Murtha Believes Iraq is Civil War/will be

[katlnhats]

Hmmm, I'm not sure we actually need an excuse to attack Iran! I'm sure our Administration can put a wonderful spin-mouthful of reasons why we "have" to! We never seem to even contemplate attacking Saudi Arabia though, do we? And that is where Osama-bin Ladin is from. Too much oil there, I guess.

Kat

[katlnhats]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

I hope that we are getting closer to pulling troops out of Iraq, but at the same time I don't want the current administration/republicans to come back later, and play the blame game if things go down the tubes in Iraq(Civil War).
So we continue to play the wait game that we will stand down-when the Iraqis are able to stand up. At some point soon( 6 months-1year) enough people will demand accountability either positive/negative.

Whatever major decisions are made; whether it is to pull troops out or wait it out, there will always be a blame game. If they were to be pulled out tomorrow, it would be TOO soon, or NOT soon enough.
And usually people complain about the wait and see or the wait game. There will be blame no matter what happens, it's the nature of politics.

Kat

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

Hmmm, I'm not sure we actually need an excuse to attack Iran! I'm sure our Administration can put a wonderful spin-mouthful of reasons why we "have" to! We never seem to even contemplate attacking Saudi Arabia though, do we? And that is where Osama-bin Ladin is from. Too much oil there, I guess.

Kat

All depends on who is willing to play ball with us. The deal with Saudi Arabia is that they will do a better job of cracking down on terrorists against the united states, but not enough to cause confidence problems in the royal family etc. It is a trade-off. Iran is in play because of Israel, and "destabilize the region".


Here is a recent event in Saudi Arabia:

6 suspects dead in Saudi shootout:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

Hmmm, I'm not sure we actually need an excuse to attack Iran! I'm sure our Administration can put a wonderful spin-mouthful of reasons why we "have" to!

Kat

Maybe So, but it is easier to sell to the american public. If Iran is seen as somebody that is helping insurgents in Iraq it helps build the case to support more aggressive action.

[katlnhats]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

All depends on who is willing to play ball with us. The deal with Saudi Arabia is that they will do a better job of cracking down on terrorists against the united states, but not enough to cause confidence problems in the royal family etc. It is a trade-off. Iran is in play because of Israel, and "destabilize the region".


Here is a recent event in Saudi Arabia:

6 suspects dead in Saudi shootout:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Good article first thing. It seems that Saudi Arabia "is" playing ball but some part of me doesn't really believe it, not as much as they want us to anyways. Iran, on the other hand and yes, there is Israel, plus things there are a real mess.
And anyways don't politics = trade-off?

Kat

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

And anyways don't politics = trade-off?

Kat

Only if you don't control both houses with a majority j/k

Trade-Off or Highest Bidder(contributor) ?

[katlnhats]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

Only if you don't control both houses with a majority j/k

Trade-Off or Highest Bidder(contributor) ?

That's perfect!!!!!!!!!! You done spun it right on this one!!!!

Kat (who still thinks you ought to write a book!)

[mrbowler]

I would imagine that this will not be talked about?

From the Embassy, a Grim Report:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"Hours before President Bush left on a surprise trip last Monday to the Green Zone in Baghdad for an upbeat assessment of the situation there, the U.S. Embassy in Iraq painted a starkly different portrait of increasing danger and hardship faced by its Iraqi employees. This cable, marked "sensitive" and obtained by The Washington Post, outlines in spare prose the daily-worsening conditions for those who live outside the heavily guarded international zone: harassment, threats and the employees' constant fears that their neighbors will discover they work for the U.S. government"

[katlnhats]

Do you think it's true? I do.........I remember several months back, when an Iraqi was questioned (by the press, he was not a criminal), as to whether he wanted us there or not.
He said NO, at least Sadam was an Iraqi!
I thought that was a rather weird sentiment at the time.

Kat

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

Do you think it's true? I do.........I remember several months back, when an Iraqi was questioned (by the press, he was not a criminal), as to whether he wanted us there or not.
He said NO, at least Sadam was an Iraqi!
I thought that was a rather weird sentiment at the time.

Kat

Seems like a double edge sword-they don't want the americans to stay permanently, but also realize that once the americans leave that a very good chance of chaos. The safe bet from a political view IMO seems to be exactly what the current administration is doing..you don't draw down a significant amount of troops until after the 2008 Elections. Have you seen or heard any status reports on the ability of the Iraqi's to Stand Up?

[katlnhats]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

Seems like a double edge sword-they don't want the americans to stay permanently, but also realize that once the americans leave that a very good chance of chaos. The safe bet from a political view IMO seems to be exactly what the current administration is doing..you don't draw down a significant amount of troops until after the 2008 Elections. Have you seen or heard any status reports on the ability of the Iraqi's to Stand Up?

Yes, I actually have read a news article that I now cannot find, and the article was focused on how the Iraqi's weren't ready or to put it another way, were behind the timetable we'd thought for getting them trained. Basically, it's way behind.

Kat

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

Yes, I actually have read a news article that I now cannot find, and the article was focused on how the Iraqi's weren't ready or to put it another way, were behind the timetable we'd thought for getting them trained. Basically, it's way behind.

Kat

I read/listened- this from NPR(take with a grain of salt). Interview with Iraqi Soldiers saying that it would approx. 5 years. Not sure if that is 5 years from interview day or from when americans arrived? In order to join you need to pay bribes of $600+ in order to join.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[katlnhats]

Hi,

I have a very good friend in Turkey. He lives there at least half the year, and is sort-of retired military, though he seems to be involved in a lot of things. His feelings are that we should "be" there, but also that the Iraqi troops aren't at all trained, and who knows <?>, may never be. Matter of fact, he e-mailed me a letter that I'll dig out of my files and post here - it's interesting and goes back to the 911 days.

Kat

[mrbowler]

In Iraq, Civil War All but Declared:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"The message is clear, and the message confirms the sectarian differences," said Fadhil Sharih, a leader of the Sadr movement. "It seems clear that it's been moving toward the direction of civil war."

U.S. and Iraqi government leaders have argued that the 150,000-strong foreign troop presence has kept the country from descending into full-scale civil war. But many Iraqi officials fear the threshold has been crossed.

"What is happening in Iraq is a disaster and a tragedy," Adnan Dulaimi, a Sunni Arab leader, said in an interview.

"It's bloodshed and killing of the innocents, killing the elderly and women and children. It's mass killings. It's nothing less than an undeclared civil war."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"The surge in violence has terrified residents of Baghdad and other mixed Sunni and Shiite areas. The Baghdad airport has been flooded with Iraqis of modest means seeking to escape even temporarily the country's upswing in sectarian slayings."

[mrbowler]

U.S. Military says in this article that attacks in Iraq up 40%.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"U.S. spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said there has been an average of 34 attacks a day against U.S. and Iraqi forces in the capital over the past five days. The daily average for the period June 14 until July 13 was 24 a day, he said."


"We have not witnessed the reduction in violence one would have hoped for in a perfect world," U.S. spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said at a news briefing Thursday. "The only way we're going to be successful in Baghdad is to get the weapons off the streets."

"National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said Iraqis will be in charge of security in eight of the nation's 18 provinces before year's end. However, he said the fight against insurgents could last for years."

"There is a detailed plan for the withdrawal of multinational forces from provinces and it started in Muthanna," al-Rubaie said. "It will be followed by other provinces like Najaf, Karbala, Maysan, the three Kurdish provinces, then Wasit."