DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on February 17, 2007, 03:12:22 PM
-
February 17, 2007
Baghdad Plan Is a ‘Success,’ Iraq Prime Minister Tells Bush
By MARC SANTORA
BAGHDAD, Feb. 16 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki told President Bush on Friday that the increased effort to provide security in Baghdad had gone exceedingly well so far, Mr. Maliki’s office said in a statement.
The two spoke via video link and, according the statement, Mr. Maliki said, “The security plan has been a dazzling success during its first days.â€
Across Baghdad, there were signs of the heightened troop presence, as cars were searched at new checkpoints and raids resulted in the arrest of at least 35 people, according to Iraqi officials.
Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the First Cavalry Division in Baghdad, told reporters on Friday that there had been a substantial reduction in violence in the past 48 hours, which he attributed both to the increased troop presence and the decision by Sunni and Shiite militants to keep a low profile.
“They’re watching us carefully,†he said. “There’s an air of suspense throughout the city. We believe, there’s no question about it, that many of these extremists are laying low and watching to see what it is we do and how we do it. How long that will last, we don’t know.â€
American military officers also disputed Iraqi reports that the commander of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was wounded in recent fighting, saying they have seen no evidence to support the claim.
Still, in an interview on Friday, Iraq’s Interior Ministry spokesman, Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf, continued to maintain that Mr. Masri had been wounded in fighting near Balad, north of Baghdad. He said Mr. Masri was wounded Thursday afternoon, then managed to flee. But two other Iraqi officials contradicted that account.
In Hilla, south of Baghdad, the Iraqi security forces arrested 34 members of a messianic Shiite splinter group that just three weeks ago tried to overthrow the Shiite clerical hierarchy in Najaf.
In heavy fighting in January, hundreds of members of the group, called the Soldiers of Heaven, were killed as American forces joined the Iraqis in a daylong battle in which an American attack helicopter was shot down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
-
Your headline, Ricky, and the headline (and content) of the article itself are at such odds as to create a serious distortion, a hallmark of your slanted offerings here. If the initiative PROVES successful in lasting stability and security, then we can all rejoice. Meantime, knowledgeable, conscientious, well-meaning people with a certain modicum of influence are very skeptical of a process of escalation for a number of seemingly good reasons. The interplay between these two opposing domestic adversaries about how to proceed in Iraq is the very stuff of which democracy is made. And the litmus test is cold, hard facts on the ground established (or not) over time. Celebrating this initial (honest) report from the New York Times is akin to collecting your bet after Chicago scored the game-opening kickoff return in the Super Bowl.
-
<<Celebrating this initial (honest) report from the New York Times is akin to collecting your bet after Chicago scored the game-opening kickoff return in the Super Bowl.>>
Excellent. LOL
-
The interplay between these two opposing domestic adversaries about how to proceed in Iraq is the very stuff of which democracy is made.
Best i can tell one side of the domestic disputes would like to leave Iraq better than we found it, and the other wants that not to be the case. Any success achieved by the surge will be downplayed and dismissed, not because it isn't good for the Iraqi people but because it would be bad for the war opposition.
And that is sad.
-
This is definately good news , but Domer makes a valid point , if the good news is still good three months from now it will be a lot more signifigant than a good report of two days duration.
Lets try to return to this.
-
Any success achieved by the surge will be downplayed and dismissed, not because it isn't good for the Iraqi people but because it would be bad for the war opposition. And that is sad.
Boy, you nailed that one, Bt :-\
-
<<Best i can tell one side of the domestic disputes would like to leave Iraq better than we found it, and the other wants that not to be the case. >>
Well that's a bit of a stretch because the other side doesn't believe there's any genuine attempt to leave Iraq "better" than anything, unless you consider them better off under a compliant puppet government that hands over the country's oil resources on very favourable terms to American purchasers.
<<Any success achieved by the surge will be downplayed and dismissed, not because it isn't good for the Iraqi people but because it would be bad for the war opposition. And that is sad.>>
If opposition to the war is based on opposition to strongarm robbery of the poor by the rich, then anything that's bad for the war effort is good and anything that's good for the war effort is bad. So there's nothing sad about ANYTHING that benefits the war opposition.
What is really sad is that this criminal and murderous illegal invasion that has without the slightest shred of justification caused so much suffering to so many completely innocent human beings, should be promoted and even celebrated.
-
What is really sad is that this criminal and murderous illegal invasion that has without the slightest shred of justification caused so much suffering to so many completely innocent human beings, should be promoted and even celebrated.
I wouldn't be so hard on the pan arabic insurgents and sectarian militias, who by far have killed the vast majority of the innocents. I'm sure in their minds they are involved in some heroic peoples struggle.
-
Hmm. I'm reading similar reports all over the web about this "dazzling" success, but isn't it too early to make the call?
Truly I hope the plan IS a success - it would be beneficial to both Americans and your every day, average Iraqis who have suffered through the turmoil. I just think it's too early to declare victory - a lesson I think should have been learned a few years back. LOL.
-
I just think it's too early to declare victory - a lesson I think should have been learned a few years back. LOL.
What happened a few years back? Someone declared victory in bringing full fledged stability & democracy in Iraq? ???
-
Truly I hope the plan IS a success
Good. Common ground. And glad we aere off to a good start. I just hope Murtha doesn't try to derail any possibility of success.
I'd be a bit peeved about that. Would you?
-
What happened a few years back? Someone declared victory in bringing full fledged stability & democracy in Iraq? ???
Sirs, you know what I mean.
-
Good. Common ground. And glad we aere off to a good start. I just hope Murtha doesn't try to derail any possibility of success.
I'd be a bit peeved about that. Would you?
I think that Murtha's idea of limiting Pentagon war spending is completely irresponsible. There is a mess in Iraq and the U.S. is morally responsible to clean it up. Instead, Murtha ultimately proposes running away and leaving the clean-up to the innocents left behind.
How is this supposed to improve the American image?
How will this benefit the American interests in the Middle East?
How does this make America any safer from terrorist threats?
