All you DC Politic People, help me out

[frankcal20]

I need some help understanding something about the money we spend in Iraq.

I don't understand why we continue to help a country on our dime when we are in such debt yet they have a surplus. I would think there has to be away to make this work out. It is impossible to think that we can pull out all our troops the day after the presidential office changes hands but why do we have to foot the bill?

I would love to know your thoughts on this.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I need some help understanding something about the money we spend in Iraq.

I don't understand why we continue to help a country on our dime when we are in such debt yet they have a surplus. I would think there has to be away to make this work out. It is impossible to think that we can pull out all our troops the day after the presidential office changes hands but why do we have to foot the bill?

I would love to know your thoughts on this.

Simple:

The Republicans have taken the "policeman to the world" baton from the Democrats who after running with it for almost a Century were completely fatigued by carrying it for so long. Sure they sold out what it means to be a Conservative, but the Democrats were TIRED. The Democrats turned around and thanked them by blasting them for being in Iraq for "oil" while the Democrats screamed hysterically for low gas prices and blocked domestic production, exporation and refineries and the only viable large scale alternative, nuclear. So the Republicans decided we were in Iraq for terror, which they got from the Democrats who had gotten it from them and they both forgot that and pointed fingers at each other for lying. So the Republicans said they couldn't conduct a proper war on terror on an Iraqi budget so the Democratic Congress needed to keep funding it, which they did.

Glad I could help out there.

[frankcal20]

?????????????????

What?????

Again, why don't we have Iraq assist us in paying for rebuilding their country.

[Fios]

?????????????????

What?????

Again, why don't we have Iraq assist us in paying for rebuilding their country.

Kazoo's basic political philosophy is: everything is the fault of liberals and Democrats, except when it's not (and that is rare) and even then, liberals suck. Now, to your question: What you are proposing there is exactly what Barack Obama is suggesting we do. The Iraqi government is sitting on massive oil surpluses, Obama has said repeatedly we should make them start investing that money in rebuilding their own country. As for why we do not presently force them to do that, I don't know. I'd assume some of it is tied to who gets to control the money, who gets to pick where it would go, etc. Many Iraqis (and the notion of what defines an Iraqi is still up in the air) don't like or trust many other Iraqis (Sunnis vs. Shiites) and that in-fighting makes them reluctant to cooperate. Besides, why spend it when we so willingly send so much money over there?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

[frankcal20]

Its crazy. I swear it sounds like our Civil war. Do they need to have two separate states?

I don't know what the answer is b/c I do not know the ins and outs of why they are fighting. I think its based on religion.

Well then, there is another reason to vote for Obama.

It only makes sense at this point.

I can not say that I agree 100% with what Obama believes but I guess its who is the lessor of two evils...They are all politicians.

[Deadskins]

Besides, why spend it when we so willingly send so much money over there?

Nevermind that the money comes in the form of bombs.

[Countertrey]

Besides, why spend it when we so willingly send so much money over there?

Nevermind that the money comes in the form of bombs.

Tongue in cheek? I'm sure. And a slap in the face of every Army Engineer and Medic, and Navy SeaBee and Corpsman who is busting his or her hump to lay a water pipeline, or build a school or clinic, or pave a road, or immunize a school full of kids against Tetanus, Diptheria and Pertusis.

Yeah... all the military ever does is kill people.

[Deadskins]

Yes, we are spending much money rebuilding some of what we destroyed. Sorry Trey, you know I'm not anti-military.

[Countertrey]

Yes, we are spending much money rebuilding some of what we destroyed. Sorry Trey, you know I'm not anti-military.

I know it... but that stuff sticks in the minds of some people... and I can't stand that.

[Fios]

Its crazy. I swear it sounds like our Civil war. Do they need to have two separate states?

I don't know what the answer is b/c I do not know the ins and outs of why they are fighting. I think its based on religion.

Well then, there is another reason to vote for Obama.

It only makes sense at this point.

I can not say that I agree 100% with what Obama believes but I guess its who is the lessor of two evils...They are all politicians.

