View Full Version : Excerpts: White House Iraq strategy
Excerpts: White House Iraq strategy (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_US_Iraq_Glance.html)
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Victory Defined
-Short Term: An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, achieving political milestones, building democratic institutions, laying a foundation for a sound economy and training and equipping security forces.
-Medium Term: An Iraq that is taking the lead in defeating terrorists and providing its own security, has a constitutional government and is making economic gains.
-Longer Term: An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency, and has developed into a peaceful, united, stable and secure nation that is part of the international community and a partner in the war on terrorism.
The Enemy
-Rejectionists. The largest enemy group comprising mostly Sunni Arabs who have not embraced democratic reforms but are expected to support a new government if it protects the rights of the Sunnis, who are no longer part of the privileged elite in Iraq.
-Saddamists and former regime loyalists. They dream of restablishing a dictatorship. "We judge that few from this group can be won over to support a democratic Iraq, but that this group can be marginalized to the point where it can and will be defeated by Iraqi forces," the report said.
-Terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al-Qaeda. The smallest, but most lethal enemy group. "Terrorists and extremists from all parts of the Middle East and North Africa have found their way to Iraq and made common cause with indigenous religious extremists and former members of Saddam's regime," the report said. "This group cannot be won over and must be defeated - killed or captured - through sustained counterterrorism operations."
Six assumptions the Bush administration has made about improving security in Iraq.
- Insurgents can win only if the U.S. surrenders.
- There is enough political will in the U.S. to keep troops in Iraq to fight terrorists while training Iraqi forces until "the mission is done" - increasing or decreasing troop levels only as conditions warrant.
- Making progress on the political front will more clearly identify those who are willing to support a new Iraqi government from terrorists or insurgents "who must be either killed or captured, detained and prosecuted."
- Training and equipping Iraqi security forces will create an army and police force that can maintain order in Iraq.
- Any meddling by outsiders can be contained or neutralized.
- Iraqis ultimately will have to eliminate threats to their own security.
Progress on the security front:
-In 2004, major parts of Iraq and important urban centers were no-go areas for Iraqi and coalition forces. Fallujah, Najaf and Samara were under enemy control. Today, these cities are under Iraqi government control.
-In March, Iraqi and coalition forces received more than 400 intelligence tips from Iraqi citizens; in August they received 3,300; and in September, more than 4,700.
-The ranks of Iraqi security forces are swelling. More than 212,000 security forces have been trained and equipped, compared with 96,000 in September 2004. There are more than 120 Iraqi army and police battalions in the fight - up from five in August 2004. Of these battalions, more than 80 are fighting alongside coalition forces and more than 40 others are taking the lead in the fight.
-Iraqi forces are controlling more territory. In June 2004, no Iraqi security force unit controlled territory. Today, much of Baghdad province and Najaf and Karbala are controlled by Iraqi forces and other Iraqi battalions and brigades control hundreds of square miles of territory in other Iraqi provinces.
Progress on the political front:
- In January, 8.5 million Iraqis voted for Iraq's first freely elected national government and provincial governments.
-In April, elected leaders of Iraq's national legislature formed a diverse cabinet that represented all groups, despite election results that favored the Shiite and Kurdish communities.
-In the summer and fall, Iraq's elected national legislature, and the Sunni leaders invited to join the process, drafted a constitution.
-By the end of September, about 1 million new voters checked their names on Iraq's voting rolls - the vast majority in Sunni areas. In October, nearly 10 million Iraqis voted in a referendum in which the constitution was ratified.
Progress on the economic front:
-Oil production has increased from an average of 1.58 million barrels a day in 2003 to an average of 2.25 million barrels a day in 2004. Iraq currently is producing on average 2.1 million barrels a day, a decrease due to terrorist attacks and dilapidated infrastructure.
-Iraq's gross domestic product rose from $13.6 billion in 2003 to $25.5 billion in 2004, led primarily by the recovery of the oil sector.
-Since April 2003, Iraq has registered more than 30,000 new businesses.
--------------------------------------------------
Posting this for now. Commentary to follow.
Victory
Seems like the short and medium goals have been met. The longer term goal seems impossible. The part saying 'has defeated the terrorists,' which we learn later in the definition of the enemy is actually a very small number. Can terrorists ever be completely eliminated?
Enemy
Is anyone surprised to learn that terrorists are actually a small number of combatants and that most are Iraqis? We hear on the news and from our administration constantly that we are there to fight the terrorists. Obviously its the big buzzword to keep people supporting this war.
Also, its interesting that the administration comes right out and says to 'marginalize' the Saddamists which is exactly what has happened with the new government. The Shi'ites and Kurds have pretty much left out the Sunni.
Assumptions
You know what they say about assumptions but I’ll play along. The first one is pretty obvious. 'Insurgents can win only if the U.S. surrenders.' Well, yeah, I suppose in any war when one side surrenders the other side wins. I don’t think anyone has said the US should surrender. That would be really stupid.
I have work to do, but overall, I am glad to see this. Finally.
Warriorbird
12-01-2005, 07:46 AM
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/POLITICS/11/30/iraq.poll/story.vert.copter.ap.jpg
President Outlines Strategy for Victory in Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051130-2.html) (transcript)
Warriorbird
12-01-2005, 11:39 AM
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/POLITICS/11/30/iraq.poll/story.vert.copter.ap.jpg
:whistles:
http://www.zendada.com/images/cover-2.jpg
Funny how Bush's plan is very simliar to Kerry's plan, even though Kerry wont admit it.
Parkbandit
12-01-2005, 01:42 PM
Matt Lauer was interviewing John Kerry this morning in regards to this.. and actually laid into Kerry for disagreeing for what is essentially the same things in his own proposal. It was quite entertaining to see Kerry in the same old action again. He would be an utter fool to run in 2008.. and the Democrats would be even bigger fools for voting for him.
Parkbandit
12-01-2005, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Ganalon
Funny how Bush's plan is very simliar to Kerry's plan, even though Kerry wont admit it.