There are no benefits to his ideas. Instead, I hope that Murtha understands that he is responsible for the blood of even more innocent Iraqi civilians, not to mention the American and allied soldiers that suffer as the funding dries up.
-
What happened a few years back? Someone declared victory in bringing full fledged stability & democracy in Iraq? ???
Sirs, you know what I mean.
Then if I'm guessing right, the reference to "mission accomplished" was indeed mission accomplished....Saddam had been taken out, that victory was achieved. You're definately not the Tee-type of folks here who'd distort that event into some grand proclaimation of a declaration of victory, over all the apsects of Iraq, right?
-
Good. Common ground. And glad we aere off to a good start. I just hope Murtha doesn't try to derail any possibility of success.
I'd be a bit peeved about that. Would you?
I think that Murtha's idea of limiting Pentagon war spending is completely irresponsible. There is a mess in Iraq and the U.S. is morally responsible to clean it up. Instead, Murtha ultimately proposes running away and leaving the clean-up to the innocents left behind.
How is this supposed to improve the American image?
How will this benefit the American interests in the Middle East?
How does this make America any safer from terrorist threats?
There are no benefits to his ideas. Instead, I hope that Murtha understands that he is responsible for the blood of even more innocent Iraqi civilians, not to mention the American and allied soldiers that suffer as the funding dries up.
Amen
-
Then if I'm guessing right, the reference to "mission accomplished" was indeed mission accomplished....Saddam had been taken out, that victory was achieved. You're definately not the Tee-type of folks here who'd distort that event into some grand proclaimation of a declaration of victory, over all the apsects of Iraq, right?
Sirs, my reference was to the prematurity of his speech. While Baghdad had fallen at that point, the mission had hardly begun - and the mission was more than just taking Saddam out. In comparison, I thought that this mention of dazzling success was premature as well.
-
Then if I'm guessing right, the reference to "mission accomplished" was indeed mission accomplished....Saddam had been taken out, that victory was achieved. You're definately not the Tee-type of folks here who'd distort that event into some grand proclaimation of a declaration of victory, over all the apsects of Iraq, right?
Sirs, my reference was to the prematurity of his speech.
Miss Henny, with all due respect, there was nothing pre-mature about it. Saddam was taken down, mission was accomplished. He was properly giving celebratory cudos to the men & women that brought it about. He also made it clear that this war wasn't over. He made it abundantly clear thru-out this entire ordeal that the war against terror would be long, and costly, in more ways than 1.
While Baghdad had fallen at that point, the mission had hardly begun - and the mission was more than just taking Saddam out. In comparison, I thought that this mention of dazzling success was premature as well.
Now we're playing semantics. The mission isn't designated as "1". The 1st part of the mission in Iraq, was taking out Saddam and removing the WMD threat, to which prompted our incursion in the 1st place ---> Mission accomplished.
The 2nd part now is the attempt at facilitating democracy in a region that became void of Governmental control. No declarations of an over all victory, only acknowldegement that the mission to take out Saddam had been accomplished. Again, this has been made crystal clear from the beginning, Miss Henny.
Let me add, that it would seem Bush critics want "Mission Accomplished" to mean something along the lines of an overall mission, that way Bush can be castigated for making such a "pre-mature statement". It can't possibly reference the mission that had just been accomplished, that of taking Saddam out of power, and defusing what WMD threat was posed to Saddam's WMD getting purchased or even given to terrorists like AlQeada, which prompted our moving into Iraq. Because in that vane, the whole "mission accomplished" get together on the carrier makes too is perfectly reasonable.
So, "Mission Accomplished" has to be mean the overall mission in the War on Terror, not just Iraq. In that vane, Bush can then be properly bashed, even if it doesn't make sense with the timing of the speech on the carrier. :-\
-
Good. Common ground. And glad we aere off to a good start. I just hope Murtha doesn't try to derail any possibility of success.
I'd be a bit peeved about that. Would you?
I think that Murtha's idea of limiting Pentagon war spending is completely irresponsible. There is a mess in Iraq and the U.S. is morally responsible to clean it up. Instead, Murtha ultimately proposes running away and leaving the clean-up to the innocents left behind.
How is this supposed to improve the American image?
How will this benefit the American interests in the Middle East?
How does this make America any safer from terrorist threats?
There are no benefits to his ideas. Instead, I hope that Murtha understands that he is responsible for the blood of even more innocent Iraqi civilians, not to mention the American and allied soldiers that suffer as the funding dries up.
When you speak of funding, most keeping up with media reports suggest a massive misuse of funds.
Would Murtha have been more correct to suggest that legal inquiries be made first into the corruption surrounding the money? Shutting off bastard faucets goes a long way in funding.
After all, the War in Iraq is a failure by most accounts, and it is due to corruption rather than funding. (It didn't help that while GI's needed armor and got stop signs to hang over the vehicles' sides, slick Beau Brummel Bremer was handing out cash by the billions to whoever had wheelbarrows.)
What amounts of funding are necessary to intercede in a civil war and establish peace?
Funding is related to a timeline.
What is the timeline?
And is it not true that the "funding dripping to a stop" is merely a reactionary scare tactic, now becoming a main talking point amoung elected Republicans still hanging in there with the Neocons? Seems to me I saw several Democrats argrilly making that point in addressing Congress, saying that by no means would existing soldiers in Iraq ever be denied adequate funding?
-
You know, if the dems think that funding of the soldiers and the overall mission is a waste of money they should simply do their duty as elected officials and pull the plug.
I really don't see any of the current bunch being featured in the sequel to Profiles in Courage.
Do you?
-
You know, if the dems think that funding of the soldiers and the overall mission is a waste of money they should simply do their duty as elected officials and pull the plug.
I really don't see any of the current bunch being featured in the sequel to Profiles in Courage.
Do you?
I don't think dems think funding of soldiers and overall mission is a waste of money, per se.
The funding comes in when they need an instrument, short of impeachment, to end the tactics of the Neocons. They think the war massively fought wrongly, with the Pentagon and good generals divided--those loyal to the throne and those seeing the travesty of, at best, the war plan, or at worst, the absence of a war plan.
