So, now that 72% of US troops in Iraq say it's time to leave

[theloniusfleabag]

The US has already decided to stay for some time.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...uring-bases.htm

As long as those bases (and Halliburton's oil) remain, the US isn't about to give up 'security control'. However, as long as these 'dozen targets' remain, they will presumably be under sporadic attack, and 'not retreating' will keep the US firmly planted there. They have created a cycle which might keep them there in perpetuity.

[KrustyKidd]

It's astounding KK that you would worry about sectarian violence if the US left.

Not only sectarian violence but violence within sects. you seem to be under the idea that Iraq will simply unfold into three neat groups and then fight from their positions. Not so. the Shiites are all divided into different factions with degrees of loyalty to Clerics, Iranians and the government itself. Same as the Sunnis and Kurds. It would be an absolute mess and one that is certain to make whatever you have seen so far look like a north American city park.

It appears the Iraqi government is getting fed up with the US. Will they leave if asked?

I don't think so. Not in the way you seem to want them to. If anything it would be a phased pullout of cerrtain areas rather than a traumatic turnover. This here is a conciliatory move by the govermnet try and difuse the tension happening there. There being in the area where this even t occured. If anything, the US forces will simply temporarily speed up the tranistion of control to Iraqi forces until this particular event blows over.

The US has already decided to stay for some time.

Known that one for sometime. Check out the Stratfor report at the Werewolf and it even gives the name and locations of them. It was one of the Stategies to effect the changes in Saudi Arabia and more than likely one reason why Syria is not a greater problem than it is.

[gerryhatrick]

Not only sectarian violence but violence within sects. you seem to be under the idea that Iraq will simply unfold into three neat groups and then fight from their positions. Not so.

I don't think anything of the kind. You're a great one for false arguments.

I have been clear about what I think.

You think Iraq and the region will explode if the US leaves Iraq. This is based upon your idea that the US is somehow keeping the violence in check. It's illogical, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[KrustyKidd]

I don't think anything of the kind. You're a great one for false arguments.

I have been clear about what I think.

(in rsponse to my comment of "you seem to be under the idea that Iraq will simply unfold into three neat groups and then fight from their positions. Not so."}

Gerry

Time to get back on topic anyway.

The USA is the common enemy in Iraq for foreign terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. That is undeniable.

Thus, their continued presence only continues violence that would otherwise not occur.

So, if they left, things would calm down then.

You think Iraq and the region will explode if the US leaves Iraq. This is based upon your idea that the US is somehow keeping the violence in check. It's illogical, but you're entitled to your opinion.

They are not keeping the violence in check though. They are supporting an Iraqi government by supporting their weak military. Without that military giving some form of central gravitational confidence, the entire country will disolve into chaos with militias taking over, both Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite and, as it is apparent the military will fail, then of course logic dictates the government will soon follow - thus making any political moves redundent.

Do you think the violence would explode? If so, why? Sectarian violence? Terrorist violence?

Explain why (if) you believe violence would increase if US left please.

Help me understand why it's anything more than fear-mongering by the Bush admin. thx.

The Bush admin doesn't say that. I do. Like you, I don't get my news and information from Bush, I go through various sources, none of them Fox, Gaurdian, Michaael Moore, Rush Limbaugh or talk show hosts. Anything that is dripping with resentement or ridicule in the prose I discount as tainted and not worth reading whether I agree or not.

See, the natural state for an Arab is to be tribal. They don't form nations naturally, only by force and being conquered. Hence, the natural state for Iraq will be, in lack of authority, is factioned and, even within those Religious factions you will have geographical, ethnic, tribal, and in the case of Iranian influenced - politically factioned. That's a shit load of factions all with guns protecting themselves against other factions whom they view with distrust and suspicion. All while the opportunity to take what is theirs is a possibility that fills their dreams.

Iraq is a country that has been forced to come together by force. Sunnis and Shiites were practically 'bussed' from other parts of the country in order to make a mix in Sadam's era. So, there are no neat lines wher one part starts and the other begins.

