Pages: 1 2 3

 

2008-08-15 04:56:20
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6452|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

Braddock wrote:

They're not fighting the US? Those US military deaths I've read about on the news in the last five years were all accidents?
Compare the US deaths to Iraqi deaths and you see what I mean. How many US soldiers were killed by Iraqis and how many were killed by AQ forces from the outside?

Do you really think the current problems are caused by Iraqis fighting the US?
I think the current problems are caused because the stability that existed before the invasion has been decimated by the Allied forces. You have Iraqis killing Americans, Iraqis killing Iraqis and AQ flooding into the country to kill whoever they please.
AQ's not "flooding" so much any more...unless you're talking about Afghanistan. They've pretty much given up on Iraq at this point.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-15 04:57:36
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6331|Éire

Chrisimo wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I think the current problems are caused because the stability that existed before the invasion has been decimated by the Allied forces. You have Iraqis killing Americans, Iraqis killing Iraqis and AQ flooding into the country to kill whoever they please.
Yes, that is true. But the main problem is Iraqis killing other Iraqis. So what do you propose? You think that the current situation is worse and see no chance of improvement. Am I correct here? But you don't want to bring Saddam back (or his methods), even if Iraq would be better off. Why? Because he did wrong things? So rather keep the status quo than doing the wrong things, even if that would result in a better situation? Isn't that kind of contradictory?
I believe the only thing that can sort out the situation once and for all now in the absence of one strong ruler is a civil war which would ultimately result in the dividing up of Iraq along ethnic lines. I believe this will eventually happen after the allied troops pull out.
2008-08-15 04:59:15
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5793

Braddock wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I think the current problems are caused because the stability that existed before the invasion has been decimated by the Allied forces. You have Iraqis killing Americans, Iraqis killing Iraqis and AQ flooding into the country to kill whoever they please.
Yes, that is true. But the main problem is Iraqis killing other Iraqis. So what do you propose? You think that the current situation is worse and see no chance of improvement. Am I correct here? But you don't want to bring Saddam back (or his methods), even if Iraq would be better off. Why? Because he did wrong things? So rather keep the status quo than doing the wrong things, even if that would result in a better situation? Isn't that kind of contradictory?
I believe the only thing that can sort out the situation once and for all now in the absence of one strong ruler is a civil war which would ultimately result in the dividing up of Iraq along ethnic lines. I believe this will eventually happen after the allied troops pull out.
Yes, that is very possible.
2008-08-15 05:01:20
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6596

Chrisimo wrote:

Hmm, the Iraqis aren't fighting the US, they are fighting themselves. This isn't about capitulation as you implied in point b). This is about fighting each other.
The Mehdi Army (currently on ceasefire) aren't fighting US occupation, popular sentiment on the ground doesn't want the US out and the Iraqi government aren't pushing for a withdrawal deadline?
2008-08-15 05:01:35
JahManRed
wank
+646|6669|IRELAND

TheAussieReaper wrote:

However, as these terrorists are an unknown force it's much easier to blame the United States for causing the problems in the country (rightly or wrongly so, to a degree).

If the US had toppled Saddam as quickly as they did, and pulled out the army you would see huge support for them as well as more hate of the terrorists.

If the terrorists continue to blow up the buses and police stations, while the US army isn't in the country, what do you think is going to happen?

The people won't rise up against the West. They'll rise up against the insurgency.
People blame the USA although its the insurgency who are the main aggressors. I can see their point tho. If American had toppled Saddam and crucially, not disbanded the Iraqi Army they could have pulled out allot quicker and left US commanders in charge of the Iraqi army for a time. The insurgency might not have gained such momentum. The main justification for the insurgents is that US troops are in their country.
Its clear however with the construction of huge US army bases that they never intended to fully withdraw in the first place. US advisers all said that this insurgency would happen they were ignored and it did happen. So they have to bear some of the blame for it.
2008-08-15 05:07:12
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5793

CameronPoe wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

Hmm, the Iraqis aren't fighting the US, they are fighting themselves. This isn't about capitulation as you implied in point b). This is about fighting each other.
The Mehdi Army (currently on ceasefire) aren't fighting US occupation, popular sentiment on the ground doesn't want the US out and the Iraqi government aren't pushing for a withdrawal deadline?
The Mahdi Army represents the Iraqi people on a united front against the US? Really? How many US soldiers were killed by them? How many Iraqis were killed by them?
You really want to say that the Irawi opposition to the US presence is the main cause for the problems today in Iraq and not forces like AQ and inter-religious conflicts?
2008-08-15 05:09:19
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6798|Argentina