I actually believe we erred badly when we insisted on a unified Iraq as opposed to dividing the country into 3 distinct parts for the Sh'ites, Sunnis and Kurds.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 30,00.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e ... 10-24.html

I've heard some arguments against the notion of dividing the country but none that have swayed me.

[skinsfan#33]

Its crazy. I swear it sounds like our Civil war. Do they need to have two separate states?

I don't know what the answer is b/c I do not know the ins and outs of why they are fighting. I think its based on religion.

Well then, there is another reason to vote for Obama.

It only makes sense at this point.

I can not say that I agree 100% with what Obama believes but I guess its who is the lessor of two evils...They are all politicians.

I actually believe we erred badly when we insisted on a unified Iraq as opposed to dividing the country into 3 distinct parts for the Sh'ites, Sunnis and Kurds.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 30,00.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e ... 10-24.html

I've heard some arguments against the notion of dividing the country but none that have swayed me.

I don't say this often, but I agree w/Fios.

I Don't know if three separate nations would be a good idea for Iraq, but sepaerating Iraq into three "states" with one central government wouldn't be bad.

If they were three seperate countries, I doubt it would take long before one or all three weres ucked up by a neiboring country.

[frankcal20]

I understand that what we are doing over there is for the good of the nation. But the thing that ticks me off is that we have Nat. Guardsman over there building a park. The next day, someone blows it up. So logically, we rebuild it. And guess what, they blew it up again.

We are so smart that we built it a 3rd time.

I say, if they don't want the park, don't build it. We paid for three parks and they only got one. I just think that if it were on their dime, their government may be doing more to stop these radicalist as opposed to it being our money.

[DesertSkin]

Wow. There are a lot of points and questions that can't be answered in one paragraph, so I'll try one at a time.

For your frame of reference on where I'm coming from: I commanded in Iraq in 2005. I operated mostly around Baghdad. I experience zones were my enemy threat was almost none-existant and operated in zones where we'd get hit by IEDs at a rate of seven part week. I dealt with multi-million contracts to rebuild Iraq and I've personnally "eaten" a few IEDs. I've held a dead American in my arms and I've seen Iraqis get killed (we talking about a dozen in a year, not the 3 billion that is in CrazyHorse's Iraq) I experience more than I really cared to in that one year and it ran the gambit.

It is impossible to think that we can pull out all our troops the day after the presidential office changes hands but why do we have to foot the bill?

Well to start off, the idea that Iraq is not paying for the reconstruction is incorrect. Orginally, we were and that was because the Iraqi government didn't exist anymore and we couldn't just control the Iraq money and spend it as we saw fit. It wouldn't look good politically, internationally, and internally within Iraq if we were deciding what to do with the Iraqi's money. Now most every project is paid for by the Iraqi's (which creates other problems in itself and Fios wraps it up pretty well here).

I'd assume some of it is tied to who gets to control the money, who gets to pick where it would go, etc. Many Iraqis (and the notion of what defines an Iraqi is still up in the air) don't like or trust many other Iraqis (Sunnis vs. Shiites) and that in-fighting makes them reluctant to cooperate.

Most of the money that we are spending is to pay for the logistic bloat of having such a large force there (Soldier's need their Baskin's Robins ice cream). I'm not saying that no American money is going to the projects, but not as much as you think.

I swear it sounds like our Civil war. Do they need to have two separate states?

I don't know what the answer is b/c I do not know the ins and outs of why they are fighting. I think its based on religion.

Well then, there is another reason to vote for Obama.

It only makes sense at this point.

I can not say that I agree 100% with what Obama believes but I guess its who is the lessor of two evils...

Where or not it's a civil war is debatable. Two years ago, I might have agreed to this point, but now it's like 2% of the population creating the problems. Sectarian violence is extremely low right now. So why don't they just take care of that 2% themselves? You've got to understand that for decades, the easiest way for an Iraqi to survive was to not get involved. That cultural aspect hasn't changed, so if the average Iraqi can avoid getting involved, then they won't because they fear the 2% more then they like the other 98% (or us). It's a survival mechanism. Very similar to gang turf in the US. The average citizen will not get involved to help the cops out becuase they fear the gangs and feel that the cops cannot protect them.