The violence would be a three way split of confusing proportions. Sectarian mixed with power plays within those sects. Geography and ethnicity would also throw in a minor fourth. Shiites for example don't all agree. Some like this, some believe that and some want this and that but not this. And all have armies and land to protect and want more. There won't even be peace in the middle of nowhere if there is two shiite militias staring at one another for crying out loud. So, even if you took Sunnis and Kurds out of the mix along with Iran, there will still be fighting. Sunnis the same with Jihadists thrown into the mix along with former Regime members and such all trying to do something.

Because the different Militias are all guarding their home turf. Without a central government, they retreat back into those areas and just hunker down. Little or no cooperation other than to increase their military power the place would turn into a land of Warlords like Afgtanistan. Remember Afganistan? The place that was so messed up that people actually liked it when the Taliban took over so there would at least be some sort of entity other than complete chaos? Well, that's what will more than likely happen in Iraq if the government is not supported by their weak military, which in trun is supported and trained by the US.

They only need time, and you think that Saddam should have gotten years more of it after more than a decade of stalling and bullshitting but the people of Iraq only deserve three years.

[gerryhatrick]

The Bush admin doesn't say that. I do.

Actually the Bush admin says terrorists would fill the vacuum in Iraq and launch attacks from there if the US left. Bush says they will use Iraq as a base to overthrow ME governments and launch attacks on the US.

Sounds like they're saying the region will explode.

They also say that they're not leaving until peace and security is created, which implies that if they leave it would not be created...thus continued violence. How they're going to be able to create peace and security while they remain in Iraq is....well, perhaps not planned yet! The US is the lightning rod for the violence there...and it's mostly insurgent violence rather than terrorist violence. Anybody who works with the US is targetted by insurgents. If they leave, the violence drops.

Now Bush has said if the US leaves Iraq the terrorists win. What mindless rhetoric considering that the vast majority of the enemy in Iraq are not even terrorists.

[KrustyKidd]

Actually the Bush admin says terrorists would fill the vacuum in Iraq and launch attacks from there if the US left.

Hate to bring you down man but Bush is not being entirely forthcommng with you Gerry. Insurgents will not 'fill' the vacum but would become part of what is left over after the place explodes.

Bush says they will use Iraq as a base to overthrow ME governments and launch attacks on the US.

Sounds like they're saying the region will explode.

I take it you mean they being terrorists. If you thinkhe said the place would explode then I thnk you heard right for whatever reason he says or doesn't say. As for creating a base to overthrow ME governments I doubt that the entire country would be available for them however, they would certainly have room and cooperation to operate from certain sects that they help out during whatever nightmare comes if the US should pull out as a reward.

They also say that they're not leaving until peace and security is created, which implies that if they leave it would not be created...thus continued violence.

Yes, makes sense to me.

How they're going to be able to create peace and security while they remain in Iraq is....well, perhaps not planned yet!

Through the political process. It is not a fast one but, it has to go forward throgh all this hardship in order to be strong.

The US is the lightning rod for the violence there...and it's mostly insurgent violence rather than terrorist violence. Anybody who works with the US is targetted by insurgents. If they leave, the violence drops.

Yes of course. That's why the attacks are happening against police, government, Iraqi forces and just women and children. Becasue the US is a lightening rod.

Now Bush has said if the US leaves Iraq the terrorists win. What mindless rhetoric considering that the vast majority of the enemy in Iraq are not even terrorists.

Bush speak: terrorists = enemies of freedom. Better get that one in your vocabulary. It sells much better to the public rather than trying to name forty odd groups of Saddamists, Sunni factions, Iranian supported Shia, power hungry Militia leaders like Al Sadr, AL Queda operatives, foriegn and domestic Jihadists and on and on. Remember, terrorist = enemy of government and freedom.

Try getting over the semantics and go with the atual idea itself. Believe me, you won't get your thighs strapped in debate as much.

