Iraq steadily getting worse

CPT. SURF

I dont reckon any US president will just pull out.

-Not the point

The Congress is the most powerfull branch of government and they have voted for a troop pullout. Bush will veto the bill, but another President may not.

Anyway by the time the next President is in office the state of Iraq may convince enough of the representatives to override any potential Presidential veto.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

Honestly, I'm not so sure. It wouldn't be the first time that a politician has run on one platform to get into office, then when he got there realised that perhaps he'd better leave things alone for a while.

NTM

Unfortunetly I think you're right. As soon as Pelosi and her ilk got into power off the backs of the anti-war vote they caved PDQ.
Hillary/Obama/Edwards are all corporate campaign money whores.
Hopefully Nader stays in good health for a while.

CPT. SURF

As soon as Pelosi and her ilk got into power off the backs of the anti-war vote they caved PDQ.

How did they cave?

They voted for a timed troop pullout.

sovtek

CPT. SURF wrote:

How did they cave?

They voted for a timed troop pullout.

They voted for a non-binding, watered down pullout next year. They also voted to continue funding the war and haven't done anything to stop an attack on Iran.

CPT. SURF

They voted for a non-binding, watered down pullout next year.

Remeber they only have the very slightest of majority in the House. A more aggressive resolution would not have passed. Then that would have been nothing.

They also voted to continue funding the war

As you know Bush said he would veto any troop pullout. Defunding the troops would thus put the people in uniform over there is even more life threatening danger. This option is also universally unpopular in the US, even amongst people who do not support the war.

haven't done anything to stop an attack on Iran.

What?

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

They voted for a non-binding, watered down pullout next year.

Well lame duck George Bush does have the same veto power his prececessor had,thats true-what can congress do about that given you need what a 2 thirds majority or the like to vetoe the vetoe.

They also voted to continue funding the war and haven't done anything to stop an attack on Iran.

Thats eternal pesimism if ever I saw it.
What have they done to start an attack on Iran?

Come to think of it,what have I done to stop an attack on my neighbour? I must be in favour of it right ? given that I've done nothing to stop it... I'm not outside their house right now waving a banner that says "robbers or potential robbers stay away from my neighbours house"...
Damn! You know what, you've just convinced me that I'm in favour of larceny.
Tut tut to me , Tut tut to me...

CPT. SURF

Funny Tristrame,

I also do not know what Congress should do about a war that exists inside the mind of a poster on boards.ie

Sesshoumaru

I wouldn't say Iraq is getting worse. A brutal dictator who oppressed the Shia majority is dead and the Iraqi people can vote in free elections now. We just need to make sure America gets the support she needs to finish cleaning out those muslim terrorists from Iraq. The only people who see nothing positive in Iraq are extremist left wingers in the West who have an irrational hatred for America/Israel/Freedom/Western culture.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

What have they done to start an attack on Iran?

Come to think of it,what have I done to stop an attack on my neighbour? I must be in favour of it right ? given that I've done nothing to stop it... I'm not outside their house right now waving a banner that says "robbers or potential robbers stay away from my neighbours house"...
Damn! You know what, you've just convinced me that I'm in favour of larceny.
Tut tut to me , Tut tut to me...

They were going to pass a resolution prohibiting Bush from pursuing any military activity against Iran without congressional approval but they pulled it at the last minute under the pretext that Bush needed all options on the table to aid negotiations with Iran.

The thing about using a credible threat as a tool for negotiation (bullying) is that for the threat to be credible, there has to be a good chance that military force will be used and once threats are made, it backs the aggressors into a corner where they have to follow through in order to maintain the 'credible threat' in future political engagements with other countries.

The refusal of the Democrats leadership to prohibit Bush from attacking Iran is a tacit form of support for military action. There is no other interpretation that makes sense.

nacho libre

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I wouldn't say Iraq is getting worse. A brutal dictator who oppressed the Shia majority is dead and the Iraqi people can vote in free elections now. We just need to make sure America gets the support she needs to finish cleaning out those muslim terrorists from Iraq. The only people who see nothing positive in Iraq are extremist left wingers in the West who have an irrational hatred for America/Israel/Freedom/Western culture.

you must have missed the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6543377.stm

Akrasia

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I wouldn't say Iraq is getting worse. A brutal dictator who oppressed the Shia majority is dead and the Iraqi people can vote in free elections now. We just need to make sure America gets the support she needs to finish cleaning out those muslim terrorists from Iraq. The only people who see nothing positive in Iraq are extremist left wingers in the West who have an irrational hatred for America/Israel/Freedom/Western culture.