Fuck you and your quick replies.
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by Ganalon
Funny how Bush's plan is very simliar to Kerry's plan, even though Kerry wont admit it.
Fuck you and your quick replies.
:lol:
I saw the same interview while I was working out on the treadmill this morning. Its like, Bush's plan is bad bad bad, but my plan is good good good. Yet when you compare them side by side, they're the same freaking plan, according to Matt. :rolleyes:
I got paintshop skillz too!
Originally posted by Ganalon
I got paintshop skillz too!
Lol I can't believe you guys believe this. Try Iraqi civil war and a very destabilised region. Iraqi Sunnis are Iraqis as well.
When it happens, I'll believe it.
And I'm not talking about isolated incidents nor theorist projections.
Until then, I'm leaning for the new Iraq Government and the Iraqi people wanting peace and some stability.
Originally posted by xtc
Originally posted by Ganalon
I got paintshop skillz too!
Lol I can't believe you guys believe this. Try Iraqi civil war and a very destabilised region. Iraqi Sunnis are Iraqis as well.
Going to take a stab at this statement as I’m kind of lost in the way the thread has been going.
I did remark that I am glad to see Bush actually lay out at least some information about how things are going. That was early this morning... now reality has really set in.
This is placating, if not patronizing, rhetoric as usual. The one bit I find most informative is about who the enemy actually is. When I think back on all the speeches, all the news reports, all the arguments about us being there to fight 'terrorists', this document is the first time the administration has revealed that they are a small number.
It surprises me that this administration does not have faith in the new Iraqi government, or its people, to not get overthrown by this small amount of people if we wrap it up and let them do the rest, right now. Its always, “if we leave now we will be handing over Iraq to the terrorists.”
It seems to me that it is all just a matter of opinion at this point of what would happen if we stayed or left. Not one person has a definitive answer one way or the other. The way we settle things here is by vote, majority wins. Its good enough to get Bush elected, its good enough to decide what we do now.
Originally posted by Ganalon
When it happens, I'll believe it.
And I'm not talking about isolated incidents nor theorist projections.
Until then, I'm leaning for the new Iraq Government and the Iraqi people wanting peace and some stability.
Currently Iraqi is fighting Iraqi, that is a civil war.
Despite American propaganda, the Iraqi election was a joke.
In five out of 18 governates, according to a Russian parliamentary observer, the elections were either cancelled due to the lack of security or were marked by a very low turnout.
The boycott of the elections was not limited to the Sunni areas as conveyed by the Western media. According to Muhammad Ayyash al-Kubaysi, of the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), in an Al-Jazeera interview (31 Jan 2005), the boycott was heeded in a number of "dominantly" Shiite areas.
According to Xinhua (in a report issued 5 hours before the close of polling stations):
"The turnout was very low during the past few hours in Tikrit, Dujail, Balad and Tuz, much lower than expected," a source in the electoral body told Xinhua. "In addition, no voters showed up in Baiji, Samarra and Dour," said the source, who declined to be identified. The cities of Dujail and Balad have mixed population of Shiites and Sunnis, while Tuz has a mosaic of Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen. In Tikrit, some 170 km north of Baghdad, 75 percent of the voting stations have not been visited till now. (Xinhua, 30 Jan 2005, 9 AM GMT)"
"In the city of Mosul, the deputy governor said that four towns did not receive the election process materials. How do you justify this? These towns are Bashqa, Bartillah, Al-Hamdaniyah and Jihan. They did not receive the material for the election process." (Iraqi Al-Sharqiyah TV, 30 Jan)"
"The Election was used to Promote the Creation of a Separate State in Kurdistan
In a number of polling stations in Kurdistan, the ballot included a referendum on the creation of a separate Kurdish state. this was barely mentioned in news reports:
Outside most polling stations, members of a movement demanded the creation of an independent Kurdish state" (The Independent, 31 Jan 2005)
Many northern polling stations also held an unofficial referendum on independence, asking voters in favor to check a box next to a Kurdish flag, and those against to check an Iraqi flag" (Boston Globe,31 Jan 2005)
"In the weeks leading up to the election, there were reports that food rations would be cancelled if voters did not show up at the polls. In Fallouja, polling stations were set up "at centers that distribute food, water and cash payments to residents whose homes were devastated by the offensive" (LA Times, 31 Jan 2005).
" those who do not take part in the forthcoming elections will be punished.... "sanctions will be taken against those who refuse to vote or go to the polling stations." The article goes on to say: "The Iraqis have become accustomed at the end of each year, specifically in the last month of the year, to replace their ration cards with new ones to cover the months of the new year. However, one notices that December this year has passed without the Iraqis reading in the local papers or hearing in audiovisual media any mention of any invitation calling on them to replace these cards. This gave rise to many rumours as to why the issuance of these cards was delayed. The only plausible reason they found for this is that "the government intends to withhold these cards from the families that will not participate in the elections. Many Iraqis affirm that the new ration card has been printed and that it will be distributed to the head of the family while he votes and that those who do not go to the polling stations will not get their cards, and therefore will not receive the staples that are covered by the card as a punishment." (BBC Monitoring 24 Jan 2005)
Ravenstorm
12-01-2005, 03:38 PM
One part of the strategy that was left out is paying Iraqi reporters and newspapers to spread propaganda in the guise of actual news stories. Much like the administration has done here.
Raven
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
One part of the strategy that was left out is paying Iraqi reporters and newspapers to spread propaganda in the guise of actual news stories. Much like the administration has done here.
Raven
The observations were from International Observers monitoring the elections and IECI elections supervisors in the area. The reporters and newspapers were from the BBC, The London Independent, The LA Times and The Boston Globe and the Chinese news agency Xinhua.
Ravenstorm
12-01-2005, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by xtc
The observations were from International Observers monitoring the elections and IECI elections supervisors in the area. The reporters and newspapers were from the BBC, The London Independent, The LA Times and The Boston Globe and the Chinese news agency Xinhua.