[gerryhatrick]

Bush speak: terrorists = enemies of freedom.

Nope. Bush speak: terrorists = anyone who attacks a US soldier.

Dishonest bushit, just like the Gulf of Tonkinish coniving of his to provoke a war with Iraq.

[KrustyKidd]

anyone who attacks a US soldier.

In Iraq where US is trying to install freedom that spells enemy of freedom or, bad guy. Which of course goes back to the origional terrorist definition.

[gerryhatrick]

anyone who attacks a US soldier.

In Iraq where US is trying to install freedom that spells enemy of freedom or, bad guy. Which of course goes back to the origional terrorist definition.

So in your mind all insurgents in Iraq are terrorists.

Bush uses the word "terrorist" about 20-1 over the world "insurgents" when he talks about Iraq, even though terrorist to insurgent ratio (by US estimate) is about 1 to 20.

In spite of that dishonest wordplay, even Bush wouldn't condone what you're saying.

[KrustyKidd]

So in your mind all insurgents in Iraq are terrorists.

I would ask what your problem is but know that you are fumbling with about three threads right now and lacking substance on eaach of them so will just answer.

No. I thought that I have explained that quite plainly about two posts up Here, in case you are too much in a hurry to scroll to it

Bush speak: terrorists = enemies of freedom. Better get that one in your vocabulary. It sells much better to the public rather than trying to name forty odd groups of Saddamists, Sunni factions, Iranian supported Shia, power hungry Militia leaders like Al Sadr, AL Queda operatives, foriegn and domestic Jihadists and on and on. Remember, terrorist = enemy of government and freedom.

Here, this should explain a lot too. But, you would actually have to be able to spend a few minutes reading it to see. An exerpt

In Baghdad, it would errupt in Sectarian violence as Shiite militias now were free to roam and Sunnis desparate to maintain power and stop the potential for being minimalized would embrace the former Regime insurgentcy members as well as allowing more open operation of Jihadists, opening the flood gates to foreign Jihadists and Al queda to help secure their situation

See? Sunnis and insurgent differenciated in the same sentence.

Bush uses the word "terrorist" about 20-1 over the world "insurgents" when he talks about Iraq, even though terrorist to insurgent ratio (by US estimate) is about 1 to 20.

Hmmmm. Very interesting. So, what are you trying to say? I myself rarely listen to him so am not a qualified 'Bushologist' preffering to see what has transpired and read the intelligence reports rather than do lip syncing and work with mood rings and such. As I said, he is a terrible speaker and also has the impediment of having to make the message understood by people who have no idea of what is going on. Therrefore, he can be cut a lot of slack in his definitions.

[gerryhatrick]

I would ask what your problem is

I would ask you what yours is also, if I cared.

I think I know anyway. Bush=good. War=good. Insurgent=terrorist. ad naseum.

[KrustyKidd]

I think I know anyway. Bush=good. War=good. Insurgent=terrorist. ad naseum.

Gerry, you really are silly. In more than four threads I have said that Bush is not the most capable person for the job and that another would more than liekly do a better job. Get it through your head that I am not a Bush lover, however, recognize one who is so blinded by trivial hatred that he cannot argue straight. Rember you asked me about Bush the other night? I answered you. If you had read that answer you would not be saying such things as the above.

Here, I will get it for you as you are too lazy to read the replies to your questions.

It is not his personal decision that is effecting world events. It is the accumulation of hundreds if not thousands of people who, with training in political, cultural and military events and history probably amount to the most qualified group on the planet to advise any person on such matters. His decisions are akin to you taking your lawyers or doctors advice. I mean, unless you are a doctor, you get it explained and then follow the advice given. If you have say, fifty doctors each specializing in matters of the body and mind with one or two as the head, you would take their advice would you not? Or, would you wander off taking your own course countering their advice and hope for the best?