And my point, in the end, is the corruption.
Why is it that some wail about Dem tactics while avoiding completely the corruption in Iraq?
I don't care if you put in Klauszwits and John Wayne--nobody is going to win a war with so much corruption going on. Tolerated corruption (black markets, small cache weapons missing, field jackets going home in the mail, etc) only reallly works in occupations where the fighting has settled down.
-
The goal of the funding debate as you stated is political.
I don't see how the soldiers and the success of the mission avoid any negative consequences. How they end up anything less than pawns in some masters of the universe game. Do you?
This is not an exercise of legitimate power. This is sleight of hand, grifter tactics selling us a bucket of piss and labelling it recycled beer.
-
When you speak of funding, most keeping up with media reports suggest a massive misuse of funds.
Would Murtha have been more correct to suggest that legal inquiries be made first into the corruption surrounding the money? Shutting off bastard faucets goes a long way in funding.
After all, the War in Iraq is a failure by most accounts, and it is due to corruption rather than funding. (It didn't help that while GI's needed armor and got stop signs to hang over the vehicles' sides, slick Beau Brummel Bremer was handing out cash by the billions to whoever had wheelbarrows.)
What amounts of funding are necessary to intercede in a civil war and establish peace?
Funding is related to a timeline.
What is the timeline?
And is it not true that the "funding dripping to a stop" is merely a reactionary scare tactic, now becoming a main talking point amoung elected Republicans still hanging in there with the Neocons? Seems to me I saw several Democrats argrilly making that point in addressing Congress, saying that by no means would existing soldiers in Iraq ever be denied adequate funding?
Crane, I've heard of the alleged corruption, but more than that I hear moaning and groaning on the side of the Dems. I see a purely political tactic to undermine Bush, and by doing so the mission in Iraq is being undermined.
I'm not a Republican. I am not a fan of Bush and all that he has done. I opposed this war from the start. But the point is that America went into Iraq and started something that is their moral responsibility to finish. This civil war you speak of is a product of our interference in Iraq. No matter how long and how much funding it takes. If the only complaint is corruption, then fine. Investigate the corruption. But don't threaten the mission in the region.
The only thing that I can figure amidst all of the moaning going on in D.C. is that the Dems aren't satisfied with just pointing fingers and saying "Look at the mess in Iraq, look at all the mistakes we made." They want the history books to say "...and the "evil" Americans just walked away and left the region in turmoil..."
-
Miss Henny, with all due respect, there was nothing pre-mature about it. Saddam was taken down, mission was accomplished. He was properly giving celebratory cudos to the men & women that brought it about. He also made it clear that this war wasn't over. He made it abundantly clear thru-out this entire ordeal that the war against terror would be long, and costly, in more ways than 1.
Sirs, this is a ridiculous argument based on opinion and perception. I retract, as it really wasn't even the point of anything that I've said in this thread. Whether or not the "Mission Accomplished" speech was or was not premature, calling the current situation a "dazzling success" is.
-
Whether or not the "Mission Accomplished" speech was or was not premature, calling the current situation a "dazzling success" is.
In all honesty, you were the one who brought in the implied reference to "Mission Accomplished" though when you look at it, it was a perfectly rational reference to make at the time, since it was in reference to Saddam's disposition. And who's calling Iraq a "dazzling success"? Or again are we taking a reference to the perceived specific act (the surge), and trying to apply it to the whole of Iraq? You sort of addressed that yourself, in that it's really too early to call the surge a "dazzling" success, though currently, it does look positive. Don't you agree?
-
<<I wouldn't be so hard on the pan arabic insurgents and sectarian militias, who by far have killed the vast majority of the innocents. I'm sure in their minds they are involved in some heroic peoples struggle. >>
It sure is funny when you think how "Iran" is said to be supplying those "pan-Arabic" insurgents with their weapons and explosives. Why religious Shi'ites would want to facilitate the mass murder of their innocent co-religionists always seemed like kind of a mystery to me, especially to people with such a strong belief in the afterlife and divine retribution.
I think you ought to look a little closer to home in your search for the guilty parties. Start, for example, from the cui bono principle. But don't be hard on them, either - - sirs and R.R. and plenty of others like them also think they are engaged in some heroic struggle for noble purposes.
-
Mikey,
Are you saying that Iran does not benefit from a weakened and distratcted Iraq?
-
And who's calling Iraq a "dazzling success"? Or again are we taking a reference to the perceived specific act (the surge), and trying to apply it to the whole of Iraq? You sort of addressed that yourself, in that it's really too early to call the surge a "dazzling" success, though currently, it does look positive. Don't you agree?
Sirs. It's the headline of the article that started this debate. Go back to the beginning of the thread.
-
Sirs. It's the headline of the article that started this debate. Go back to the beginning of the thread.
So it was A) Maliki, and B) specific to the current surge effort by our troops. Not apparently in reference to Iraq in general, correct?
-
All patriots, as the president has been lately saying, the opposing sides in the surge/anti-surge debate have weighty concerns on their shoulders, which they take seriously. Sripped to their essentials, the Democratic opposition is basically saying that we've achieved all that we can rightly expect (confirmation of no WMD, the deposition of Saddam); that the ideal of a fully-functioning Western-style dmocracy as once sought by the administration is, well, a pipedream; that we are reaping diminishing returns (burgeoning costs in lives and treasure for no real progress toward a stable, self-supporting state); that our presence in Iraq is an irritant and catalyst for increased, virulent violence; and that our presence both destabilizes the region and the country, and that our continued occupation is a thumb in the eye to the entire Arab/Muslim world, provoking rather than quelling terrorist recruiting and sympathies from the average folk. The sidenote politics to these main concerns -- and others -- is the folly of entry into the war and its inept management once there.
