Iraqis Begin Duty With Refusal

[Zeebadee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050100854.html

"The graduation of nearly 1,000 new Iraqi army soldiers in restive Anbar province took a disorderly turn Sunday when dozens of the men declared that they would refuse to serve outside their home areas, according to U.S. and Iraqi military authorities."

Looks like the plan to Iraqify the war is going about as well as Vietnamization did. About the only comment we haven't heard from bush about this war is the one about the light at the end of the tunnel.

I haven't been able to find out if this is still true - http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...iraq.security/

I wonder what the true strength of the Iraqi army really is.

[Osborn F Enready]

They should give them a blank map of Iraq with no lines of division on it, and let the three groups draw new lines they agree to.

We shouldn't be there damnit.

What this is going to amount to is the fact that we armed and trained three new factions and started a civil war. Which faction got armed the best?

[CallousGiant]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready They should give them a blank map of Iraq with no lines of division on it, and let the three groups draw new lines they agree to.

What if they don't agree? Isn't this part of the problem in Israel and Palestine at the moment?

[Osborn F Enready]

Callous Giant said: What if they don't agree? Isn't this part of the problem in Israel and Palestine at the moment?

I say:
THEY WON'T AGREE. That is WHY we shouldn't be there. :rolleyes:

They MUST settle this themselves.

What happened when England and the U.S. didn't agree? They went to WAR.

What happened when the North U.S. couldn't agree with the South U.S.? They went to WAR.




This whole war is false, built on false pretenses, and is the start of the next DESIGNED economic collapse.

“A depression is a large-scale decline in production and trade...there is nothing in the nature of a free-market economy to cause such an event.”
-Nathaniel Branden's essay, Common Fallacies About Capitalism

“I am myself persuaded, on the basis of extensive study of the historical evidence, that ... the severity of each of the contractions -- 1920-21; 1929-33, and 1937-38 -- is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities and would not have occurred under earlier monetary and banking arrangements.”
-Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, p.45

“...From now on depressions will be scientifically created.”
-Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913, on the Federal Reserve Act

“To expose a 4.2 trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last one-hundred years will be a tall order of business.”
-Buckminister Fuller

“...the increase in the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks from 143 million dollars in 1913 to 45 billion dollars in 1949 went directly to the private stockholders of the [Federal Reserve] banks.”
-Eustace Mullins, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”
-Thomas Jefferson


Have you heard the phrase....

"We were warned"?

[CallousGiant]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready They should give them a blank map of Iraq with no lines of division on it, and let the three groups draw new lines they agree to.

Erm I'll quote you again in case you missed it. I think the fact that they won't agree is more of an issue for them rather than whether or not the coalition forces should have gone in. We started the war, we shouldn't just leave them to fight it over. Granted we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but we've made it our responsibility and if it doesn't work we've got no one but ourselves to blame.

When you say they MUST settle it themselves, that is true, but they WONT, so therefore the next best option is to try and keep peace for as long as possible. Pulling out of Iraq will be selfish and immoral, even though coalition troops and Iraqi civilians die every day because of the forces being there.

[bishop]

gotta love the nature of a quagmire.. people keep saying "we need to stay because if we left, it'd completely fall apart".. and in the meantime, the current environment is hardly stable by any stretch of the imagination..

one issue i have with your perspective is that it focuses solely on iraq's interests rather than our own. is it in our interests to stay there and continue wasting billions upon billions (in addition to all the lives we're ruining in the process - iraqis and americans)?

so, that's our trade-off.. if we leave, iraq will certainly descend into a full-blown civil war - but we'll save billions and no more americans would die or be maimed in this useless war. if we stay, iraq will remain in its tenuous state, and we'll continue to waste billions of taxpayer dollars as well as lives.

[Matt W]

Quote by: CallousGiant When you say they MUST settle it themselves, that is true, but they WONT, so therefore the next best option is to try and keep peace for as long as possible. Pulling out of Iraq will be selfish and immoral, even though coalition troops and Iraqi civilians die every day because of the forces being there.

Actually, they will. I'd back an Iran-inspired Shia government springing up relatively quickly, and crushing Sunni dissidents with an open gauntlet of brutality that the Coalition cannot match, and shouldn't even try to contemplate.

[SteveA]

Quote by: CallousGiant What if they don't agree? Isn't this part of the problem in Israel and Palestine at the moment?

No, it's the opposite problem. If Israelis didn't go into Palestinian areas and visa versa, there'd be little conflict there.

I think this is a good turn of events in Iraq. Hopefully a peaceful arrangement like this can be achieved there between some of the factions. I believe the Kurdish people have wanted something like this since before Saddam was out of power.

[Osborn F Enready]

Callous Giant said: Erm I'll quote you again in case you missed it. I think the fact that they won't agree is more of an issue for them rather than whether or not the coalition forces should have gone in.

I say:
I think they are both major issues for them(the Iraqis), depending on which group you ask. Some were glad to see Saddam gone, some weren't. Some were glad to see him gone but didn't like losing large portions of their family to airstrikes and attacks, brought on by the "occupation".

The thing is, we are there now, and now we have to get the leaders of the three factions together and tell them they need to pull together, or fortify themselves, because we are pulling out now since there ARE no WMD, and Saddam is out of control, and under THEIR charge.

Our occupation and media in the area, draws terrorists to that location to cause damage to innocents and our forces. Our people are there, and because of that, and the cameras focused on them, they are targets. Our soldiers should be pulled back over the next month, and then withdraw completely as soon as feasibly possible.(fesible due to being able to withdraw securely, orderly, and in full strength.)

