Iraqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'

Re: raqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'

Wanting to control it and getting control are two different things. Afghanistan could not afford their own military (no oil), nor could Lebanon (no oil). Iraq has lots of oil, can afford their own military. I don't think all of AQ is a match for the Iraqi military today, in terms of its ability to take over the country.

I think they wanted the Taliban, or what they promised to be early on, not what they practically became after seizing control. Problem was Afghanistan had no oil, so no money, so the Taliban needed AQ for money.

How many lives did we lose to capture Baghdad? Less than 100? How many have we lost holding the country? 3,600. It's much cheaper to leave and take them over again than to hold an improperly constructed nation where the players appear to want to be autonomous. Tell them "Get it right, or if you develop WMD or train terrorists to attack the US, we'll come back and hang your leaders like Saddam and his henchmen. We know Saddam was not threatening the US; those guys are not total idiots.

You say cite an instance where someone has used this strategy. I agree its different. Cite me an instance where someone conquered a nation that did not want to be a nation, where the factions in it fought both the occupier and each other, under religious imperative. How are you going to solve that problem?

The argument is not that we should leave because we should not have gone in. The argument is that there is no military solution that is morally acceptable to the world. Look, Saddam unified and controlled the nation. It can be done. He just gassed entire towns if a few folks from that town were found to be plotting to assasinate him. He had paid informants EVERYWHERE. He tortured and killed anyone thought to be a threat in any way. No trials, probably plenty of mistakes and killing of innocent people. But, IT CAN BE DONE. We've seen a method that works. Is that what you mean when you say "lets kick ass"? If not, explain what you mean. Would we be any better than the "bad guy" we went in to replace? Generals like Batiste are saying "there is no military solution in Iraq" and Batiste was there on the staff.

As far as Japan and Germany, yes, they were democracies within 4 years after the war. Germany had a history of organized govt. other than "the strongest guy rules, with an iron fist" prior to Hitler. But they were ready to change, they surrendered unconditionally, and they were homogenous nations of people all sharing a common culture and they did not want to pursue a civil war amongst themselves. Iraq is a totally different situation, and it lacks key elements of success for a stable democracy that Germany and Japan did possess. The US military will never give Iraq those key elements, like everyone is tired of fighting, everyone shares a common culture and common goals, and everyone realizes giving democracy a chance is their best chance as a nation. Those don't exist in Iraq.

We are not in Ger. and Japan today to ensure the stability of their govt. They are stable. We are there as forward bases and checks on Russia and China.

I didn't say we won't be attacked. We may. We will not be surprised by an attack. We are taking many measures to prevent an attack. We look for AQ members and try to capture or kill them, we track money flow to identify them, we have active international and domestic surveillance to see what they are doing, we tightened up visa programs, local police are better trained on what to look for (Houston PD picked up a guy on a public road and took him downtown for questioning after taking pictures of an oil refirery). Sounds like you interpreted my "we won't be surprised" to mean "we wont' be attacked", but I did not. I meant exactly what I said, and I stand by it, we will not be surprised by anything in the next ten years. When the 9/11 bombers struck, we were asleep at the wheel, and that won't happen again in the next ten years.

The bottom line remains: What is the criteria by which we pull out, what is the plan to achieve it, what is the value it brings to the US, and what will it cost to achieve it? Nobody has answered these basic questions. Yes it was a mistake to go in. These basic questions have nothing to do with the fact that going in was a huge mistake, as we correctly knew in 1991. These questions only have to do with getting out. When the administration can't answer these questions, they fail, they fail the troops, and they fail the American people. If these can't be answered, we should stop throwing good money and lives at it and get the heck out. Let the Iraqi people sort out their mess in their own civil war. It will be painful, but maybe then we'll get a modern Iraq that is constructed so it does not take a tyrant to hold it together. Maybe it will splinter into 3 regions where the people all like each other and will begin working to improve their countries.

 

Re: raqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'

Wow, this is news to me.
I thought Iraq's military was disabled and that they were having a civil war according to some, I'm pretty sure we destroyed most of their weapons.
They will need one heck of a buildup in order to defend themselves from their enemies if we pull out quickly but I'm willing to bet that aint possible.

Maybe or Maybe not but to me this makes as much sense as what has happened the first 3 years.

I'm still waiting on an answer where someone has used this strategy.

