PDA

View Full Version : General Petraeus Agrees with us FL Liberals...NO Military Solution in Iraq



LoungeMachine
03-08-2007, 10:05 AM
Times Online
March 08, 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1487615.ece
No military solution to Iraq, warns new US commander
(Orlin Wagner/AP)

The new US commander in Iraq has admitted that insurgents have intensified their attacks during the security crackdown in Baghdad, as he warned that there was no military solution to the nation’s bloody conflict.

General David Petraeus, appointed last month to oversee the White House’s fresh plan for Iraq, said that his troops were limited in what they alone could achieve and that some of the militant groups causing violence in the country would have to be engaged in political discussions.

The latest security sweep would take months, during which “sensational attacks” would continue, he said, but there had already been encouraging signs of improvement including a fall in sectarian killings.

In his first press conference since taking command, the General added he saw no immediate need to call for yet more US troops, but that the reinforcements already requested were likely to stay well past the summer months, and would be sent to areas outside Baghdad where militants were regrouping.


Asked about reports that his second in command, General Raymond Odierno, had recommended the additional 21,500 troops would need to stay in Iraq until early 2008, he replied: “I’ve certainly not reached a conclusion yet about that I think you generally think that if you’re going to achieve the kind of effects that we probably need, I would think it would need to be sustained certainly some time well beyond the summer, but again we’ll have to see.

On Tuesday, a senior Pentagon official said the number of US troops needed to carry out the White House's security plan could approach 30,000, significantly more than projected in January.

Essential to ending the conflict, General Petraeus insisted, was identifying militant groups who were “reconcilable” and to bring them into the political process. “Putting Iraq above personal and sectarian agendas will be critical,” he said, warning that such negotiations would “determine in the long run the success of this effort.

“There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security... but it is not sufficient. There needs to be a political aspect.”

The comments followed three days of unrelenting violence, in which attacks by Sunni insurgents on Shia pilgrims left more than 150 dead and dramatically increased political tensions.

Speaking inside Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone, General Petraeus acknowledged that the nation had witnessed a particularly bloody period of insurgent attacks since coalition and Iraqi forces began their much-vaunted security sweep three weeks ago.

Despite a drop in the number of bodies found shot and dumped around the capital - from around 40 to 50 a day to single digits on some days – there are few signs of a let-up in bombings, with recent attacks including a suicide bombing at a mainly Shia university and an assassination attempt against one of Iraq’s vice presidents.

Of the reinforcements promised by the Pentagon, 17,500 have been pledged to Baghdad. General Petraeus said the full contingent should be in the nation by June, with one army brigades already in place, and another was partially deployed.

hideyoursheep
03-08-2007, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
“There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security... but it is not sufficient. There needs to be a political aspect.”

Someting themonkey was never interested in....


I'm telling you it's gonna take more than 30,000 to quiet things down to a point where it becomes managable for the ISF. Then we can leave. That to me would be victory.

To hell with what the Juba lovers think.

Warham
03-08-2007, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Someting themonkey was never interested in....

I guess going to the UN and asking for worthless resolutions doesn't count?

hideyoursheep
03-08-2007, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I guess going to the UN and asking for worthless resolutions doesn't count?

WTFuck you talking about now,nutless?

And don't keep me waiting.

Warham
03-08-2007, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
WTFuck you talking about now,nutless?

And don't keep me waiting.

I think you better go back and read what happened prior to the United States armed forces going into Iraq.

hideyoursheep
03-08-2007, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I think you better go back and read what happened prior to the United States armed forces going into Iraq.

Why don't you go ahead and tell me.

This ought to be good......:rolleyes:

hideyoursheep
03-08-2007, 06:11 PM
Why don't you stop your drive-by NeoCunt flaming until you can actually prove something.

Nickdfresh
03-08-2007, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I think you better go back and read what happened prior to the United States armed forces going into Iraq.

Well, I think there were some UN inspectors looking for WMDs. And guess what?! They didn't find anything...

So we invaded looking for the hidden weapons of mass destruction. And guess what?! We didn't find anything...

And here we are four years later, proctoring a civil war...

FORD
03-08-2007, 06:20 PM
And yet Warhamster and his crowd are believing the same lies all over again and beating the drums for the next Likud suicide mission in Iran.

Nickdfresh
03-08-2007, 06:27 PM
And why just send "30,000" troops? Why not 40,000. Or 50,000, or 75,000? Why not stay until 2015?

These guys are just limiting the options of the US expending all of its resources on some middle eastern country, of whom the majority of citizens do not want us there...

hideyoursheep
03-08-2007, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And why just send "30,000" troops? Why not 40,000. Or 50,000, or 75,000? Why not stay until 2015?

These guys are just limiting the options of the US expending all of its resources on some middle eastern country, of whom the majority of citizens do not want us there...


Weell, keeping a skeleton crew of 150,000 hasn't gotten us any closer to the final objective, which should have been securing Iraq and handing it off to the Iraqis. That's what I meant when I said Dubyah wasn't interested before- in ending our mission there.

hideyoursheep
03-08-2007, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I guess going to the UN and asking for worthless resolutions doesn't count?

More quanswers from quanswerboy.

LoungeMachine
03-08-2007, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I think you better go back and read what happened prior to the United States armed forces going into Iraq.


:rolleyes:


Fucking Idiot.