What's so good about voting when you have no other control over your own life, and the people you vote for are 100% answerable to a foreign occupying force?

That is not democracy. There were elections in Iraq under saddam too you know. elections does not equal democracy. Not by a very long shot

wes

Iraq is sadly probably going to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better. The invasion was botched simple as that. They didn't plan for what to do after and messed up the country. The situation in Iraq is tragic and sadly I don't think anything can or will be done about it.

marco murphy

I wouldn't say Iraq is getting worse. A brutal dictator who oppressed the Shia majority is dead and the Iraqi people can vote in free elections now. We just need to make sure America gets the support she needs to finish cleaning out those muslim terrorists from Iraq. The only people who see nothing positive in Iraq are extremist left wingers in the West who have an irrational hatred for America/Israel/Freedom/Western culture.

Well the majority of Iraqis would disagree with your first analysis there.
In place of a dictator who oppressed Shias you know have a shia dominated police force running about murdering sunni muslims.
What do you mean by giving America support? Cleaning out those muslim terrorists? The US deserves no support. They embarked on a war that was botched from the beginning. They have left that country in a total mess with thousands of civilians dead. The oil thirsty administration will get no support from me. Thats funny. I see nothing positive in Iraq, therefore I have a hatred for western culture and freedom.

So in order to support freedom, I must support the US in ''cleaning out the muslim terrorists'', even though it America and Britain who invaded for oil in the first place?

I suggest you revise the definintion of freedom mister.

CPT. SURF

The refusal of the Democrats leadership to prohibit Bush from attacking Iran is a tacit form of support for military action. There is no other interpretation that makes sense.

I am sorry but this is some of the worst nonsense I have heard lately.

I do not think you even understand how the US government works.

The Congress is the most powerful branch. So if Bush was to attack Iran he would need Congressional approval, like he got from them for Iraq. This makes your point about passing some resolution completely moot.

And anyway why would the US just flatly rule out military action against Iran?
The UN has increased sanctions for their failure to cooperate with THE REST OF THE WORLD (not just the US) on the nuclear issue.
They kidnapped British soldiers in international waters.

What if Iran pulls some other crazy **** and the US has some resolution against any military action that they have to go back on?


Look there will not be military action against Iran anyway,and the US military is so strapped for cash that if there is some action it would be out of absolute necessity.

This is a situation that is entirely unlikely

CPT. SURF

That is not democracy. There were elections in Iraq under saddam too you know. elections does not equal democracy. Not by a very long shot

I agree with 100% on this though

stevedublin

CPT. SURF wrote:

So if Bush was to attack Iran he would need Congressional approval, like he got from them for Iraq.

Thats not what I understood in the run up to the Iraq war. Case of rewriting history.

CPT. SURF

He got approval in the House actually.

Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Iraq war, among other democrats. The issue was that he lied to them about Iraq's nuclear capability.

Sesshoumaru

Poblachtach wrote:

Well the majority of Iraqis would disagree with your first analysis there.
In place of a dictator who oppressed Shias you know have a shia dominated police force running about murdering sunni muslims.
What do you mean by giving America support? Cleaning out those muslim terrorists? The US deserves no support. They embarked on a war that was botched from the beginning. They have left that country in a total mess with thousands of civilians dead. The oil thirsty administration will get no support from me. Thats funny. I see nothing positive in Iraq, therefore I have a hatred for western culture and freedom.

So in order to support freedom, I must support the US in ''cleaning out the muslim terrorists'', even though it America and Britain who invaded for oil in the first place?

I suggest you revise the definintion of freedom mister.

