[eklipse]

Iraqi handover to be speeded up

The chief US administrator in Iraq has said he wants to accelerate the handover of authority to Iraqis.

Paul Bremer told a news conference in Baghdad his aim was to give Iraqis a "path and a timeline" for the transfer of power from the US-led coalition.

He also promised to speed up the training of Iraqi soldiers and police to respond to ongoing attacks.

Perhaps those RPG attacks did the trick, eh?

[RooneyX]

Sure, now a dictatorship worse than the last one will come to power. Probably all planned by the crony squad who sit in the safe homes and bunkers all day playing the stock market. And I'm not talking about people just in one country, these corrupt folk are insiders from many nations and cultures. A human problem - powerful people feeding of the weak using religion and nationality as an excuse for conflict.

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Iraqi handover to be speeded up

Perhaps those RPG attacks did the trick, eh?

no, but they have added a very strong sense of urgency to the situation.

if the US were to abandon Iraq, then the terrorism could be called a success.

The sooner the Iraqis can take over street and building security and policing their own, the fewer US forces are needed (less money spent) in the region, the safer it is for US forces (not as exposed to attacks), and the better the PR image (less visible presence of US forces.

it's pretty simple--that's why I don't think you think it's been a success. You're capable of the same reasoning processes I am.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
if the US were to abandon Iraq, then the terrorism could be called a success.

Well Bremer wasn't talking about 'paths', 'timelines' and 'transfers of power' - or any other synonyms for 'exit strategy' - with any real sense of urgency until now. There has also been talk of speeding up the training of an Iraqi police force in response to the increase in militant attacks. It would seem that the 25 attacks per day are taking there toll on Coalition forces.

[Spliffdaddy]

Small price to pay in order to liberate a nation.

Unless you feel the freedom of the Iraqi people isn't worth a few American lives.

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Well Bremer wasn't talking about 'paths', 'timelines' and 'transfers of power' - or any other synonyms for 'exit strategy' - with any real sense of urgency until now. There has also been talk of speeding up the training of an Iraqi police force in response to the increase in militant attacks. It would seem that the 25 attacks per day are taking there toll on Coalition forces.

well of course they're taking their toll. I won't argue that. But as long as the US and Brits don't tuck tail and abandon Iraq to the militants, terrorists, radical mullahs, and cancerous foreign Arab influence, then the terrorism will be unsuccessful.

[Spliffdaddy]

...and the peaceniks will be wrong.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
no, but they have added a very strong sense of urgency to the situation.

if the US were to abandon Iraq, then the terrorism could be called a success.

The sooner the Iraqis can take over street and building security and policing their own, the fewer US forces are needed (less money spent) in the region, the safer it is for US forces (not as exposed to attacks), and the better the PR image (less visible presence of US forces.

it's pretty simple--that's why I don't think you think it's been a success. You're capable of the same reasoning processes I am.

That is the "plan" that should have been in places since before the campaign started. The American people knew this was what would ultimately happen. For sure the US government knew...

now why these attacks had to take place for this plan to go into effect (rather than treat it as an urgent situation from day 1)... Yea, bush is out to protect the US. He's out for his own interests.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Small price to pay in order to liberate a nation.

Unless you feel the freedom of the Iraqi people isn't worth a few American lives.

Very true. Prob. one of the closest to blood-free takeovers ever.

Although I think American lives are worth the US government planning an invasion before hand... rather than a half assed operation with lack of funds.

Could have been done a lot better than it was. Many civilians died because the US didn't think about/prepair security before hand... and so did many US soldiers.

Could have been prevented if Bush took his own father's advice and made sure post-war plans were in place (including having the money in the bank).


This would have been a great war, had it been conducted by the French. I think the US military is capable of a bit more than a French campaign... much more.

[pooka]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Very true. Prob. one of the closest to blood-free takeovers ever.

This would have been a great war, had it been conducted by the French. I think the US military is capable of a bit more than a French campaign... much more.