Chrisimo wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

Hmm, the Iraqis aren't fighting the US, they are fighting themselves. This isn't about capitulation as you implied in point b). This is about fighting each other.
The Mehdi Army (currently on ceasefire) aren't fighting US occupation, popular sentiment on the ground doesn't want the US out and the Iraqi government aren't pushing for a withdrawal deadline?
The Mahdi Army represents the Iraqi people on a united front against the US? Really? How many US soldiers were killed by them? How many Iraqis were killed by them?
You really want to say that the Irawi opposition to the US presence is the main cause for the problems today in Iraq and not forces like AQ and inter-religious conflicts?
Is AQ in Iraq?  I think insurgents supported by Iran are more of a problem.
2008-08-15 05:11:38
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6596

Chrisimo wrote:

The Mahdi Army represents the Iraqi people on a united front against the US? Really? How many US soldiers were killed by them? How many Iraqis were killed by them?
You really want to say that the Irawi opposition to the US presence is the main cause for the problems today in Iraq and not forces like AQ and inter-religious conflicts?
The problems in Iraq are manifold. General sentiment desires the full return of their sovereignty to them, even at government level. There are civil war elements, there are anti-US elements and there is indiscriminate terrorism. The will of the people capitulating to an alien occupying force politically, culturally and economically is not justice: it's bullyboy stuff - the same shit the USSR imposed on half the world. Everyone should be entitled full ability to self determine.

PS Al Qaeda is just a handy name bandied about to describe any form of terrorist - don't kid yourself that it's some superpowerful underground organisation pulling strings from Morocco to Indonesia.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-15 05:12:52)

2008-08-15 05:12:25
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5793

sergeriver wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


The Mehdi Army (currently on ceasefire) aren't fighting US occupation, popular sentiment on the ground doesn't want the US out and the Iraqi government aren't pushing for a withdrawal deadline?
The Mahdi Army represents the Iraqi people on a united front against the US? Really? How many US soldiers were killed by them? How many Iraqis were killed by them?
You really want to say that the Irawi opposition to the US presence is the main cause for the problems today in Iraq and not forces like AQ and inter-religious conflicts?
Is AQ in Iraq?  I think insurgents supported by Iran are more of a problem.
I am sure they were. Not sure if they are now. What I meant to say is that outside players are stirring up trouble as well. But I see the main conflicts in the religious groups themselves (Shia/Sunni).
2008-08-15 05:15:46
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5793

CameronPoe wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

The Mahdi Army represents the Iraqi people on a united front against the US? Really? How many US soldiers were killed by them? How many Iraqis were killed by them?
You really want to say that the Irawi opposition to the US presence is the main cause for the problems today in Iraq and not forces like AQ and inter-religious conflicts?
The problems in Iraq are manifold. General sentiment desires the full return of their sovereignty to them, even at government level. There are civil war elements, there are anti-US elements and there is indiscriminate terrorism. The will of the people capitulating to an alien occupying force politically, culturally and economically is not justice: it's bullyboy stuff - the same shit the USSR imposed on half the world. Everyone should be entitled full ability to self determine.

PS Al Qaeda is just a handy name bandied about to describe any form of terrorist - don't kid yourself that it's some superpowerful underground organisation pulling strings from Morocco to Indonesia.
AQ was just an example for outside work trying to stir up trouble.

So how exactly is the will of the Iraqi people capitulating to anything? What is this will exactly? What do they want? Sovereighnity? What would happen if the US pulls out? Peace?
2008-08-15 05:19:09
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6452|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

PS Al Qaeda is just a handy name bandied about to describe any form of terrorist - don't kid yourself that it's some superpowerful underground organisation pulling strings from Morocco to Indonesia.
If you really think that, you need to read a bit more...particularly since it's the groups themselves that label them as "AQ-affiliated".

