This doesn't help us....Follow

Iraqi PM

$10 says he turns out to be Al-Qaeda.

Now what are we going to say...

$10 says he turns out to be Al-Qaeda.


$1000000 says you're living in fear because you're a sucker.

I think it helps us a lot.

That concept is laughable at best.

I don't see why the September report should cite (if it does) the month-long break as a mitigating factor in not meeting goals. Surely Bush will, but as far as benchmarks, there's always going to be periods of heightened strife, craptacular Iraqi government decisions, etc. I hope Petraeus is objective enough to see that.

As for the PM's comments, even though their government sucks and there's a big chance of civil war or a coup, I think there's a chance that the US leaving would improve the situation and may actually stabilize things. Particularly if it forced us out (I think that was one of the prerogatives given to them after they got their Constitution done?)

With Abu Ghraib, Ahmed Chalabi, Mujahadeen e-khalq, etc. we've gotta be causing near as much resentment and anger towards a government that allows us to remain as we do to our own.

LOL We can leave anytime we want as long as we leave our weapons and advisors behind...Hmmm I think I have seen this situation before!

I liked Rambo's ***, does that count?

Meh, I think he's just trying to keep himself from getting executed the second our security forces leave. Most of the elected officials won't even leave the green zone without armed escorts.

Being friendly and saying he wants the Americans to stay would be the same as painting a bullseye on his bumbum.

Edited, Jul 16th 2007 7:57pm by scubamage

Is anyone really surprised by this?


What do you think the reaction is going to be when you tell the Iraqi government that they must accomplish some list of things, most of which were arbitrarily mandated by a group of uninformed legistlators via committee back in the US, many of them with an agenda to make the process impossible so as to force US troop withdrawal, but then told every single day that they can't count on the US military staying there long enough to ensure they get done?


Maybe if the freaking Congress stopped trying to micromanage this, we might actually be able to accomlish something? Crazy thought. I know...

Ah. So because the last 16 years didn't go so well (most of which was during the UN resolution debacle btw, which Bush *ended* by invading), we should just give up. Yeah. That makes sense. Let's not assess the situation by looking at the likely results of optionA versus optionB, let's just look at the past, conclude that things haven't gone well, and just chuck out what we're doing *now* regardless of how it related in policy to what we were doing for most of that 16 year period and adopt a random strategy instead.

Not doing something is still doing something else. It should be obvious, but apparently it needs to be said.

As to your bullet points?



Doubt that seriously. The quantity of depleted uranium used by US forces in Iraq is hardly measurable if you know where to look, is not even in the same ballpark as something like Chernobyl, and is window dressing compared to the health problems steming from the Iraqi governments experimentation and use of chemical weapons.



I'd point out that virtually all aspects of the Iraqi infrastructure are now at levels exceeding what they were before we invaded. Now you can argue that that's because the sanctions screwed them and made it impossible to recover after the Gulf War, but one of the main arguments against invading was that the resolutions "were working". I'd suggest that they weren't, but that's just me.



Again. A problem caused by the ridiculous sanctions employed by the UN for far longer then they were supposed to run purely because they were unable to make a decision. You do know that the UN sanctions were originally only supposed to run for 18 months while Iraq complied with the terms of the cease fire, right? But then when Saddam called their bluff and didn't comply, the UN's balls dropped right off their sac and they sat there imposing sanctions for 13 years. And then insisted on blocking any action that might remove those sanctions. Go figure!



Really? How do you know it cost 300 billion then?

Didn't really think that point through did you? Maybe you should leave the hyperbole at the door before posting? Just a thought...



Yeah. Cause it was so stable before we got there. Which time period exactly are you referring to? The time period when the Baathists lead a revolution and took power and proceeded to start executing anyone they didn't like (including a lot of shiite clerics)? Or the period during which Iraq and Iran were in a constant state of war? Or the period during that war and after in which they used chemical weapons on Iranians and any people living in Iraq that Saddam didn't like? Or perhaps you're referring to the time period in which he proceeded to invade Kuwait in order to get some more oil?

Which stable period of time are you thinking about? I'm just curious.



Yes. It would. If we actually commit to doing it instead of going halfway and then losing interest/will. Cause guess what? The people living there don't want to live under a brutal authoritarian regime. It's just that up until now, they've had no choice. And when people are faced with a "join us or die" situation, they tend to join up. The only way this is *ever* going to work is if the people as a whole trust that they wont be the first up against the wall down the line. And that only works if they know that we wont leave randomly because people like you insist that somehow leaving must be better then staying, not because we've actually thought about what happens when we leave, but just because we don't like the prospect of staying.


Sometimes, you do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. I'm sure someone said that at some time in the past. Maybe someday we'll learn to live up to it. We cannot simply choose the easy path here. Well. We can, but it will be a disaster in the long term if we do.


How about you spend even half as much time thinking about what happens if we leave without securing Iraq as you've spent thinking about what happens if we stay. That might just give you some perspective on the issue.

Edited, Jul 16th 2007 8:34pm by gbaji

You know that geiger counters and other items to measure radioactivity were banned due to embargoes, correct? If there was no such thing, then where did gulf war syndrome come from? Why is it that Dr. Doug Rokke, the doctor assigned by the army to clean up and "detoxify" Iraq now is crusading against the US government. Oh yeah, he has leukemia caused by Uranium exposure. His brother was the dean of my college.



Not so much as you might think. The vast majority of money spent in Iraq has been in the green zone, which now is America's largest embassy which includes numerous hotels, a stadium, and car dealerships.



You know that it was UN Security Council vetoes from the US that kept the sanctions from ending, right? Which is why Madeline Albright was booed in nearly every country she entered through a vast majority of Clinton's stay in office after her whole "we believe it's worth it" interview.



Consider the first year alone more than 80 billion was asked of congress and approved. Along with numerous further supplements of over 100 billion each, I believe 300 billion is a low number. You're very right, it probobly cost much more.



The period between the 1970's to the late 1980's, after the Iraq-Iran war. We were bosom buddies with the Baath party then, hence the many pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands (on a goodwill mission, eerily just after Saddam used nerve gas on hundreds of kurds - nerve gas supplied by the US). They were our allies. They were brutal as hell, but given the number of warring factions, brutality appears to have worked a lot more then than "democracy" does now. Oh, we also were getting oil concessions.

Saddam also invaded Kuwait with approval from the US Ambassador to Iraq, an often glossed over fact. Look up the name April Glaspie, and see the transcripts where, with Bush sr's approval, she gives Saddam the go-ahead. Fun stuff.


You're right, the people there don't want a brutal authoritarian regime - we should get the hell out and let them decide the fate of their own country, instead of trying to make America Junior.