That's not what I was referring to. This (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1201/dailyUpdate.html) is.
Raven
Originally posted by xtc
Uber long post containing quotes from sources back in January 2005...
I still dont buy that they are in a civil war at this juncture.
The language you refer to dealing with civil war are at this point theories and projections. Yes there are some isolated incidents but civil war would mean nation encompassing, which this is not.
Unique
12-01-2005, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Ganalon
Originally posted by xtc
Uber long post containing quotes from sources back in January 2005...
I still dont buy that they are in a civil war at this juncture.
The language you refer to dealing with civil war are at this point theories and projections. Yes there are some isolated incidents but civil war would mean nation encompassing, which this is not.
The idea of Iraqi civil war is indead theory and projection. But so is the idea of happy Iraqi democracy.
Put the two results on opposite ends of a sliding scale. We'll see something in between.
Unique.
Warriorbird
12-01-2005, 07:14 PM
I still dont buy that they are in a civil war at this juncture.
-Ganalon
Then you don't much understand the situation. I don't claim to... but when 20% of a country's population doesn't recognize a government's authority...I don't think you have a country at peace or that's a "democracy."
With that said...I don't think John Kerry has much room to talk. I didn't want him as a candidate this time and I certainly don't want him or Hillary as a candidate next time.
An interesting story from the BBC in their indepth section on Iraq. Its about the Iraq Charter.
ARTICLE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4346004.stm) - 10/15/2005
Excerpts I found interesting.
"By mid-morning, turn-out at this one polling station was already high: 2,000 out of 2,900 registered voters. "
"We spoke to a secular Shia - a university lecturer - who had misgivings about the new constitution but said it would be unbearable for Iraq to turn the clock back a year and start the negotiations again."
"It could lead to civil war, he said, and people needed political stability to start making simple improvements in their lives. "
"One man, wearing the flowing tan and gold robes of a Marsh Arabs Sheikh said: "I am voting 'Yes' - to end the occupation." "
"Religious Shias were mindful of the instruction from senior clergy that supporting the constitution was a religious duty."
"Some admitted they had not even read the document they were voting for: its endorsement by the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani was enough. "
I still dont see evidence, even from those in Iraq, supporting the claim that they are currently under civil war. Ergo, I dont buy into that doom theory.
I think its good that they are actively participating. Its scary that they are taking the word of someone else instead of reading for themselves what they are voting for. However, that happens in America as well, so perhaps its not as big a deal as it could be.
The sooner they can stabilize a system of government then the sooner that government can implement and manage a security force, a national army, start improving on what reconstruction has taken place with schools, utilities, the economy, healthcare, etc... and the sooner we can withdraw the coalition forces.
That doesnt mean the whackos wearing bombs will ever die out, but with the proper forces in place, the whackos wont have as much of an impact as they do now. Eventually they'll have as much impact as a bomb toting whacko would have here in the US. Instead of being hailed as a hero, the bomber would be hailed as a criminal, and treated appropriately.
Originally posted by Ganalon
"Some admitted they had not even read the document they were voting for: its endorsement by the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani was enough. "
Sounds like Democracy at work to me.
Some interesting things of note outlined in Bush's Victory strategy.
January 2005 - 8.5 million people voted in Iraq's first democratic election.
June 2005 - non-elected Suni Arab leaders were invited to participate in constitutional negotiations, demonstrating participation from all of the major sects of Iraq in the development of the new constitution
October 2005 - an additional 1 million new voters registered, the vast majority in Suni areas. 10 million total voted in the election to ratify the new constitution. Amendments were made to continue to allow further changes after the new government is established - ensuring proper Suni representation.
More than 500,000 comments from the public have been received regarding the various provisions of the constitution.
More than 100 newspapers free discuss political events within Iraq.
The judicial branch of the Iraqi government has become an independant branch of government.
The new Iraqi courts are on track to resolve 10,000 felony cases this year. Accountability within society is steadfastly being promoted.
November 2005 - the Arab League hosted a meeting in Cairo to promote Iraqi national reconciliation.
Arab states publicaly supporting the Iraqi constitutional referendum.
November 2005 - more than 212,000 trained and equipped, compared to the 96,000 in September of 2004.
November 2005 - more than 120 army batallions are active now as compared to 9 active batallions in August 2004.
November 2005 - three operational air force squadrons are active as compared to none in 2004.
September 2005 - NATO inaugurated a new military staff college to help establish and maintain an officer staff loyal to the Iraqi government, not individual groups or tribes.
Iraq GDP grew from 13.6 billion in 2003 to 25.5 billion in 2004. Real GDP is expected to grow at 3.7% in 2005 and forcasted for growth to almost 17% in 2006 - according to the IMF.
Since April 2003 there have been more than 30,000 new businesses develop and its newely established stock market (2004) lists almost 90 companies which trades and average daily volume over 100 million, up from 86 million in 2004.
2005 - Iraq has completed its first IMF economic health reportcard in 25 years.
2005 - more than 3,000 cell phone subscribers, up considerably from virtually none in 2003.
Overall it is a very interesting read as well as encouraging.
SOURCE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_11_05_us_iraq.pdf)
[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Ganalon]
Originally posted by DeV
Sounds like Democracy at work to me.
Agreed, you'll see many many instances of that in the upcoming 2006 and 2008 elections here in the US as political groups from both sides of the aisle attempt to sway, cajole, coddle, and 'guide' voters into voting for them.
One good reason why we have an electoral college.
Founding Fathers FTW.
Originally posted by Ganalon
One good reason why we have an electoral college.
Too bad Iraq doesn't.
And this, more specifically, is what I was referring to:
"Some admitted they had not even read the document they were voting for.
Bravo?
I wonder if there are any provisions in the newly forming constitution to give that issue consideration.
Surely those who are more versed in things such as this would have considered this eventuality.
If you have information confirming your statement 'too bad Iraq doesnt', now would be a good time to share.