Last edited by FEOS (2008-08-15 05:20:15)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-15 05:20:42
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6596

Chrisimo wrote:

So how exactly is the will of the Iraqi people capitulating to anything? What is this will exactly? What do they want? Sovereighnity? What would happen if the US pulls out? Peace?
Well sentiment on the ground suggests they want the foreign occupation forces off their sovereing territory immediately, with their government pushing for a 12 to 16 month deadline for full withdrawal. It is nothing to do with the US what happens after. They shouldn't be there in the first place. Not to mention the fact that they are wasting gigantic sums of money there. You need to get this idea out of your head that post-WWII Germany correlates to Iraq, it simply doesn't.
2008-08-15 05:23:04
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6596

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

PS Al Qaeda is just a handy name bandied about to describe any form of terrorist - don't kid yourself that it's some superpowerful underground organisation pulling strings from Morocco to Indonesia.
If you really think that, you need to read a bit more...particularly since it's the groups themselves that label them as "AQ-affiliated".
If someone in London has some bright idea to go and bomb something of his own volition he'll label it is as 'Al Qaeda-inspired'. Since the NATO mission in Afghanistan I fail to believe that whatever Al Qaeda was/is has any meaningful command structure or means of projecting whatever power it might once have had across distances.
2008-08-15 05:30:30
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5793

CameronPoe wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

So how exactly is the will of the Iraqi people capitulating to anything? What is this will exactly? What do they want? Sovereighnity? What would happen if the US pulls out? Peace?
Well sentiment on the ground suggests they want the foreign occupation forces off their sovereing territory immediately, with their government pushing for a 12 to 16 month deadline for full withdrawal. It is nothing to do with the US what happens after. They shouldn't be there in the first place. Not to mention the fact that they are wasting gigantic sums of money there. You need to get this idea out of your head that post-WWII Germany correlates to Iraq, it simply doesn't.
Of course it does. Even if the only similarities are that both countries were occupied by the US that would be a correlation. But as I already acknowledged, their situation is different. And if you would reread my post then you would see that the only point I wanted to make out of this is that Germany had a chance to rebuild the country and Iraq still has that chance.

If the US should be there or not is simply irrelevant. The US IS there. Sentiment on the ground suggests the Iraqis want them out? So you think they should leave now?
2008-08-15 05:34:30
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6331|Éire

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

PS Al Qaeda is just a handy name bandied about to describe any form of terrorist - don't kid yourself that it's some superpowerful underground organisation pulling strings from Morocco to Indonesia.
If you really think that, you need to read a bit more...particularly since it's the groups themselves that label them as "AQ-affiliated".
FEOS surely someone as discerning and intelligent as yourself can clearly see that 'Al Qaeda' has become a brand name for any form of Islamic terror. The sheer logistics of all these disparate groups around the world being in communication with each other in any truly meaningful way would be mind boggling.
2008-08-15 05:45:37
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6596

Chrisimo wrote:

Of course it does. Even if the only similarities are that both countries were occupied by the US that would be a correlation. But as I already acknowledged, their situation is different. And if you would reread my post then you would see that the only point I wanted to make out of this is that Germany had a chance to rebuild the country and Iraq still has that chance.

If the US should be there or not is simply irrelevant. The US IS there. Sentiment on the ground suggests the Iraqis want them out? So you think they should leave now?
Chrisimo - the responsibility for building your country lies firmly on your own shoulders, especially if you want the country built in a manner particular to your desires. An atheo-christian ultracapitalist regime implementing 'reconstruction' in Iraq may be at odds with the desires of many Iraqis. The principle of earning or paying interest on money is directly counter to Islamic law - on that count alone American norms of economics would be problematic.

Besides: it's quite clear - the Iraqis have had enough of the US. Full stop. Or do you advocate forcing yourself unwillingly on a foreign nation (kind of like the USSR incidentally....).

Here's your very own Spiegel...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor … 41,00.html

Iraq want the US out. Full stop. In that regard they differ mightily from West Germany, who were shit scared of the USSR.
2008-08-15 05:56:10
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5793

CameronPoe wrote:

Chrisimo - the responsibility for building your country lies firmly on your own shoulders, especially if you want the country built in a manner particular to your desires. An atheo-christian ultracapitalist regime implementing 'reconstruction' in Iraq may be at odds with the desires of many Iraqis. The principle of earning or paying interest on money is directly counter to Islamic law - on that count alone American norms of economics would be problematic.
Yes, it is the responsibility of the Iraqis. And they can do so. The US isn't stopping them. They could accept the US occupation for the time being, get their act together and rebuild their country. This would get the US out sooner and they could start changing things in their country. I am not sure that they are somehow forbidden to implement a more islamic type of economy.

CameronPoe wrote:

Besides: it's quite clear - the Iraqis have had enough of the US. Full stop. Or do you advocate forcing yourself unwillingly on a foreign nation (kind of like the USSR incidentally....).
There's a difference between wishing someone out and actively fighting against him. And the difference to the SU should be very clear to you: The SU wouldn't get out at any rate. They would make the country one of their own. No choice for the population whatsoever.

