Iraqi Army "Saves British Troops"

[Buck Armstrong]

OK, I'm no Bush fan and the war in Iraq has been an epic disaster, but for some reason I like this story...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5206284.stm

 

[StepUp]

Here's to continued improvement in Iraq (I don't support the war, but I'd never wish harm on the Armed Services)

 

[Aimster]

They are doing most of the work now. They outnumber U.S troops as well.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aimster
They are doing most of the work now. They outnumber U.S troops as well.

While I will certainly agree that they are improving after that embarrassing story a while ago about how few Iraqi troops there were, your comment is a load of crap. Fully trained, combat ready Iraqi troops and police ready to operate on their own still do not outnumber US troops...and those that do exist are certainly not doing most of the work. At best they are assisting more and more in US operations.

Were your comment to be true, we'd be able to leave, no?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aimster
They are doing most of the work now. They outnumber U.S troops as well.

While I will certainly agree that they are improving after that embarrassing story a while ago about how few Iraqi troops there were, your comment is a load of crap. Fully trained, combat ready Iraqi troops and police ready to operate on their own still do not outnumber US troops...and those that do exist are certainly not doing most of the work. At best they are assisting more and more in US operations.

Were your comment to be true, we'd be able to leave, no?

No.

U.S. moving more troops into Baghdad

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aimster
They are doing most of the work now. They outnumber U.S troops as well.

While I will certainly agree that they are improving after that embarrassing story a while ago about how few Iraqi troops there were, your comment is a load of crap. Fully trained, combat ready Iraqi troops and police ready to operate on their own still do not outnumber US troops...and those that do exist are certainly not doing most of the work. At best they are assisting more and more in US operations.

Were your comment to be true, we'd be able to leave, no?

How are my comments BS? the number of iraqi troops are far more than the current U.S troops inside Iraq.

U.S troops have given far more duties to Iraqi troops in the last few months. Why do you think the number of U.S troops dying inside Iraq has dropped so much?

It isn't hard to train Iraqi troops when Iraq had a 1,000,000 man army in 1990.

We cant leave Iraq because nobody knows what is going to happen when we leave. Iraq is not stable. Having an Iraqi army doesn't mean the govt. is stable. It could lead into a full scale civil war.. it proably would.

 

[keldog7]

Those of you commenting on troop numbers and the situation in Iraq...
Do either of you live in Iraq, and specifically have information on troop deployment and "state of readiness". I'd bet against it.

In the meantime, if you're based in the US, most of the information you get in the media is so biased and doctored, that its really just American/Iraqi-US propaganda.

Ultimately, Iraq is a mess...that's about the only fact I can draw from the last few years of events.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aimster
They are doing most of the work now. They outnumber U.S troops as well.

While I will certainly agree that they are improving after that embarrassing story a while ago about how few Iraqi troops there were, your comment is a load of crap. Fully trained, combat ready Iraqi troops and police ready to operate on their own still do not outnumber US troops...and those that do exist are certainly not doing most of the work. At best they are assisting more and more in US operations.

Were your comment to be true, we'd be able to leave, no?

How are my comments BS? the number of iraqi troops are far more than the current U.S troops inside Iraq.

U.S troops have given far more duties to Iraqi troops in the last few months. Why do you think the number of U.S troops dying inside Iraq has dropped so much?

It isn't hard to train Iraqi troops when Iraq had a 1,000,000 man army in 1990.

We cant leave Iraq because nobody knows what is going to happen when we leave. Iraq is not stable. Having an Iraqi army doesn't mean the govt. is stable. It could lead into a full scale civil war.. it proably would.

I believe that's the point. U.S. troops can't leave because Iraq would go swiftly from the low grade civil war it's in right now to full scale civil war.

The Iraqi security forces have been infiltrated by various militias. The forces are loyal to their own leaders, not the U.S. puppet government in the Green Zone.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aimster
They are doing most of the work now. They outnumber U.S troops as well.

While I will certainly agree that they are improving after that embarrassing story a while ago about how few Iraqi troops there were, your comment is a load of crap. Fully trained, combat ready Iraqi troops and police ready to operate on their own still do not outnumber US troops...and those that do exist are certainly not doing most of the work. At best they are assisting more and more in US operations.

Were your comment to be true, we'd be able to leave, no?

How are my comments BS? the number of iraqi troops are far more than the current U.S troops inside Iraq.

U.S troops have given far more duties to Iraqi troops in the last few months. Why do you think the number of U.S troops dying inside Iraq has dropped so much?

It isn't hard to train Iraqi troops when Iraq had a 1,000,000 man army in 1990.

We cant leave Iraq because nobody knows what is going to happen when we leave. Iraq is not stable. Having an Iraqi army doesn't mean the govt. is stable. It could lead into a full scale civil war.. it proably would.