Myself, I believe that any President save Carter would have done what Bush did. In fact, Clinton made regime change in Iraq US policy minus the use of force. 911 changed a lot of things and, that caveate went with it. The right blames Clinton wrongly for a lot of things including not taking care of Iraq but, once again, 911 changed a lot of things. For example, Clinton sent cruise missiles against Afganistan when the Towers were bombed, he didn't take care of the problem the right charges. Think about it, how could he have mustered support for an ivasion without a large scale event such as 911, To do so would have been insanity and, political suicide.

Clinton, despite the bull crap impeachement put forth against him was a fine Democratic President. Weak on defense, you had to remember the times though with the Soviet Union dismantling and all, he could afford to be and look inward for growth.

Bush's problem (or rather main problem) is that he does not have the gift of Clinton - an ability to speak and make his ideas known and understandable. I believe he is known as the 'Great Communicator' and, with good reason. He has style and charm and, was well supported at home. Bush on the other hand should have fired his PR team back in January 2001. Possibly earlier.

It's for the above reasons that I firmly believe that Clinton would have handled the War on Terror better than Bush. However, would he have the courage to go to the extent Bush has? I think so, after all, he initiated a lot of it. Certainly, he would have been able to mobilize more of the US population behind him (or at least less of them opposing him) through better explanations and, been able to work better with other countries.

Would another President do better if Bush and Cheney were replaced tommorow? If they planned on staying the course they would in that they would provide a fresh start in the political arena domestically as well as internationally. New broom sweeps clean they say. Even if it's the same brand.

You know what's funny. You replied to that without acknowledging anything in it less than two hours later. And then continued to brand me as being a Bush follower and such. It really lets everybody here know you are a trivial debator Gerry. Matter of fact, everything you put forth is trivial sniping. You seem to take an extraordinary time in making anything more than the usual personal digs such as you did when you thought I was mixed on the memo and the Blair mettings but lack even comments on the pages long answer I provided to your question of what I thought might happen if the US left Iraq.

So, unless you have anything other than common sandwhich board rhetoric and immature points from move on, I think I'm going to cut out for a bit. Maybe torment you next week.

Night.

[gerryhatrick]

You know what's funny. You replied to that without acknowledging anything in it less than two hours later. And then continued to brand me as being a Bush follower and such. It really lets everybody here know you are a trivial debator Gerry.

You're under the impression that you provide material worth debating. You don't. You play silly literal games and not much else. Half the time you're playing lawyer with what you've said previously...churning out pointless multi-layered responses to establish nothing except that you can split hairs.

[KrustyKidd]

Gerry. If you get away from the hatred and emotional attachement to your arguments then it would fall together rather well. Take a page from Black Dog or Theloniusfleabag. Two of the foremost left wing debators on the board. They don't go on campaigns and chase a theme as they know all politicians lie out of political and job necessity. They concentrate of facts and logic, not how they feel the person is.

As for my points, I'll sum up a couple;

There are far more than three entities in Iraq that will be at war with one another as the entire country will fall apart into anarchy with factions within sects and such. Yes, former Regime Members will be there too as will Al Queda and Jihadists looking for a place to fight from. And, they won't have problems with finding factions ready to take them in. In all, the talk of it settling down or anybody even getting together to talk peace or understnding is a falacy as there will be no place to actually place a handle for negotiations on or provide aid.

The US is in a terrible position however, it is tenuable providing they can keep the political process going. If they pull out, the process will stop overnight as without the support they need from the military, who in turn are supported by the USA, the governement will fall.

Bush, as I said, is not the best man for the job, however, he is there doing that job and will not be changed until the next election. I had actually hoped that he would have stepped down prior to the last election (citing family or other reasons) thus allowed some of this mindless hatred to stop dividing the US.

The US are not the ones being targeted. It is Iraqi women and children, Sunnis, Shiites, Police and military. All by various groups who are doing whatever they can not to simply expell the US, but to stall and extinguish the political process. The US will leave as part of the moves to destroy democracy so I is, like you keep saying Bush does, a lie for them to say they only want that. If they wanted that they would simply help the process then wave as the soldiers all got onto their aircraft to go home after Iraq became a true 100% democracy.