Uh, let me just get it out there that I'm not one of the guys who likes to bag on the French military. I consider their special forces to some of the best in the world (but not even close to the Aussies). But I was under the impression that the French had trouble with their limited involvement in the Kosovo war and seriously doubt they could have managed a fraction of what the US accomplished in the short timeframe that they did. Comes down to the numbers. Troops and money.

Postwar and I'd have to say the same. Troops, armor and money. They aint got it. Now if you're talking management then it's still debatable. The scale is completely different than anything I've read about in modern warfare.

IMHO, IANAL, CYA, I made all this up.

[Mohammed Atef]

pooka don't sweat robert. He's off his rocker most of the time. I spend a lot of my time shooting down his stuff, but it's like beating my brains againt a brickwall for all the good it does to enlighten him.

meh.

[Troll]

Okay, I'm going to say it. People criticised me here for being premature when I said that they would never find WMD in Iraq, they said the same when I proclaimed Iraq a quagmire. Only fair for me to call this shot prematurely. Does anyone else get the feeling that the tide has turned in Iraq? I think it will become ungovernable in the very near future ... and when that happens, the US will be faced with another Vietnam or Somalia ... a situation where you can't win.

Casualty rate is up from 1 to 2 per day. Today, the Iraqi Resistance shot down a Chinook, conducted numerous attacks on convoys and met the daily quota of GI's in just one attack! Civilian casualties are up exponentially this month, parents are keeping their kids home out of fear of them being killed, crime is way out of control, NGO's are leaving. US targets are surrounded by Iraqis chanting and cheering the deaths of their occupiers. Looks to be well on the way to becoming ungovernable. When that happens, the GI's will merely be targets for Resistance members and terrorists.

Bremer is now talking of "accelerating the handover of power." Tail, legs?

[Spliffdaddy]

Patience, young grasshopper.

Don't underestimate people. Remember, they are inherently good.

Since we're prematurely patting ourselves on the back in this thread, I'll go on record as saying "I told you so".

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Don't underestimate people. Remember, they are inherently good.

... So, if they are inherently good (which might well be true - under certain circumstances, which are definitely not those found in today's society), they wouldn't need officially sanctioned forms of violence - such as guns, armies, etc. - maybe...

[pooka]

Originally posted by Sven G:
they wouldn't need officially sanctioned forms of violence - such as guns, armies, etc. - maybe...

Uh, hello, the Borg?

[christ]

Originally posted by pooka:
Uh, hello, the Borg?

Doesn't count - in that case "resistance is futile".

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Small price to pay in order to liberate a nation.

Unless you feel the freedom of the Iraqi people isn't worth a few American lives.

Perhaps so, but, this adventure has already cost the lives of hundreds of Americans and over ten thousand Iraqis - and Iraq is still not 'free'.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
But as long as the US and Brits don't tuck tail and abandon Iraq to the militants, terrorists, radical mullahs, and cancerous foreign Arab influence, then the terrorism will be unsuccessful.

Give them a few more months and a few more downed Chinooks and we'll see.

[jbartone]

"Bring it on"

/me shakes head

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Patience, young grasshopper.

Don't underestimate people. Remember, they are inherently good.

Since we're prematurely patting ourselves on the back in this thread, I'll go on record as saying "I told you so".

people are inherently good?

so....when spliffdaddy says things like this:

I'd suggest that the Middle East has earned the resentment of the United States - not the other way around.

Seriously.

The fact of the matter is that Americans (from my observation) don't really give a crap what the Middle East thinks of the United States. Sorry to inform you of this.

There is little or no chance of us warming up to a bunch of foreign folks halfway around the world that do not share our culture, values, or tradition - just to appease a handful of suicidal brainwashed religious nutjobs.

...you seem to be labeling an entire region of NOT being good. or accurately portraying spliffdaddy as not being good for not caring what happens to them...either way, in this one statement you illustrate how people are NOT inherently good, but are rather only interested in promoting their selfish concerns...right?

you can't have it both ways...you can't invoke "people are inherently good" to support the war in Iraq as being right, while invoking "suicidal brainwashed religious nutjobs" as how those people are inherently bad to support the war in Iraq as being right.