I will admit that I don't know and not sure how to win it other than the surge.
One thing that I do know is that you and Red appear to not admit that indeed Al Qaeda is in Iraq.
There also have been reports or Iran coming in and out of Iraq attacking American forces but yet you two only say its a religious civil war and seem to ignore the whole story.
I do know that the Sunni's are coming around and are helping us identify the bad guys which helps.
I think the surge is the way to go and I think it took some Iraqi's time to trust us.
You have to remember that these people had been under Saddam's rule for many years, it was all some had ever known.
If that is all you had ever known than you wouldn't know how to act or who to trust either especially when you constantly here the Americans talking about leaving.
I'm also sure that you guys wouldn't admit the war in this case is the first war where we have consistantly shot ourselves in the foot meaning members of Congress are shown on tv throughout the world saying Bush is Hitler and We've lost the war and other negative things.
No wonder the enemy has been as successful as they have after watching our news propaganda.
They aren't stupid, they know how to use and watch our news media to their advantage.

I disagree, the whole Bush lied people died, blood for oil, bring the troops home thing tells me otherwise.
I'm not saying you believe this but I'm convinced a lot of people go by this.

I don't understand where you are going here?
Let me just ask the question, Was there anything we've done in the past not morally acceptable to the world, maybe in Japan for instance?
This is where I think you have a problem when you start letting the world dictate what is and isn't acceptable.

Again I'm not sure where you are going here.
Are you saying that it has been done and works according to what Saddam did so that maybe we should do that?
Nope, I'm not for the way Saddam took over his country.
So now you are trying to say that at a time of war we are a bad guy like Saddam because innocent people would be killed?
From my point of view we have not been tough enough in Iraq meaning many things.
1) We shouldn't be running the war from Washington DC.
2) NO American newsmedia should be allowed around the front lines when we are running operations.
3) We should be torturing the bad guys to get information needed.
4) I also think its a great idea to split Iraq into 3 countries.
After all as bad as Britian screwed up they showed that a country can be made out of these people.
5) Batiste and Murtha aint the only generals in town.

You've missed the whole point, the point is that we had to be there more than 5 years after the war for different reasons than you list.
The left totally ignores that when talking about Iraq.

I don't know if I agree with this at all?
I think this is a little bit like the weather meaning to unpredictable.
I can see us being surprised by an attack and then again maybe not.
I'm a moderate on this one.:hihi:

And no one ever answered these same questions about our bases in Germany, Japan, Korea or anywhere else we've had bases.
I do realize that it is good to have bases in any part of the world but please show me where all of your criteria was ever answered before war in any or every war we've ever been involved in.
I'll be waiting!

 

Re: raqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'

quote
http://www.crf-usa.org/election_central/nation_building.htm
Germany
The 1949 elections formed the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). But West Germany did not regain full sovereignty (supreme power) from the occupiers until 1955, 10 years after the occupation began.

Japan
In 1953, a little more than seven years after the occupation began, Japan regained full sovereignty. Since then, democracy has become firmly rooted in Japan.

My closing comments
I guess according to your post Iraq is a democracy too?
Where do you get 4 years?
Do you have a different meaning of democracy than I?
I thought we were talking about a timespan to remove our troops?

Iraq is quite different, they will be a bigger challange than Germany and Japan, I haven't said Iraq, Germany or Japan are a like btw.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left in this country to believe all of this democracy and Iraq can become a country with deadlines and troops can leave in 4 or 5 short years when it took other countries longer than that.
In a way you have helped me make my point.

 

Re: raqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'

So you do admit they are there now?
I don't think the Iraqis have the military power to remove these foreigners from their country without our help.
We did destroy most of their weapons.

It was actually a joke!:lol:

Did I miss something?
Everything I've heard says the Democrats want the troops home?
Not in Kuwait and certainly not back into Iraq if needed?

Yes I will tip my hat and agree with you however the people in the middle east are quite different than all those people you mentioned.
Any culture that has suicide bombers is quite different than these countries.

Scary stuff here, another reason why we should've gone into Pakistan already no matter what.
It will be a lot tougher if we have to do it now.

Maybe but I think you give the Iraqis too much credit for having the forces and weapons to kick out Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran and whoever else could already be in Iraq that we don't know of.
Lets not forget the democrat politicians had a role in this also and voted for the war in the first place or we never would have entered Iraq in 2003.
Its little too late for them to turn against the war and declare it lost.

