The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

raycarey

sorry texpat, that's merely your opinion stated as fact.

and it's wrong.

iraq wasn't more difficult than anyone imagined. and the US got its ass kicked because it was a foolhardy endeavor...not to mention immoral and illegal.

don't be sour about it.

Panda

No point arguing. If Tex thinks the mess in Iraq is a victory for USA, hes entitled to his opinion. Doesn't do his credibility much good, but hes entitled to his beliefs.

I suppose Tex even believes USA won the war against Vietnam.

Boon Mee

The War is over and we won ...heh

Norton

^Bad link there Booners.

Boon Mee

Sorry about that...let's try this one then.


Marine Makes Insurgents Pay the Price

Because you'll never see this in the Lamestream Media, eh?

"November 18, 2008
Marine Corps News|by Cpl. James M. Mercure

FARAH PROVINCE, Afghanistan — In the city of Shewan, approximately 250 insurgents ambushed 30 Marines and paid a heavy price for it."

"During the battle, the designated marksman single handedly thwarted a company-sized enemy RPG and machinegun ambush by reportedly killing 20 enemy fighters with his devastatingly accurate precision fire. He selflessly exposed himself time and again to intense enemy fire during a critical point in the eight-hour battle for Shewan in order to kill any enemy combatants who attempted to engage or maneuver on the Marines in the kill zone. What made his actions even more impressive was the fact that he didn’t miss any shots, despite the enemies’ rounds impacting within a foot of his fighting position."

"“I didn’t realize how many bad guys there were until we had broken through the enemies’ lines and forced them to retreat. It was roughly 250 insurgents against 30 of us,” the corporal said. “It was a good day for the Marine Corps. We killed a lot of bad guys, and none of our guys were seriously injured.”"

Rumor has it the Corporal who was the designated marksman (Sniper)has been nominated for the Silver Star.

Semper Fi

__________________
ผมเป็นคนบ้านนอก

Panda

Nice shooting if its true.
But we do tend to see a lot of BS propaganda coming from the US.

One does have to be a little sceptical when we read stories of self praise like this.
I see the story came from a US, military oriented website.

Texpat

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's parliament approved Thursday a security pact with the United States that lets American troops stay in the country for three more years - setting a clear timetable for a U.S. exit for the first time since the 2003 invasion.

The vote in favor of the pact was backed by the ruling coalition's Shiite and Kurdish blocs as well as the largest Sunni Arab bloc, which had demanded concessions for supporting the deal. The haggling among the political factions highlighted sectarian-based tensions that hinder reconciliation efforts, nearly six years after Saddam Hussein's ouster.

The Shiite bloc agreed to a Sunni demand that the pact be put to a referendum by July 30, meaning the deal must undergo an additional hurdle next year. It took nine months of difficult talks for U.S. and Iraqi negotiators to craft the agreement.

Under the agreement, U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30 and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012. Iraq will have strict oversight over U.S. forces.

Lawmakers voted with a show of hands, and an exact breakdown of the parliamentary vote was not immediately available. But parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said an "overwhelming majority" of lawmakers who attended the session voted in favor. Parliament's secretariat, which counted lawmakers as they entered the chamber, said 220 out of 275 legislators attended.

"This is a historic day for parliament," said Deputy Speaker Khalid al-Attiyah, a close ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "More than three-quarters of those present at today's session voted for the agreement, and that was not expected."
Al-Maliki appeared to have won the comfortable majority that he sought in order to give the agreement additional legitimacy.

The country's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had indicated that the deal would be acceptable only if passed by a comfortable majority.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh urged those who opposed the agreement to accept the decision by the parliament.

"Iraqis should now feel that they have the control and they have to take the full responsibility" for security, he told Associated Press Television News. "Even those who reject this share the responsibility in order to reform the country and in order to stabilize the country."

Sunni lawmakers, whose sectarian group dominated Iraq under Saddam but now struggles for influence with the Shiite-led government, said they were reluctant to support the security deal.

"Our conditional approval does not mean that we do not have reservations on many clauses mentioned in the agreement and we do not have fear about the future implementation of the agreement," said lawmaker Salim Abdullah, who is also a spokesman for the largest Sunni bloc in parliament, the 44-seat Iraqi Accordance Front.

A bloc of 30 lawmakers loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who wants U.S. forces to leave Iraq immediately, chanted protests and hoisted banners that said "No, no to the agreement" during the 25-minute session.

"We offer our condolences to the Iraqi people for this humiliating pact and will continue our popular rejection of it," said Sheik Hazim al-Aaraji, an aide to al-Sadr in the southern city of Najaf.

Al-Sadr's militia have fought U.S. forces in uprisings over the years, but the cleric largely disbanded his fighters and he does not appear to pose as much of a security threat as in the past. Al-Sadr is currently in Iran.

The security deal must now be ratified by the three-member Presidential Council, which is expected to approve it.

The security pact has been described by al-Maliki as a path toward full sovereignty.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker and Gen. Ray Odierno, the top American commander in Iraq, welcomed the Iraqi parliament's approval of the pact, which is divided into two agreements governing security, economics, culture and other areas of cooperation.

"Taken together, these two agreements formalize a strong and equal partnership between the United States and Iraq," they said in a statement. "They provide the means to secure the significant security gains we have achieved together and to deter future aggression."

The vote had been delayed by one day because of the disputes among the political factions, which have hampered reconciliation efforts after years of war.

The Shiite and Kurdish blocs agreed to a Sunni demand for a national referendum on the pact, but the Sunnis did not get two concessions: the repeal of a law designed to weed out former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, and the dissolution of a special court that tried the dictator and top officials of his regime.

