Iraqis; 'Surge' a failure.
- Thread starter moono
- Start date
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Petraeus knows his job is to stall until Bush is out of office - he wouldn't have got the job in the first place unless he agreed to that.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
moono said:
Nah, only the opinions of the Pentagon and the White House count. Remember these were the same folk who told us all that the "Iraqis would welcome our troops with garlands of flowers".
Depends what you mean by "matter", but then you know that already!
Juan Cole is worried, probably rightly, that the collapse of Iraq is going to get pinned on the next President, most likely a Democrat, unless they're very clever indeed:
http://www.juancole.com/
Juan Cole is worried, probably rightly, that the collapse of Iraq is going to get pinned on the next President, most likely a Democrat, unless they're very clever indeed:
http://www.juancole.com/
He also like Petraeus:
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I don't think there is a plan anymore - beyond trying to hang on for as long as possible and just hope the entire region doesn't explode into unpredictable chaos.
The parameters of potential outcomes might yet still broaden considerably.
The parameters of potential outcomes might yet still broaden considerably.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
"Embassy" is a terrific euphemism here. It's armoured, it's full of soldiers. "Base" is the more usual termTAE said:
It has become clear that the US/UK have already lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been defeated militarily, and cannot win. Good. It seems to me that the scale of their defeat will not become clear for a few years, but that they have been defeated is clear enough, and is understood as such in much of the non-western media. Lets hope the US and UK get their arse kicked, and get driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere else with their tails between their legs. The defeat of the US/UK allied forces is really a great thing, as now the whole world knows they can be defeated. Fantastic. The Iraqi resistance are really heroes for the whole world as they are the ones who have defeated the US/UK invading forces. This is the opinion that really counts. Iraq will be the graveyard of US/UK imperialism! Death to Imperialism!
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I don't understant what Juan Cole is saying here:
Who is "we" are where are the 'we' "going down" to?
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
He's kind of gone for the inverse of the Last Night of the Proms.
there never was a plan LCLondon_Calling said:
free spirit
more tea vicar?
nah - there was a plan alright, but it had nowt to do with liberation, democracy or freedom, just how to pump billions of dollars of US and Iraqi money into the hands of a few megacorporationss, and get corporate control over Iraqs oil reserves.Detroit City said:
They've pretty much achieved everything they set out to achieve, with both countries pretty much bled dry & Iraq signing over all democratic control to it's oil rights for the next 30 years... job done I reckon.
IMHO the idea of the Surge is to direct sectarian attacks onto US troops so that they have a single enemy, rather than fight each other.
The US wants a leader that is not allied with Iran. At the moment that would make lead me to believe this to be Muqtada al-Sadr who is both anti-Iranian and anti-American. Basically a Shi'i Iraqi nationalist.
I doubt this will work.
The US wants a leader that is not allied with Iran. At the moment that would make lead me to believe this to be Muqtada al-Sadr who is both anti-Iranian and anti-American. Basically a Shi'i Iraqi nationalist.
I doubt this will work.
grogwilton
Well-Known Member
The surge is a time buying exercise and has been successful in it seems helping the Sunni tribes throw off Al Qaeda in Iraq, (though they would probably have dome this themselves at some point anyway) but little else.
The Americans would never side with Al Sadr, as he is quite populist and wouldnt give them the Oil contracts they want. They would never side with Sciri as its Iranian backed. And they cant side with a Sunni because the Shia will never again accept a Sunni leader. And the Kurds, well NOONE wants a Kurdish leader.
Which is why the US are completely fucked in Iraq.
The Americans would never side with Al Sadr, as he is quite populist and wouldnt give them the Oil contracts they want. They would never side with Sciri as its Iranian backed. And they cant side with a Sunni because the Shia will never again accept a Sunni leader. And the Kurds, well NOONE wants a Kurdish leader.
Which is why the US are completely fucked in Iraq.
zoltan69 said:I think you are getting carried away here
You ought to think things through before posting, child.