The Democrats wisely, in my opinion, counsel a different course, reluctant to follow a failed leader one more time to an unknown destiny, which will be littered with the bodies of our young soldiers. The catch the Democrats face is a treacherous one, however: it is the administration which is in charge of our foreign policy apparatus, and largely controls (and Congress does not) the means of implementing a broader, differently focused program which is the other shoe to its retrenchment on the surge. One-footed, the Democrats can rail and lament and advise, but they can't control the implementation of foreign policy.
An idea emerging from the background is the notion that the Iraqis themselves, certainly at SOME point, must step up and take charge of their own destiny. At some point, regardless of the state of the civil war, the dictates of sound process will require us to leave to avoid the black hole of unlimited commitment. AT SOME POINT, the logic and mandate of that proposition will far outweigh the need to avoid a failed state.
-
<<Mikey,
<<Are you saying that Iran does not benefit from a weakened and distratcted Iraq?>>
No, I'm saying they're not the ONLY ones who benefit. And whatever benefit they get from a "weakened and distracted Iraq" is an inferior benefit to what they'd get from a solidly Shi'ite Iraq with the Sunni locked up in the same box that Saddam had previously locked up the Shi'a in .
OTOH, the U.S. has a built-in excuse to stay as long as those car-bombs keep going off and those mysterious, nameless "pan-Arab" "terrorists" keep planting them. It's an unmitigated benefit for them.
-
Sirs. It's the headline of the article that started this debate. Go back to the beginning of the thread.
So it was A) Maliki, and B) specific to the current surge effort by our troops. Not apparently in reference to Iraq in general, correct?
I never said otherwise. And I still say that it is too earlier to call the success dazzling. But I'd appreciate if you'd stop strangling this point, because I also said that I TRULY HOPE that the surge is effective.
-
My last post, on panel 2, was a response to Henny's criticism of the Democrats in the current debate over our future in Iraq.
-
Sirs. It's the headline of the article that started this debate. Go back to the beginning of the thread.
So it was A) Maliki, and B) specific to the current surge effort by our troops. Not apparently in reference to Iraq in general, correct?
I never said otherwise. And I still say that it is too earlier to call the success dazzling. But I'd appreciate if you'd stop strangling this point, because I also said that I TRULY HOPE that the surge is effective.
Fair enough. And may I suggest a refraining from references of specific acts as if they're being applied to the whole? And I too hope the surge effort is as effective as it currently seems to be
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
also appeared to fit a pattern emerging among the suspected Sunni militants: trying to hit U.S. forces harder outside the capital rather than confront them on the streets during a massive American-led security operation.
But the sweeps have done little so far to ease the city's pain.
Nearly 100 people have died in two days of blasts and sectarian bloodshed in and around Baghdad — most in areas dominated by the majority Shiite Muslims — and Iraqi officials who predicted swift results for the security operation have gone suddenly silent.
This still seems to be working , but not in an easy manner , this sort of thing may have to be repeated ever few moths .
It is like a contest to see whose heart breaks worse.
-
All patriots, as the president has been lately saying, the opposing sides in the surge/anti-surge debate have weighty concerns on their shoulders, which they take seriously. Sripped to their essentials, the Democratic opposition is basically saying that we've achieved all that we can rightly expect (confirmation of no WMD, the deposition of Saddam); that the ideal of a fully-functioning Western-style dmocracy as once sought by the administration is, well, a pipedream; that we are reaping diminishing returns (burgeoning costs in lives and treasure for no real progress toward a stable, self-supporting state); that our presence in Iraq is an irritant and catalyst for increased, virulent violence; and that our presence both destabilizes the region and the country, and that our continued occupation is a thumb in the eye to the entire Arab/Muslim world, provoking rather than quelling terrorist recruiting and sympathies from the average folk. The sidenote politics to these main concerns -- and others -- is the folly of entry into the war and its inept management once there.
Your points bring quite a bit of clarity to the subject, however, please allow me to clarify my position. I agree with the premise that our occupation is a "thumb in the eye to the entire Arab/Muslim world," but I see a different problem now. The invasion of Iraq has destabilized the reason to an extreme degree. While we are this "thumb in the eye," if the U.S. walks away now, job unfinished, I predict a worsening of terrorist issues (as if the issues aren't bad enough), not to mention the chaos bubbling over and destabilizing bordering countries.
An idea emerging from the background is the notion that the Iraqis themselves, certainly at SOME point, must step up and take charge of their own destiny. At some point, regardless of the state of the civil war, the dictates of sound process will require us to leave to avoid the black hole of unlimited commitment. AT SOME POINT, the logic and mandate of that proposition will far outweigh the need to avoid a failed state.
I do agree with you on this point, but how can we be sure that the Iraqis are ready for full control? And what of the ramifications if they are not ready, and we pull out too soon?
-
Does anyone in this thread get the concept that it's just plain WRONG for one sovereign country to invade another one, overthrow its government and stay around until the invaded country adopts the form of government chosen for it by the invader?
That a "dazzling success" in Baghdad would be nothing more than a crime gotten away with? Sort of like the Nazi occupation of Europe, an earlier "dazzling success" which ended ony when stronger powers than the original invader came and swept the original invader away?
How is a flagrant breach of the Charter of the United Nations a "dazzling success?" It's a huge set-back for international law.
-
Does anyone in this thread get the concept that it's just plain WRONG for one sovereign country to invade another one, overthrow its government and stay around until the invaded country adopts the form of government chosen for it by the invader?
This would be an untrue concept.
It was not wrong in Europe , twice , it was not wrong in the CSA it was not wrong in Uganda ,it just is not wrong in principal.
-
<<This would be an untrue concept.[that it's just plain wrong to invade a sovereign nation and occupy it until it adopts a form of government chosen for it by the occupiers.]
<<It was not wrong in Europe , twice , it was not wrong in the CSA it was not wrong in Uganda ,it just is not wrong in principal.>>
Your examples don't back you up.
Europe once (WWI) - the Allies did NOT invade Germany, they merely drove Germany out of some countries that Germany had invaded. Germany chose its own form of government when the various monarchs left their thrones and republics were declared, including the Ebert government in Berlin. The politicians who formed the various national and state governments all belonged to political parties which had functioned under the Kaiser or were offshoots of them.
