Iraqis not ready to handle security?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Apr 18, 2004.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 65816


    Dec 3, 2002
    whole story
    So they now admit they never intended to leave? I guess our first hint should've been that they're building permanent military bases there. I'm sure we'll have a very comfortable "relationship" with the new Iraqi government, and a convenient base of power from which to project forces into the rest of the area. Who's next on the list?
    "Foes of democracy", can't get through a press release without bringing up charged words and implying that wanting to leave Iraq is a vote for totalitarianism, eh? Also pretty amusing considering Bremer shut down that newspaper last week.
    Why don't they like us? :confused: :mad: :(
    So the problem with the Iraqi security forces is that they won't shoot their own people? Interesting. If we removed the American troops from the equation, what would the result be, I wonder? It's disingenuous to argue that the security situation is too unstable to leave when you are the one causing the instability. Or at least, it would be if it didn't work on a large portion of the American populace.
    And the longer we stay, the worse it's gonna get.
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
    i watched the (always entertaining) mcglaughlin (sp?) group last night. pat buchanan brought up that it's imperative the administration get the US troops out of iraq quickly and turn over the whole thing to the UN.

    not only did he assert that the administration is currently working on it, but everyone else there agreed it was happening. as a public example of evidence, he cited the cooperation w/ UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi.
  3. SlyHunter macrumors newbie


    Apr 13, 2004
    first people, mostly the democrats, demanded that Bush comes up with a date of when we are going to get out of there. Get real took 6 years at then end of WWII before we stopped loosing soldiers daily due to NAZI sympathizers and we are still there. Anyhow he gave in and thru in an arbitrary date of June 30th which was a mistake because you can't predict these things. Not that accurate especially when there are factions who will do there best to make sure you don't make that date. Anyhow then people, mostly democrats, were saying "no that date is too soon its too unrealistic." etc. I mean like duh of course we are going to have a base or two in the country for a very long time. Smart thing to do is move a couple of those German bases over there for think of it why do we still have bases in Germany? That really makes no sense. And whether were there or not the Iraqi cops will still not want to shoot at their own. But that is how you police your own. Maybe if the Palestinians learned that they wouldn't have to build that wall.
  4. Sayhey macrumors 68000


    May 22, 2003
    San Francisco
    Brahimi's role is an interesting one. The Bush administration has been brought kicking and screaming to the realization that the UN must play more of a role than just an organizer of elections, and Brahimi's suggestions might actually make the situation better. His proposed government - picked by him, not by the US, albeit with consultation with the US and Iraqis, might have more credibility than the thoroughly discredited current governing council. If he can get respected Iraqis to participate it might give us some breathing room. However, events on the ground, particularly around the holy sites, might outrun Brahimi's work. I hope his efforts payoff, but it will depend on our troops backing off from forcing a final confrontation with Moqtada al Sadr and ending the slaughter in Fallujah. In short, it will take some measure of finesse - something that has been sorely lacking up to this point. Of course, there is no guarantee that Kofi Annan will go along with any of it given the lack of security for the UN.

Share This Page