Iraq Chaos Dims Bush's Vision of Democracy in Mideast

1killercls said:
Please explain why Saddam was a threat.



When I see massive demonstrations from Muslim countries denouncing Radical Islam I will take this under consideration. Right now and pretty much forever this has not happened. So, the "Peace Loving" Muslims to me are just as much at fault. They need to stand up and denouce radical islam.


Not if they are not a direct threat to our way of life. So, No WMD, NO links to Al Queda...how was Saddam a threat?

I think the Muslims on that website do take a stand against the radicals by standing with those that oppose them. But you're right they do need to make their voices louder.

Also just to clarify, my reference to the justification of war in the new testament was in response to the post stating that there is no justification whatsoever in the new testament for waging war, I was not referring to Iraq specifically.

Even though I've stated my stance on Iraq ad nauseum, I'll state it again just so we are clear on where I stand. Had I been the president, I probably would not have gone into Iraq as an initial response to 9/11.

I also admit that the intelligence is not all it could have been. I don't believe that the intelligence was tampered with, I just think that the agencies got it wrong.

But Sadaam had disregareded UN resolutions and he had used Chemical and Biological weapons before, he was kicking out weapons inspectors left and right, so I can see some sense in taking him on before he became an Iran like threat and besides, as crazy as this sounds now, it was probably the softest target.

So there we went and got ourselves embroiled in a hard tough struggle, but I can see a pin-prick of light at the end of the tunnel. If the Iraqi people can make this work, then good can come out of this. Thats my opinion.

You don't have to agree with me, If you don't support the war, I'm not trying to change your mind. Just stating where I stand. We're there, and it would be foolish not to finish what we started. Thats the reality of the situation.
 
Last edited:
1killercls said:
This is a Religious War. WW1 and WW2, Vietnam were not Religious Wars.

Any comparo would be not valid.

So what do you propose. Its an idealogical struggle. A struggle of freedom and liberty vs an idealology of oppression, terror and fear. Even an Atheist can appreciate the values of freedom and Liberty right?

Seriously what do you propose the world does. Just accept the fact that these vicious killer will blow us up at will, we shrug our shoulders and say: Well thats just the way things are?

If you were in command, what would be your realistic strategy to combat the ideology of terror? Keep in mind that we were not in Iraq when the USS cole was bombed, when our embassies were bombed, then the Twin Towers were brought to the ground killing 3000 people. We were not in Iraq.

How would you combat this menace?
 
Donas64 said:
So what do you propose. Its an idealogical struggle. A struggle of freedom and liberty vs an idealology of oppression, terror and fear. Even an Atheist can appreciate the values of freedom and Liberty right?
I propose we do not invade soveriegn nations that are not a direct threat to our way of life.
Seriously what do you propose the world does. Just accept the fact that these vicious killer will blow us up at will, we shrug our shoulders and say: Well thats just the way things are?
Saddam had NO WAY to blow us up. Again, NO WMD, NO ties to Al Queda.
If you were in command, what would be your realistic strategy to combat the ideology of terror?
Start carpet bombing whole cities of the Terrorists home nation. THEN and ONLY THEN will you get the support of the countries of the terrorists to denounce it.

Keep in mind that we were not in Iraq when the USS cole was bombed, when our embassies were bombed, then the Twin Towers were brought to the ground killing 3000 people. We were not in Iraq.
Again...we find the offenders (Bin Laden, Taliban, etc) and kill them. Not invade a country that had nothing to do with any of the actiovities of terror you have listed.
How would you combat this menace?

Find the ACTUAL OFFENDERS and kill them.
 
1killercls said:
I propose we do not invade soveriegn nations that are not a direct threat to our way of life.

Saddam had NO WAY to blow us up. Again, NO WMD, NO ties to Al Queda.

Start carpet bombing whole cities of the Terrorists home nation. THEN and ONLY THEN will you get the support of the countries of the terrorists to denounce it.


Again...we find the offenders (Bin Laden, Taliban, etc) and kill them. Not invade a country that had nothing to do with any of the actiovities of terror you have listed.


Find the ACTUAL OFFENDERS and kill them.

As we're finding out apparently, thats much easier said than done and there are plenty of people who would disagree with you about the whole carpet bombing thing.

People would say that if we carpet bombed an entire city, that would be a gross use of excess force as opposed to the dink-n-dunk, tippy toe method we are currently employing. Either way, we lose!

I myself prefer a strategy of trying to show people that there can be a better life and that there is a better way to the leveling of entire cities.