You're contradicting yourself...if Iraqi troops were doing most of the work and represented most of the troops in Iraq, US forces would not be the critical linchpin of the whole operation. The fact that our departure would plunge Iraq into full-scale civil war (and I think it would) and the fact that we're moving MORE troops into the country suggests to me that Iraqi troops are not being all they could be, otherwise (I repeat) our presence would not be so dangerously critical.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: keldog7
Those of you commenting on troop numbers and the situation in Iraq...
Do either of you live in Iraq, and specifically have information on troop deployment and "state of readiness". I'd bet against it.

In the meantime, if you're based in the US, most of the information you get in the media is so biased and doctored, that its really just American/Iraqi-US propaganda.

Ultimately, Iraq is a mess...that's about the only fact I can draw from the last few years of events.

Specific information isn't really relevant to the discussion at any rate, the only real judge is effectiveness. It doesn't matter how many troops Iraq has if they aren't taking over the jobs of US soldiers. Bush has said, time and time again, that as Iraqis stand up...we'll stand down. We aren't standing down, so I can really only conclude one thing about the Iraqis...

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: keldog7
Those of you commenting on troop numbers and the situation in Iraq...
Do either of you live in Iraq, and specifically have information on troop deployment and "state of readiness". I'd bet against it.

In the meantime, if you're based in the US, most of the information you get in the media is so biased and doctored, that its really just American/Iraqi-US propaganda.

Ultimately, Iraq is a mess...that's about the only fact I can draw from the last few years of events.

How do you know that if you don't live in Iraq? You just invalidated their info on the basis of claims which almost certainly apply to your info as well. wth

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: keldog7
Those of you commenting on troop numbers and the situation in Iraq...
Do either of you live in Iraq, and specifically have information on troop deployment and "state of readiness". I'd bet against it.

In the meantime, if you're based in the US, most of the information you get in the media is so biased and doctored, that its really just American/Iraqi-US propaganda.

Ultimately, Iraq is a mess...that's about the only fact I can draw from the last few years of events.

How do you know that if you don't live in Iraq? You just invalidated their info on the basis of claims which almost certainly apply to your info as well. wth

The very idea that all information must be first hand is ludicrous. I know the situation bush created in Iraq is a total mess because I can READ!

Can you read? Then read this and you'll know it too. 😉

ANALYSIS-Gloom descends on Iraqi leaders as civil war looms

21 Jul 2006 13:02:08 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Mariam Karouny

BAGHDAD, July 21 (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders have all but given up on holding the country together and, just two months after forming a national unity government, talk in private of "black days" of civil war ahead.

Signalling a dramatic abandonment of the U.S.-backed project for Iraq, there is even talk among them of pre-empting the worst bloodshed by agreeing to an east-west division of Baghdad into Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim zones, senior officials told Reuters.

Tens of thousands have already fled homes on either side.

"Iraq as a political project is finished," one senior government official said -- anonymously because the coalition under Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki remains committed in public to the U.S.-sponsored constitution that preserves Iraq's unity.

One highly placed source even spoke of busying himself on government projects, despite a sense of their futility, only as a way to fight his growing depression over his nation's future.

"The parties have moved to Plan B," the senior official said, saying Sunni, ethnic Kurdish and majority Shi'ite blocs were looking at ways to divide power and resources and to solve the conundrum of Baghdad's mixed population of seven million.

"There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into east and west," he said. "We are extremely worried."

On the eve of the first meeting of a National Reconciliation Commission and before Maliki meets President George W. Bush in Washington next week, other senior politicians also said they were close to giving up on hopes of preserving the 80-year-old, multi-ethnic, religiously mixed state in its present form.

"The situation is terrifying and black," said Rida Jawad al -Takki, a senior member of parliament from Maliki's dominant Shi'ite Alliance bloc, and one of the few officials from all the main factions willing to speak publicly on the issue.

"We have received information of a plan to divide Baghdad. The government is incapable of solving the situation," he said.

As sectarian violence has mounted to claim perhaps 100 lives a day and tens of thousands flee their homes, a senior official from the once dominant Sunni minority concurred: "Everyone knows the situation is very bad," he said. "I'm not optimistic."

RESIGNED TO INEVITABLE?

Some Western diplomats in Baghdad say there is little sign the new government is capable of halting a slide to civil war.

"Maliki and some others seem to be genuinely trying to make this work," one said. "But it doesn't look like they have real support. The factions are looking out for their own interests."

The presence of 140,000 heavily armed foreign troops, most of them Americans, is keeping a lid on open grabs for territory by armed groups from various communities. But few see Washington willing to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely and many analysts question the new, U.S.-trained Iraqi army's cohesion.

Broadly speaking Iraq could split in three: a Shi'ite south, Kurdish north and Sunni Arab west. But there could be fierce fighting between Arabs and Kurds for Mosul and for Kirkuk's oil as well as urban war in Baghdad, resembling Beirut in the 1970s.