Those are a few. Hope you can deal with them in a thoughtful way without the slogans and hatred.

[Riverwind]

There are far more than three entities in Iraq that will be at war with one another as the entire country will fall apart into anarchy with factions within sects and such.

Maybe, maybe not. You might see the country split relatively peacefully apart. I think very few Iraqis are that thrilled about a unified state and the only reason that option is considered is because the US will not allow a break up.

At some point in time, the US will have to pack up and leave because and let the Iraqis figure it out for themselves because you can't force a civil society on people that have no interest in it.

[KrustyKidd]

Maybe, maybe not.

This guy agrees with me. Or maybe it me with him. In any case, there's more, use keyword shiite led militias

Iraq's militias: Many little armies, one huge problem

For the most part they are grass- roots forces without uniforms, bases or standardized training. They appear at makeshift checkpoints throughout the country guarding the perimeter of hospitals and airports, and persecute their rivals under the guise of "neighborhood watches."

The danger is that many feel stronger allegiance to their militias and religious sects than to the state.

Maybe, maybe not. You might see the country split relatively peacefully apart.

Iraq was engineered by Saddam to not be a neat parcel where people could get together. He had Sunnis brought into Shiite areas and vice versa so there is no way for any group to simply 'come together.' They all have to regroup in order to do that, sometimes hundereds of miles and leaving a life behind them. So 'split' is not exactly an apt word. Twist, buckle, risk moving during strife through factioned areas of various control all hot headed and armed to start whatever against anybody who is not them. Not so neat is it?

At some point in time, the US will have to pack up and leave because and let the Iraqis figure it out for themselves because you can't force a civil society on people that have no interest in it.

I would agree with you had there been a forty percent turn out or less. 65% is a strong indication of what people want though.

As for the US leaving sometime, well, if it's like the way it is in five years, I would be swayed to believe that it would stay that way but, like I said to other members on this board, Saddam got over a decade and they were willing to give more even though he wasn't doing anything to indicate he was cooperatiing, why not give these people the same when they are? They being the voters, not the insurgents who form less than one tenth a percent of the population.

[gerryhatrick]

There are far more than three entities in Iraq that will be at war with one another as the entire country will fall apart into anarchy with factions within sects and such.

That's already the case, and if the US leaves the largest of those fighting factions and the impetus for some of the others to fight will be gone.

You're argument is that they're somehow keeping the peace or holding back the fighting. It's ridiculous.

In the end you're emotionally attached to the war. You see it as a necessary part of the "war on terror"...the same rhetoric that keeps getting repeated by Bush and his monkey show.

Iraq has made the "war on terror" far more difficult to fight simply because the US military is fighting large numbers of previously peaceful people. They are tied up fighting a primarily nationalist war and the only refuge left for the political leadership is to claim that it's a war on terror. And you swallow it.

[KrustyKidd]

That's already the case, and if the US leaves the largest of those fighting factions and the impetus for some of the others to fight will be gone.

You're argument is that they're somehow keeping the peace or holding back the fighting. It's ridiculous

Check the news Gerry, they are killing each other in droves, not the US soldiers.

You see it as a necessary part of the "war on terror"...the same rhetoric that keeps getting repeated by Bush and his monkey show.

It is and it has already accomplished what it set out to do by getting Saudi Arabia to take care of their Al Queda infestation.

Iraq has made the "war on terror" far more difficult to fight simply because the US military is fighting large numbers of previously peaceful people. They are tied up fighting a primarily nationalist war and the only refuge left for the political leadership is to claim that it's a war on terror. And you swallow it.