If you think some people are mad at us for trying to promote democracy in Iraq, they would be absolutely apoplectic if we carpet bombed Syria or some other nation that harbored terrorists.
 
You are failing to realize the only thing they understand is VIOLENCE. Christ someone gets married over there and they celebrate with AK 47's!.

Take out the Sunni triangle and watch how fast you get peace in Iraq.
 
Once we dropped a steady stream of Free AOL CD's on them, they would surrender for sure! If that didn't do them in, once they called and tried to cancel the service, then they would truly be devastated!

b52.jpg
 
the iraq war is a blunder, and nothing good can come out of it. the costs associated with staying are worse than the costs associated with pulling out. in business lingo, it's known as "cutting your losses." even if the iraqi people were able to become semi-autonomous (give em about 10 years for that), the insurgency would remain. the persistence of an insurgency in israel is strong evidence that an insurgency would persist in iraq.

the war on terror absolutely cannot be won by formal occupations and organized, publicized invasions. it must be won behind-the-scenes, in small-scale covert operations. this is what is known as "counterterrorism." when you fight subnational extremists, you are not bombing bridges and electrical power plants and ousting established governments.
 
Last edited:
Doodsmack said:
the war on terror absolutely cannot be won by formal occupations and organized, publicized invasions. it must be won behind-the-scenes, in small-scale covert operations. this is what is known as "counterterrorism." when you fight subnational extremists, you are not bombing bridges and electrical power plants and ousting established governments.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Small scale covert operations are a a very effective tool of fighting terrorism. But this would still require cooperation from the countries that harbor them. Would Syria or Iran grant us permission to go in and hunt these groups down?

And while invading Iraq is not the best move the United States has ever made, how do you change the minds of people who have been trained from birth to hate the west and everything from it? If we provide financial assistance? Aid? Medicine? Would this change their perceptions about us?

How do we show that our way of life beats strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up children?
 
Donas64 said:
I don't disagree with you on that at all. Small scale covert operations are a a very effective tool of fighting terrorism. But this would still require cooperation from the countries that harbor them. Would Syria or Iran grant us permission to go in and hunt these groups down?

I doubt it...commence carpet bombing Syrian cities until they do.
And while invading Iraq is the worst move the United States has ever made, how do you change the minds of people who have been trained from birth to hate the west and everything from it? If we provide financial assistance? Aid? Medicine? Would this change their perceptions about us?
As we all know, MONEY can't buy you love.
How do we show that our way of life beats strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up children?
You cannot change thousands of years of imprinting. They do not understand our ways and view us all as anti-Islam sinners...and we are friends with Isreal.
 
Glimmers of hope perhaps?

http://www.yahoo.com/s/540453

Sunni sheiks join fight vs. insurgency

By TODD PITMAN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Mar 25, 3:39 PM ET



RAMADI, Iraq - Not long ago it would have been unthinkable: a Sunni sheik allying himself publicly with American forces in a xenophobic city at the epicenter of Iraq's Sunni insurgency.

ADVERTISEMENT

Today, there is no mistaking whose side Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi is on. Outside his walled home, a U.S. tank is on permanent guard beside a clutch of towering date palms and a protective dirt berm.

The 36-year-old sheik is leading a growing movement of Sunni tribesmen who have turned against al-Qaida-linked insurgents in Anbar province. The dramatic shift in alliances may have done more in a few months to ease daily street battles and undercut the insurgency here than American forces have achieved in years with arms.

The American commander responsible for Ramadi, Col. John W. Charlton, said the newly friendly sheiks, combined with an aggressive counterinsurgency strategy and the presence of thousands of new Sunni police on the streets, have helped cut attacks in the city by half in recent months.

In November 2005, American commanders held a breakthrough meeting with top Sunni chiefs in Ramadi, hoping to lure them away from the insurgents' fold. The sheiks responded positively, promising cooperation and men for a police force that was then virtually nonexistent.

But in January 2006 a suicide bomber attacked a police recruiting drive, killing 70 people. Insurgents killed at least four sheiks for cooperating with the Americans, and many others fled.

The killings left the effort in limbo, until a turning point; insurgents killed a prominent sheik last year and refused to let family members bury the body for four days, enraging Sunni tribesmen, said U.S. Lt. Col. Miciotto Johnson, who heads the 1st Battalion, 77th Armored Regiment and visits al-Rishawi frequently in western Ramadi.

