Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="canon" data-source="post: 169117" data-attributes="member: 8423"><p>It is a sovereign nation still in need of assistance in security as a result of our military defeat over Iraq. We're not putting control in the hands of clan and tribal leaders. While it would facilitate an evacuation, the humanitarian disaster which would follow in the civil war would be on our hands for making a hasty retreat.</p><p></p><p>Making progress, but not ready to leave quite yet.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Fascinating. Irrelevant to the question, but I'm all the better for having read it.</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: Blue">Slothrop: <em>While you are at Google, type this in the box: 'How to Win in Al Anbar'</em>.</span></strong></p><p></p><p>Ok, I saw the presentation. We're not doing that either. The presentation suggested training militia hired by sheiks to serve as police in local areas. When you look at places like Sudan and Afghanistan you begin to see what's already happening in Iraq. And it stems from tribal leaders. Is there a way out via this option? Some think it's the only way out, but that's because the tribal leaders will resort to any level of violence or oppression to control its territory. The most violent wins. It's a far cry from the democracy envisioned by the United Nations as a replacement for Saddam.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So you're saying once we're out of Iraq, the world will embrace us and terrorist numbers will decrease? Unlikely.</p><p></p><p>You keep saying the administration doesn't want it to end, yet fail to say "why". Is this a part of the 'grand vision' you mentioned earlier? I too have some serious reservations about our plan in general. I think Iraq fell much faster than anyone anticipated, and nobody could see the future that the people wouldn't embrace democracy. (Incidently, it's the tribal leaders who don't want that to happen... they want power to themselves.) Again, your goal this whole time has been to convince people "Bush" is guilty. A point better suited to be battled out in a courtroom and providing little if any guidance as to fulfilling our responsibilities as an occupying power in iraq.</p><p></p><p>You say it is un-American to stay the course. I say it is un-American to abandon the Iraqi civilians to a future carved out by civil war and oppressive warlords. I'm glad "your administration" isn't at the helm.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: Red">I googled what you asked, now it's your turn.</span></strong></p><p></p><p>Google: 'occupying power responsibilities'</p><p></p><p>On the very first page you'll see the links I've been using: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, War Crimes Project, American Society of International Law</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Google: 'requirements to end belligerent occupation'</p><p></p><p>On the first page of return links, here's this:</p><p> <span style="font-size: 9px">Source: <a href="http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/sam/bellig_occup_burgess.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/sam/bellig_occup_burgess.pdf</a></span></p><p>Staying the course ceases to be about prolonging the war after all, eh?</p><p></p><p>I await your homework.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="canon, post: 169117, member: 8423"] It is a sovereign nation still in need of assistance in security as a result of our military defeat over Iraq. We're not putting control in the hands of clan and tribal leaders. While it would facilitate an evacuation, the humanitarian disaster which would follow in the civil war would be on our hands for making a hasty retreat. Making progress, but not ready to leave quite yet. Fascinating. Irrelevant to the question, but I'm all the better for having read it. [B][COLOR=Blue]Slothrop: [I]While you are at Google, type this in the box: 'How to Win in Al Anbar'[/I].[/COLOR][/B] Ok, I saw the presentation. We're not doing that either. The presentation suggested training militia hired by sheiks to serve as police in local areas. When you look at places like Sudan and Afghanistan you begin to see what's already happening in Iraq. And it stems from tribal leaders. Is there a way out via this option? Some think it's the only way out, but that's because the tribal leaders will resort to any level of violence or oppression to control its territory. The most violent wins. It's a far cry from the democracy envisioned by the United Nations as a replacement for Saddam. So you're saying once we're out of Iraq, the world will embrace us and terrorist numbers will decrease? Unlikely. You keep saying the administration doesn't want it to end, yet fail to say "why". Is this a part of the 'grand vision' you mentioned earlier? I too have some serious reservations about our plan in general. I think Iraq fell much faster than anyone anticipated, and nobody could see the future that the people wouldn't embrace democracy. (Incidently, it's the tribal leaders who don't want that to happen... they want power to themselves.) Again, your goal this whole time has been to convince people "Bush" is guilty. A point better suited to be battled out in a courtroom and providing little if any guidance as to fulfilling our responsibilities as an occupying power in iraq. You say it is un-American to stay the course. I say it is un-American to abandon the Iraqi civilians to a future carved out by civil war and oppressive warlords. I'm glad "your administration" isn't at the helm. [B][COLOR=Red]I googled what you asked, now it's your turn.[/COLOR][/B] Google: 'occupying power responsibilities' On the very first page you'll see the links I've been using: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, War Crimes Project, American Society of International Law Google: 'requirements to end belligerent occupation' On the first page of return links, here's this: [SIZE=1]Source: [url]http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/sam/bellig_occup_burgess.pdf[/url][/SIZE] Staying the course ceases to be about prolonging the war after all, eh? I await your homework. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top