Ending the war in Iraq...

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

So then you acknowledge that some society's or cultures are better controlled through methods such as colonialism?? African governments seem incapable of resolving internal problems such as the AIDS epidemic and continual genocide.? Regardless of how you spin it, for Africa to prosper and survive, it needs western aide.? I see no problem with the west aiding Africa in a way that makes them a beneficial ally.? It's a catch 22 with the west.? If we help impoverished nations we are attacked, if we do nothing, we are attacked.? The reality is there is no reason for the govt to send millions if not billions of dollars in aide if there is nothing to be gained in return.? If you want nothing back, turn to charity.
It is the responisbility of of each government to do what is in the best interest of their nation and citizens, not what is best for people who contribute nothing to their own survival.? That is part of Darwin's theory of evolution you're so proud of.

I did not acknowledge that. I said colonialism is one of the source of the current situation.
African governement are incapable of resolving internal problem because : a) we don't let them b) we have shaken these regimes many times  c) the countries are poor (because of all i said in previous post : us stealing and shaping their economy the way we need it)

An african journalist recently said " these countries are not only poor because they're badly run, they're badly run because they're poor ".


there is something to be gained in return of sending billions and not wanting to profit out of them > make this planet a peaceful place.
Fuck usa and fuck france. there is earth and the human race. that's all.
But hey we let people sleep in the streets in our own countries ....

It's the interest of earth to do what is best for the human people ...

[SLCPUNK]

GOP senator calls for troop withdrawals


By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Warner's call for troop withdrawals from Iraq is likely to ratchet up pressure on President Bush substantially and lend momentum to Democratic efforts to end U.S. combat.

Warner, R-Va., former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Navy secretary during the Vietnam War, said Bush should bring some troops home by Christmas. Doing so, he told reporters Thursday, would send a powerful message that the U.S. commitment in Iraq was not open-ended.

Warner says the president should get to decide when and how many troops should leave. Bush has opposed setting a date to pull out troops and contends that conditions on the ground should dictate deployments.

"I'm hopeful that this (redeployment) could lead to more emphasis on the Iraqi forces taking the major responsibility, as it relates to the internal insurgency in that country," the Virginia Republican said.

Warner's suggestion comes as a new intelligence assessment says Iraqis have failed to govern effectively or reach the political compromises believed necessary to tamp down sectarian violence.

Overall, the report finds that Iraq's security will continue to "improve modestly" over the next six to 12 months, provided that coalition forces mount strong counterinsurgency operations and mentor Iraqi forces. But even then, violence levels will remain high as the country struggles to achieve national political reconciliation, and the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is likely to become increasingly vulnerable because of criticism from various Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.

"The strains of the security situation and absence of key leaders have stalled internal political debates, slowed national decision-making, and increased Maliki's vulnerability" to factions that could form a rivaling coalition, the document says.

Democrats say the grim report and Warner's conclusion bolster their position that Bush should change course and start bringing troops home this fall. Party leaders this year tried to pass legislation ordering troops home this fall, but repeatedly fell short of the 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass.

"Our military has performed their duties excellently, but the purpose of the escalation in Iraq was to create a secure environment in which political change could occur, and it is clear that the Iraqi leaders have failed to make progress," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Republican leaders countered that the intelligence assessment bolsters their position that U.S. troops should stay. The report warns that limiting the mission of U.S. forces to a support role and counterterrorist operations ? as Democrats and some Republicans suggest ? would "erode security gains achieved thus far."

"The fact that Democratic leaders continue to push for precipitous withdrawal despite the significant progress our troops are making shows just how deeply invested they are in failure," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Democrats agree the military has made substantial gains in Iraq, but they say the progress made is useless if the Iraqi government is unable to take control.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Not sure if this article passed around here (pretty sure it did)

By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY, Op-Ed Contributors / New York Times

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html

very good read.

[JMack]

usa should get the fuck out of iraq, koweit, europe, africa, afganistan, pakistan, yemen ....

I agree.? The U.S. should also scale back to what other countries give as far as economic and humanitarian aid regardless of wealth.? It would solve a lot of problems.? I think the European Union should take the lead and let the U.S. take a back seat.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

usa should get the fuck out of iraq, koweit, europe, africa, afganistan, pakistan, yemen ....