Europe twice (WWII) - Germany and Japan were invaded ONLY because they had invaded other countries first and in both cases were restored to forms of government they were familiar with.
The CSA was not a sovereign nation, it was a collection of rebel states, it was the no. one violator of human rights on the planet at the time (with the possible exception of Brazil) and it had begun the war by firing on the federal garrison at Ft. Sumter. I don't know of any country other than Great Britain which recognized the Confederacy and I'm not even sure about them. The invaders did not force their own form of government on the CSA, they just gave them back pretty much what they had, minus the right to enslave other human beings. BFD.
Uganda might be the one example you gave that would hold up, but I don't know much about it. The invasion might have had some kind of justification under the Charter of the Organization of African Unity (if that's its proper name) or some other regional organization whose members had already agreed to conditions for international intervention. I'll just pass on commenting more on Uganda. All of your other examples were pure bullshit.
-
Europe once (WWI) - the Allies did NOT invade Germany, they merely drove Germany out of some countries that Germany had invaded.
Perhaps you should study the Italian Front a bit more. Also, the Eastern Front. WWI was not just in Western Europe.
-
Does anyone in this thread get the concept that it's just plain WRONG for one sovereign country to invade another one, overthrow its government and stay around until the invaded country adopts the form of government chosen for it by the invader?
Michael, I totally get that. And I totally agree. But it's too late! That was the argument for BEFORE the U.S. went in.
Now that they are in, what are your feelings about the U.S. leaving Iraq in the mess it's currently in? Do you seriously think it is preferable for America to walk away, rather than fix the damage (or at least try)?
-
The CSA was not a sovereign nation, it was a collection of rebel states, it was the no. one violator of human rights on the planet at the time (with the possible exception of Brazil) and it had begun the war by firing on the federal garrison at Ft. Sumter. I don't know of any country other than Great Britain which recognized the Confederacy and I'm not even sure about them.
Britain never officially recognized the CSA. However, they and a number of other nations had diplomats stationed in the CSA.
Five native American tribes recognized the CSA, and three of those tribes had representatives in the Confederate Congress: Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw.
-
<<Perhaps you should study the Italian Front a bit more. Also, the Eastern Front. WWI was not just in Western Europe.>>
Good point. Last time I looked, Italy was an Axis Power and a belligerent - - it had invaded France and sent troops to participate in Hitler's invasion of Russia, two of our biggest Allies. It was invaded in due course, the Mussolini government fell and was replaced by the Badoglio government - - hardly an imposition of the invading Allied armies. The Badoglio government allied itself with the Allies and the Italian people themselves - - not any invasion army - - captured and took care of Mussolini on their own terms.
On the Eastern Front, pretty much the same story - - the U.S.S.R. was invaded by the Axis Powers and fought back, not only pushing them out of its own territory but following them into theirs. Members of the Axis, such as Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia and Slovakia had to deal with an invasion and regime change, but it was an invasion provoked by their own aggression against the U.S.S.R. Poland might have been an exception - - the Red Army supported the Lublin (Polish communist) government, rather than the "London" government (anti-communist Poles in exile in London.)
I think in both cases the invasion of the Axis Powers and the forcible regime changes that followed were amply justified by the original aggression to say nothing of the horrendous atrocities that accompanied it. I must have missed that part of the Iraqi story where Iraq invaded America and committed horrific atrocities against American citizens prior to Bush's invasion.
-
Good point. Last time I looked, Italy was an Axis Power and a belligerent - - it had invaded France and sent troops to participate in Hitler's invasion of Russia, two of our biggest Allies.
I was talking about WWI. As my quote of your post clearly shows.
-
Sorry, that's my mistake. Completely missed the explicit WWI reference. Far as I know, Italy was our ALLY in WWI and the Eastern front was a massive Russian disaster leading to the loss of a lot of land by our Russian ally to Germany at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. What exactly was your point? You probably know more about this than I do, but I'm not aware of the good guys gratuitously invading another country and forcing their form of government down its throat.
-
Sorry, that's my mistake. Completely missed the explicit WWI reference. Far as I know, Italy was our ALLY in WWI and the Eastern front was a massive Russian disaster leading to the loss of a lot of land by our Russian ally to Germany at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. What exactly was your point? You probably know more about this than I do, but I'm not aware of the good guys gratuitously invading another country and forcing their form of government down its throat.
Italy took over a section of Austria during the war. Russia did as well. Russia installed governments, creating some of the eastern European countries that were previously part of Austria. Italy just annexed the sections of Austria that it invaded.
There are places in Italy that you can go that still speak German, and many of the older citizens still claim to be Austrian. Had a neighbor in New Jersey (he's probably long gone by now) that came to the US just at the outbreak of war, who was born and raised in Trieste (now an Italian seaport). He still had his Austrian passport and paperwork and claimed to be an Austrian.
-
Italy took over a section of Austria during the war. Russia did as well. Russia installed governments, creating some of the eastern European countries that were previously part of Austria. Italy just annexed the sections of Austria that it invaded. There are places in Italy that you can go that still speak German, and many of the older citizens still claim to be Austrian. Had a neighbor in New Jersey (he's probably long gone by now) that came to the US just at the outbreak of war, who was born and raised in Trieste (now an Italian seaport). He still had his Austrian passport and paperwork and claimed to be an Austrian.
Ouch.......now if we can only get some examples of actual U.S. form of Government being ram rodded thru, vs the continued unsubstantiated & invalid claims of a puppet government doing it for the U.S. Oh wait, this must be more of that lack of evidence is proof of such. My bad
-
<<There are places in Italy that you can go that still speak German, and many of the older citizens still claim to be Austrian>>
You're right! South Tyrol. There's even a South Tyrolese separatist movement that still sets off the odd bomb now and then.
-
You're right!
Of course.
-
This is definately good news , but Domer makes a valid point , if the good news is still good three months from now it will be a lot more signifigant than a good report of two days duration.
Lets try to return to this.
