also put itself into the equation. It is not a silent, neutral observer.

We should have concentrated on Afghanistan, and Bin Laden in the first place, and left Iraq for another day.