Current US Policy in Iraq
WARNING: This footage is not for the faint hearted.
This is the result of Rumsfeld's failure to employ enough troops to restore order to Iraq's streets. The US is now forced to back militias who were once their enemies - and may well become their enemies again - against other militias who they say are funded by Iran. US policy is now reduced to picking sides in the civil war they used to deny was even happening. This is success, Bush-style. It's shameful.
Tags:
7 comments:
Oh Jason, you are not leading me down any side track. The main gist of the story is much more important. Are you proud that, because Rumsfeld employed too few troops to restore order, that your nation is now reduced to funding one half of a civil war?
Are you proud that, because Rumsfeld employed too few troops to restore order, that your nation is now reduced to funding one half of a civil war?
Conclusions on causalities aside for the moment, how is my pride or absence of it relevant?
You appear to argue that the war is a noble venture that the US is still capable of winning.
The facts on the ground are that your nation is choosing sides in a civil war.
Were my nation involved in a noble venture that would fill me with pride. As you have argued that the war was right and necessary, I am wondering if this latest turn in events fills you with pride?
You appear to argue that the war is a noble venture that the US is still capable of winning.
I don't recall ever using the term "noble". And yes, we certainly are capable, although I doubt we will be given the time required to do so.
The facts on the ground are that your nation is choosing sides in a civil war.
You have given no indication to date that you are cognizant of any facts on the ground, nor have you demonstrated how we are choosing sides.
Were my nation involved in a noble venture that would fill me with pride.
When was the last time that happened?
As you have argued that the war was right and necessary
Deposing Hussein was certainly the right thing to do. As far as necessary, I would probably have said inevitable.
I am wondering if this latest turn in events fills you with pride?
"The latest turn of events" is an assertion of yours (choosing sides in a civil war) that I don't believe is credible, so why would I feel pride in it?
I don't recall ever using the term "noble". And yes, we certainly are capable, although I doubt we will be given the time required to do so.
I have never said you actually used the word "noble" I simply meant that you agreed and thought deposing Saddam was the right thing.
And how many years do you think it should take to stabilise Iraq? You have now been involved in Iraq longer than you were involved in WWII. Are you preparing the Vietnam defence, that victory was just over the hill but those damn liberals lost their nerve?
Nor have you demonstrated how we are choosing sides.
Yes, I have. You just don't agree that arming the Sunni militias against the wishes of the Iraqi government represents a realignment. I think that Bush, Cheney and Rice have made it clear that they intend to lean towards what they regard as moderate Sunni states. As the Shia government of Iraq has leanings towards Iran I think that, when the US eventually leave Iraq, we have just seen who they will back. I readily admit that this is conjecture, but it is my tuppence worth.
When was the last time that happened?
Kosovo.
And how many years do you think it should take to stabilise Iraq?
From the beginning I've always thought it would take somewhere around ten years, and assumed we would maintain a presence for much longer. IIRC military science states that it takes about nine years to defeat a counter-insurgency.
You have now been involved in Iraq longer than you were involved in WWII.
Not if you consider how long we occupied Germany and Japan as result of WWII.
that victory was just over the hill but those damn liberals lost their nerve
I do believe that the counter-insurgency can be defeated given enough time, just as I believe that there are many who don't have the patience or the stomach to allow us the required time. I believe that ultimately civilian pressure to tuck tail and retreat will force us to prematurely withdraw, with the results being catastrophic.
Kosovo.
You realize of course that Kosovo was undertaken without UN approval?
You realize of course that Kosovo was undertaken without UN approval?
Intervention is permitted to prevent humanitarian catastrophes. Ethnic cleansing was taking place in Kosovo, therefore intervention was permitted in that case.
That is what differentiates Kosovo from Iraq, where Bush and Blair were complaining of Saddam "gassing his own people" ten years AFTER the event took place.
Post a Comment