Iraq Attacks Continue - from http://www.antiwar.com/
38 Die, 105 Hurt in Baghdad Market Blast
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070306/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070305165918;_ylt=Akw2_WXqQvapBJmNfdiS.bpX6GMA
Bomb Shatters lBaghdad's Storied Literary Street
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030500041_pf.html
Gunfight at Baghdad's Deserted Shopping Mall
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/06/wiraq06.xml
Monday: 126 Iraqis, 3 GIs Killed; 196 Iraqis, 1 GI Wounded
http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=10627
Yep. just dazzling.
-
And the successes just keep on piling up - - from today's AP
<<9 U.S. soldiers killed north of Baghdad
<<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070306/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
<<Violence has fallen in Baghdad, where a joint U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown was in its third week. But U.S. military officials say insurgents have fled the capital for outlying areas, where attacks are on the rise. Direct attacks on U.S. forces in Diyala are up 70 percent since last July, according to figures provided by the U.S. military.>>
Why are we not surprised? Oh, well, "Bring it on!" as your C-in-C would say.
-
You're right! South Tyrol. There's even a South Tyrolese separatist movement that still sets off the odd bomb now and then.
You mean Südtirol and the Südtiroler Volkspartei has represented the people there ever since the end of the war. They generally don't support independence or unification with Austria, but do fight (politically) for the rights of German and Ladin speakers.
Of course it will all belong to Germany one day anyway :)
-
Ouch.......now if we can only get some examples of actual U.S. form of Government being ram rodded thru, vs the continued unsubstantiated & invalid claims of a puppet government doing it for the U.S. Oh wait, this must be more of that lack of evidence is proof of such. My bad
Hawaii would be an example of the U.S. ram-rodding their rule (and government) over a sovereign nation.
Otherwise, you are mostly right in that no one really wants the U.S. system of government. One wonders why that is?
Regardless, we were much better at supporting some of the world's most awful dictatorships such as the Shah of Iran, Anastasio Somoza, the military junta of El Salvador and their death squads, the military junta of Honduras and their death squads, the Peron's and the military junta of Argentina (and yes, their death squads), Augusto Pinochet, the Maoist Khmer Rhouge, JoaquÃn Amparo Balaguer Ricardo, Rafael Trujillo, Siad Barre, South Africa, and the list could grow very long...
I'm not sure our history is great in either direction.
-
now if we can only get some examples of actual U.S. form of Government being ram rodded thru, vs the continued unsubstantiated & invalid claims of a puppet government doing it for the U.S. Oh wait, this must be more of that lack of evidence is proof of such. My bad
Hawaii would be an example of the U.S. ram-rodding their rule (and government) over a sovereign nation.
I only have a few minutes here, and so I'll use them in quickly responding to this post, as the other posts will take longer than I have. Hawaii became a part of our country, so how that compares with anything I was stating, I'm not sure. You claiming Iraq is going to be our 51st state? And IIRC, despite some Hawaiians who didn't want to become a part of America, others did, including the ruling entities, no?
Otherwise, you are mostly right in that no one really wants the U.S. system of government. One wonders why that is?
No, they just want to come here. Easier that way, I guess
Regardless, we were much better at supporting some of the world's most awful dictatorships ...
No one said our country was perfect, only perfectly intentioned. And more so, kinda refutes the notion we were running them via a puppet regime, with our policies ramrodded thru
-
Hawaii became a part of our country, so how that compares with anything I was stating, I'm not sure. You claiming Iraq is going to be our 51st state? And IIRC, despite some Hawaiians who didn't want to become a part of America, others did, including the ruling entities, no?
I suggest you go back a little further in history to when Americans overthrew the monarchy of Hawaii. The United States Government apologised for the overthrow of the monarchy in 1993 with Public Law 103-150. The Blount Report, issued shortly after the overthrow sided with the Monarchy.
If it is a hint at why it happened, the first Governor of Hawaii was Sanford Dole who participated in the 1887 revolution. He helped write the 1887 constitution which stripped the native Hawaiians and Asians of voting rights. Dole's cousin was James Dole, an immensely wealthy pineapple plantation magnate.
So, no it has nothing to do with Iraq becoming the 51st state, sheesh.
I was just giving an example of America forcing its will on a sovereign nation.
No, they just want to come here. Easier that way, I guess
Yes, the entire world wants to live here. Salute the flag and sing God Bless America.
No one said our country was perfect, only perfectly intentioned.
"Perfectly intentioned?" I pray that is a joke. I might accept "sometimes well-intentioned." But "perfectly intentioned" is clearly not true of any nation on Earth.
-
Hawaii became a part of our country, so how that compares with anything I was stating, I'm not sure. You claiming Iraq is going to be our 51st state?
no it has nothing to do with Iraq becoming the 51st state, sheesh.
Then why bring it up, when I was asking for an example of us ramrodding our policies thru, in setting up some puppet Government?
I was just giving an example of America forcing its will on a sovereign nation.
So was Mexco, so was France, but those regions of California, Texas, Lousiana, etc., all became part of our nation. we're still missing the point here Js.....america trying to set up a puppet Government, where we supposedly simply pull strings, telling those leaders to jump, and they respond "how high?"
No, they just want to come here. Easier that way, I guess
Yes, the entire world wants to live here. Salute the flag and sing God Bless America.
They all do? Ummmm, ok, if you say so
No one said our country was perfect, only perfectly intentioned.
"Perfectly intentioned?" I pray that is a joke. I might accept "sometimes well-intentioned." But "perfectly intentioned" is clearly not true of any nation on Earth.
No joke, just a mild exaggeration. Most all good intentions believe themselves to be perfect in their own way. Communism, Captailism, etc, have their purists, who belive those policies are perfect, in what they're designed to do. But that's the point, no matter how good, no matter how perfect a plan, proposal, belief, even country is supposed to be, in reality it can never attain such a threshold. I absolutely believe our country is perfectly intentioned. That doesn't mean it's perfect in any way, far from it. But does go a LONG ways in the right direction, compared to practically every other country on this globe. Obviously I'm biased here, but I can think of no other country to have been born and raised in
[/quote]
-
Shi'ite Pilgrims Die in Bomb Attack Despite US Offensive - http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2334906.ece
Tuesday: 10 GIs, 215 Iraqis Killed; 406 Iraqis Wounded - http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=10631
Gunmen Storm Iraq Jail, Free 140 - http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KHA659520.htm
Simply scintillating.