CameronPoe wrote:

Here's your very own Spiegel...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor … 41,00.html
I am sorry, but the Spiegel is full of anti-americanism. Some covers from the last years:

https://www.dmko.info/covers1.JPG

Iraq want the US out. Full stop. In that regard they differ mightily from West Germany, who were shit scared of the USSR.
Yes, that differs them from Germany. Yet they still have the same chance to rebuild the country. The US isn't stopping them. Quite the opposite.

Last edited by Chrisimo (2008-08-15 05:57:48)

2008-08-15 06:05:24
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6596

Chrisimo wrote:

Yes, it is the responsibility of the Iraqis. And they can do so. The US isn't stopping them. They could accept the US occupation for the time being, get their act together and rebuild their country. This would get the US out sooner and they could start changing things in their country.
Nobody should be forced to anything at the hands of any external power. The Irish wouldn't accept UK occupation nor should the Iraqis accept US occupation. You complain of the USSR occupying eastern Europe and yet you advocate imposing yourself on unwilling subjects? You contradict yourself. Let Iraq, run Iraq. Let Iraq have full freedom to do as it pleases and to self determine and not have its hands tied by western interests.

Chrisimo wrote:

There's a difference between wishing someone out and actively fighting against him. And the difference to the SU should be very clear to you: The SU wouldn't get out at any rate. They would make the country one of their own. No choice for the population whatsoever.
Well the Iraqis have been doing both. The US seem not to be overly-willing to get out of Iraq (the current administration anyway). I think you given modern America more credit than it deserves. The valiant efforts of Roosevelts America in WWII were highly commendable. Modern America is primarily interested in strategic and financial gain. If that were not the case then perhaps theire 'altruism' might have sorted out Zimbabwe, Sudan, Tibet, Chechnya or Burma. Did they? No. Iraq has oil, is in a strategic location and was easy to beat. Don't kid yourself that America today is the same America that helped liberate Europe from fascism.

Chrisimo wrote:

I am sorry, but the Spiegel is full of anti-americanism. Some covers from the last years:
Yes, that differs them from Germany. Yet they still have the same chance to rebuild the country. The US isn't stopping them. Quite the opposite.
It has been reported in every single news outlet in the world. Are you suggesting a German daily is making up the words of Nouri Al Maliki? Are you seriously suggesting that?

They can rebuild their country without the US or the US' influence - it would be better for them in that they would not have their hands quietly tied over issues such as oil or relations with Iran or Syria. Which is quite evidently what they hope to do given their desire to see the foreign occupation forces leave their land. I hope to see their wishes granted someday.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-15 06:16:59)

2008-08-15 06:22:02
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5793

CameronPoe wrote:

Nobody should be forced to anything at the hands of any external power. The Irish wouldn't accept UK occupation nor should the Iraqis accept US occupation. You complain of the USSR occupying eastern Europe and yet you advocate imposing yourself on unwilling subjects? You contradict yourself. Let Iraq, run Iraq. Let Iraq have full freedom to do as it pleases and to self determine and not have its hands tied by western interests.
So better kill each other than accept occupation for some time (they aren't even killing US soldiers in such great numbers, more their own people)? The US wants to get out as soon as possible, they don't want to stay there. They aren't imposing themselves on anyone. They toppled Saddam and then tried to help rebuilding that country. Yes, of course they prefer a democracy and prefer a US friendly government (which wants them out as well as you point out).

CameronPoe wrote:

Well the Iraqis have been doing both. The US seem not to be over-willingly to get out of Iraq (the current administration anyway). I think you given modern America more credit than it deserves. The valiant efforts of Roosevelts America in WWII were highly commendable. Modern America is primarily interested in strategic and financial gain. If that were not the case then perhaps theire 'altruism' might have sorted out Zimbabwe, Sudan, Tibet, Chechnya or Burma. Did they? No. Iraq has oil and is in a strategic location. Don't kid yourself that America today is the same America that helped liberate Europe from fascism.
Sorry, but no country is altruistic. And I don't think the US were at any time. I still think that they do good things (like in Germany, even if that was out of self-interest, too) and they want Iraq to be a successfull country, preferably US friendly of course.
And regarding your point about other nations: Who is asked when someone needs help? Military help I mean, not humanitarian. The US. And if they don't help they get blamed, but If they help (yes, help) someone else out of self-interest, they get blamed as well.

