The US must stay the course in Iraq

[GePap]

It seems that Sistani may be willing to accept a transitional govt that ISNT too democractic, since such a govt would be more explicitly PROVISIONAL, and would be less likely to make permanent laws. In any case that is being discussed currently. Of coruse the negotiations are difficult - this is a complex political situation. I fail to see how this relates to the point of staying the course.

Any government unable to make permanent laws would be one unable to set a permanent scheme for continued US precense, so at some point, it might come up to Iraqi voters to decide how the US army will operate in Iraq, and they might not "stay the course".

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Say, Saddam Hussein is still available, isn't he? He did a good job maintaining order in Iraq.

Too funny.

hey, we put him in power once, we can do it again.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Ahmed Chalabi is banned from Jordan because of corruption and fraud charges. The whole INC told us hands down Saddam had stockpiles.... stockpiles of WMD's.

You think the INC is full of good people? Do you trust people who want power?

What does lack of WMD proof in Iraq have to do with my Vietnam-analogy post?

Considering that my Vietnam analogy post is more relevant with what causes failures in intervening in civil wars, not proof/lack of proof of WMDs . . . . . . .

[GePap]

Originally posted by Defiant
What war crimes, it is a war and we are losing lives, I suppose we should have been brought up on war crimes when we bombed Germany and civilians died.

Perhaps-though that was done before the German goverment capitulated, never after as you suggest we do.

If they are parading against and mutilating our bodies, it is a combatent and response should be just as deadly.

Sorry, but blind emotion is a terrible thing to base policy on.

The moral is lost when they start multilating our bodies and killing our soldiers, if it is a war, then it is a war.
We are not liberating the supporters of Saddam, GePap and that's who these people are.

We say we liberated iraq-that includes everyone.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Defiant


I don't know where the hell you live but our gas prices are skyrocketing, I wish this was about oil, then maybe my gas prices would lower.

they are still about 1/3 of that which Europeans pay. And, oil from Iraq isn't quite flowing as freely as ex ARCO ceo Paul Bremer wishes.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I expect better annalogies from you.

Sorry, BUT US forces are there mainly to hunt AQ and the Taliban, not to provide security nationwide. There are about 12,000 US troops in afghanistan, with most security provided by the nacent Afghan army, OR by local militias.

We have 100,000 troops in Iraq-a HUGE difference.

well it seems that the Taliban activity is the principle threat to the govt in Afghanistan, not foot patrols in Bamiyan province. Besides, there is still an ISAF force in Kabul, and there is talk of expanding it to other cities. Do you really think the militias provide "security"?


I fail to see your point - the new Iraqi regime will (for the time being) be heavily reliant for security on foreign forces not under its direct control - and this means what, exactly? That its thereby illegitimate???? I think that depends on the reaction of Iraqis, and on the reaction of the international community. That we shouldnt "stay the course" Why??? Cause it smells like Viet Nam???? John Kerry, WHO SERVED IN VIET NAM, sees that it is essential to stay the course.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

It seems that Sistani may be willing to accept a transitional govt that ISNT too democractic, since such a govt would be more explicitly PROVISIONAL, and would be less likely to make permanent laws. In any case that is being discussed currently. Of coruse the negotiations are difficult - this is a complex political situation. I fail to see how this relates to the point of staying the course.

Any government unable to make permanent laws would be one unable to set a permanent scheme for continued US precense, so at some point, it might come up to Iraqi voters to decide how the US army will operate in Iraq, and they might not "stay the course".

I dont think any govt anywhere implements "permanent schemes" for the presence of foreign forces - such status of forces agreements are always time limited, and subject to revocation by the host govt. Thats certainly legally the case in Germany, Japan, and S Korea, and in fact US forces left the Phillipines when the democratically govt insisted on it.

Its certainly possible that some future elected Iraqi govt may choose to dispense with US forces. The current govt of the Phillipines, for example, uses its own forecs to fight AQ terrorists, and has requested only training help from the US. I dont think the original poster was referring to IRaq staying the course, but to the US doing so. Certainly there is no immediate prospect of democratic forces in Iraq taking full responsibility for their own security.

[Barinthus]

The United States of America did not 'lose' Vietnam War. They withdrew. Big difference. There was no defeat on a battlefield somewhere. NVA's offensive capabilities were virtually destroyed leaving couple of people running around in pjs. The Americans shouldn't have been there in the first place anyway, this nasty habit of supporting governments unpopular with their populace has to stop.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
The United States of America did not 'lose' Vietnam War. They withdrew. Big difference.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
The United States of America did not 'lose' Vietnam War. They withdrew.

We completely failed in our objectives. We lost the war. Had we won the war, there would still be a South Vietnam.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MrFun



What does lack of WMD proof in Iraq have to do with my Vietnam-analogy post?

Considering that my Vietnam analogy post is more relevant with what causes failures in intervening in civil wars, not proof/lack of proof of WMDs . . . . . . .

They lied to us. To get into power, the INC lied to us, told us what it took to get them back home and in power over Iraq. Even if they didn't lie to us, they obviously are as clueless as we are to the realities of Iraq.

And you were talking about supporting a corrupt Vietnames government, I told you Ahmed Chalabi is a known crook. Do you know who Chalabi is?

[MrFun]

Man -- such loony ideas, eh Chegitz?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Do you know who Chalabi is?

I guess I don't know or recall.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun


I guess I don't know or recall.

Pssst Fun....

Personal Information
Born - 1944.
Marital Status - Unknown.
Education - Mathematics (Chicago University and MIT).



Personal History
Dr. Ahmad Chalabi is a Shi'a Muslim. He is the son of a wealthy banking family whose grandfather, father and brother held prominent posts in Iraqi governments until Saddam Hussein's Baath Party seized power in 1968. He has not lived in Iraq since 1956, apart from a period organizing resistance in the Kurdish north in the mid-1990s. Chalabi was a math professor at the American University in Beirut until 1977. His main political support came from the US Congress, the Pentagon and parts of the CIA. The US State Department does not trust him and has raised questions about Iraqi National Congress's accounting practices. In 1995 he organized an uprising in the Northern Iraq, which was called off by the CIA at the crucial moment, and which subsequently led to the deaths of thousands of INC members. A highly controversial figure, he is charismatic and determined, though many also regard him as domineering. Since he left Jordan, Chalabi has resided in London and he is now a British citizen.



Political Activity
Dr. Ahmad Chalabi was leader of Iraqi National Congress until April of 1999, when he was demoted to the rank of an ordinary member. A collective leadership of seven persons, each representing one of the main opposition groups, was established in his place. He was the chairman of the Petra Bank in Jordan and was eventually convicted (in his absence) of fraud by a Jordanian court. He maintains he is innocent and says the Iraqi government trumped up the accusations.





Additional Information
Dr. Ahmad Chalabi has little support from leaders of the various Iraqi exile groups, or from Iraqis living in Iraq. The Arab governments in the Persian Gulf region have told the administration that they would not allow Chalabi to run a liberation army from their soil, even in an operation mounted with U.S. help. The ruling Sunnis of Saudi Arabia distrust Chalabi in part because he is Shi'a, a branch of Islam whose adherents make up just over half of Iraq's 22 million inhabitants. The Kuwaitis do not believe he could inspire a successful revolt and refuse to give him a staging area. Jordan would put him in jail were he to return because of the banking fraud. And on the other side of Iraq, Turkey wants nothing to do with Chalabi or his plan.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Man -- such loony ideas, eh Chegitz?

About whom are you writing? Chalabi is a convicted criminal, $200 million in bank fraud in Jordan. I think we should turn him over to our ally, Jordan.