Thread: Iraq News

Originally Posted by stroller

Weren't you one of the guys going on about the spoils of war and how the US and UK and their favoured companies would obviously get first picks?

Never, not me. There are no spoils of this war unless you consider a stabilized middle east and a market where the Iraquis can SELL their oil to whomever they wish.

Granted that's a foreign concept to most Europeans who can't fathom floating a farthing for someone else ... Just watch helplessly as you slide further into obscurity with your outdated views on globalism. Keep looking inward, the answer's gotta be there somewhere ...

Originally Posted by stroller

And what does this odd rant about "Europeans" supposedly have to do with Iraq News, I wonder?

Come on Strolly, you can read... Nearly everyone bailed when the going got tough. Should sound familiar by now.

Originally Posted by Panda

I sometime wonder if you war mongers actually believe the crap you spew out.

That is the scary thing about it: I am sure they do!

Originally Posted by Texpat

Come on Strolly, you can read... Nearly everyone bailed when the going got tough. Should sound familiar by now.

Yes, I can read, that often seems to be the problem.
Ah, that sounds different from what you posted before. Less of an abrasive rant, more of a, ahem, personal view of events.

Most of Europe had the good sense not to go there.

Of course it's my personal view. And I'm entitled to it, as are you.

Yes you read that correctly; you're entitled to my view as well.

^ correction: most went -- then fled like scalded dogs when they realized it was more than they bargained for. Guess they had prior obligations ... (won't even go there)

Yeh, Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Well, victory is in the air.....

And al-Sadr supporters are headed to Baghdad to protest the 5th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, which fell one month after the US invasion.

Here's another article reinforcing the "victory in the air."

Two War Critic Soldiers Killed in Iraq


Omar Mora and Yance Gray, Who Died Monday, Were Two of the Seven Soldiers Who Penned a Controversial Op-ed About the War's Progress


By MARCUS BARAM
Sept. 12, 2007


The last words of the op-ed written by seven soldiers serving in Iraq were courageous and poignant.
Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26 (l.) and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, two of the authors of a New York Times editorial critical of the war were killed...
Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26 (l.) and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, two of the authors of a New York Times editorial critical of the war were killed in Baghdad Monday when the five-ton cargo truck they were riding in overturned.


(AP Photo )

"We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."


Sadly, that mission came to an end for two of those soldiers just three weeks after that editorial was published in The New York Times.
Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, and Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, two of the authors of "The



War as We Saw It," were killed in Baghdad Monday when the five-ton cargo truck they were riding in overturned.


Another of the authors, Staff Sgt. Jeremy Murphy, was shot in the head while the group was working on the article.


The controversial Aug. 19 editorial gained international attention for its skepticism about the American war effort: "To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched."

Link: ABC News: U.S. Troops Critical of War Die in Iraq

Sen. Carl Levin desparately tried to pound a wedge between Gen Petraeus and PM Maliki at the SASC hearing today in a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit them both. The divide between McCain and Levin was enormous and represents one of the biggest obstacles to quicker success in Iraq. These douchebag senators would rather wrestle for power than help the military and state departments get their shit together and get the hell outta there. Nitpicking each other to death while the mil and state workers (not to mention the Iraqis) sit around wondering what position they'll be in come January. Kinda made me sick to watch it.

Iraq is a soverign country with democratically elected leaders, for two years now, and the US is there in a supporting role. Whatever condition the country is in when the US leaves it will probably change within weeks of the departure. The vacuum will be filled --maybe better, probably not.

Also interesting to note, the Iraqis apparently screwed up a recent attack on Basra. Petraeus claimed it was because they were ill-prepared. Weren't there western troops in Basra until recently training them and making assurances they were up to the task?

Petraeus also said there were no provisions for onward US military basing. Big mistake.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Bugs

Would the Iraqies band together to fight as one should such a threat materialize after the US departs?

Herein lies the flaw in strategy. Just a wild guess on my part but religion will win out over nationalism. Iran (Shia) will overwhelm the Iraqi (Sunni) either politically or militarily and simply turn Iraq into a Shia dominated country under the control of Iran. Once US troops withdraw the only politically viable option would be to send money and arms to the Iraqi government to defend itself. Kinda back to square one as the US did when Sadam was at war with Iran.

The US is arming the Saudi Arabian royal dictators and Israel to the teeth with the latest military hardware, reportedly to counter the "so called" threat Iran poses.
US Lawmakers Renew Opposition to US Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia

Meanwhile Maliki and Muqtada (both Shia) are starting a civil war. If Mailiki can't beat Muqtada with the Iraqi Army + US air support, guess who the next leader of Iraq's gonna be after the US leave?

^ whoever wins the election -- novel idea, eh?