CameronPoe wrote:

It has been reported in every single news outlet in the world. Are you suggesting a German daily is making up the words of Nouri Al Maliki? Are you seriously suggesting that?
I am sorry, I meant that the Spiegel will use every possibility to slant America. I do not dispute the article. And I don't dispute your claim that most Iraqis want the US out as well. That doesn't change the fact that the US isn't stopping them from rebuilding the country. And most Iraqis don't take up arms against the US. Those who do also target other Iraqis. The even target more Iraqis than US soldiers. They attack even those who build schools and other infrastructure. How is that helpful to the Iraqi nation?

CameronPoe wrote:

They can rebuild their country without the US or the US' influence. Which is quite evidently what they hope to do given their desire to see the foreign occupation forces leave their land. I hope to see their wishes granted someday.
There is no 'they' in Iraq, which is the problem. If they were serious about getting the US out they would actually try working together and stop the insurgency. But the Mahdi Army is probably more interested to impose their will on the nation.
2008-08-15 06:38:42
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6596

Chrisimo wrote:

So better kill each other than accept occupation for some time (they aren't even killing US soldiers in such great numbers, more their own people)? The US wants to get out as soon as possible, they don't want to stay there. They aren't imposing themselves on anyone. They toppled Saddam and then tried to help rebuilding that country. Yes, of course they prefer a democracy and prefer a US friendly government (which wants them out as well as you point out).
Why don't the US leave then if they want to 'get out as soon as possible'? Why do they refuse Iraqi requests to set a deadline for withdrawal? The UK thought they were great introducing 'modernity' and 'civilisation' to the Irish in their patronising culturally destructive manner, against the will of the indigenous people. It is not the US' responsibility, or anyone else for that matter, if Iraqis want to kill each other (a can of worms the US opened up themselves). The imaginary lines drawn on the map by the Brits back in 1945 were evidently not suitable given the amount of inter-ethnic violence there is. How on earth do you imagine this inter-ethnic violence will stop? The US being there certainly hasn't stopped it and whenever they leave - whether that be in 2 years or 10 years - the whole thing will flare up again. It is not incumbent on the US to stay in Iraq for eternity. Hatred has set in and will fester for decades, unlike in post-WWII ethnically homogenous Germany. I might add that many sectors of Iraqi society prefer not to be affiliated to the US, especially given their support for state terrorists Israel. That's why Sadr has a pivotal role in the Iraqi parliament.

Chrisimo wrote:

Sorry, but no country is altruistic. And I don't think the US were at any time. I still think that they do good things (like in Germany, even if that was out of self-interest, too) and they want Iraq to be a successfull country, preferably US friendly of course.
And regarding your point about other nations: Who is asked when someone needs help? Military help I mean, not humanitarian. The US. And if they don't help they get blamed, but If they help (yes, help) someone else out of self-interest, they get blamed as well.
The problem is that they want Iraq to be a 'successful' country using their own economic model and with an alignment towards the US, which, if democracy has anything to do with it, would not be the case. Most Arab people on the ground despise what they themselves regard as 'the Great Satan'. I don't blame the US for not stepping in in conflicts, in fact I think they're stupid for doing so. Not only are they wasting money they should be spending on their own citizens and infrastructure they're wasting American lives on ventures that often leave America mired in situations where they become deeply resented.


Chrisimo wrote:

I am sorry, I meant that the Spiegel will use every possibility to slant America. I do not dispute the article. And I don't dispute your claim that most Iraqis want the US out as well. That doesn't change the fact that the US isn't stopping them from rebuilding the country. And most Iraqis don't take up arms against the US. Those who do also target other Iraqis. The even target more Iraqis than US soldiers. They attack even those who build schools and other infrastructure. How is that helpful to the Iraqi nation?
What Iraqis do is their prerogative and is a matter for the sovereign government of Iraq, not America.

Chrisimo wrote:

There is no 'they' in Iraq, which is the problem. If they were serious about getting the US out they would actually try working together and stop the insurgency. But the Mahdi Army is probably more interested to impose their will on the nation.
The Medhi Army is on indefinite ceasefire. It's biding its time for the US withdrawal at which point it will jump into action, in my opinion. And you're right - there is no 'they', hence the seemingly unresolvable inter-ethnic problem. t should really be Sunnistan, Shiastan and Kurdistan.
2008-08-15 06:54:35
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6452|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

PS Al Qaeda is just a handy name bandied about to describe any form of terrorist - don't kid yourself that it's some superpowerful underground organisation pulling strings from Morocco to Indonesia.
If you really think that, you need to read a bit more...particularly since it's the groups themselves that label them as "AQ-affiliated".
If someone in London has some bright idea to go and bomb something of his own volition he'll label it is as 'Al Qaeda-inspired'. Since the NATO mission in Afghanistan I fail to believe that whatever Al Qaeda was/is has any meaningful command structure or means of projecting whatever power it might once have had across distances.
I'm not talking about individual nutjobs. I'm talking about AQIM, AQI, IJU, ASG, and others. Identified groups who have publicly aligned themselves with Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda movement.