Another thing I'd like to point out here. Often people confusion the question of whether or not we should of attacked Iraq with the question of whether or not we should leave. They are two entirely different issues and each needs to be looked at seperately. The belief that we should not have attacked has merit and while I personally do not agree with it, I can understand why people believe that way. The belief that we should leave as soon as we can, however, is completely wrong and will cost humanity much more in the long run. If we leave before the Iraqi government is ready (and trust me, just because they say they are doesn't make it so) we will face this issue all over again as the country spirals into serious civil war and autrosities begin. We do not have to stay until Iraq is free of violence, but we cannot morally leave until the Iraqi government can protect its citizens and defend its sovereignty.

I understand that what we are doing over there is for the good of the nation. But the thing that ticks me off is that we have Nat. Guardsman over there building a park. The next day, someone blows it up. So logically, we rebuild it. And guess what, they blew it up again.

We are so smart that we built it a 3rd time.

I say, if they don't want the park, don't build it. We paid for three parks and they only got one. I just think that if it were on their dime, their government may be doing more to stop these radicalist as opposed to it being our money.

I'm not familiar with this specific example you raise here, but I do know there are several situations similar to it so I by no means am doubting it. It ultimaltely comes down to resolve and is actually very effective in convincing the populace that you're on their side. We build and they destroy. We rebuild to show the people that we're not going to just give up. If we fail to rebuild, who wins?

Why it's getting blown up is another issue. Most cases that I've seen similar to this is when its the Iraqi's responsibilities to protect it. And, well, as I pointed out earlier, the Iraqi's are not exactly ready for that.

This war is extremely frustrating but you have to understand that this is an insurgency that we are fighting. Insurgencies are not usually beaten in a few years, they're beaten in decades. Historically, it takes an average of 14 years to complete defeat an insurgency. War is a test of wills and right now the enemy is trying to make this as long as possible to destroy the American public's will for the war. They are not trying to defeat the American army, they are trying to defeat the American public becuase they believe they can prolong this war long enough that the American public's will to support it will break and for the political changes that will result in the withdrawl of the Coalition Forces. That is they're victory. And despite the fact that the Coalition Forces are a few years away from winning the war, I fear victory could only be a few months away for the insurgency, possible as soon as 4 Nov.

[Irn-Bru]

Interesting post, DesertSkin, thanks for writing.

[frankcal20]

Thanks for your insight.

Thanks for being honest as opposed to giving an opinion.

Now one question I have is if we did pull out, would our troops feel defeated or would they feel like they wasted their time? And if they felt like they wasted their time, don't they currently feel that way?

[VetSkinsFan]

Speaking for someone who's been over there (as enlisted), I am one of the ones that feel we erred jumping in to Iraq when we did. I also feel that we've dug ourselves in a hole, as Desertskin noted, that we can not morally jump out of. We ultimately made this mess, and the sacrifices are extreme, but we cannot leave Iraq in the state it is in. We have an obligation to 'fix' what we 'broke(I hope my analogy is expressed correctly).'

One of the reasons I got out of the Army was because I do not believe in the reasons we're in Iraq right now. And in supporting these reasons I cannot put my heart in to, I was separated from my family for a considerable amount of time. I accomplished my duties to the best of my abilities at the time.

I have friends who will never be the same, whether the PTSD or loss of limb(or life) is the cause is irrelavent. As much as I wish every single last one of our troops (and the troops from other countries) can come home safely, I realize that we cannot and must not jump out prematurely. We have an obligation in Iraq that has not been met yet.

[Fios]

Interesting post, DesertSkin, thanks for writing.

Agreed and same to VetSkins, it's always nice to hear from people with some real-world experience.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Kazoo's basic political philosophy is: everything is the fault of liberals and Democrats, except when it's not (and that is rare) and even then, liberals suck

Actually my philosophy is that you deal with the worst disease first. It's not liberal's ideology that's the worst, it's their tactics. The challenge you've all passed on of name two Democrats who actually disagree on any issue and then applying it using the Israeli rule of 1% against me and you're 100% against me. See Joe Lieberman for that. Then the media's not Liberal because they aren't actually openly calling Republicans Nazis, just repeating that the Democrats say it and in complete irresponsibility the media's not calling for the gunning down of Republican school children to end the disease, the media only destroys Republicans once they declare themselves as such. Particularly the media will destroy an open Republican if they are not a white male because the Democrats believe in the freedom to be liberal and the freedom to express liberal views and if you're not a Democrat you have betrayed your freedom and must be destroyed.

Here's another way to put it. The Republicans suck, but even when the left is correct, they attack them with lies and idiotic points and statistics, like that nominal budget deficits constitute a meaningful "record." I want to attack the Republicans for the truth of their irresponsibility in government, but I want to do it with the truth. The left gives me the choice of attacking the Republicans with lies or criticizing the liberals for nonsense points. When I do the latter, which is more truthful then the former, that means I'm only blaming the left. Sure.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Its crazy. I swear it sounds like our Civil war. Do they need to have two separate states?

I don't know what the answer is b/c I do not know the ins and outs of why they are fighting. I think its based on religion.

Well then, there is another reason to vote for Obama.

It only makes sense at this point.

I can not say that I agree 100% with what Obama believes but I guess its who is the lessor of two evils...They are all politicians.

To a liberal everything is a reason to vote for Obama even if it isn't. But actually, they would need to have 3 separate States. Kurds, Shiites and Sunis. The statistics are from memory and ballpark right, but not exact.

Sunis - Hussein was a Sunni, they are like 25 percent of the population while Shiites are like 65 percent and the Kurds about 10%. But something like 80% of the general Arab population is Suni. This is a big reason for the major religious issues in Iraq. Sunnis consider Shiites to be a lower form of Islam, they are less "clean." They really look down on them. Their being a minority in Iraq but a vast majority of Muslim's across the middle east is a huge reason for the endless struggles there. The Shiites want power as the majority in Iraq, but the Muslims across the middle east want the Sunis in power and support them.

Shiites - Iran is also Shiite, they and Iraq are the only Shiite countries to my knowledge. Some say Iraq Shiites would want to join with Iran in an unholy alliance of terror if they could. Hussein was supported with nose plugged largely by the West for the exact reason that as a Suni he would never join with the sub-Muslim Shiite Iranians. The Shiites taking control of Iraq makes that a far greater risk. However, there is a major difference. Iraqi Shiites are Arab and Iranian Shiites are Persian. This is a major wildcard in if and how an alliance between them would work.

Kurds - Historical Kurdistan was divided between Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran and a couple smaller sections by the treaty of Versailles in 1919. The biggest pieces are in Turkey and Iraq, which is why Turkey's so involved in everything going on in Northern Iraq (Kurd area). The US has been protecting the Kurds since the Clinton administration and they are very pro-American. When you hear about terror in Turkey, it's usually the Kurds there who want independence and to join up with other pieces of Kurdistan. The Iraq piece logically first. If the US ever leaves that region without an Iraqi government in firm control, Turkey will immediately seize it.

There are a couple problems with dividing the country 3 ways. #1 as I just mentioned, we could never in the foreseeable future leave the Kurd region or we must give it to Turkey. Second, while the Kurd region is largely separable, the Suni and Shiite regions aren't. South of Baghdad they are just mixed villages, you could never draw a line and you'd be creating another Kashmir. Third, if the Shiite region were separate they would be even more likely to band in a terror alliance as they would be far more purely Shiite.

Anyway, I would not have invaded and made it our problem, but my view and I agree with Biden on this is I would in fact leave 3 countries so we can get out. Since we did invade I consider simple withdraw to be immoral. So I would in fact negotiate a deal with Turkey for the Kurd region and negotiate with the Sunis and Shiites how to split the rest of the country and leave. They would then start a series of endless wars, but that's going to happen anyway.