Why? Is not everything i said correct? Is not the 'surge' a failure? And is it not in fact good that the US/UK are being defeated and the whole world knows it? Why cannot we say what is the truth, and say openly that it is good that the US/UK are losing, that a military defeat for the west is fantastic for the whole world? More importantly, should not all anti imperialists rejoice in the US/UK defeat? So, yes, i have thought before posting, but you cannot reply but only insult. Why? Who the hell are you anyway to tell anyone what they can and cannot post? The Iraqi resistance have been able to defeat the US/UK forces, which is something we should rejoice in, if we are really anti imperialists. Let me ask you a straight question, please answer in an honest manner. If you are against the war, then is it not the best thing for the US/UK to actually lose in Iraq? For the Imperialist project to fail completely?
grogwilton
Well-Known Member
warren said:
Now I see where your coming from.
He met with Abu Risha because he thought it would look good back home. Risha would probably have been killed anyway for his work opposing Al Qaeda, but youre right, someone who meets with Bush has basically sealed their fate.zoltan69 said:
And you dont think at all, just typical English ironic in joke humour that is not political What is the purpose of urban 75 if not to discuss this issue, or is it just chit chat, as kind of left wing big brother gossip chat room? This is the problem tho, the uk left anarchist marxist left are irrelevant to defeating imperialism, and so we just chit chat on the internet about nothing. Why pick on me, and not the other people, as they are clearly talking about nothing, least of all anything of interest to the report? As i understand it, the report is a statement of defeat by the UK/US forces, and this is a good thing. Do you agree with me or not? If not, what the hell is your point? If you do not really have a point, than fuck off and do something else.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
You are right, origen. The problem is that it is all but treason to agree, even though the situation was brought about by the manipulation and dishonesty of the treacherous Blair cabal and their fellow travellers.
There will, eventually, be a proper enquiry into the worst and most stupid and most unnecessary British military defeat for more than a century. I say it was an unnecessary defeat, because we should never have attacked and invaded Iraq in the first place. There was no objective reason* to start the war. It was launched on false pretenses, and was never winnable on that basis.
Once we've had a proper investigation and enquiry into Blair's conspiracy this country will be able to get back to looking after its real interests -- which I agree are post-imperial. It is the real interests of small countries to bolster international law. Sucking up to the latest bully on the planet just ain't smart. That could lead one into anything. As indeed we've seen.
You really cannot tell your friends by the flags they wave anymore. You need to know a person's political compass, and not be too fussed about the particular Church they happen to attend.
*and it's fascinating that so many "leftist" thinkers deny that such a thing as "objective reason" is possible at all
There will, eventually, be a proper enquiry into the worst and most stupid and most unnecessary British military defeat for more than a century. I say it was an unnecessary defeat, because we should never have attacked and invaded Iraq in the first place. There was no objective reason* to start the war. It was launched on false pretenses, and was never winnable on that basis.
Once we've had a proper investigation and enquiry into Blair's conspiracy this country will be able to get back to looking after its real interests -- which I agree are post-imperial. It is the real interests of small countries to bolster international law. Sucking up to the latest bully on the planet just ain't smart. That could lead one into anything. As indeed we've seen.
You really cannot tell your friends by the flags they wave anymore. You need to know a person's political compass, and not be too fussed about the particular Church they happen to attend.
*and it's fascinating that so many "leftist" thinkers deny that such a thing as "objective reason" is possible at all
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
The only problem I have is the insurgents /taliban are far worse than anything the neo cons could foist on the peoples of iraq and afganistian 
.
.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
It was the neo-cons -- the attack on Iraq -- that effectively foisted alq on the Iraqis.
Without the rational of an unjustified foreign invasion, alq would not have gained so much traction in Iraq. That gives cause to believe that in the absense of the invaders the fascist tactics of alq would lose credibility. And that would help the Iraqis to rid themselves of the mass-murderer "jihadists" the unjustified attack and invasion did so much to encourage.
Without the rational of an unjustified foreign invasion, alq would not have gained so much traction in Iraq. That gives cause to believe that in the absense of the invaders the fascist tactics of alq would lose credibility. And that would help the Iraqis to rid themselves of the mass-murderer "jihadists" the unjustified attack and invasion did so much to encourage.
Similar threads