Told you before Gerry, I don't get my news from Bush, I get it from intelligence services and acredited media. I wish that it was a nationalist war and I'm sure Bush does too. If that was the case, then they could leave Iraq knowing that it would all just fit together like you say it will. However, it is not. The factions all have competing factions who are killing each other in a bid to control. Their motivations are power, protection and religion. The government was providing protection with US support through their military but as that declined (through insurgent acts which were directly targeting Shiiites in order to fruther drive people away from having any faith in the government's ability to control) so did the numbers of militis grow. Coincidence?

BTW, have you addressed those posts from three days ago yet?

[gerryhatrick]

I wish that it was a nationalist war and I'm sure Bush does too.

I'm sure you're sure what Bush wishes.

So it's not primarily Iraqis fighting US troops and their Iraqi soldier lackys for nationalist/tribal reasons?

That's news to the US military!

[KrustyKidd]

So it's not primarily Iraqis fighting US troops and their Iraqi soldier lackys for nationalist/tribal reasons?

Insugents comprised of former Regime members trying to make a comeback, foreign and domestic Jihadists trying to reinstall the Caliphate, Sunni and Shiite militias all carrying out reprisal killings against each other and anybody that looks like the other sect. And, all against what 65% of the people voted for. Seems more like an insurgency and some choas rather than a nationalist war Gerry. I mean, normally in a civil war, you have stated purposes and followings but here, it just seems like they just, well .... kill and retaliate.

Oh, the main groups being tageted are not the US Gerry. Thought I would mention that point as your seem to be under the impression they are all actively unified against America but they are not. If they were, the US would last about thirty seconds.

Anyhow, how come the anti war people wished to give Saddam more opportunity to continue doing nothing while the Iraqi people, who are doing something only get three years?

[gerryhatrick]

I mean, normally in a civil war, you have stated purposes and followings but here, it just seems like they just, well .... kill and retaliate.

Oh yes, absolutely. A lot of retaliation killing going on. That's the tribal aspect of the problem for the USA. Many of the insurgents are sworn to see the US gone from Iraq simply because their wife or sister was treated with disrespect during a midnight raid or they're part of a tribe which suffered a loss due to US collateral damage.

The main target is the US. It has been for a very long time. Now the sectarian violence might be overtaking it, but it's close.

The violent opposition against the USA is primarily a nationalist one now. The foreign terrorists are riding the wave, but it's Iraqis who want the US out.

[KrustyKidd]

Anyhow, how come the anti war people wished to give Saddam more opportunity to continue doing nothing while the Iraqi people, who are doing something only get three years?

Gerry's answer

The main target is the US. It has been for a very long time. Now the sectarian violence might be overtaking it, but it's close.

Try facts to back your losing arguments up sometime. You may actually reach that lofty pinical called 'a point.'

Military and civillian casualties

US average deaths per month is 55.

Iraqi security forces average is 200 a month.

Iraqi civillians is average 500 to six hundred.

[gerryhatrick]

Question on this for all the

"Oh, the troops just don't understand" types.

Your argument is that the troops don't know the "bigger picture" and so they're not able to realize the implications of leaving Iraq like the civilian leadership does.

If that's the case, then why does the civilian leadership keep telling us that they bow down to the commanders on the ground?

Wanting and eating cake at the same time.

[KrustyKidd]

If that's the case, then why does the civilian leadership keep telling us that they bow down to the commanders on the ground?

In tactical matters such as resources like troops numbers, equipment and firepower for sure as they are there on the ground doing the job and know best, much like an elevator repair guy knows which size wrench he needs while his office ten miles away is setting up his next job. To not give this guy the tools he needs to do the job makes the whole operation pretty messed up and redundent.

In Iraq, it is the same with the added bonus (or complication) of the political portion on the ground being left to the the politicians and the CIA while the overall strategic is left to the higher echelons of the defense and foreign affairs departments which are both riddled with senior generals and politicians alike.

Hope that helps.

Oh, BTW,

How come the anti war people wished to give Saddam more opportunity to continue doing nothing while the Iraqi people, who are doing something only get three years?