Callous Giant said: We started the war, we shouldn't just leave them to fight it over. Granted we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but we've made it our responsibility and if it doesn't work we've got no one but ourselves to blame.

I say:
I agree we shouldn't have gone. I do think we should leave them there to "figure it out" amongst themselves. It is their country, and we have NO say in how their system should operate, be governed or its security. We should do one final thing, which is to arm all Iraqis of reasonable age, and inspire them to create their own civil defense force made up of the entire populace, and that will sustain them until they get their full military (if they have one, and not three) up and running.

They are a nation, entitiled to their own soverign status. We should take our toys and come home.

Callous Giant said: When you say they MUST settle it themselves, that is true, but they WONT, so therefore the next best option is to try and keep peace for as long as possible.

I say:
Why won't they? Don't you just mean they won't settle it to YOUR satisfaction? Peace is not always good.

Is it good if there is peace, simply because the populace is petrified of the level of force of those who oppress them, like a concentration camp?

Callous Giant said: Pulling out of Iraq will be selfish and immoral,

I say:
Selfish HOW? Immoral????????????????????????????? Whose morals are you basing that statement on?

Callous Giant said: even though coalition troops and Iraqi civilians die every day because of the forces being there.

I say:
As long as it isn't you or your kids right?

[rmnunez]

International Tennis Federation sent its condolences to Iraq over the elimination of its Davis Cup team:

Gunmen shot and killed coach Hussein Ahmed Rashid and players Nasir Al-Hatam and Wissam Adel Auda on Friday, reportedly because they were wearing shorts. Police believe the attack was related to a warning by Islamic extremists against such attire. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tenni...iraq-itf_x.htm

I hope the occupation finishes off these Islamic extremists, they certainly don't seem very tolerant and Iraq will surely be worse off if their sort of thinking prevails.

[Samildanach]

Hey we still have Saddam, why not just back out and put him back, that should restabilise the region.

[Osborn F Enready]

What is wrong with having the UN secure the borders of Iraq? If they can't DO IT, maybe we should question what good the UN is?

Why don't WE back up and secure the borders of Iraq, and then once this is done the Iraqis can have a fair clean fight, and we can determine the amount of violence that is actually INSURGENTS vs pissed off, tired of being "occupied" Iraqis?

Point being, the "peace" that the U.S. is looking for has to do with the flow of oil, not the Iraqi citizenry. That doesn't justify the war now, nor did it when we went.

[ise]

Quote by: Samildanach Hey we still have Saddam, why not just back out and put him back, that should restabilise the region.

Good one, but....

....what then about Iran, Venezuela, ...
...Mexico, Canada etc.

Is it not better that he keeps to one country at a time. Seriously.

So, daddy was right all along.

.

[Samildanach]

What is wrong with having the UN secure the borders of Iraq? If they can't DO IT, maybe we should question what good the UN is?

Hey why should the UN clean up US mess when they were against the war in the first place?

Why don't WE back up and secure the borders of Iraq, and then once this is done the Iraqis can have a fair clean fight, and we can determine the amount of violence that is actually INSURGENTS vs pissed off, tired of being "occupied" Iraqis?

Want to bet where the war would shift to? I bet you would end up with a unified Iraq sniping US soldiers on the border. As soon as the US military left, then things would break down into civil war.

There is no good way to get out of this. You need someone in power who they are all scared of....I hate to say it but Saddam in power is looking like a much better thing from my perspective at this point in time.

[Samildanach]

If the US actually listened to the UN at any point in time then I would agree with you.

[Osborn F Enready]

Then we should STOP supporting the UN post haste, and do what is necessary in Iraq to extricate our troops, and what is left of our dignity.

The troops will always have dignity, now we just need to earn back our republic, and keep it so they are not put in harms way again, without PROVCATION of clear and imminent danger.

[Osborn F Enready]

the question is not unanswerable, we just need to pick one and DO IT!

[Samildanach]

Then we should STOP supporting the UN post haste, and do what is necessary in Iraq to extricate our troops, and what is left of our dignity.

and revert to a policy of what? isolationism? I agree with the need to extricate your troops but I dont think that is on GW's agenda. He means to have oil priced high until the end of his term as president.
He probably thought Iraq was beginning to run out of steam and so had to step up pressure on Iran.
Result oil at $74 a barrel.. when Iran predictably reacts by threatening to cut supply. I wonder what company makes a good deal of money from that. International tensions will deflate when Bush is out of office primarily because he is using international tension as a primary tool to drive up the oil price and gouge the public for his corporate buddies.

the question is not unanswerable, we just need to pick one and DO IT!

The only way I can see clear of this mess is to get an Iraqi neighbor with a standing army to take over security temporarily. Why should a neighbor do it instead of the UN?
1. they have a vested interest in keeping the region stable.
2. It would earn a lot of goodwill points with the Iraqi government inthe long run.
3. they have relatively common values to the Iraqis compared with american/iraqi values.
4. They probably both hate americans giving them a common enemy to despise together which builds common ground.

when you are going to secure a country you dont do it with troops who have a totally different ideological framework.
It would be in the American best interest to get Iran to intervene. However GW seems to be taking that option off the table with his bickering about nuclear technology.

[Samildanach]

Good one GW, nice way to fail the world again.....

[Osborn F Enready]

I completely disagree about Iran, and the motives and intents on Iraq, but hey, I'll stop there.