Those Bad Ol' Iraqis?

[Flint]

I want to make it clear that they had a parking lot before they chose to build a freakin' bowling alley or whatever on top of it, thus creating a "traffic problem" that wouldn't have existed if they played by the rules the rest of us have to follow, IE use your resources wisely, don't expect special treatment, and in a nutshell: "do unto others" etc. (I humbly suggest they build a pedestrian bridge, instead of shutting down a major road) ...

[Shawnee123]

I think they should rely on their faith to cross the street. I mean, would god let a pedestrian on his way to church get mowed over?
They could have T-shirts made: God Is My Crossing Guard.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They couldn't have turned the parking lot into a bowling alley without the blessing of the government/taxing authority. They did what any other business would do, the use the property for maximum return benefit.

The entity issuing the permits would certainly be required to revue the traffic impact study, by law. Evidently they felt it was acceptable and planned to adjust the traffic surveillance/control accordingly.

Did you attend the public hearings on the project the planning board holds before giving the green light, and voice your objections? Did you complain to the parking lot owner(supermarket?) that you don't feel they should be enabling these changes?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

It is not a traffic problem, there are not so many of them that they cannot wait for the normal flow of traffic to allow them to enter at their own pace.
It is our tax dollars being used inappropriately. You don't see cops being used at the grocery store on Saturday morning do you? No. Everyone waits and is patient like they should be.

Poppycock. The reason there isn't a cop at the grocery store on Saturday morning is not everyone at the store is leaving at the same time. There is a steady flow that's been anticipated and signs, signals and driveways planned accordingly.

Any time there is a function like a show, rodeo, circus, swap-meet, flea market, where there is surge flows, pedestrian crossing, or unusual changes in traffic patterns, the cops should and will be there.
Sometimes it's a condition of the issued permit, that the sponsor of the event pay for the increased traffic or pedestrian control.
That can be by reimbursing the police department or hiring private rent-a-cops/off duty police, directly.

Of course, you're right. How silly of me to imply that churches get preferential treatment.

[Ibby]

Churches get treatment. That's fine and just. I don't deny that some get too much. But any treatment is not too much treatment; a church should be, legally speaking, no different from any other event or gathering. Cops help out traffic problems at, to copy T3h Bruce, shows, rodeos, circuses, swap-meets, flea markets, etc; theres no reason not to do the same for churches.

[Hippikos]

Seems that finally the US guvmint is beginning to use brains instead of muscles. But too little, too late?

The US commander in Iraq today said military force alone was "not sufficient" to end the violence and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the US-backed government.

The announcement came as the Pentagon announced the deployment of an extra 2,200 US military police to Iraq to help deal with an anticipated increase in detainees during the latest US-led security crackdown, and the US day-to-day commander in Iraq was reported to have recommended current troop levels are maintained into 2008.

General David Petraeus, a counter-insurgency expert, was picked by Mr Bush in a last attempt to tackle the sectarian violence in Baghdad which is threatening to rip the country apart. US policy in Iraq is at present the deployment of 21,500 more troops to help the Shia-led government of Nuri al-Maliki.

A parallel increase in military police was requested by Gen Petraeus, but at his first news conference in Baghdad since taking charge of American forces last month, he said it was political negotiations with militants that "will determine in the long run the success of this effort".

He said he saw no immediate need for more US combat troops other than those already announced, but a report in the New York Times said his day-to-day commander, Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno, had made the confidential assessment that heightened troop levels be maintained until February 2008.

Gen Odierno's view reflects the counter-insurgency doctrine favoured by Gen Petraeus of leaving troops in areas they enter rather than withdrawing and letting insurgents return.

Gen Petraeus today said Baghdad had seen encouraging signs of progress despite "sensational attacks", pointing to a fall in sectarian killings and fewer people leaving their homes in recent weeks in the capital.

But nine US soldiers were killed in two separate roadside bombings this week in spite of a security crackdown now in its fourth week.

