Berkeley Forum

they are just going to kill more innocent people.
 

Arash, I know you're trying to be a politician, but really?

"Regardless of what they chose to call it, the troop surge is absolutely necessary to stabilize Baghdad and bring law and order to the Anbar province."

and

"The troop surge of 21,000 (I strongly believe that more troops are needed in Iraq and more troops can certainly be sent over to the region)..."

Arash, really? Wow.
 

yes really! Iraq must be won. The old minimalistic approcah of rumsfeld did not work. The new stratgey might have a chance to succede and if there is a 10% chance of success, then we must try it. Leaving Iraq and accepting defeat is not acceptabel! At least to those of us who dont think revolution is the key to solve everything!
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Arash, listen, I understand you want to be a politician later in life and in pursuit of that career, spitting the official line seems like the appropriate route, but it may be to your detriment, especially when it will likely fail and those whose words have been recorded will be discredited.

It is unoriginal, cliche, and offers no real analysis.

As for revolution, nobody said revolution is a key to solving anything... relax.

Revolution is usually a route take by the opposition when all channels of peaceful opposition within the system have been closed, i.e. Iran in 1978.
 

You have nothing to say but to call me a politician. Great argument Pouya!
 

Its is BECAUSE of the presence of American troops there that there is so much violence on the streets of Baghdad. You add more troops, you will add more chaos. When will the administration learn that to bring peace to the region you must trust the will of the people there, even if it means they want no democracy at this time? They see American controlling their land and calling it a democracy. If I saw that, I'd hate democracy too.
 

"I strongly believe that more troops are needed in Iraq and more troops can certainly be sent over to the region" Great idea! but why don't we start with u? I think u should sign up to go there and personally be involved in bringing democracy to the Iraqis?! That would even raise the troop surge to 21,001. HAVE FUN OVER THERE MY FRIEND!!!! But personally I think Michael Moore's plan is the most effective:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=204
 

I partially agree with Arash. Although we desperately need a timetable to get us out of Iraq, sooner rather than later, to think that just leaving the country will solve everything is incredibly stupid. Unlike several years ago, the majority of the violence in Iraq today is caused by SECTARIAN tensions. How the hell would they be eliminated if coalition troops leave? Imagine if we left: we would have Maliki in charge with little power to contain the radical Shia elements in the Interior Ministry. There would be only more execution-style killings of Sunnis, there wouldn't be enough Iraqi security forces to stop the mostly Sunni-planted bombings in Baghdad and other parts of the country, and we would have a country at risk of splitting up in three because of the factionalism that is spreading among the Iraqi Parliament. While I was stubbornly against this war to begin with, I am even more stubbornly against leaving now and essentially allowing the Shia-Sunni sectarian tensions to persist, which is the main problem plaguing the country right now. I don't know how long it will take - we might even need a timetable that gives us 2-3 years more max, but for the time being the security situation in Baghdad is arguably the worst it has been since the war began in 2003, and the only way to immediately bring more security to Baghdad is to increase the number of troops there. Ideally, they would be mostly Iraqi forces, but at this time Iraqi military recruitment is fairly low, and the military is full of the aforementioned sectarian divisions, making quick, collective security measures difficult at best to implement. For the time being, we need more U.S. troops in Baghdad, if only from a humanitarian perspective.