Saddam was sentenced to death and executed in 2006.

Iraq's Shiites and Kurds, who account for 80 percent of Iraq's 27 million people, were the target of massacres and other atrocities under Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime. Grievances run deep, and caving in to Sunni demands on the special court and the Baathist law could have produced voter backlash ahead of provincial and general elections in 2009.

***

Hey, the Iraqi Parliament agrees on something. Well done. The sun is shining in Baghdad. They're gettin' the hang of this. Let's see how they do in June when the US troops go out of the cities.

Texpat

CNN
Nov 28, 2008

TOKYO, Japan -- Japan will pull its Air Self-Defense Force out of Iraq, part of an effort to withdraw its 210 military personnel from the country by the end of 2008, the prime minister said Friday.

"The government of Japan will complete the mission by the end of the year, based on the judgment that the objectives of the ASDF mission have now been fulfilled," the prime minister said in a statement.

Aso said there has been steady development in the democratic process and security has improved.

The ASDF, Japan's aviation wing of its military, has conducted 810 flights, transporting 46,000 passengers and 670 tons of cargo in missions between Baghdad and southern Iraq, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

***
Tip 'o the hat to the Japs.

Texpat

BBC
December 13, 2008

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has told US troops in Iraq that their mission there is in its "endgame".

Mr Gates said the US military presence would undergo a "significant change of mission" next June when troops are due to withdraw from Iraq's urban areas.
Under a recently agreed deal between the two countries, US troops will completely withdraw from Iraq by 2011.

However, the US general leading US troops in Iraq has said he expects some soldiers to stay in cities beyond June.

The Iraqi parliament voted in favour of the new security deal with the Americans last month. Iraq's government has hailed the agreement as the prelude to the return of full sovereignty to the country.

'In the endgame'

Speaking to US troops at an air base north of Baghdad, Mr Gates said the process of reducing troop numbers had already begun.

He said President-elect Barack Obama had "talked about wanting to listen and hear from commanders on the ground".

"We are in the process of the draw down. We are, I believe, in terms of the American commitment, in the endgame here in Iraq."

Regarding the date of urban withdrawals, he said: "That represents a really significant change of mission, and it calls for us to have all of our combat units out by the end of 2011."

He said the US had suggested the June date because commanders believed they would have turned over all 18 provinces to provincial Iraqi control by then.

Also at the air base, General Ray Odierno, the US military commander in Iraq, said some troops would remain in Iraqi cities to advise and train Iraqi forces, rather than take part in combat.

As training at local security stations is part of the deal, Gen Odierno said: "We believe we should still be inside those after the summer."

He did not specify how many of the current 150,000 US military personnel deployed in Iraq would remain.

He highlighted elections due to be held next year, saying: "It's important that we maintain enough presence here that we can help them get through this year of transition.

"We don't want to take a step backward because we've made so much progress here."

Meanwhile, the Iraqi PM has dismissed comments from a government spokesman that US troops could remain for a decade.

The government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, has provoked controversy by doubting the ability of Iraq troops to take over in three years, saying the Americans might need to stay for 10 years.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been forced to issue a statement disowning Mr al-Dabbagh's comment.

He said the spokesman had simply been giving his personal opinion, and that the notion that the Americans would stay in Iraq for a further decade was not the government's view.

Opponents of the new security plan, including the anti-American Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, say they do not believe the Americans will withdraw by the dates they have promised to - and insist they should leave Iraq immediately.

BBC NEWS | Americas | 'Endgame' for US mission in Iraq

***

Endgame.

raycarey

yes, president elect obama promised to bring an orderly end to the iraq fiasco, and he will.

Norton

Seems to be some disagreement here on interpretation re "withdrawal".

"Some American troops will remain in Iraqi cities after a June 30 deadline for combat soldiers to leave urban areas, the top U.S. commander said Saturday."

US troops to stay in Iraqi cities after June - Yahoo! News

spiff

"combat soldiers"?
Are they inventing new terms again to twist perceptions?

Norton

Perhaps but I believe US military commanders are very concerned, in spite of statements to the contrary, the Iraqi security forces are "ready" to go it alone.

Concern related to what will happen should the Iraqi security forces, which now have to a great degree an integrated mix of the various factions comprising the Iraqi population, again splinter into sectarian groups intent upon political dominance at the point of a gun. Civil war?

Another concern is, are Iraqi security forces "ready" to uphold the law as determined by a democratically elected government and enforce the law in a manner consistent with the "rights" of Iraqi citizens?

Given the history of Iraq both these concerns are legitimate especially given the fragile makeup of the current Iraqi government. To evolve a "security force" consistent with western democratic principal will take several years.

If the US and the global community really are dedicated to the establishment of a stable democratic Iraq it will require money, assistance, a long period of "monitoring" the evolution and behavior of Iraq's security forces.

Colin Powell's caution to Bush regarding the decision to send forces to Iraq was spot on when he said, "You know, you're gonna be owning this place".

__________________
Eat right, exercise daily, live clean, die anyway.

spiff

Above all, is a "stable democracy" something the Iraqis want?

I very much doubt it...

Norton

As in Thailand, would depend on which Iraqis one asked.

Texpat

^^ despite the source, a good question.

Time will tell. Iraq has determined that they want coalition (not US) forces out.
They're the governing rule.

Be careful what you wish for.

Milkman

Some Americans (and posters here) think that a Shiite government is a "victory" for the Americans. It isn't. It's definitely a victory for Iran, IMO.

Here's a new poll.

Link & Entire: washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Texpat

It's all been decided. And Obama had almost nothing to do with it.

Mid