Originally posted by Ganalon
If you have information confirming your statement 'too bad Iraq doesnt', now would be a good time to share. Hell, if you have information confirming my statement I welcome you to share at will.
No, I do not have proof that this is true. Instead, I made an educated guess. You are welcome to prove me wrong.
As many countries around the world that have modeled our system of Democracy, how many do you know of that have also copied the Electoral College.
[Edited on 12-2-2005 by DeV]
Warriorbird
12-01-2005, 09:21 PM
2005 - more than 3,000 cell phone subscribers, up considerably from virtually none in 2003.
This figure is particularly illustrative of the propaganda involved in that list. 2003 was during the damn war.
Sure...a few things have been achieved. Sure... the Sunni were "invited" to participate. You forgot to note the bit where nearly all of the Sunni delegates walked out in protest of what they'd been put through.
Whether the Iraq Sunnis are great people are not (and I'm thinking mostly not, honestly)... a country's Democratic process is not working until it is actually involving its whole population... and when people don't vote solely according to what their mullahs say.
That'd be better if the mullahs weren't Shiites to be honest...people who will turn around and go "Hi Iran! We love you! Have our whole fucking country!" as soon as we leave.
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Ganalon
If you have information confirming your statement 'too bad Iraq doesnt', now would be a good time to share. Hell, if you have information confirming my statement I welcome you to share at will.
No, I do not have proof that this is true. Instead, I made an educated guess. You are welcome to prove me wrong.
As many countries around the world that have modeled our system of Democracy, how many do you know of that have also copied the Electoral College.
[Edited on 12-2-2005 by DeV]
Then you're as welcome to assume they dont as I'm welcome to assume that they have something similar to adapt to situations where people vote blindly.
Looks like neither of us are right. Shame aint it?
Tsa`ah
12-01-2005, 11:26 PM
The electoral college is a dinosaur of a process that is no longer needed in today's US. That aside ...
I rather liked John Stewart's take on the whole press conference.
I response to Bush's statement about deadlines and politicians in Washington dictating when to withdraw, he said the generals would make that call.
Of course Stewart flashes flight suite Bush on an aircraft carrier proclaiming mission accomplished.
Honestly, this is all political bullshit. Kerry is going to jaw about it all he can and whore the camera as long as he can because he has a seat to secure.
Bush just doesn't give a fuck because he's essentially done with it. The longer he keeps troops in Iraq, the longer he can justifiably ignore everything else until his term is up.
My solution? Drop Bush, Kerry and their respective staffs in Iraq with standard ground pounder gear and let them finish the conflict.
Originally posted by Ganalon
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Ganalon
If you have information confirming your statement 'too bad Iraq doesnt', now would be a good time to share. Hell, if you have information confirming my statement I welcome you to share at will.
No, I do not have proof that this is true. Instead, I made an educated guess. You are welcome to prove me wrong.
As many countries around the world that have modeled our system of Democracy, how many do you know of that have also copied the Electoral College.
[Edited on 12-2-2005 by DeV]
Then you're as welcome to assume they dont as I'm welcome to assume that they have something similar to adapt to situations where people vote blindly.
Looks like neither of us are right. Shame aint it? No, it's not a shame. Simply because I never stupidly assumed that people were blindly voting. In fact, while researching their entire voting process I came across this, Iraq Voting Process (http://www.un.org/news/dh/infocus/iraq/election-fact-sht.htm#Observation). Now I'm somewhat more informed. Be my guest.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
2005 - more than 3,000 cell phone subscribers, up considerably from virtually none in 2003.
This figure is particularly illustrative of the propaganda involved in that list. 2003 was during the damn war.
Sure...a few things have been achieved. Sure... the Sunni were "invited" to participate. You forgot to note the bit where nearly all of the Sunni delegates walked out in protest of what they'd been put through.
Whether the Iraq Sunnis are great people are not (and I'm thinking mostly not, honestly)... a country's Democratic process is not working until it is actually involving its whole population... and when people don't vote solely according to what their mullahs say.
That'd be better if the mullahs weren't Shiites to be honest...people who will turn around and go "Hi Iran! We love you! Have our whole fucking country!" as soon as we leave.
Yes, propeganda, its all lies. Nothing there to see folks, its all hell in a hand basket, just move along. Bush will get his oil and we'll vote in a Democrat in 2008, thankyouverymuch. :rolleyes:
The fact that the Suni were the minority in power before the fall of Saddam clearly demonstrates why the Suni chose to oppose the initial vote. And yet they were invited to participate anyways. :rolleyes:
Yet the Bush administration is claiming that there is plenty of Suni participation now, as people there are preferring to make their statements via voting rather than through pulling the trigger.
Face it, democracy is taking root, folks are liking the fact that they have a voice and that they can participate in forming the government that they desire rather than dealing with maniacal dictators who give them nothing but the option of fearing which sadistic dictator's son will assume power when the current dictator dies.
Originally posted by DeV
No, it's not a shame. Simply because I never stupidly assumed that people were blindly voting.
Actually, you did, based on the following quote:
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Ganalon
One good reason why we have an electoral college.
Too bad Iraq doesn't.
Additionally...
Originally posted by DeV
In fact, while researching their entire voting process I came across this, Iraq Voting Process (http://www.un.org/news/dh/infocus/iraq/election-fact-sht.htm#Observation). Now I'm somewhat more informed. Be my guest.
Thanks for the link. I found an interesting statement on that very page reagarding the initial vote for forming a national government.
To wit:
"How is the election different from the National Conference?
The election is fundamentally different from the National Conference which was a selection process . The election will enfranchise all Iraqis to participate as voters and candidates, whereas the National conference was constituted using a caucus type mechanism . The election , in contrast, will be organized following the principle of universal suffrage (one person, one vote) and a secret vote . It will be administered by an independent institution that has no stake in the process ."
And with further reading...
"The Electoral Committee , after considering all options, endorsed the Single Constituency Proportional Representation (PR) system and presented it to the IGC. In plenary, the IGC adopted the electoral system with 21 votes in favour and 4 votes against .