I have to tip my hat and give you credit Amigo because one of your posts made me realize that going into Iraq was probably a mistake.
I do keep in mind however that there is no telling what kind of classified materials are on this subject.
Bottomline I changed my mind completely on this subject just because Saddam was pro-west compared to other leaders in the middle east.
We could always go into the middle east and invade, occupy, set up governments but that doesn't mean they won't change to an anti-American government after we leave.
The people in the middle east are crazy, un-predictable.
Now you are going to say that democrats had a right to change their minds since I changed mind but the difference is I don't want to pull out and give up and I would never showboat on tv and give strength to the enemy.
People say we can't win but I don't see how we can afford to lose.
I do like your idea of going into Kuwait but I don't like the idea of having to re-take land and have an all new war having to re-claim the land twice.
The next time it may be Iran and terrorists involved and they just might have chemical weapons.

At any rate as much as I don't care for Bush 41 I would much rather have had him twice instead of Bush 43.
I do think we are in somewhat of a nightmare but I do blame the democrats for showboating on tv.
The enemy manipulates our news media and they know what our politicians are saying and how the war is playing out at home.

 

Re: raqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'

SD,

Is AQ in Iraq? Yes. The important question is why. Is it to take over Iraq as a terrorist AQ stronghold? No. They are not strong enough. They are there to kill ameicans because we are there, and they are there to instigate civil war in order to ensure the failure of democracy in Iraq thereby thwarting US objectives. AQ started in Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and they are helping the Sunni.

The biggest problem is that nobody has a plan to achieve the objectives necessary to get us out of Iraq, to get our troops out of the IED gauntlet on a daily basis. You said your only plan is the surge. It will fail. It does not address the underlying problems in Iraq that created the civil war. Thumping them harder will not solve the underlying issues. You surge in Baghdad, I lay low for a while, or move someplace else. That is the problem, nobody has a plan that leads to the achievement of our objective. Bleeding out indefinitely and hoping the Iraqi people decide to live nicely with one another some day is a very low percentage plan, in the middle of a civil war.

The problem now is the power vacuum we created, and who will fill it. Unfortunately after you create a power vacuum, you are not sure how it will be filled. For all your military might to destroy standing armies in the field, it is not effective in combating guerilla warfare on someone else's home turf. Thus we have no plan. Thus we bleed out. Is there any belief that what we want, a stable democracy in Iraq will occur? None that I can see. Suppose it happens 10 years from now, and we keep losing 1,000 dead and 2,000 losing limbs per year, will the victory ever be worth it? Suppose the enemy gets better weapons, suppose the people on the ground begin to hate us more because we "kick ass" harder? That would increase the fighting, and probably increase the death toll. This could get worse easily. We're on their home turf, in the middle of a civil war, and the best anyone can come up with is to send over 20K more troops. That doesn't sound like a viable plan to me.

This is all at Bush's feet, with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz. They were to arrogant and ignorant to understand that the policy stated in 1991, which Cheney stated for the Bush I admin, on why not to go into Iraq, was the correct policy.

Here is the 1997 statement of the neo cons that started it all:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Sound good? Talk is cheap. Implementation is hard, and often leads to the type of screwup we have in Iraq, the first discretionary step the band of conservative fools took. Are you sure this buildup of the military proposed in 97 by the neocons wasn't just a bone to the defense contractors the way the medicare prescription coverage that you can't negotiate volume discounts was a bone to big pharma? Frankly I think it was. The repubs are the party of big business, and defense could not grow its business while shrinking the military. Sound cynical, it is. Follow the money, who would benefit from the neocon strategy? The American people? What benefit have you received? Monstrous govt. debt, a weak dollar, jobs going offshore, $3 gas, 3,600 dead, 25,000 wounded. But the defense contractors are happy. That's who is benefiting, who do the repubs serve?

 

Re: raqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'

Can you prove this either way?
I really don't think we can prove if they will stay there when we leave or not.
I don't think we know if they are strong enough either?
It depends on how far the Iraqi military has come since we destroyed their machine.
All we have is history to study.

In all honesty no one knows what the plans are except those with security clearances, etc.