If you limit yourself to only Afghanistan as the sole operating area of AQ, then you fail to see even a part of the larger picture.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS surely someone as discerning and intelligent as yourself can clearly see that 'Al Qaeda' has become a brand name for any form of Islamic terror. The sheer logistics of all these disparate groups around the world being in communication with each other in any truly meaningful way would be mind boggling.
Not really mind-boggling when you consider the ubiquitous nature of telecommunications and the relative ease/low cost of obtaining/operating in even remote locations.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-15 06:56:50
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6596

FEOS wrote:

I'm not talking about individual nutjobs. I'm talking about AQIM, AQI, IJU, ASG, and others. Identified groups who have publicly aligned themselves with Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda movement.

If you limit yourself to only Afghanistan as the sole operating area of AQ, then you fail to see even a part of the larger picture.
Does Al Qaeda have a central command structure that governs these? It it not a little disingenous to use a term that implies they're part of one living breathing interconnected entity? Many of these groups are quite disparate.

It's like labelling the RIRA, the PIRA, the INLA, the CIRA, the 32CSC, RSF and SF as 'the IRA' when in reality they are all distinct groups with their own agendas (who sometimes ended up attacking each other in turf wars).

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-15 06:59:11)

2008-08-15 07:01:04
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5793

CameronPoe wrote:

Why don't the US leave then if they want to 'get out as soon as possible'? Why do they refuse Iraqi requests to set a deadline for withdrawal?
Probably because they want to clean up the mess. And it got better in my opinion.

CameronPoe wrote:

The US being there certainly hasn't stopped it and whenever they leave - whether that be in 2 years or 10 years - the whole thing will flare up again.
Well, at least there a less deaths now. So at least the direction seems to be positive.


CameronPoe wrote:

The problem is that they want Iraq to be a 'successful' country using their own economic model and with an alignment towards the US, which, if democracy has anything to do with it, would not be the case.
Of course they want that. But they know that they will not only get pro-US governments if they implement democracy. Even the current government isn't that US friendly as you already pointed out.

CameronPoe wrote:

What Iraqis do is their prerogative and is a matter for the sovereign government of Iraq, not America.
Yes, correct, they can do what they want. Just don't blame it on the US. Because it's not their fault that Iraqis are blowing themselves up. They are not forcing them to do so.
2008-08-15 07:05:59
NantanCochise
Member
+55|6020|Portugal/United States
Well put it this way, Saddam was around for decades. I think that the current situation wont last that long. Depends on who you talk to but some Iraqi's preferred Saddam, some prefer an Islamic Republic, but most definitely prefer democracy and personal freedoms. Time will tell but I'm betting that Iraq will be more stable in 5-10 years than it has ever been.
2008-08-15 07:09:50
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6596

Chrisimo wrote:

Probably because they want to clean up the mess. And it got better in my opinion.
That doesn't really respect the wishes of Iraqis does it? Perhaps the USSR just wanted to clean up its own eastern European mess, eh?

Chrisimo wrote:

Well, at least there a less deaths now. So at least the direction seems to be positive.
THere are less deaths because the US pumped an extra 30,000 troops into the country, returning the levels of violence to that of 2004. It appears they cannot actually eradicate the violence. It is financially untenable for the US to pump in even more troops and stay for even longer in the hope that the deaths reduce further, and on the off-chance that when they leave the whole thing won't blow up again.

Chrisimo wrote:

Yes, correct, they can do what they want. Just don't blame it on the US. Because it's not their fault that Iraqis are blowing themselves up. They are not forcing them to do so.
I don't blame the US for what Iraqis do to each other or what they might do to each other. All I blame the US for is illegally and unnecessarily invading a distant nation, killing many civilians, on a ridiculously flimsy pretext, in the interest of strategic gain. They did their best with cleaning up the mess, especially with the surge, now it's time to go.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-15 07:10:31)

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard