|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Dec 1st, 2006 06:53 PM | ||
| Courage the Cowardly Dog |
I hardly think any of those options would sedate the country short of genocide. The main reason we have fighters coming in is Syria and Iran believe we ARE an occupying force like the crusades and that we will not leave EVER. Our only hope of ceasing that long enough for the government to deal with it's own threats and not just outsiders who want to knock down them and americans is an international peacekeeping force that goes on the clear contingency that they supply enough troops the american "invaders" can leave and that causes the insurgents to leave and the government can focus on an easily winnable civil war because it would have international backing and NO international fighters from alqaeda flocking in over the borders. Oh and a border fence wouldn't hurt either once (if) everything settles down. |
|
| Nov 30th, 2006 10:13 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Well said! I still favor withdrawl over assasination, highly in fact. But I favor staying there and continuing the totally unworkable position we are in even less. We are backing a government the entire world now knows we officially have no confidence in, because that government needs Sadr and sadr is actively fomenting civil war, The way I see it, if we intend to stay (and we don't seem to be going anywhere) the choices are these: a.) Status quo. Accomplish nothing and watch a lot of people die, including our own. b.) Take the Shiites side against the Sunnis in civil war, which certainly Sunnis think we have already done, since we back the 'unity' government and the unity government depends on al Sadr. c.) Kill Al Sadr, which I would argue does not constitute assasination, since we have far more evidence implacating his direct involvement in American deaths than we ever did that Iraq had WMD d.) Change this regime the way we did the last one and officially occupy the country again We target Al Quaeda leaders all the time, and our own army says they are the only functional civil authority in Anbar province. There was an arrest warrant for Al sadr at one point. I would far rather we left than fire another shot. But if we're staying AND we're going to go on shooting, I think shooting in Al Sadr's direction could be appropriatte. |
|
| Nov 29th, 2006 06:40 PM | ||
| Preechr | Yep... That's a great first step for a new Democratic Government. Assassinations, in my opinion, really aren't utilized enough in the West. Wasn't it you, Max, that once said we might just find a better form of government than our own if we give the Iraqis free reign? Maybe that's the ticket! Take our form of government, and simply throw in the killing of dissenters! | |
| Nov 29th, 2006 03:18 PM | ||
| mburbank |
But I thought the only thing that justified all of this chaos was the glory of the Iraqi free elections, and that those purple fingers meant it was better than Sadaam no matter what happened. Are you saying we should concider deposing tis govt. and reoccupy Iraq, or just wait and see if it falls apart? However, I totally agree with you about Al Sadr or however one spells it. And, you might be surprised to hear from me, I favor killing him. He is a very, very bad apple and could only help us as an ally in the way various Middle East Strongmen have done before, ie. temporarily before becoming our next Hitler substitute. He is never going to be anything but trouble to us and he's the most visible front man in the 'kill all the sunnis' branch of shia. He's bad for us and he's bad for any possability of a unified Iraq. |
|
| Nov 29th, 2006 03:17 PM | ||
| FartinMowler |
Quote:
|
|
| Nov 29th, 2006 03:00 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
We need to decide what Al-Sadhr is. The problem is that we have hoped to curb this guy and contain him, rather than confronting him as an enemy. For a while we hoped folks like Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani could control him, but that clearly isn't the case anymore. His militia layed down their arms for a period of time, but it would appear those days are now long gone. Either he's an enemy or he's a potential ally. We can't go back and forth on it, and if he's an enemy than we need to treat him as such and deal with whatever consequences (what might happen if we were to kill him, uhhh, a Shiite uprising...?). We need more troops there, whether that be from our own ranks or from other nations. I'm beginning to wonder if an independent Iraqi government is really the solution there at this point. Everyone talks about how the Iraqi government and military need to step up, but that to me is language used to rationalize withdrawal. Two years from now, ardent supporters of the war will be screaming about how it was the fault of the Iraqis we lost, and not our own. |
|
| Nov 29th, 2006 01:49 PM | ||
| mburbank |
I think Iraq is about to completely fall apart Not that it isn't mostly fallen apart already. Bush and Maliki's talks have been postponed by a day after a leaked memo from W's national security adviser states a total lack of confidence in Maliki. (Side note: I rarely feel this way, but I think pubishing the memo now served no legitimate news need and may end up doing some serious damage.) Shiite politicians loyal to al Sadhr are boycotting parliment because W ius meeting Maliki at all. The meeting is taking place in Jordan, and if that isn't because even the Green Zone is no longer safe, they sure managed to make it look that way. Kissinger says Iraq can't be won militarily, the commander on the ground in Anbar province basically says we can't win there anymore and the most credible controlling political power there is Al Quaeda, but only because they are the only ones who seem to be able to make even a gesture toward prtotecting the Sunny minority there slightly, Colin Powell says it's civil war and if he were running the state department he'd reccomend they use the term (actually, if he were running the state department, I think he'd still be saying 'yes mr. Bush') and our entire government seems paralyzed awaiting the report of a commision headed by a man so totally emeshed with the Bush family he might as well BE family. And I think the mighty Baker will have a little more trouble pulling W's legacy nuts out of the fire on this one, which is a little more dicey than his last nut saving job in Florida. I have my fingers crossed all concerned make it through this scrape and that tomorrow there is a summit, and the Shiites end their parlimentary boycott, satisfied with a gesture. I think the next 24 hours are absolutely critical. |
|