I don't recall anyone in the US saying they wanted Iraqi oil??? If Saddam had merely co-operated with the international community there would have been no war. Now Saddam is dead and the Iraqi people live in a Democracy. Thats great progress! Only those extreme left wingers who have an irrational hatred for America see nothing positive in Iraq. I mean sure the road to freedom will be a bit bumpy for the Iraqi people. But freedom is messy

wes

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I don't recall anyone in the US saying they wanted Iraqi oil??? If Saddam had merely co-operated with the international community there would have been no war. Now Saddam is dead and the Iraqi people live in a Democracy. Thats great progress! Only those extreme left wingers who have an irrational hatred for America see nothing positive in Iraq. I mean sure the road to freedom will be a bit bumpy for the Iraqi people. But freedom is messy

Are you serious? 1 Million Iraqi's are estimated to be dead. The Neo-con project in Iraq is a total failure. Just look at at any decent news outlet and you will see that Iraq is a mess. They botched the entire thing. The list of the failures is huge. How you can not see the absolute tragedy that the botched neo-con project has caused in Iraq, is very hard for me to understand.

marco murphy

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I don't recall anyone in the US saying they wanted Iraqi oil???

Yeh... But Bush told us Iraq has all of these WMDs, it was bullshlt though was'nt it.

If Saddam had merely co-operated with the international community there would have been no war.

Co-operate how exactly? Did'nt he co-operate? Did he have anything to hide?

Now Saddam is dead and the Iraqi people live in a Democracy. Thats great progress!

What good is a democracy when you have a police force that wipes out whole communities, children suicide bombers, and being occupied by US/Brit

Only those extreme left wingers who have an irrational hatred for America see nothing positive in Iraq. I mean sure the road to freedom will be a bit bumpy for the Iraqi people. But freedom is messy

I see NOTHING positive in Iraq. But I'm not an extreme left winger. This troop surge brought in not so long ago was a total failure. And again as nacho libre said, have you missed the
LINK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6543377.stm

You have some distorted view of freedom IMO.

time.com

However sanguine the majority of Iraqis feel, patience with the U.S. occupation seems to be wearing thin. Nearly 60% of respondents said the U.S. and its allies have done a bad job carrying out their responsibilities in Iraq, while 65% said they oppose the troops' presence in the country.

Heres your American Freedom/Democracy

Akrasia

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I don't recall anyone in the US saying they wanted Iraqi oil??? If Saddam had merely co-operated with the international community there would have been no war. Now Saddam is dead and the Iraqi people live in a Democracy. Thats great progress! Only those extreme left wingers who have an irrational hatred for America see nothing positive in Iraq. I mean sure the road to freedom will be a bit bumpy for the Iraqi people. But freedom is messy

Freedom?
Democracy?

This is what Colin Powell said after the election in 2004

Bremer says: If asked,
U.S. will leave Iraq

by Glenn Kessler,
Washington Post

May 15, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Colin Powell emphatically said yesterday that if the incoming Iraqi interim government ordered the departure of foreign troops after June 30, they would pack up without protest, but emphasized he doubted such a request would be made.

This is what the happened in 2006

Iraq VP Asks Bush For Withdrawal Timetable
Meanwhile, a leading Iraqi official has asked the US for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign troops. The government says Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi made the request during a meeting with President Bush Tuesday. In a statement, President Jalal Talabani said he supported Hashimi’s demand. The Bush administration has firmly rejected calls for a timetable for withdrawal.

and this week, up to a million protestors marched in Najaf demanding a U.S. withdrawal.

So you have a "democracy" with no sovereignty and "freedom" under a hostile occupation.

Do you read Orwell?

Sesshoumaru

Oh I'm sure American troops will be there forever and ever :rolleyes: They just need to stay there until the job is done. We wouldn't want Iraq going back to a dictatorship would we? or are those on the extreme left in favour of dictatorships?

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

and this week, up to a million protestors marched in Najaf demanding a U.S. withdrawal." Iraq VP Asks Bush For Withdrawal Timetable
Meanwhile, a leading Iraqi official has asked the US for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign troops. The government says Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi made the request during a meeting with President Bush Tuesday. In a statement, President Jalal Talabani said he supported Hashimi’s demand. The Bush administration has firmly rejected calls for a timetable for withdrawal."

So you have a "democracy" with no sovereignty and "freedom" under a hostile occupation.

Do you read Orwell?

I put that entire quote into Google to see where you got it from.It's a small quote here with no link to source (though I don't doubt it's authenticity).

Interestingly,the same google page came up with plenty of references to the Iraqi prime minister not wanting an immediate withdrawal.
If we are going to debate by google,we should also in my opinion try to put things into context.