Officials say the Tigris river is already looking like the Beirut "Green Line", dividing Sunni west Baghdad, known by its ancient name of Karkh, from the mainly Shi'ite east, or Rusafa.

The U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Washington's top military commander issued a public appeal this week: "We call on Iraqi leaders to take responsibility and pursue reconciliation not just in words, but through deeds as well," they said.

But a European diplomat said: "I wonder if accepting there must be division, and civil war, might be the only option ... It may be unavoidable and so it's better to get it over with."

GRAVE SITUATION

In public, Iraqi and U.S. officials make no secret of the gravity of the situation, five months after the destruction of a a Shi'ite shrine at Samarra launched a new phase of conflict, with Shi'ite militias now as lethal as Sunni insurgents.

Maliki has called his national reconciliation plan, offering amnesty for some rebels and promising to rein in militias, the "last chance" for peace. Khalilzad has said the government, hailed by Bush as a major success for U.S.-installed democracy in the Middle East, has just months to prove itself.

Even militia commanders say popular anger means ordinary people, most of them armed, are ignoring calls for restraint.

Shi'ite member of parliament Takki said: "People are taking the protection of their neighbouroods into their own hands."

Maliki meets Prime Minister Tony Blair in London on Monday before seeing Bush at the White House on Tuesday. Both leaders, penalised in polls since the 2003 invasion, will expect him to tell U.S. and British voters of his hopes for a new Iraq.

He may focus on Saturday's meeting of the Reconciliation Commission, expected to feature loud public calls for unity.

In private, however, one of his top officials confided earnestly: "To be honest, it's all over. I'm just still doing this job because it's the only way to fight my depression."

 

[maluckey]

The very idea that all information must be first hand is ludicrous

For once we agree on Iraq!

I know first hand and nobody listens to me! 🙂

It's very likely that nobody will change their mind on Iraq, or anything else that does not involve money in their pockets. That's the issue with the "all about me" group that is current western society.

 

[keldog7]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: keldog7
Those of you commenting on troop numbers and the situation in Iraq...
Do either of you live in Iraq, and specifically have information on troop deployment and "state of readiness". I'd bet against it.

In the meantime, if you're based in the US, most of the information you get in the media is so biased and doctored, that its really just American/Iraqi-US propaganda.

Ultimately, Iraq is a mess...that's about the only fact I can draw from the last few years of events.

How do you know that if you don't live in Iraq? You just invalidated their info on the basis of claims which almost certainly apply to your info as well. wth

You are correct, of course. Perhaps I should not have used the word "fact". In the absence of seeing it for myself, my own view is also a subjective observation. However, you must agree that calling "Iraq a mess" is an easier statment to defend than "XYZ troops are doing most of the work in Iraq", given the pictures and video shown on just about every [admittedly biased] news agency on the planet.

Just the same, my point was simply that we can argue the "minutiae" of the Iraqi conflict all day long, peering from a distance into our computer screens - regardless, the true state of affairs in that country is going to be far too complex to be interpreted without detailed military information. I also think that you can't judge Iraqi troops based on some "effectiveness" benchmark. I personally don't believe that the US military command *wants* to leave Iraq (though some of the US population might want them to). As a result of shoddy US media reporting, and a pinch of US government interference (...also known as "spin"), how can you believe *anything* you hear from the US adminstration on Iraq?
/sarcasm on/ I sure am glad that I'm safe from Saddam, and the weapons of mass destruction he was threatening to use or sell to terrorists /sarcasm off/

 

[keldog7]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: keldog7
Those of you commenting on troop numbers and the situation in Iraq...
Do either of you live in Iraq, and specifically have information on troop deployment and "state of readiness". I'd bet against it.

In the meantime, if you're based in the US, most of the information you get in the media is so biased and doctored, that its really just American/Iraqi-US propaganda.

Ultimately, Iraq is a mess...that's about the only fact I can draw from the last few years of events.

How do you know that if you don't live in Iraq? You just invalidated their info on the basis of claims which almost certainly apply to your info as well. wth

The very idea that all information must be first hand is ludicrous. I know the situation bush created in Iraq is a total mess because I can READ!

Can you read? Then read this and you'll know it too. 😉

[/quote]

As a matter of FACT, I can read. In several languages, in fact. Did I say that "all information must be firsthand"? No. Maybe you should pose yourself your own question. I do believe that we should examine information critically - the garbage "news" the US media outlets distribute is closer to propaganda than anything else (in many cases). I try to go out of my way to read news from a variety of sites, to balance the "Bush-chant" coming off of the BBC and CNN. English.AlJazeera.net takes a fairly even (though pro-Islam) stance - though the US gov't hates them because AlJazeera makes them look like a$$holes. The french site www.20minutes.fr also offers a different opinion on many matters.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Aimster
They are doing most of the work now. They outnumber U.S troops as well.

:shocked: :roll: :laugh: