Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 100

I read what he said in the news conference from the White House website, if he is not leaving Iraq on a timetable then why to even mention 18 months? And please do not tell me it is because of the opposition pressuring him because we all know Pres. Bush has a mind of his own...but it is interesting that he decides to make this sort of statements just when elections are around the corner....

Iraq War Post

I'm sorry, I'm not sure who made the 18 month statement, but the President said very clearly that we will not leave Iraq on a timetable. LDS, you need to find at least one conservative source for your news.

Offtopic but, I remember a once in a lifetime trip to Tahiti. It was during the first election of George Bush in 2000. The only "news" I could get was on short wave radio. I could receive Voice of America and the BBC. I was on a boat with 15 other conservative people and we were totally lost as to what was actually going on. We were at wits end. We could not believe what we were hearing and rightfully so. I see from the headings on the "news" inserted into the threads why you ask the questions you do and think like you do. You are reading liberal papers that leave you with no idea what the true story is.

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

For 3 1/2 years, we have been trying to train up the Iraqi police and military so that they could take over both internal and external security. As time has gone by, the official estimates of how soon those Iraqi forces could take over these vital functions have continually been pushed back. Whenever this happens, the Left (media) has screamed about how hypocritical the administration is, how incompetent, how criminal.

I have watched that very thing happen in this thread. All the condemnation of George W. Bush for NOT ending the war the right way, in the right time frame.

Now, he states basically that he is trying to meet a certain timetable, but that he is going to be flexible about it. And, what do we see? More of the same attitude about it. It is all politics. He is only saying these things to affect the elections. Well, I certainly HOPE he is trying to affect the elections. He is the leader of the Republican Party! He NEEDS the Republicans in power in Congress, because otherwise his last two years will be completely wasted, as the Democrats seek to destroy everything he has done or tries to do.

We are in Iraq. There are large forces within the US, and within the International Community, that want us to "cut and run" from Iraq. If we do, then those exact same forces will scream about American stupidity, hypocrisy, and ineptness when the Islamofascist forces destroy the country.

None of the furor is about real concern for Iraq. It is all about trying to force the United States to submit to the radical Left in the International Community. As far as I am concerned, the only people (in general, not specific) or "forces" that really care about the people in Iraq are the conservatives, who want to help Iraq become truly independent - in security, in economics, and in politics.

George W. Bush, if he DOES set a timetable, SHOULD be impeached - for incompetence. Otherwise, except for allowing the politicians to interfere with the military, he is doing exactly what needs to be done. He is helping Iraq get where it needs to be.

It is a long, painful process. He told us that, from the beginning. Too bad that so many people are enamored with the Hollywood vision of war - over in two hours, let's get some more popcorn.

I have to agree with Michael Savage. What we really need is a real General in Iraq. Someone like George Patton, or Rommel. Someone who will tell the politicians to shove it, and will get the job done.

But that isn't going to happen. Instead, most people will continue to cry and moan about how the US was wrong in going in there, how GWB is stooooooooopid, etc. They don't want Iraq to prosper, they are more interested in bringing down the conservative point of view, with the Republican Party being the most visible (but a very poor representation) of that point of view.

Anyway, that is what I think of all this discussion about whether GWB said this, or that, or meant that other thing. It isn't about Iraq. It is about international politics, and the fact that the Left can't manipulate the US the way they want to.

Offtopic but, Mousetrails, please keep in mind that it is best to avoid bringing other member's personalities into these discussions. I am not perfect at it, by any means, and have to severely edit a lot of my own posts to try to avoid it, but it does make for more constructive discussion.

Edited: Nighthawk on 26th Oct, 2006 - 1:37am

Page 100 Iraq War Post

That is an interesting point. The Australian military has played a role in training Iraqi security forces. When I was in Sydney I interviewed a few soldiers who conducted training operations within the past 6-12 months. Off the record, because they wouldn't comment about it on record, they told me there is no way on earth the Iraqi forces will ever be trained to a standard that would be acceptable in the Australian forces today. I asked how long it would take them to be trained to a reasonable level to secure Iraq. One Lieutenant told me at least 5 years, depending on how the insurgency and tribal militia forces developed. Another lower ranked soldier told me the coalition forces were doing a good job in Iraq, but it's constantly an uphill battle.

The reality is Coalition forces will not be able to train an Iraqi security force to stop the violence. The reason why is because a lot of these Iraqi soldiers are involved in death squads and tribal militia.

Patrick Cockburn of The Independent said:

Cockburn's analysis is being echoed by the most reputable journalists in the region, those who have lived in the Middle East for many years.

I don't know how much worse you want Iraq to get before it is overrun by "Islamofascists"? Would Civil war be enough? At the moment it virtually is a Civil War. If the Coalition pulls out today I can't see the violence ending overnight. But if they stay, the feuding will never end. Especially, as the toothless Iraqi Government is seen by its people as a servant of the West.

I think this whole notion that Iraq is being overrun by Islamic terrorist groups is nonsense. It's a massive PR stunt by the Bush, Blair and Howard Governments to try and fool their people that Iraq is a part of the War on Terror, whatever that means. It's so obvious the majority of deaths now are from tribal militia groups jockeying for power. Whenever you have a power vacuum in a country that is unstable like Iraq you can expect this sort of bloody resolve.

It was also those kind conservatives who backed and supplied Saddam with weapons when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds. Those kind conservatives also instructed the CIA to help the Baath Party conduct a bloody coup to get into power. Wasn't it also the kind conservatives who asked the Iraqis in the south to rise up to Saddam in Gulf War I, but then stood there and literally watched as Saddam systematically committed genocide on those people who believed the US.

Wasn't it the Conservatives who attacked a sovereign country based on several unsubstantiated lies, which led to an estimated 655,000 deaths? Those lovely conservatives, who after destroying an unnecessary amount of infrastructure to topple one submissive dictator, used Iraqi oil money to offer billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts to large US companies. Oh, but now it's the "kind" conservatives who want Iraq to be a stable, secure US-allied regional watchdog?

I've actually, for the first time, agreed with a Bush statement that troops should pull out. And now all you guys can focus on is that I also believe the announcement was timed to help the Republican Party? From my experience of politicians, and Australia has some very good ones, timing announcements to benefit a party is a part of politics.

Why do we need to find one conservative source? LDS and I are trained journalists who know a lot about research and news gathering. I can promise you conservative news sources are just as biased as rabid left-wing news. I don't read either. I am not interested in conservative or liberal comment. I am interested in the facts.

Offtopic but, Mousetrails, I will second Nighthawk's advice to refrain from making personal attacks. Apart from making yourself look silly, it adds nothing to the debate. For your record, I am not a kid, nor do I believe that the US single-handedly saved the world in WWII. My grandfather served in WWII for the British RAF. His brother, my granduncle, lost his life. The US only joined the war because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. It was NOT to rescue England, as you imply. Furthermore, the US suffered a relatively small amount of casualties proportional to their military size. This isn't to deny their crucial role in the war. But other countries, including Australia, England, France, China and the USSR, battled just as bravely but suffered a higher proportion of military deaths. If you would like to continue a debate about WWII, I would be happy to continue this on the appropriate thread. But please refrain from personal attacks, you should be above that.

Iraq War Post

I was reading in the White House Website Pres. Bush press conference and I would like to comment in a couple of points on things he said:

If it's "their" country, why is "America's patience not unlimited"? I don't understand this. What is the connection between these two statements?

So basically we are with "you" as long as you do what we tell you to do. Interesting. Saddam Hussein is gone, they have a new government...inexperienced yes, but a government of their own. Then, should they get involved in their decisions on how to handle the conflicts going on? I understand and even can appreciate they want to "help" this newbie Prime Minister but to say that they are pressuring him to take certain decisions is not ethical. Iraq has its own government now, they should be the ones taking full decisions without any pressure from anybody else.

Offtopic but, Mousetrails said: QUOTE LDS, you need to find at least one conservative source for your news. Oh really? You do not know what kind of sources I use to form my opinion, I am surprised you will mention this, yet again probably for you any type of source that does not agree with Pres. Bush's ideas of Iraq are "liberals" just as anyone who does not agree with certain US foreign policies make them "Anti-Americans" or "America-haters" as you mentioned in the past. QUOTE I see from the headings on the "news" inserted into the threads why you ask the questions you do and think like you do. You are reading liberal papers that leave you with no idea what the true story is. What do you mean by the kind of questions I ask and the way I think? I am a journalist, I have worked in the Media for long years since a young age...I know how it is "inside" and all the corruption, bribes and dishonesty and because I know this, I am surprised that for some strange reason, you think conservative newspapers do not have an "agenda" to fulfill, they do! All newspapers are biased and that's why, when we read the news (from any source) we need to judge for ourselves how accurate the information is. It is not about the source (and a good journalist always checks ALL sources). It's about the analysis and interpretation of such news. I understand your passion for the subject and admire your patriotism but the discussion is not meant to convince that the other is wrong, is about exchanging ideas and opinions and discuss them. I have read some of your responses within this same thread, if you can, you need to detach yourself emotionally from it in order to participate, otherwise we will all end up becoming personal and that's not the purpose for the forum. All the best.

Oh really? You do not know what kind of sources I use to form my opinion, I am surprised you will mention this, yet again probably for you any type of source that does not agree with Pres. Bush's ideas of Iraq are "liberals" just as anyone who does not agree with certain US foreign policies make them "Anti-Americans" or "America-haters" as you mentioned in the past.

What do you mean by the kind of questions I ask and the way I think?
I am a journalist, I have worked in the Media for long years since a young age...I know how it is "inside" and all the corruption, bribes and dishonesty and because I know this, I am surprised that for some strange reason, you think conservative newspapers do not have an "agenda" to fulfill, they do! All newspapers are biased and that's why, when we read the news (from any source) we need to judge for ourselves how accurate the information is. It is not about the source (and a good journalist always checks ALL sources). It's about the analysis and interpretation of such news.
I understand your passion for the subject and admire your patriotism but the discussion is not meant to convince that the other is wrong, is about exchanging ideas and opinions and discuss them. I have read some of your responses within this same thread, if you can, you need to detach yourself emotionally from it in order to participate, otherwise we will all end up becoming personal and that's not the purpose for the forum. All the best.

Post War Iraq

IRAQI PRIME MINISTER: 'I'M NOT AMERICA'S MAN'

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Saturday referred to the boundary between himself and the United States, telling U.S. President Bush that he answers first to the Iraqi government and people, according to an Iraqi official.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/28/...main/index.html

Post War Iraq - Page 100

He is exactly right. As I said on my previous posts, it is good that the US wants to help (they don't have much choice either) but he is the guy who should make all the decisions without any type of pressures. Pres. Bush admitted they have been pressuring the Iraqi government to take certain decisions but "pressure" does not seem the right word from a country who says is there only just to assist.

Edited: LDS_forever on 29th Oct, 2006 - 8:07pm

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 100

U.N.: 100,000 Iraq refugees flee monthly

Nearly 100,000 Iraqis are fleeing each month to Syria and Jordan, forcing the
United Nations to set aside its goal of helping refugees return home after the U.S.-led invasion, officials said Friday.
Ref. https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061104/ap_on_...n_refugees_iraq