I think most non alligned commentators would recognise that an immediate withdrawal at this stage would revolve the deckchairs of chaos instead of ending them.

I wouldnt mind the 1000's ( yes thousands not your "million" - reutters based link )who were on the streets of Najaf.Moqtada al-Sadr, who called that protest seems to spend most of his time these days encouraging the blowing asunder of his own fellow citizens.
He should pray to Allah more I think for guidance on that one.

Akrasia

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Oh I'm sure American troops will be there forever and ever :rolleyes: They just need to stay there until the job is done. We wouldn't want Iraq going back to a dictatorship would we? or are those on the extreme left in favour of dictatorships?

America would love a dictator in Iraq (as long as he obeyed America... remember Saddam was the U.S's best friend until he became too independent)

The 'Democracy in Iraq is nothing but a PR stunt. They have no autonomy.

nacho libre

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Oh I'm sure American troops will be there forever and ever :rolleyes: They just need to stay there until the job is done. We wouldn't want Iraq going back to a dictatorship would we? or are those on the extreme left in favour of dictatorships?

Why is everyone who is against the war on the extreme left according to you?
I think there is now a general consensus across a broad political spectrum of opinion that the Iraq war was a disaster.
You might also want to consider checking America's record of supporting dictatorships and supporting terrorism before you accuse those against what America is currently doing of being in favour of dictatorships and being against freedom and Democracy. Tell us what happened the last time Iran had a democracy?

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

America would love a dictator in Iraq (as long as he obeyed America... remember Saddam was the U.S's best friend until he became too independent)

Not necessarally.It depends on who is in the ascendency politically in the U.S for what is advocated from there.
Come to think of it, that applies to most democracies.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

I put that entire quote into Google to see where you got it from.It's a small quote here with no link to source (though I don't doubt it's authenticity).

Interestingly,the same google page came up with plenty of references to the Iraqi prime minister not wanting an immediate withdrawal.
If we are going to debate by google,we should also in my opinion try to put things into context.

Well the main point I was making is that there is very strong opposition to the U.S. occupation from within Iraq, but that the Americans don't respect the wishes the people they claim to be bringing democracy to.

I think most non alligned commentators would recognise that an immediate withdrawal at this stage would revolve the deckchairs of chaos instead of ending them.

What's the definition of 'non aligned'? Is Robert Fisk or John Pilger 'non aligned'?

Most 'non aligned' commentators at the time of the Vietnam war were saying the same thing about the need for U.S. occupation to reduce terrorism and chaos

I wouldnt mind the 1000's ( yes thousands not your "million" - reutters based link )who were on the streets of Najaf.Moqtada al-Sadr, who called that protest seems to spend most of his time these days encouraging the blowing asunder of his own fellow citizens.
He should pray to Allah more I think for guidance on that one.

There are lots of thousands in a million... The protest was described as "Huge" by the NY times who said "tens of thousands" marched. John Pilger said there were a million protesters
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/world/middleeast/10iraq.html?bl&ex=1176436800&en=8d8812abb96e5775&ei=5087%0A

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=433

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Not necessarally.It depends on who is in the ascendency politically in the U.S for what is advocated from there.
Come to think of it, that applies to most democracies.

well in the current administration, there are no shortages of people with a long history of supporting dictators

But even the dems have no problem working with and supporting dictators (like the saudis) when it's in their economic interest

FYI

Akrasia wrote:

There are lots of thousands in a million... The protest was described as "Huge" by the NY times who said "tens of thousands" marched. John Pilger said there were a million protesters

The numbers for protests such as these are regularly down played. Reuters are likely to 'err on the side of caution'.

Some photos here:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/04/no-no-usa.html

And Al Jazeera reported:

"Hundreds of thousands of Shia protesters have burnt and trampled on US flags in the Iraqi city of Najaf during an anti-American rally called by Moqtada al-Sadr, a prominent Shia leader."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/07A30E52-A6A1-4B62-AB69-9FE34FACE12D.htm

edanto

The US should leave.

End of story. They should start packing their bags and leaving all their massive bases.

As they leave, they should be replaced with an arab dominated UN force and law and order quickly restored. In time, the place will revert to a normal middle eastern country.

Maybe this won't happen until the newspapers start talking about one of the real reasons that the US wanted to be in Iraq for the next 50 years.

Oil.