The surge may or may not fail.
Keep in mind that you asked me and I told you which doesn't mean much.
No where did I say I know all the answers or what the best course of action is.
There is information that is still classified about the war in Iraq that most people don't know all the information to make an informed decision.

So you have no confidence in any leadership in government or the miliary to fix this problem, correct?

I agree and disagree with you here, the part that I disagree with is that the democrats played a role in this and voted for it so what does that say about them?

You are now calling these people neocons?
So you have a problem with them or don't like their policies?

Ok so maybe I'm starting to see a trend here?
You are anti-Iraq war and maybe your anti-defense as well?
It could work both ways, I would rather have a military buildup than a build down.
Some people who are complaining about Bush sending troops over to Iraq time and time again as well as we don't have the resources or equipment are some of the same that were pleased about the downsizing in the 90's.
You are entitled to your opinion as well as I'm entitled to mine.
I have no problem with us building the military up and people making money during the process.
Its what everyone in this country does, everyone has to make profits to stay in business, profits aren't always a bad thing and neither is capitalism.

And who are the democrats?
Party of big government and environmentalists.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the global warming panic?
Everything is a crisis for the dems.
Btw, talking about health care, did you see what the CEO collected from United Airlines coming out of bankruptcy?
Everyone took pay cuts but him, He collected 41 million dollars and no one says a word about that.
The problem isn't health care, defense contractors, big oil or any single issue.
The problem is across the board, Many other problems than we both have stated including CEO's.

As bad as the Republicans and the defense contractors are.
Congress is much worse, you want to talk about robbery.
Look at the salaries they make and what do we have to show for it?
Ear marks in every bill still today!
Big government whether under a republican or democrat is just as bad.
The money somehow falls through the cracks.
Another form of trickle down economics.

 

Re: raqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'

Let me just say one more thing and say that I'm happy the Republicans were smart enough to build up the military using defense contractors, etc.
I can't imagine just how bad things would've been without the weapons needed to fight a war the last 4 years or so because the dems sure as heck
wouldn't build up the military.

 

Re: raqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'

We've had 4 years since Baghdad fell. Do you see any evidence of success in dealing with the civil war? Iraq is not stable, it is far less stable than the country we invaded. With no evidence of success, it is safe to assume there was no effective plan to produce the success, unless we had a great plan and fumbled the execution.

Correct. This is based on the extremely poor judgment used in going in, ignoring the analysis done in 1991 when the potential for a "quagmire" was stated by Cheney, and then trying to say we were surprised by the sectarian violence. These people are idiots. Since then we have futzed around without an effective strategy to produce what we desire, a stable Iraq governed by a west leaning democratic govt.

Rumsfeld had to be fired, and he was Bush's boy from the git go, indicating what a poor judge of competence Bush was, then Bush let Rummy stay on too long after it was apparent to most that his plan had failed.

What evidence of leadership in the govt. or military would you cite as inspiring confidence?

Yes, I'm calling them neocons. Go to newarericancentury.org, at the link I posted earlier, and these are the signatories:

, or in other words, the part of the Bush cabinet that counted when going to war on Iraq. This is the neocon manifesto.

I am anti Iraq war, and I am anti defense waste. How many tanks do we need to fight OBL and 2,000 thugs hiding in a few caves and kitchens in 30 countries? The neocons have convinced some that to fight AQ, we have to invade large land masses and subdue millions of people. That does not make sense to me. We need better intelligence gathering, a CIA that works, and we probably need to expand our special forces. Why not let the Japanese re-arm and protect themselves, and burn some of their GDP instead of us burning our GDP. Same with Germany. Do you think they are going to attack us? Who'd buy their cars? It would wreck their economies.

I favor building a defense that is effective against the type of threats we face. How many tanks does AQ have? How many planes? Why do we need such a big defense build up now?

Clinton did balance the budget, he did not greatly expand the size of govt. Bush has done much worse in that area. Earmarks expanded from about 50 per bill to 500 per bill between 1995 and 2005, all under the full repub control. It was never zero, and it won't be zero. You can't point to one earmark by a dem and say, there, they are just as bad.

I'm no fan of the dems either, they certainly have their problems, but they showed more fiscal responsibility under Clinton that the repubs have under Bush, and they got a lot fewer people killed that didn't have to die in the first place. My allegiance is to the American people and what's good for them, not the fat cats in Washington and Wall St. and what's good for them.