Originally Posted by Texpat

Sen. Carl Levin desparately tried to pound a wedge between Gen Petraeus and PM Maliki at the SASC hearing today in a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit them both. The divide between McCain and Levin was enormous and represents one of the biggest obstacles to quicker success in Iraq.

Wrong: it's about the Iraqis. Not the Americans.

You're reminding my of Chitown and his brilliant analysis.

"We."

Levin and Petraeus are not IRAQI.

The Iraqis have to do their part - and I don't see it happening.

So, who do you support Tex? Sunni? Shia? Both together in a coalition.

How about the Kurds? Semi, or fully independent?

These douchebag senators would rather wrestle for power than help the military and state departments get their shit together and get the hell outta there. Nitpicking each other to death while the mil and state workers (not to mention the Iraqis) sit around wondering what position they'll be in come January. Kinda made me sick to watch it.

Iraq is a soverign country with democratically elected leaders, for two years now, and the US is there in a supporting role. Whatever condition the country is in when the US leaves it will probably change within weeks of the departure. The vacuum will be filled --maybe better, probably not.

Also interesting to note, the Iraqis apparently screwed up a recent attack on Basra. Petraeus claimed it was because they were ill-prepared. Weren't there western troops in Basra until recently training them and making assurances they were up to the task?

Petraeus also said there were no provisions for onward US military basing. Big mistake.

That's flawed analysis, IMO Tex. The US Senate? What in the heck do they have to do with this? Please inform me.

But you are free to analyze as you wish.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Petraeus also said there were no provisions for onward US military basing. Big mistake.

I find this hard to believe actually- Apart from the Fact that Iraq has the worlds largest Embassy, three massive US military bases have been constructed in Iraq. No doubt you can guess the prime contractor- KBR/ Halliburton. If they were just planning to be there a few years, surely they would have used cheaper, temporary infrastructure.

it's about the Iraqis. Not the Americans.

No shit Sherlock. But the US Ambassador and Gen Petraeus' testimony to Congress weighs heavily on the sole support the Iraqi government can count on.
Did you watch the testimony? How can you suggest it's not germane?

If Congress would work together and come to an agreement, it would answer a lot of questions and take the uncertainty of a new administration out of the equation. Instead, Levin tries to make Petraeus admit Maliki made poor tactical desisions in Basra. Real nice -- pitting the ranking US mil against the PM -- and to what purpose? Fcuking idiot.

Levin and Petraeus are not IRAQI.

You took your "brilliant" pills again, didn't you? Jeez MM, you're amazing.

So, who do you support Tex?

I think they're all a bunch of layabouts happy to continue killing each other and sponging off Uncle Sam's tit. They lived with each other before, why can't they now? I wouldn't be against a rapid and wholesale pullout and subsequent massive genocide.

Give it to the Palestinians.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Iraq is a soverign country

errr....it was back in early 2003 before the US invaded.

The Iraqi government doesn't have any control over the country. And probably never will, because with massive unemployment, many of its soldiers are simply in the job to earn enough to feed their families and don't really have their heart in fighting for the USAs ideal of how the country should operate. The rebels on the other hand are fighting for a political ideal they believe in.

If and when the Yanks pull out a lot of the government troops are likely to swap sides. It should be over relatitively quickly.

The problem for the Yanks is that such a new government will almost certainly be staunchly anti-American and allie itself with Iran. That would put a very large part of the worlds oil reserves at the mercy of an Iraq/Iran alliance.

It's Yugoslavia all over again. Let them split into three regions. The prob is the Shiite area has all the oil. That's where the problem lies with the Sunnis. Mind, I don't think the Kurds would give a toss if they could just get on with their lives.

^ so its cost effective then?
Well, aside from all the dead people I mean.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Based on GNP, Iraq is costing <5% vs. ~7.5% for Viet Nam and >16% for WW2.

At this point debating the reasons we got in the war are irrelevant. As McCain says, "it is what it is".

Assuming these figures are correct, they point out how inadequate the commitment in winning the war really is. If the US is really committed to having a free and independent Iraq, it will take a lot more than a half hearted effort to have any chance of success. If the war is critical to the security of America as GWB would have us all believe, where is the money? Where are the 500,000+ troops needed to secure a country as big as Iraq? Politically impossible so it seems. Then I say get the hell out rather than perpetuate hope for a "victory" without the national sacrifice it takes.

One can only conclude the US administration is not really as "fully" committed as their rhetoric. If a nation decides to go to war it should not be playing political games either domestically or internationally.

Do it right or don't do it at all!!!

ARR.... the US administration didn't think it was going to be this difficult, otherwise they wouldn't have got involved in this shit fight in the first place.
Now they have a destabilized Iraq on their hands with all the ramifications that holds in the Middle East. This folly of a war is costing the USA dearly and the best case scenario is ongoing strife in the region for decades to come.
Thanks a lot Mr Bush!