-
Shi'ite Pilgrims Die in Bomb Attack Despite US Offensive - http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2334906.ece
Some 93 Shia pilgrims were killed and 150 wounded by two suicide bombers in the town of Hillah, 60 miles south of Baghdad yesterday. The attack is likely to lead Shia leaders to say that the US military offensive in Baghdad is failing to defend their people.
-
Then why bring it up, when I was asking for an example of us ramrodding our policies thru, in setting up some puppet Government?
Ummm...because we set up a puppet government in Hawaii after we overthrew the Queen. It was a "republic" and had a "President" and a "constitution" and everything. Do I need to teach a class or something? It does not get much more ram-rodding than that.
So was Mexco, so was France, but those regions of California, Texas, Lousiana, etc., all became part of our nation.
We forced our will on France? I think you might be underestimating the power of Napoleonic France. M Bonaparte sold the land primarily due to a number of treaties and problems the French were having with slave revolts in Haiti. It simply wasn't worth their trouble and provided us the opportunity to access New Orleans without having to constantly negotiate access with Spain (who only recently lost some of the land to France).
we're still missing the point here Js.....america trying to set up a puppet Government, where we supposedly simply pull strings, telling those leaders to jump, and they respond "how high?"
You are saying that America has never set up a puppet government? Despite the two glaringly obvious examples of Hawaii and Panama (which we basically created out of Colombia). I could give you quite a detailed list. Surely that isn't the point you are trying to make? Puppet regimes were a part of the Cold War strategy, and I'm sure you understand that.
Most all good intentions believe themselves to be perfect in their own way.
I honestly have no idea what that means. I am going to guess that we aren't using the same definition of "perfect" because I typically don't see things in black and white terms, but to me "perfect" is like "pregnant." There isn't a "sort of perfect" just as there isn't a "sort of pregnant." You either are or you aren't.
I absolutely believe our country is perfectly intentioned.
Does that mean that you believe that every policy this country has ever undertaken has been done with perfect intentions?
But does go a LONG ways in the right direction, compared to practically every other country on this globe. Obviously I'm biased here, but I can think of no other country to have been born and raised in
Nah. It is a country, not really so different from a lot of other countries on the globe. There are Brits who have the exact same sentiments about Britain (in fact Blake wrote a poem titled "Jerusalem" that is sung today as an unofficial anthem of the UK that expresses those sentiments well). There are Japanese that believe Japan is that special country.
In reality, different nations do well in some regards and poorly in others. To me, it is important to learn from others and from past mistakes and understand where we are going in the future.
I don't think any of us is given special providence by where we were born or raised, or live now.
-
Ummm...because we set up a puppet government in Hawaii after we overthrew the Queen. It was a "republic" and had a "President" and a "constitution" and everything. Do I need to teach a class or something? It does not get much more ram-rodding than that.
Actually, the Queen was overthrown because she threatened to replace the then-current constitution with one that she had written herself. The US stepped in on one side of the brewing civil war - which is what we apoligized for. Sounds like the ram-rodding was being done on the part of the Queen.
-
DAZZLING
Ambush on Baghdad Shiites kills 32
By BRIAN MURPHY, Associated Press WriterSun Mar 11, 6:44 PM ET
A suicide car bomber barreled into a flatbed truck packed with Shiite pilgrims Sunday, touching off a giant fireball that left charred bodies strewn through a street in the heart of Baghdad. At least 32 people were killed.
The ambush-style attack showed suspected Sunni insurgents again taking aim at the millions of worshippers who traveled to the holy city of Karbala and are now heading home.
It also displayed the limitations of the U.S.-led crackdown seeking to restore order in the capital, where bombers still strike with deadly efficiency against mostly Shiite targets in an apparent bid to ignite an full-scale civil war.
Blasts killed at least 15 others in Baghdad a day after Iraqi officials warned an international conference that Iraq's sectarian violence could spread across the Middle East if not quelled.
Outside the capital, Sunni extremists attacked Shiites and set about 30 houses on fire in villages around Muqdadiyah, 60 miles northeast of Baghdad, forcing dozens of families to flee, local officials and witnesses said.
The latest attacks followed a week in which hundreds of Shiite pilgrims were killed trying to reach the rituals in Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad. The exodus faces the same risks.
The pilgrims riding back in the truck — about 70 men and boys — passed through the most dangerous stretch of Sunni-dominated territory. They were celebrating their good fortune as they moved into heavy traffic at a place known as Embassy Intersection because the German diplomatic compound occupies one corner.
One of the pilgrims, Mustafa Moussawi, noticed a car racing far too fast coming toward them from behind.
"Then the car bomber slammed us," said Moussawi, a 31-year-old vegetable store owner who suffered slight injuries when he was thrown to the street by the force of the blast.
He was among the luckiest. Most others were swallowed by instant flames. Another survivor, Nasir Sultan, a 38-year-old Transportation Ministry worker, said he watched people thrash helplessly in the inferno.
Police and hospital officials said at least 32 people died and 24 were injured.
"I blame the government," said Moussawi. "They didn't provide a safe route for us even though they knew we were targets for attack."
In the past two years, the Shiite militia Mahdi Army provided security for the pilgrimage — marking the end of 40 days mourning for the 7th century battlefield death of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson. Shiites consider him the rightful heir of Islam's leadership, which help cement the rift with Sunni Muslims.
This year, however, the Mahdi militiamen has been sent to the wings under a deal between its leader, radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the government to ease the way for the Baghdad security sweeps.
The pact has apparently led to a decrease in execution-style slayings blamed on Shiite death squads. It also made the pilgrims easier prey.