I agree.? The U.S. should also scale back to what other countries give as far as economic and humanitarian aid regardless of wealth.? It would solve a lot of problems.? I think the European Union should take the lead and let the U.S. take a back seat.

you mean scale UP?
i was talking about military presence and economic propaganda.

[TAP]

I agree.  The U.S. should also scale back to what other countries give as far as economic and humanitarian aid regardless of wealth. 

The US donates less of a percentage of its GDP than just about any European country in humanitarian aid. In dollar terms it's about the same as any two of the UK, France and Germany combined.

[JMack]

usa should get the fuck out of iraq, koweit, europe, africa, afganistan, pakistan, yemen ....

I agree.? The U.S. should also scale back to what other countries give as far as economic and humanitarian aid regardless of wealth.? It would solve a lot of problems.? I think the European Union should take the lead and let the U.S. take a back seat.

you mean scale UP?
i was talking about military presence and economic propaganda.

No I mean down..% wise no country lives up to it's promises, but in dollar for dollar ratio the U.S. should give just as much as the highest European Nation. ?That's why I said regardless of wealth; meaning the U.S. supposedly is the wealthliest but just for that reason doesn't mean the US is responsible to give more and it shouldn't be used to gain allies, it should be just aid. ?It goes both ways too. ?The US should take less aid as well. ?Same goes for trade: Equal shares imported and exported. ?If any. ?The US should become self reliant, especially in regards to fuels too. ?There is enough of it in the US so why export it. ?The US should drill and refine it's own oil, and find a real alternative to fossil fuels. ?The space station?? Out ?It's not international if the US pays the most to keep it going. ?And last but not least remove our military from all the places you have mentioned and Korea as well. ?That also means military weapons and parts. ?The US should take a back seat to The European Union because of the current anti-american movement and just simple logistics. ?Europe is closer to the areas involved and the European Union may be able to alter the present course with the help of the Russians? ?I say your right. ?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I'd say that it is headed in the right direction. We are going to start pulling some troops out and the local population is finally getting fed up with Al Qaeda.

Notice no one has posted in this thread since we started getting positive news from Iraq. People were bitching for troop withdrawals, now that its going to happen.....silence.

Getting out of Iraq and not leaving a complete utter mess behind is possible, it is  a huge improvement over the way things looked last year. Look at Anbar, for example. Iraqis are finally stepping up. That is the only way it was going to happen.

[Bill 213]

I'd say that it is headed in the right direction. We are going to start pulling some troops out and the local population is finally getting fed up with Al Qaeda.

Notice no one has posted in this thread since we started getting positive news from Iraq. People were bitching for troop withdrawals, now that its going to happen.....silence.

Isn't that the point of "bitching" as you call it?  And as for your positive news in Iraq...wait until Ramadan is over and you'll see another spike in violence.  It's unstable...simple as that.  No matter if we put 100,000 more troops in or take 30,000 more out...it's going to remain unstable.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I'd say that it is headed in the right direction. We are going to start pulling some troops out and the local population is finally getting fed up with Al Qaeda.

Notice no one has posted in this thread since we started getting positive news from Iraq. People were bitching for troop withdrawals, now that its going to happen.....silence.

Isn't that the point of "bitching" as you call it?  And as for your positive news in Iraq...wait until Ramadan is over and you'll see another spike in violence.  It's unstable...simple as that.  No matter if we put 100,000 more troops in or take 30,000 more out...it's going to remain unstable.

The people that were' bitching' were the people who said the war was lost. Now that we have some positive results and can start bringing troops home while maintaining the same level of security is the best case scenario.
The war has gotten way too politicized, a stable Iraq with no US troops needed to maintain security is what we all should want to happen.

[Booker Floyd]

Now that we have some positive results and can start bringing troops home while maintaining the same level of security is the best case scenario.

Do you truly believe this?  Or do you simply and automatically "counter" non-Republican arguments?

So the logic is that America has finally found a winning strategy in Iraq (although the Bush administration - and you, I presume - has claimed to have a winning strategy since the wars beginning), and you want to discontinue it?

And if it wasnt successful, you would argue to continue it?