What is Iraq 's Proportional Representation (PR) System?
Elections for the Iraqi National Assembly will be conducted according to a closed list proportional representation system with the entire country considered as a single electoral district . The system will elect representatives to 275 seats with a goal of having 25% female representation ."
Outstanding.
It seems that they have considered blind voting and have acted appropriately.
Go Iraq!
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
The electoral college is a dinosaur of a process that is no longer needed in today's US. That aside ...
I rather liked John Stewart's take on the whole press conference.
I response to Bush's statement about deadlines and politicians in Washington dictating when to withdraw, he said the generals would make that call.
Of course Stewart flashes flight suite Bush on an aircraft carrier proclaiming mission accomplished.
Honestly, this is all political bullshit. Kerry is going to jaw about it all he can and whore the camera as long as he can because he has a seat to secure.
Bush just doesn't give a fuck because he's essentially done with it. The longer he keeps troops in Iraq, the longer he can justifiably ignore everything else until his term is up.
My solution? Drop Bush, Kerry and their respective staffs in Iraq with standard ground pounder gear and let them finish the conflict.
I used to agree with your position Ts'ah.
However, given the influx of inflammatory rhetoric and rabid blind participation by extremist positions on both the far left and the far right. I'm glad we still have an electoral college.
And yes, your solution is spot on. My money, though, is on Bush coming out ahead of Kerry. Oh wait, Kerry's fate has already been decided. :lol:
What I said was a retort for you saying people in the US don't do the exact thing quoted from the article about Iraq with each political election even with the Electoral College. You stick to your assumptions.
Originally posted by DeV
What I said was a retort for you saying people in the US don't do the exact thing quoted from the article about Iraq with each political election even with the Electoral College. You stick to your assumptions.
suuuure you did. riiiight.
;)
Originally posted by DeV
"Some admitted they had not even read the document they were voting for.
The people not the process, Ganalon. I didn't care to talk about the process itself until you thought to include the Electoral College as solving that problem. So, yeah riiiiiight.
Tsa`ah
12-02-2005, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Ganalon
I used to agree with your position Ts'ah.
However, given the influx of inflammatory rhetoric and rabid blind participation by extremist positions on both the far left and the far right. I'm glad we still have an electoral college.
What's really the point of the process? It's dated and our literacy rate, while still pathetic, is substantially greater than when the system was implemented.
Who cares if some states don't get an equal voice ... they don't get it now. Let the popular vote decide and be done with it.
Warriorbird
12-02-2005, 07:42 AM
I actually consider the electoral college system actively DANGEROUS for Iraq.
And Ganalon..when something is put out by the White House press secretary...WTF do you think it is? It's like asking the Iraqi Information Minister's ghost to be objective.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1136485,00.html?cnn=yes
Originally posted by Warriorbird
I actually consider the electoral college system actively DANGEROUS for Iraq.
And Ganalon..when something is put out by the White House press secretary...WTF do you think it is? It's like asking the Iraqi Information Minister's ghost to be objective.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1136485,00.html?cnn=yes
While you are correct in that using the white house as a source is somewhat dubious to all of you conspiracy theorists; I felt that it deserved equal voice in this mix of doubter's soup.
The article you posted disagreed with the nature of the timeline, which is a nice opinion. However, it did not refute any of the stated facts that I pulled from the actual Victory report. And it yet again hammered the fact that no date was given. How simple is it to understand that you do not give an assigned date to withdrawal in any conflict where there is no definate eradication of one or the other enemy combatants?
I'm quite satisfied with the idea that we will not withdraw until the Iraqi government can stand on its own feet, protect itself from without as well as from within, and support its population economically.
Parkbandit
12-02-2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Ganalon
One good reason why we have an electoral college.
Too bad Iraq doesn't.
And this, more specifically, is what I was referring to:
"Some admitted they had not even read the document they were voting for.
Bravo?
Sounds like America... what's your point?
Warriorbird
12-02-2005, 10:08 AM
How simple is it to understand that you do not give an assigned date to withdrawal in any conflict where there is no definate eradication of one or the other enemy combatants?
-Ganalon
Which is precisely the problem with the whole situation. If you do a bit of reading, the Soviets had a riotously fast initial entry into Afghanistan. Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia and Catholic/Protestant Northern Ireland are examples of just how long an ethnic/religious conflict can simmer in a country and the number of explosions (quite literally in both cases) that can happen when an occupying force withdraws.
A whole lot of red-shirt waving and false accusations about the Democrats' plans doesn't counteract a whole lot of stupidity in the time after the war. It doesn't make "everything okay!" in the Iraq situation.
Give me a Kissinger/Metternich style balance of power any day over an eternal war against an invisible enemy. I miss the days when conservative foreign policy was conservative.
[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Warriorbird]
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Ganalon
One good reason why we have an electoral college.
Too bad Iraq doesn't.
And this, more specifically, is what I was referring to:
"Some admitted they had not even read the document they were voting for.
Bravo?
Sounds like America... what's your point? You got my point. And on the first try. Congrats.
p.s. no spin
ElanthianSiren
12-02-2005, 11:08 AM
Gan, do you even know the cultural differences between Sunni, Kurds, and Shiites? To simply say, "The Sunni are pissed off because they're not the majority anymore!!!" simplifies the problem extensively.
The Sunni are fighting for a westernized dogma, where women have basic things like inherited property rights. Under Shiite and Kurdish systems, property goes to males, while the Sunni allow women to inherit as well. That's just one example.
It boggles my mind to see the problem of something as extensive as familial relationships and the entire framework of a culture boiled down to "They're mad because they're not in power anymore". That is definite propaganda.
-M
Landrion
12-02-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Originally posted by Ganalon
I used to agree with your position Ts'ah.
However, given the influx of inflammatory rhetoric and rabid blind participation by extremist positions on both the far left and the far right. I'm glad we still have an electoral college.
What's really the point of the process? It's dated and our literacy rate, while still pathetic, is substantially greater than when the system was implemented.
Who cares if some states don't get an equal voice ... they don't get it now. Let the popular vote decide and be done with it.
While Im no fan of the electoral college, didnt the Bush/Gore election shake your faith in our ability to accurately tally a popular vote? It certainly shook mine.
For example in that election, should we then recount the entire nation in a close race?
Originally posted by Ganalon
The sooner they can stabilize a system of government then the sooner that government can implement and manage a security force, a national army, start improving on what reconstruction has taken place with schools, utilities, the economy, healthcare, etc... and the sooner we can withdraw the coalition forces.
First off the word coalition is a joke, it was an attempt by the US administration to legitimize the war.
Secondly this new Iraq Government has no legitimacy, the election was a joke, far from fair or inclusive. You can't hold an election when the country is in chaos and war-torn. They are still seen as a puppet of the US Government even by many Shi'ites. The Iraqis will smile & cheer as the US Forces go by but they see them as occupiers and fear them and really hate them. I was speaking with a friend's brother who has recently returned to Toronto. He is an Iraqi who was working in Iraq as a translator for the US military. He tells me the US are hated in Iraq and the Government is seen as a US put up job.
I think stable is a long way off, the factions are too separate and each surrounding country has their own agenda i.e. Turkey doesn't want the Kurds in Iraq to have any autonomy as it will cause problems with Turkey and its Kurds. Iran is pleased a new Shi'ite Government is in place and is making friendly overtures which is pissing off the Sunni's in Syria. There has been a long standing rift between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims especially in the Middle East.
That doesnt mean the whackos wearing bombs will ever die out, but with the proper forces in place, the whackos wont have as much of an impact as they do now. Eventually they'll have as much impact as a bomb toting whacko would have here in the US. Instead of being hailed as a hero, the bomber would be hailed as a criminal, and treated appropriately.
Many of those "wackos" are Iraqis who have more support among other Iraqis than the US media would lead you to believe. If you want a comparison to America, imagine for a moment, China invaded, lets say some Americans collaborated with the Chinese because they saw an opportunity for power. Now another faction of Americans fought the Chinese and the collaborators. They bombed them and attacked them at every turn. Now would those bomb toting Americans be viewed as anything but Heros regardless of what the Chinese did?
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Gan, do you even know the cultural differences between Sunni, Kurds, and Shiites? To simply say, "The Sunni are pissed off because they're not the majority anymore!!!" simplifies the problem extensively.
Yes, and while it simplifies one of the differences, its a prominent difference and thus not incorrect.
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
The Sunni are fighting for a westernized dogma, where women have basic things like inherited property rights. Under Shiite and Kurdish systems, property goes to males, while the Sunni allow women to inherit as well. That's just one example.
Thanks for illustrating that.
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
It boggles my mind to see the problem of something as extensive as familial relationships and the entire framework of a culture boiled down to "They're mad because they're not in power anymore". That is definite propaganda.
-M
That still doesnt discount the fact that losing power is not an important issue, and thus rightfully mentioned by myself in my previous post. Sorry I boggled your mind. :(
Originally posted by xtc
First off the word coalition is a joke, it was an attempt by the US administration to legitimize the war.
Thanks for your opinion, I'm sure someone out there will agree with you. I do not.
Originally posted by xtc
Secondly this new Iraq Government has no legitimacy, the election was a joke, far from fair or inclusive. You can't hold an election when the country is in chaos and war-torn. They are still seen as a puppet of the US Government even by many Shi'ites.
Source? Or is that another one of your opinions? And please make it a recent source, January 2005 is a little outdated as in some of your earlier citings.
Originally posted by xtc
The Iraqis will smile & cheer as the US Forces go by but they see them as occupiers and fear them and really hate them. I was speaking with a friend's brother who has recently returned to Toronto. He is an Iraqi who was working in Iraq as a translator for the US military. He tells me the US are hated in Iraq and the Government is seen as a US put up job.
Far from an expert's review, good to know though.
Originally posted by xtc
I think stable is a long way off, the factions are too separate and each surrounding country has their own agenda i.e. Turkey doesn't want the Kurds in Iraq to have any autonomy as it will cause problems with Turkey and its Kurds. Iran is pleased a new Shi'ite Government is in place and is making friendly overtures which is pissing off the Sunni's in Syria. There has been a long standing rift between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims especially in the Middle East.
Again, source?
Originally posted by xtc
Many of those "wackos" are Iraqis who have more support among other Iraqis than the US media would lead you to believe. If you want a comparison to America, imagine for a moment, China invaded, lets say some Americans collaborated with the Chinese because they saw an opportunity for power. Now another faction of Americans fought the Chinese and the collaborators. They bombed them and attacked them at every turn. Now would those bomb toting Americans be viewed as anything but Heros regardless of what the Chinese did?
Bad analagy.
Originally posted by Ganalon
Some interesting things of note outlined in Bush's Victory strategy.
January 2005 - 8.5 million people voted in Iraq's first democratic election.
This number is a joke see my above post, even the Shi'ites have backed off from this number.
June 2005 - non-elected Suni Arab leaders were invited to participate in constitutional negotiations, demonstrating participation from all of the major sects of Iraq in the development of the new constitution
The Shi'ite majority rule. The Sunni's saw this as nothing more than an empty invitation. Draft a US dictated constitution, let the Sunnis stand in the room as you do it ,then claim the Sunnis were included in the process.
October 2005 - an additional 1 million new voters registered, the vast majority in Suni areas. 10 million total voted in the election to ratify the new constitution. Amendments were made to continue to allow further changes after the new government is established - ensuring proper Suni representation.
Again these numbers are a joke. Plus many have been forced to register who don't want to.
"those who do not take part in the forthcoming elections will be punished.... "sanctions will be taken against those who refuse to vote or go to the polling stations........the government intends to withhold these cards from the families that will not participate in the elections."
(BBC Monitoring 2005)
Don't register to vote you don't get a ration card to eat. Democracy at its finest.
More than 500,000 comments from the public have been received regarding the various provisions of the constitution.
LOL yeah like America and this Constiution sucks.
More than 100 newspapers free discuss political events within Iraq.
Are these the newspapers that the US Government are paying to write favourable stories about the US and the war?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1201/dailyUpdate.html
The judicial branch of the Iraqi government has become an independant branch of government.
Yes we have Judges in Iraq on the Saddam case, who not only have no experience as a Judge, they aren't even lawyers. What they are is Shi'ites who are friendly to America.
The new Iraqi courts are on track to resolve 10,000 felony cases this year. Accountability within society is steadfastly being promoted.
When you don't have to worry about due process and the Judges have no legal training, you can really ram those cases through and get revenge on those Sunnis.
November 2005 - the Arab League hosted a meeting in Cairo to promote Iraqi national reconciliation.
Arab states publicaly supporting the Iraqi constitutional referendum.
The meeting was under the auspices of the Arab League and was backed by the US Government. The meeting was far from a success and was boycotted by leaders in both Sunni & Shi'ite camps.
Sunnis also want recognition for resistance forces and the reconstitution of Saddam's army in order to bring back former regime officers.
Shiites have been skeptical of the conference from the start and strongly opposed participation by Sunni Arab officials from Saddam's regime or pro-insurgency groups.
The conference nearly collapsed on its first day when Shiite and Kurdish delegates stormed out of the closed session, infuriated when a speaker said they had sold out to the Americans.
Later they were persuaded to return after an apology, but the walkout highlighted the sectarian and political divisions at the all-party gathering, which was boycotted by some key leaders of Iraq's Shiite and Sunni communities
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_Reconciliation.html
November 2005 - more than 212,000 trained and equipped, compared to the 96,000 in September of 2004.
November 2005 - more than 120 army batallions are active now as compared to 9 active batallions in August 2004.
November 2005 - three operational air force squadrons are active as compared to none in 2004.
More puppets of the US. I am sure the Sunnis are very happy about this.
September 2005 - NATO inaugurated a new military staff college to help establish and maintain an officer staff loyal to the Iraqi government, not individual groups or tribes.
I think that should read officers and staff loyal to America. Do they really think these people will forget their religion and 1000's of year of their heritage because they took a course?
Iraq GDP grew from 13.6 billion in 2003 to 25.5 billion in 2004. Real GDP is expected to grow at 3.7% in 2005 and forcasted for growth to almost 17% in 2006 - according to the IMF.
Since April 2003 there have been more than 30,000 new businesses develop and its newely established stock market (2004) lists almost 90 companies which trades and average daily volume over 100 million, up from 86 million in 2004.[/quote]
Since the US invaded Iraq and destroyed their infrastructure the Iraq economy has recovered to some extent. Comparing 1993 is hardly objective.
2005 - Iraq has completed its first IMF economic health reportcard in 25 years.
Iraq was one of the top 10 nations in the world before UN sanctions and the US invasion. How does it rank now?
2005 - more than 3,000 cell phone subscribers, up considerably from virtually none in 2003.
Again you are comparing 2003 to 2005. America destroyed the infrastructure in 2003.
Overall it is a very interesting read as well as encouraging.
[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Ganalon] [/quote]
I guess when you stop using cut and paste from FOX news, things don't look so great.
Latrinsorm
12-02-2005, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by xtc
imagine for a moment, China invaded, lets say some Americans collaborated with the Chinese because they saw an opportunity for power. Now another faction of Americans fought the Chinese and the collaborators. They bombed them and attacked them at every turn. Now would those bomb toting Americans be viewed as anything but Heros regardless of what the Chinese did?If the Chinese deposed Bush, they would have a never-ending supply of liberals wanting to have sex with them. Duh.
Originally posted by Ganalon[/i]
Originally posted by xtc
Secondly this new Iraq Government has no legitimacy, the election was a joke, far from fair or inclusive. You can't hold an election when the country is in chaos and war-torn. They are still seen as a puppet of the US Government even by many Shi'ites.
Source? Or is that another one of your opinions? And please make it a recent source, January 2005 is a little outdated as in some of your earlier citings.
The election was in January 2005 thus the stories about the lack of legitmacy of the election are 2005. Sources include Boston Globe, The Independent, Iraqi Al-Sharqiyah TV, LA Times, BBC Monitoring
Originally posted by xtc
The Iraqis will smile & cheer as the US Forces go by but they see them as occupiers and fear them and really hate them. I was speaking with a friend's brother who has recently returned to Toronto. He is an Iraqi who was working in Iraq as a translator for the US military. He tells me the US are hated in Iraq and the Government is seen as a US put up job.
Far from an expert's review, good to know though.
He is an Iraqi who was on the ground in Iraq both with US forces and with Iraqis when US forces weren't around. What better source could one have? He is a Christian so he isn't caught up the Sunni/Shiite thing.
Originally posted by xtc
I think stable is a long way off, the factions are too separate and each surrounding country has their own agenda i.e. Turkey doesn't want the Kurds in Iraq to have any autonomy as it will cause problems with Turkey and its Kurds. Iran is pleased a new Shi'ite Government is in place and is making friendly overtures which is pissing off the Sunni's in Syria. There has been a long standing rift between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims especially in the Middle East.
Again, source?
I have posted sources for these ones many times, please pay attention next time.
But are some for you:
"Iraq's defense minister slammed Damascus on Sunday for letting militants train on Syrian soil and warned that an escalation of violence in Iraq will spill over into neighboring countries."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5411786,00.html
Proof of Syria siding with the Sunnis in thise war and that they are against the Shiites as they are training fighters to combat them.
