|
Thadius -> RE: CBS edits out McCain gaffe.Then McCain whines about media bias?! (7/24/2008 4:11:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bipolarber
Would the Awakening survive without the US there? Yes. It would. The insurgents are there because WE are there. We leave, and suddenly the population of Iraq turns against these assholes who were responsible for the long, drawn out occupation. That's what they started a good half a year before the surge was approved.
If you think that Iran would not have taken full advantage of the vacuum that would have been created if we pulled out instead of the change in strategy, you are delusional.
If there was no surge or American support the "Awakening" groups would have been put under by the Iraqi government... Try reading this column for a bit of info http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/71662/
"To date, the U.S. military has paid more than 17 million dollars to these fighters, whose groups it calls "Concerned Local Citizens" and "Awakening Forces." Each member receives around 300 dollars monthly. Many are former resistance fighters who used to attack occupation forces.
These new forces now have a strength of more than 76,000. According to the U.S. military, at least 82 percent are Sunni. It hopes to add another 10,000."
"The groups have been credited with chasing foreign fighters out of cities in al-Anbar province to the west of Baghdad, and also from parts of Baghdad. But members of these groups are often accused of extortion, corruption, and brutal tactics.
The Shia-led government has opposed creation of groups who might rival its own security forces, which comprise many members of former Shia militias."
Oh, and one more thing... you do understand the term sectarian violence? The surge provided a buffer between the opposing sects, and allowed for them to pursue diplomatic solutions to their issues, as opposed to blowing up each others communities.
quote:
I really don't see why republicans keep wanting to change their own words. They siad when the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. (They have started to do so.)
They said that when the Iraq government asks us to leave, we will leave. (They have.)
What's next? Will Bush fall back on his original reason to be there, and say we're going to stay, until we find those stockpiles of WMD that threaten every US city?
Uhm... talks are already underway. Did you realize that most of the "surge" troops are scheduled to be pulled out by the end of this month?
The following is from a Washington Post article dated July 8, 2008.
"The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal," Maliki said, according to a statement released by his office. "In all cases, the basis for any agreement will be respect for the full sovereignty of Iraq."
"Indeed, Sadiq al-Rikabi, a top political adviser to Maliki, said any timetable would be conditioned on the ability of Iraq's security forces to secure the country, something the government has long said. "In that case, American forces should return home," Rikabi said, adding that there were no discussions so far of specific dates for a U.S. withdrawal. "
|
|
|
|