Maybe you can explain this logic.

I understand it could take awhile, so in the meantime, Ill post an article detailing the the extraordinary progress taking place:

Sadr's movement pulls out of Iraq alliance
By Dominic Evans and Waleed Ibrahim
Sat Sep 15, 3:23 PM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The political movement loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr quit Iraq's ruling Shi'ite Alliance on Saturday, leaving Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's coalition in a precarious position in parliament.

The move further weakens the ruling coalition, which even before the defection had failed to push through laws aimed at reconciling Iraq's warring majority Shi'ite and minority Sunni Arabs.

Maliki's government now enjoys the support of only about half of Iraq's 275 lawmakers, although it could survive with the support of a handful of independent lawmakers.

"The political committee has declared the withdrawal of the Sadr bloc from the (Shi'ite) alliance because there was no visible indication that the demands of Sadr's bloc were being met," the Sadr movement said in a statement released at a news conference in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.

An adviser to Maliki said the government had no immediate comment.

The decision by Sadr's movement to quit the Shi'ite Alliance in parliament was not unexpected after the cleric pulled his six ministers from the cabinet in April.

Maliki can still count on the backing of two other Shi'ite Islamist parties and the two main Kurdish parties in parliament, and so far no party has launched any push for a no-confidence vote in his government.

Sadr was instrumental in getting Maliki, a fellow Shi'ite, appointed prime minister in May last year.

His political bloc has raised a host of grievances in the past, including Maliki's refusal to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Sadr, a fiery nationalist whose stronghold in the capital is Baghdad's sprawling Sadr City, led his Mehdi Army militia in two uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004.

MALIKI UNDER FIRE

Maliki's government has been paralyzed by infighting. Besides the withdrawal of ministers loyal to Sadr, six cabinet members from the main Sunni Arab bloc have also quit.

Speaking in parliament on Monday, Maliki acknowledged that the term "national unity government," used to describe his cabinet had lost its meaning.

Hinting at a long promised overhaul of his cabinet, he said it was time for a "partnership government," but gave no details.

The next day Sadr's movement said it was considering withdrawing from the alliance, accusing it of failing to provide security and said political progress had been inadequate.

Criticism of Maliki's government also came from Washington.

President George W. Bush, speaking on Thursday, said it had made limited political progress despite the breathing space offered by a "surge" of U.S. troops and better security.

In a report ordered by Congress, the White House said on Friday that Iraq's leaders had made satisfactory progress on just nine out of 18 political and security benchmarks.

The political benchmarks, which include a crucial revenue-sharing oil law, are designed to build on the improved security and promote national reconciliation.

Iraqi lawmakers were not impressed.

"The Americans always try to pretend the responsibility for cleaning up this mess isn't theirs and tend to shift blame onto Iraq, Iran and Syria for everything that goes wrong," said veteran Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.

Bush, announcing plans for a limited withdrawal of around 20,000 U.S. troops by July, said on Thursday U.S. forces had helped ensure "ordinary life is beginning to return" to Baghdad.

On Saturday evening a suicide car bomber killed 10 people and wounded 15 others in southwest Baghdad. Many were queuing outside a bakery to buy bread for the evening Ramadan meal which breaks the day-long fast during the Muslim holy month.

The bombing came on the same day that an al Qaeda led group, the Islamic State in Iraq, announced a new phase of attacks to mark the month of Ramadan, which started this week.

(Additional reporting by Khaled Farhan in Najaf and Mussab Al-Khairalla in Baghdad)

[Bill 213]

Bush, announcing plans for a limited withdrawal of around 20,000 U.S. troops by July, said on Thursday U.S. forces had helped ensure "ordinary life is beginning to return" to Baghdad.

That line gets me every time. 

[SLCPUNK]

AMERICA?s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush?s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. ?I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,? he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam?s support for terrorism.

[The Dog]

this notion that there is going to be a troop reduction is nonsense.  the surge was only supposed to be temporary - they HAD to bring home some troops.  bush isn't doing anyone any favors, hes simply abiding by whats already been agreed upon.

there are no more troops to send.  i read we're training the navy in infantry tactics?!?!?  by next summer troop levels will still be around 130k, the same number as in 2006.

this is Bush 101, misinform and say that things are going great.  are 1,000 attacks a day "winning the war" or positive improvements!!!?!?  How do you even define "winning" this war?!?!

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Now that we have some positive results and can start bringing troops home while maintaining the same level of security is the best case scenario.

Do you truly believe this?  Or do you simply and automatically "counter" non-Republican arguments?

So the logic is that America has finally found a winning strategy in Iraq (although the Bush administration - and you, I presume - has claimed to have a winning strategy since the wars beginning), and you want to discontinue it?

And if it wasnt successful, you would argue to continue it?

Maybe you can explain this logic.

  I am referring to the fact we have some positive results happening. No shit the political situation is a mess, I never said it wasn't. I am referring to the fact that we can use less troops to maintain the same level of security and that is a positive thing - being able to bring some troops home....and be able to bring them home without losing the gains that were made which the troops worked very hard for.

As far as your Bush/ republican comment- I am an independent- I disagree with the republicans and the democrats on many things.

[SLCPUNK]

As far as your Bush/ republican comment- I am an independent- I disagree with the republicans and the democrats on many things.

Man you guys were all Bushbots before and during the war. Now you are all "independents" and "libertarians" since it wasn't a cake walk.

[The Dog]

Another thing to ponder, lets just say that AQ is neutralized in Iraq - does anyone here or in the US govt actually think the sunni and shia won't go back to killing each other once their common enemy is defeated!?!?  please.

a less violent, but similar example is the Dems/Repubs after 9-11.  We were totally united for a while after the towers came down.  after the dust settled and smoke cleared and the major fighting in Afghanistan had ended (even though we're still fighting there now) things went back to normal with the finger pointing and blame game.  the same thing will happen in Iraq.

so while there seems to be alliances and coalitions amongst the sunni/shia its only b/c they both have a common enemy.  and lets also keep in mind AQ did NOT have a presence in iraq until AFTER the invasion....

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Good analysis, but

I dont think they have a common ennemy there, they just have a common goal : power.
And america backing either one of this group will lead to a blowback in the future anyway. Let regional powers (iran, syria, egypt) take care of that.

AQ (as an international terrorist organization) is just fueling on local, national, struggle. Everywhere there is an oppressing power, there are "freedom fighters" and part of them will join more global fights such as AQ's.

I think that the only way to sweep the rug from beneath AQ's feet is to embrace the local *terrorists* as political counter-parts, and of course limit our (aggressive) presence in sovereign countries. The president of Iran says it clearly: americans are uninvited guests.

You cannot start discussing with the host if you crash his party.

[SLCPUNK]

You want to end this fucking war? Require all those with an "R" on their voter registration to sign up for duty.

Simple as that.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

here is intersting the interview of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from channel 4.

> http://contreinfo.info/article.php3?id_article=1235

extracts on the war in iraq:

Q : Mr President, thank you very much for agreeing to talk to us tonight. Let me start with Iraq. Both the UK and the US have accused Iran of fighting a proxy war inside Iraq. Is that true ?

A : In the name of God, first I would like to express my greetings to all your good audience and a good evening to all the people of England.

What you are saying is an allegation ; we also accuse the English and the US of occupying and violating Iraq. I think the US and Britain should amend their own views and behaviour ; if they want to blame others for their defeat then they can be sure that their defeats will be repeated.

Obviously we do distinguish differences between England and the US in Iraq. We think that the British government has more quickly and more successfully realised the situation in Iraq, and withdrawing from Basra was the right thing to do and we hope they will continue this.

We are the country that has sustained the most damage from the lack of security in Iraq because the nations of Iraq and Iran are closely intertwined - our nations have been friends for thousands of years. Every year millions of Iraqis and Iranians travel to each others’ countries and the security of Iraq has a direct impact on our security and vice versa. We want security in Iraq. And let me tell you one thing - you know the people of Iraq are a great nation with culture and civilisation, they have always been against occupations and they still are.



and a recent article about Ahmadinejad wanting a debate with good ol' W:

> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22431065-5001028,00.html


IRANIAN President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants a public debate with his US counterpart George W. Bush at the UN this month and a "global referendum" on who's right.