Coalition Forces May Be Out Sooner Than You Think

[Diamond Cross]

Since they want us out now, we should leave, but I disagree that we're responsible for the insurgents. After all, the insurgents have been killing Shi'a and Kurds since Saddam and before. Holding us responsible is only scapegoating.

But we should leave because they now want us out.

According to this article, the Iraqi government blames us for the insurgent's violents and now wants us to leave:

My Way News - 23 Killed in Coalition Raids in Iraq

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Since they want us out now, we should leave, but I disagree that we're responsible for the insurgents. After all, the insurgents have been killing Shi'a and Kurds since Saddam and before. Holding us responsible is only scapegoating.

But we should leave because they now want us out.

According to this article, the Iraqi government blames us for the insurgent's violence and now wants us to leave:

My Way News - 23 Killed in Coalition Raids in Iraq

Evidence?
How are you defining 'insurgents'?

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Since they want us out now, we should leave, but I disagree that we're responsible for the insurgents.

Is this the part of the article you are refering to?

Sadrist lawmaker Qusai Abdul-Wahab blamed U.S. forces for Thursday's attack in Sadr City because they failed to provide security.
"We say occupation forces are fully responsible for these acts, and we call for the withdrawal of occupation forces or setting a timetable for their withdrawal," Abdul-Wahab said.

[MoTaVa]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Since they want us out now, we should leave, but I disagree that we're responsible for the insurgents. After all, the insurgents have been killing Shi'a and Kurds since Saddam and before. Holding us responsible is only scapegoating.

But we should leave because they now want us out.

According to this article, the Iraqi government blames us for the insurgent's violents and now wants us to leave:

My Way News - 23 Killed in Coalition Raids in Iraq

insurgent:

1 : a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government
2 : one that acts contrary to the established leadership (as of a political party, union, or corporation) or its decisions and policies

What you are really referring to is the fact that there has been sectarian and ethnic violence in that region for centuries.

I do think maybe we should have closed the borders a little better to make it harder for foreign fighters to keep coming in. After all, they (the Syrians and Iranians) are the bulk of ithe insurgency.

[Diamond Cross]

asvp, yes, that is the aprt of the article I'm referring to and MoToVa has it. Only the press are calling those people insurgents now. The Sunnis and the Shi'a have been fighting for decades, but when Saddam was ruling Iraq, the Sunnis were favored by Saddam and were protected against the Shi'a and kurds.

[avsp]

DC: Are you saying that the insurgents are Sunni?
Are you drawing a distinction between insurgents & those involved in sectartian violence?
How representitive of anything is ' Sadrist lawmaker Qusai Abdul-Wahab'?
Do his words justify the use of the word 'they' "Since they want us out now, we should leave"?

Originally Posted by Motava

After all, they (the Syrians and Iranians) are the bulk of ithe insurgency.

Evidence?

Given the admins, pre-war ,highly publicised hopes that the action would lead to a 'democratisation' of the region it was foolhardy in the extreme not to plan adequately to block the boarders, ..., what did Rumsfeld expect to happen?

Either this failure was done deliberately or he is amazingly stupid.

Much the same can be said about failing to anticipate the sectarian conflict.

Even if one accepts that the plan was for the defeated ISF to remain in place & provide security after Saddam fell, why was no remedial action taken when it was clear that this wasnt going to happen?

Why were no more troops sent?

[motivez]

Our actions have inflamed the situation there, that's pretty clear and easy to see honestly.

We make a good target, and Iraqi's get caught in the crossfire.

[Diamond Cross]

DC: Are you saying that the insurgents are Sunni?
Are you drawing a distinction between insurgents & those involved in sectartian violence?
How representitive of anything is ' Sadrist lawmaker Qusai Abdul-Wahab'?


I am saying there is no real civil war at all the violence is the conflict between the Shi'a and Sunnis and is the same conflict that has been going on long before Saddam was in power.

The recent burnings is the great example.

And no, our presence there did not inflame the situation. The Sunnis would've erupted into it anyway.

Iraq needs a strong leader that would put and end to all of this violence without playing favorites, putting down both Sunni and Shi'a wherever they strike.

And yes, because the government has said they want us out we should leave.

[RMNIXON]

I was hearing on the news today how powerful this Al Sadr guy has become since we let him off the hook. We probably should have put a stop to him when we had the chance? Now he has way too many loyal followers. Probably to late!

[motivez]

We had a chance to kill him when he and his followers were holed up inside that Mosque.. and didn't take it for political reasons.. which may or may not turn out to have been the right decision.

What's interesting is that recent reports have said that as the civil war increases in intensity, he's beginning to lose control over his militia.. and it's starting to fracture.

So, rather than dealing with the "devil we know," we're going to have to deal with a lot of little mini-Sadr's

[RMNIXON]

I think that is why even if we did take a shot at him now it would do no good and possibly make things worse. Just because of the sheer numbers we have to deal with him while his power lasts.

[Diamond Cross]

To whomever did so, thank you for correcting my title. I