Regarding Turkey and its opposition to Kurd autonomy in Iraq:
"The entire Kurdish area has been liberated from the anti-Iraq rebels vehemently claimed Mr. Neif Jasim, a member of National leadership and the then information Minister. The forces of Kurdish leader Masood Barzani are controlling entire Kurdistan. Moreover, the USA has failed to get support of the neighboring states like Turkey, Iran, Syria and Lebanon to carve out an independent "Kurdish State" for the reason that if such a kurdish state was allowed in Iraq there was every possibility of its immediate affects on the front-line states"
http://www.thevoiceofmillions.com/VOM-9-2003/Iraq_takes.htm
Here is an article about how the Israeli's are training Kurds to fight in Northern Iraq. Now this could really destabilise things.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L01770092.htm
Regarding Iran-Iraq Shiites cooperation (which I fear could lead to a Iran/Iraq block)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/18/content_3801189.htm
Regarding historical feuds and mistrust between Sunnis and Shiites. Bush can change 1000's of years of history and he was naive to try.
Islam remains rooted in its history of deep mistrust between the Shiite and Sunni sects, which, since the 8th century, have been violently feuding over the issue of succession to the Prophet Muhammad. The past 1,300 years of Islamic history have been almost uniformly marked by episodes of strife between these two sects, and political domination by one group has almost always meant persecution of the other.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/01/opinion/main603212.shtml
Originally posted by xtc
Many of those "wackos" are Iraqis who have more support among other Iraqis than the US media would lead you to believe. If you want a comparison to America, imagine for a moment, China invaded, lets say some Americans collaborated with the Chinese because they saw an opportunity for power. Now another faction of Americans fought the Chinese and the collaborators. They bombed them and attacked them at every turn. Now would those bomb toting Americans be viewed as anything but Heros regardless of what the Chinese did?
Bad analagy.
You may think so but that is exactly how the Iraqis see it.
It astounds me that as an American Christian living in Texas you think you have a clue about the Middle East's history or Iraq because you watch Fox News.
Skirmisher
12-02-2005, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Ganalon
Bad analagy.
While your opinion is clear enough, without at least SOME kind of explanation as to what it is that makes it a bad analogy your opinion in and of itself matters little.
Help me out and explain why you think as you do or it has no more impact than me saying something like "Your opinion on the electoral college is wrong."
Originally posted by xtc
I guess when you stop using cut and paste from FOX news, things don't look so great.
Actually doofus, all the above are taken directly from the Victory report - if you had taken the time to read you'd have seen that.
You've still failed to refute the above with any real sources other than your opinion. Thanks for playing though.
Edited to add: You're one to talk about sources Mr. GOOGLE. You've pasted some reall doozies, and yet you complain (inaccurately of course) about me pulling information from FOX.
:lol: You're a trip.
As stated in the earlier post...
here's the source where I pulled down the Victory Report by Bush.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_11_05_us_iraq.pdf
[Edited on 12-3-2005 by Ganalon]
Originally posted by xtc
It astounds me that as an American Christian living in Texas you think you have a clue about the Middle East's history or Iraq because you watch Fox News.
Actually I base my opinion off of many sources, Fox news being the least of it.
Thanks for the assumption though, it speaks highly of your quickness to lean on stereotypes. I suppose you're going to pull a TOJ and say if you're not from Iraq, or a muslim then you dont know shit.
Whatever dude. Perhaps you should find another hobby.
[Edited on 12-3-2005 by Ganalon]
Originally posted by Skirmisher
Originally posted by Ganalon
Bad analagy.
While your opinion is clear enough, without at least SOME kind of explanation as to what it is that makes it a bad analogy your opinion in and of itself matters little.
Help me out and explain why you think as you do or it has no more impact than me saying something like "Your opinion on the electoral college is wrong."
Agreed, I was short on time as I had to catch my flight before they shut the gate.
Many sources are saying that the people who are on the suicide boming runs arent Iraqi's but foreign insurgents.
Sooooo, the colaboration would not have been with some Americans wanting power with the Chinese. It would have been more accurate if he would have said Mexican insurgents, wanting to help the Chinese, were running around with bombs strapped to their back... well, I would have agreed with it. So as I stated earlier, bad analagy.
Warriorbird
12-02-2005, 10:28 PM
Except if you're not drawing from only conservative sources or part of the initial non-Arabic speaking "democracy team"... you'd understand that amusingly enough... most of the insurgents aren't from Al'Qaeda, Syria, or Iran.
They're from Iraq, be they Sunni, Shiite (There are some), or Kurdish (Yes, there are some).
Wow, you must be saying that all conservatives are wrong. :rolleyes:
Regardless of what the read or what they see, even if its with the liberal media.
If thats the case then we'll see some vast changes when the right people get into power then. :rolleyes:
This armchair debate on who's right and who's wrong is getting tiresome.
Read the report, form your own opinion, and come to your own conclusions. I did, and I have. Be sure I'll be voting my opinion in 2006 and 2008. We'll see you at the polls.
Warriorbird
12-02-2005, 11:18 PM
Ganalon... giving up.
Kind've endearing.
:)
I actually said I disagreed with John Kerry in this thread myself. I agree with several very conservative former generals in their assessment of the problems with our post invasion strategy. If you could credit me with using a source too much it'd be a blog written by a conservative Federal appeals judge and a conservative economist.
But no...I clearly have an entirely one sided opinion. That's okay. You do too!
In doing some more reading, I found an article which refutes my position on the insurgency. Therefore I'll recant my position on earlier positions that they were made up of foreign participants.
Interesting read.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/12/schuster.column/index.html
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Ganalon... giving up.
Kind've endearing.
:)
I actually said I disagreed with John Kerry in this thread myself. I agree with several very conservative former generals in their assessment of the problems with our post invasion strategy. If you could credit me with using a source too much it'd be a blog written by a conservative Federal appeals judge and a conservative economist.
But no...I clearly have an entirely one sided opinion. That's okay. You do too!
1700 airmiles, been awake for 18 hours, and nursing sinus issues all day tend to wear a body down.
Also spending more time arguing here rather than getting needed work done is going to stop, since time invested here has a negative ROI. :(
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.