Iraqi President:US should stay 'up to three more years'

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061102/ts_nm/iraq_france_talabani_dc_4

Three more years doesn't sound that bad. I'm sure we'll always have people in Iraqi or right off the coast for deployment.

Questions of your OPINION:

Do you think that's a plausible amount of time?
Can you take another 3 years of this?
Do you think America will hang-in on this?
What's your current position on what should be done?

 

I'm glad he points out that the media shows only the negative stories. It's so true!

Yes, yes, not the majority (no), and... I say we stay.

 

IMHO, I think we should stay as long as it takes....whether that be 3 days or 3 years...if we cut and run we hand Iraq over to the terrorists..

 

the terrorists being the terrorist the Iraqi people have elected

 

I'm curious how you envision Iraq....well, how you think it would be under your ideals?

And as-is vision forward....

Like let's 'leave now' or 'let's leave in so and so' time. What would occur durning that period, and what would be the general consequences (short/long term) of those actions?

 

Well for one I think the idea the civil war/secratrian violence will be over in 3 years is probably a fantasy.

The idea that the Iraqi police and army will stand up to the militias I think is fantasy also because the Iraqi Polce and army are the militias when they are off duty

here is some news on the people we are training to replace us

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2043664,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1175055,00.html

The Iraqis have "stood up" and started killing each other, hopefully they will kill the Al Queda people just to make sure they don't try to threaten whoever the next strongman is.

I cannot see any of this ending in 3 years, Lebanon's civil war went 15 years.

Like hundreds of thousands of people have died so far , and we havn't even let them go at it yet.

I think that being there is mostly just staving of the inevitable, the 3 groups in the country don't get along, and plenty of them will kill over it.

I think if we stay they will kill each other and put militant islamic people in charge, like sadr

and if we leave they will kill each and put militant islamic people in charge, like sadr

 

So not only is Bush a terrorist, but now every voting Iraqi citizen is, too?? Wow, you have quite a list of friends on your list, don't you now?

 

I don't think anyone has suggested that, have they?

While no one can be sure of the future, I do think it's possible that a generally reputable force can be developed within that time. Not exactly what we would think is good.

Corruption is not unknown to American police, either. We have to give the benefit of the doubt that their country will have it ten times worse than our worst officials.

I read the articles. Nothing seemed to imply that made the majority of the forces or it was overly significant...atleast at the moment.

So you believe that nobody in the Iraqi force is reputable or it will never be generally reputable?

I'm using rather lose standards on 'reputable'. To keep away from Civil war, but still have a democracy of some sort is what I consider 'reputable' enough.

Other than that last thing with Israel, Lebanon was fairly well off. America had to go through it's own civil war, and maybe this secratarian violence is just another matter of excessive steam needing to be released.

It just sounds like you're willingly to give-up, because you believe that all this is inevitable. Sounds like it, but I think I could be wrong.

Would you wish to quit, even if it means an expanded war throughout the region? It's not farfetched to believe that would happen if we left quickly. Maybe even if we stay, but atleast one chose makes it less likely. That's how I see it.

I'm sure their country will not be our ideal...we're talking about a country that was under dictatorship for over generations at a time. Plus the weird religious issues spill over like lava in that region.

I think if we leave too quickly, this is a lot more likely. People will die either way, but the difference is the chances. I'm betting man (ie I love poker), and I think the best odds of winning involve a little backbone and patients...especially in favor of completely undesirable alternatives...almost wholly unacceptable.

This isn't Vietnam, it has bigger consequences if we leave.

 

yeah sure, and at the time people thought if vietnam fell the whole world turn communist one by one

Now BJs buys clothes from vietnam, I just bought a bunch cheap shorts there to wear while cleaning fish, they are all made in vietnam. So much for the big red scare.

No I think they will always be more loyal to their tribe, and sect before they are loyal to Iraq, because Iraq is not real country. Their is no Iraq indentity and it was just lines drawn by the British.

 

People? Who? You don't suppose the slow spread of communism had anything to do with the US winning the Cold War, our rejection of Cuba, The Berlin wall coming down, our troops in South Korea, the war in Vietnam and any other number of actions world wide people have taken to prevent the spread of communism?

Lefties and Anti-American whiners can only see one thing in the fight against Communism>>>>> THE VIETNAM WAR. Because thats the one thing they can twist into an American failure.

Has anyone notified the Pentagon about this?

If thats not proof that communism is good and America is bad I don't what is. If you can buy crappy communist shorts at BJs there was no red scare and we better pull out of Iraq immediately!

 

well the idea that if we leave vietnam it would turn into a devil country appear to have been false

what exactly will be the sign we can leave?

What are we doing there now? What is the goal?

 

We know that the religious difference could easily spill into other regions.

Vietnam was nothing...it really had nothing to offer at the time, and was nothing huge to lose. It was mostly a matter of saving face,...that's about it.

Iraq has the second biggest oil reserve, and is bordered by more than a 1/4 of the world's oil supply. If civil war comes out in Iraq, it's likely that neigbors of different religious sects may start offering assistances and alliances...to restrict the out growth of conflict. That could easily esclate into conflicts of nations throughout the middle east...and a virtual suffocation of the oil supply.

The British... and their line drawing.

 

So when do you think we should leave?

when the violence ends?

What are signs we can leave?

Start? I'm sure they are already funnel arms into Iraq

Hell we seem to helping to arm the militias

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-10-29-missing-weapons_x.htm

When will it be time to leave? It looks like there will be a "risk" of civil war there, until there is a civil war, and that could be forever.

 

I am sure the Iraqis just love the idea of losing everything they own and becoming a refugee in some strange part of the country, welcome to democracy, bitches

What if the security force just becomes an extension of Sadr's army?

As of right now its getting worse, each month, more violent each month, you think that it will start to calm down over the next 3 years?

Is there some hidden info you are seeing that predicts the violence decreasing.

 

They will be there for a lot lot lot longer than that mate. Permanent bases are already there.

The Green Zone might just well be the new Las Vegas a few years down the line.

 

I don't think that's what Democrat Biden had in mind.

Just separate govs for the three separate interest groups (but a loose federalism of interests). I've heard people thinking that's wrong. I'm not quite sure.

To some level I think the current government will force them to deal with each other to some degree. Intergration is never really easy, but to some level it shows benefits of acceptance (in most cases). Will it here.... *shrug*

I have faith that not all people are morons.

I don't see any clear sign that's a significant worry.

The tactics have reverted to concreted forces in certain areas. Our soldiers death's have risen due to the rise in sectarian violence, and tactics of this sort. Previous to the attacks on muslim religious sites, American soldiers were prodominately avoiding conflicts, unless necessary.

The majority of the violence seems to be very guerilla-like.

Violence doesn't really have to calm down to acquire the goal of having the Iraqii forces to take-over.

I'm not predicting the end of violence. I believe the steam will eventually filter out the bad ones. The process may be long or very long.

Why not answer a few questions of mine:

Don't you think it's worth preventing all out war in that region or atleast trying to prevent that?

Would you be willing to chance leaving immediately, if that means that region could have a huge war?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, I don't think the dems have the balls to really leave immediately. I don't think it would come-out very politically well for them. They'll likely continue the funding, and eventually promote something in the middle....which they all should be promoting now.

 

Curious where you get the view of permanent bases. Link?

I'm sure the numbers will not be as significant as they are now.

 

lol, then why can't the Iraqi forces take over now?

who is going to have a war? Shiite VS Sunni? What countries do you think will fight each other?

Saudis against Iran?

 

In order to win in Iraq and keep the peice, the US will NEVER leave, much like Korea. That's the only thing that keeps the South from falling over there, ie., the 40,000+ troops that have been stationed there since the end of the war. Just think if the same had been done in Vietnam, what a different world it would have been there.