Al-Rishawi, whose father and three brothers were killed by al-Qaida assassins, said insurgents were "killing innocent people, anyone suspected of opposing them. They brought us nothing but destruction and we finally said, enough is enough."

Al-Rishawi founded the Anbar Salvation Council in September with dozens of Sunni tribes. Many of the new newly friendly leaders are believed to have at least tacitly supported the insurgency in the past, though al-Rishawi said he never did.

"I was always against these terrorists," al-Rishawi said in an interview inside his American-guarded compound, adjusting a pistol holstered around his waist. "They brainwashed people into thinking Americans were against them. They said foreigners wanted to occupy our land and destroy our mosques. They told us, 'We'll wage a jihad. We'll help you defeat them.'"

The difficult part was convincing others it wasn't true, and that "building an alliance with the Americans was the only solution," al-Rishawi said.

His movement, also known as the Anbar Awakening, now counts 41 tribes or sub-tribes from Anbar, though al-Rishawi acknowledges that some groups in the province have yet to join. It's unclear how many that is, or much support the movement really has.

And there is opposition. In November, a top Sunni leader who heads the Association of Muslim Scholars, Sheik Harith al-Dhari, described al-Rishawi's movement as "thieves and bandits." And for at least a year, U.S. forces have also witnessed sporadic firefights between Sunni militias and insurgents in Ramadi, reflecting the growing split among Sunnis. They used to describe such skirmishes as "red on red" fighting battles between enemies. Now they call it "red on green."

But violence in some districts of Ramadi previously hit by daily street battles has dwindled to a degree so low that American soldiers can walk on the streets in some areas and hand out soccer balls without provoking a firefight apparently a direct result of the sheik's influence.

U.S. Lt. Nathan Strickland, also of the 1-77th, said the sheiks were influenced by the realization that Shiite Iran's regional influence was rising, and "the presence of (Sunni) foreign fighters here was disrupting the traditional local tribal structure."

Al-Rishawi and other sheiks urged their tribesmen to join the police force, and 4,500 Sunnis heeded the call in Ramadi alone a remarkable feat in a city that had almost no police a year ago.

Local Sunnis have deeply resented the overwhelmingly Shiite Iraqi army units the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad has deployed here. Sunni tribes have begun to realize that if anybody is going to secure the city, it might as well be the sons of Ramadi, Strickland said.

Also pouring through the streets in police trucks fixed with heavy machine-guns are 2,500 Sunni tribesmen who have joined newly created SWAT team-like paramilitary units. Paid by the Interior Ministry with the blessing of U.S. commanders, the so-called Emergency Response Units are clearly loyal to local sheiks. Some wear track suits and face-covering red-checkered headscarves looking startlingly like insurgent fighters. Others wear crisp green camouflage uniforms bought by al-Rishawi.

The ERU members were screened and sent either on 45-day police training courses in Jordan or seven-day courses at a military base in Ramadi part of an effort to capitalize on the Awakening movement and make use of them as quickly as possible.

"I'd say 20 percent of the credit for the change in Ramadi could be taken by U.S. forces," said Strickland. "The vast majority of the turnaround is due to the sheiks."

Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made his first trip to Anbar province this month, meeting al-Rishawi and saying he applauded Sunni tribes and clans that had "risen up and countered terrorism."

Still, al-Rishawi complained the Interior Ministry had given police and ERU units "one-tenth" of the resources they needed from equipment to guns to food, despite promises to do more. Some of the fighters use automatic weapons they brought from home.

"If I had the tools, I could wipe al-Qaida from Anbar within five months," al-Rishawi said.

Strickland said the government was probably "hesitant to strengthen and supply something that might become a popular Sunni movement."

The message has taken longer to spread to eastern Ramadi, but it's getting through there, too, said Maj. Dave Christensen of the U.S. Army's 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment.

The base he works from used to be hit daily by mortar attacks, prompting outgoing barrages targeting launch sites that inadvertently damaged buildings, killed cattle, and alienated locals. The sheik responsible for the neighborhood where the attacks originated began cooperating with Americans a few months ago, prompting insurgents to attack and burn down his house.

"He fought back, then called and said, 'Hey, I've been helping you, now I could use your help,'" Christensen said.

U.S. forces moved into the now relatively quiet area, and Christensen's base has seen only a handful of mortar strikes since.
 
Last edited:
Smooth1 said:
Hey Donas. Your woman,Hillary,is on Good Morning America.

EWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!

No thanks. I'm happily married. Heck even Slick Willy had to get away from that!
 
Back