Iraqisation of the conflict ?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by padisha emperor, Sep 13, 2004.

  1. padisha emperor
    Offline

    padisha emperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Ratings:
    +53
    Do you think that it is a good idea ?
    In Vietnam the USA did that, a vietnamisation of the war. At least, the communist tanks entered in Saigon.....so failure.

    Now, Bush want to do the same thing. Some say that it is fro Iraq : Iraq is an independant country, and soon iraq could resolve the crisis itself. We make no interference.
    The interference has already been comited.
    And I find this solution really easy and quite onsable : USA came, did war, killed killed killed, devasted all, transform the cities in deserts, and when the situation is in a deepshit, liek now, the US withdraw......like : How, shit ! ...euh, iraq, good continuation, I have to do something now....".

    Esay, isn't it ? When a country bring death and destruction, at less it help to the reconstruction, but doesn't leave before the end.

    Kerry want that the the international community and the NATO help USA. It can be good.
     
  2. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Since you lack both a firm grasp of the English language as well as the situation, i'll spare you the standard response since you simply wouldn't understand it anyway both from a linguistic standpoint as well as an ideological standpoint.
     
  3. padisha emperor
    Offline

    padisha emperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Ratings:
    +53
    speak in french, i'll laugh.
    Not easy for me to speak of politic, religion, war, and several other subject in a foreign language....

    It was just a question....

    Only to know if USA will leave Iraq.
    sure, it wil save US lives. But it is not fair, from a contry who bring chaos.
     
  4. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356

    sigh. I spoke mostly of your lack of understanding to the situation. The US obviously will leave Iraq when the IRaqi forces are capable of defending their country autonomously. I spoke of your ignorance when you say things like...

    USA came did war, we killed, killed killed Saddam's forces and the many terrorists that came from neighboring countries savoring a shot to kill an American.

    Devasting all i think not. More like Liberating 30 million people who otherwise would have lived a life of oppression fearing any opposition to their former regime would result in torture for themselves, their family and all those that knew them.

    The cities were not transformed to deserts when the entire nation IS in fact a desert.

    The situation is not in deepshit when we have performed one of the most successful military operations in WORLD history. Less than 2 years after invasion, we have disposed the old regime and setup an interim government in its place. Elections will be held for the first time in a truely democratic fashion a mere 2 years after we came into Iraq. Post WW2 Germany and Japan took 10+ years before they held democratic elections and we still have troops in both nations. So i would say your statement above is ridiculous.

    As for the rest, perhaps one of our local liberals can translate into better english the normal liberal gibberish.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. padisha emperor
    Offline

    padisha emperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Ratings:
    +53
    And after you dare to tell me that French are arrogant....
    Alexander, Caesar, August, Trojan, Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Philippe II Auguste, Charles VII, Charles Quint, Louis XIII, XIV, Nelson, Napoleon, Bismarck, Foch, Joffre, Eisenhower, Montgomery, Nimitz....you are right, the US invasion of Iraq have to be put on the side of these men....it is the same thing...


    No, you're ridiculous : think one second : maybe it took 10 years for Germany and Japan : but after this time, the 2 countries belong to the heavy weight of the world economy.
    In 1957, only 12 years afetr the war who totally destruct Germany, France and Germany grounded the EU. Before, the both countries alreadu have trade arrangements.

    It took 1 yaers, but HERE you did a really good job.
    The countries were peacful, in good haelth...

    Iraq is at war against USA, not officialy, but every days bombs falling in the green corner where the US and iraqi government are.
    The fact is that the situation is not under the control of the US army. 2 days ago, US tanks have been attacked.

    The government has no power, the democracy is for the moment a real utopy, it's only the rule of the terror.
    the contry is already a desert, but the fight did that the next year, the iraqi desert wuld have grow up....If you see what i mean.

    So, well, great job, you can be proud of you.
    How can you compare the Germany/Japan situation with the Iraqi : Germany was destruct, in ashes : the Ruhr : bombs all days and all nights during several years. Dresde, Hambourg, Berlin, all the German cities...Japan : 2 atmoic bombs and a strong feeling of shame.
    10 years later : magic, they are new and ready for the world.

    Iraq is not.

    Maybe in 10 years, but for the moment.....not really. Even really not.
     
  6. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356

    You prove my point well. You obviously don't have a grasp of the situation so we will leave it at that.
     
  7. drac
    Offline

    drac Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    429
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22
    Padisha, i think you missing a point. In term of military action, this was one of the best military operation in the world. Imho Insein is right on the money. We removed saddam and his regime with minimal amount of deaths both military and civilian and damage done to the country. As you said youself, germany was totally devastated after ww2. In iraq, we were able to start producing electricity in very short amount of time.
    Granted, after the major militiary operations were over, we were not prepared as we should be, imho. But again, perhapse if at that time europe would realized that saddam is over and we are not backing down and join us, instead of .......

    vs
    Do not you contradict yourself here? Is iraq desert and totally destroyed by coalition forces or not? If yes,why not compare it to Germany?

    No one said it will be done in 1 or 2 years. Perhapse 10, it is hard to help others to build a civil and democratic society, especially than country has very little or non of democratic history. So why not join?

    As for your original point of iraqinisation of conflict. Was not France one of the first who said that power needs to be transfered to iraqis right away during the UN meeting, when we went there to ask for help? Even although iraqis themself were not ready. As you pointed out yourself they are not ready even now to totally control they country.
    Both bush and kerry wants international help. the difference is that we will give up. Bush wants military/security control to be with us. Kerry will give up most of it to international organization (correct me, i could be wrong on this simple expaination of the differences). Looking on the action of international community and its ability to act fast, i would stick with bush version (well... my understanding of it at least). What would you choose? (Keep Daufor, Kosovo in mind)
     
  8. nbdysfu
    Offline

    nbdysfu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    829
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +29
    If Kerry is elected, it is a significant probability that he will pull out, leaving Poland, the UK, and the rest of the coalition by themselves.

    Bush and the Republicans will likely carry through with the promise to stay until the iraqis can defend and manage themselves and their political system. Moral responsibilities aside, it is also politically imperative to the Republican platform that the Iraq reconstrution is a success.
     
  9. drac
    Offline

    drac Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    429
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22
    You really think so? Last i heard he was talking about pulling out in 4 years... i assume it is based on the international community and iraqis (hopefully) taking over.
    I do not think poland, uk and the rest will stay if we will pull out. I bet they will be moving out on "the same boat as we are" if it comes to it.
     
  10. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Who the hell knows. He said pull out in 6 months. then he said he'd stay for 4 years. then he said he'd stay as long as neccessary. Then he said we did the right thing and would have gone to war with all we know now.

    Do we wait for him to make up his mind as to what he would do as president or do we not let him get that chance?
     

Share This Page