Shortly before the truck was attacked, a bomb-rigged car in central Baghdad killed at least five pilgrims and injured six. In another part of the city, a suicide bomber detonated a belt packed with metal fragments inside a minibus heading to a mostly Shiite area, killing at least 10 people and wounding five.
Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, who commands U.S. units training Iraqi forces, said nearly 80 percent of Iraqi military divisions are under full local control, but getting the forces fully outfitted with "logistical support" — such as communications and state-of-the art equipment — "is going to take much more time."
He also encouraged Iraqi government efforts to bring back some former military and security personnel from Saddam Hussein's regime — who were part of wholesale dismissals to clear away members of his Baath party.
"It's what a person's talents and experience can bring to the situation," said Pittard, who noted complaints that the past Baath purges "went way, way too far."
On Saturday, Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, opened a conference of neighboring nations and world powers with a warning that Iraq's sectarian strife could spread across the region.
The one-day meeting was highlighted by rare direct exchanges between Iran and the United States — which reportedly grew testy in the closed-door session with other envoys.
Iran pressed for a timetable for a withdrawal of U.S.-led forces from Iraq, and the U.S. delegation reasserted claims that Shiite militia receive weapons and aid from Iranian sources.
But the gathering also ended with both sides leaving open the possibility of further contacts to discuss Iraq — where they share interests as Baghdad's top allies. The U.S. and Iranian statements were carefully framed in cautious diplomatic language, but they were seen by some possibly significant steps toward easing their nearly 28-year-old diplomatic freeze.
Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, called the conference "an icebreaking attempt to provide an atmosphere for some discussions."
Zebari also repeated the fears that Iraq could be the breeding ground for a wider Mideast meltdown.
"No country will be immune from Iraq's failure and the consequences that they will suffer," he told CNN.
A senior member of Iraq's biggest Shiite political bloc — which maintains very close ties to Iran — applauded the interaction between Iran and the United States.
"We hope that this conference would represent a good start to establish a kind of understanding between American and Iran regarding the accusations and counteraccusations about Iraq," said Humman Hamoudi, who heads the group's external affairs committee.
But, say some analysts, any changes in relations will be likely a slow evolution.
"The superpower is like a trolley bus and not like a car. A car can turn around on a narrow road," said Imad Fawzi Shueibi, Damascus-based political researcher. "The trolley has to make a wide, slow turn. This is what you are seeing now. The superpower trolley beginning to turn in Iraq."
Meanwhile, the U.S. military reported three soldiers killed Sunday. One was killed by a roadside bomb southwest of the capital, while another died in combat and the third was killed in an unspecified "non-combat incident" in northern Iraq, the military said.
In the Salahuddin province northwest of Baghdad, Iraqi-led forces backed by U.S. warplanes staged raids against suspected insurgent training bases, including sites linked to anti-aircraft batteries, the U.S. military said. At least seven suspected insurgents were reported killed.
In the northern city of Mosul, a suicide bomber attacked the offices of the largest Sunni political group, said Mohammed Shakir al-Ghanam, a member of the Iraqi Islamic Party. Three guards were killed and two wounded, he said.
The reason for the attack was not immediately clear. The party is the only Sunni political movement with a national base.
Mosul, about 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, also has witnessed a rise in suspected Sunni insurgent attacks. Iraqi troops detained 12 suspected militants in the Mosul area in raids since Saturday, said an Iraqi commander, Brig. Gen. Mutaa al-Khazraji.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&printer=1;_ylt=An_8f0pU7BtOhlYToF9dpHwUewgF
-
I agree with the author that there are limitations to the surge. Absent a total lockdown, people will still get killed.
I don't recall anyone claiming that civil strife would disappear over night.
-
I agree with the author that there are limitations to the surge. Absent a total lockdown, people will still get killed.
I don't recall anyone claiming that civil strife would disappear over night.
The limitation on the surge is directly related to the lack of intelligence of the surgers. Not only overnight, but over eternity as long as the US are there.
-
The limitation on the surge is directly related to the lack of intelligence of the surgers. Not only overnight, but over eternity as long as the US are there.
Hillary among other leading dems were early advocates of a surge type offensive.
Are you calling them dumbasses?
-
The limitation on the surge is directly related to the lack of intelligence of the surgers. Not only overnight, but over eternity as long as the US are there.
Hillary among other leading dems were early advocates of a surge type offensive.
Are you calling them dumbasses?
Yes I am, but they at least came to their senses. The Bushidiot doesnt have any sense to come to.
-
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070313-111506-2933r
-
Mission Accomplished? Iraqis push Al Qaeda out of last stronghold in Baghdad
11/16/2007
An armed Sunni group has ended Al-Qaeda?s tight two-year grip on north Baghdad?s volatile Adhamiyah neighbourhood and is now in control, an AFP correspondent witnessed on Friday.
A local militia calling itself the "revolutionaries of Adhamiyah" took over the Sunni district on the east bank of the Tigris on November 10 in a swift and audacious raid that sent Al-Qaeda fleeing from its last stronghold in Baghdad.
On Friday, members of the "revolutionaries of Adhamiyah" controlled main roads into the neighbourhood as well the square housing the famous Abu Hanifa mosque where Saddam Hussein made his last public appearance before fleeing Baghdad in 2003 as US-led forces invaded the country.
"Our men seized 11 car bombs and discovered several clandestine bomb-making workshops,? said the chief of the ?revolutionaries of Adhamiyah", surrounded by armed bodyguards.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=101396
-
Sounds like the secular Sunnis (Saddam's old base) have taken enough shit from the religious Sunnis, who aren't even Iraqis.
If al Qaeda in Iraq is smart, they'll try to figure out where they lost their allies. And start building some bridges. Maybe some heads will have to roll first - - the ones who caused this potentially disastrous split in the first place. They need to keep their focus: the enemy is still Amerikkka and only Amerikkka can profit from the schism.
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the leadership of both factions. If they can't bridge their differences and present a united front to the occupation forces and their collaborators, then they deserve to be subjugated by infidels as the Arabs always have been in the past. The Vietnamese bridged their differences and put up a united front (the NLF) against the foreigners. God helps those who help themselves.