And the increase in US forces has not prevented a spate of attacks in the past three days on Shia pilgrims making their way to the holy city of Kerbala. At least 150 have been killed, including more than 100 outside the capital. It was "too early to discern significant trends, [but] there have been a few encouraging signs", Gen Petraeus told reporters.

The attacks - mostly blamed on Sunni insurgents - are seen as attempts to provoke a civil war with Shia militia.

Gen Petraeus said it was "critical" for leaders to halt any drift toward sectarian conflict and added that US forces were ready to help provide additional security for the pilgrims if asked by Iraqi authorities.

But he saw no role for the Shia militia known as the Mahdi Army, whose fighters guarded pilgrims in the past two years.

He said "extremist elements" in the militia had been engaged in "true excesses" in the past - a reference to suspected gangs killing Sunnis.

The Guardian

Must say, I've seen an interview with Gen.Petraeus some years ago as a group commander and he came over as a down to earth, practical guy who seems to know what job he's doing. Was thinking when I saw the interview, why isn't he in charge?

Originally Posted by bluesdave

As George W and our John Howard keep saying, it is not that simple. The whole Middle East would collapse into chaos (yes, more so than it already is), and it would probably spread into South Asia (Afghanistan would become even more of a disaster than it already is, and even Pakistan would be under threat).

I fully support our troops, and I also wish that they could be withdrawn, but the evidence and history, shows that this would be a disaster. Iraq is not Vietnam. We cannot just let go, and things will sort themselves out. I just wish that someone in authority had some answers. Vietnam showed us that supporting a government that does not have the support of the people, is a road to failure, but pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will create an explosion of violence. It is a real dilemma.

You want us to stay until they all get along!?
Not our problem.
They voted for that government.
Americans have got to quit obsessing with the whole "failure" thing with Iraq. We failed before we ever invaded & occupied a nation that was not a threat to us & did not want us there... the second BushCo. thought they could get away with it the failure was sealed. Now we need to control the damage done as best we can, every day we stay that damage gets worse.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You want us to stay until they all get along!?
Not our problem.
They voted for that government.

No, I don't want our troops to stay, but as I said, I can't see that withdrawing is going to make the situation better. Both the Iraqi Government, and the Afghan, are weak, but would you put someone like Saddam back into Iraq, and the Taliban back into Afghanistan - or maybe let Iran rule both, which is not an unforeseeable possibility, especially if we pull out?

It will force them to stop blaming their problems on the occupying force and to deal with each other on their own terms.
They are not weak, they have a scape-goat.
Who they put into power is not our problem.
As a libertarian I do not feel it is our job to be the world's babysitter.
They shoot our kids, say they don't want us there... fine. Plus, they are right, we have no right to be there. I am talking about Iraq... this thread is not about Afghanistan. That is more complex and I agreed with the invasion but am disgusted with the FUBAR it turned into.... but, OT.
Iraq is simple, really, we had no business doing it and no business being there now that we helped them vote their govt. in.

[TheMercenary]

I say we pull out to desert bases and let them have at each other. A total genocide would occur. But let's at least wait for a Democratic President to be elected first. That way we can blame any fall out on a Democratically controlled congress and a Democratic President.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I say we pull out to desert bases and let them have at each other.

Total genocide will be inevitable if we stay. That was well understood and defined in the Iraq Study Group; which recommended that pullback.

We created the massacre. We cannot stop it. Either they must conduct a massive genocide in civil war or they must come to reality - which means blaming it on and throw out their 'big dics'. No way around this solution. A situation well predicted in both the Pentagon and State Department back in 2002 when Americans were instead foolishly listening to Rush Limbaugh logic.

Work one does today does not show up on a spread sheet for 4 or more years later. Genocide that was obvious to the educated in 2002 will appear on body counts today. Americans can only make things worse; not make things better. We broke it and we own it as only the educated were saying in 2002. Did you hear them or did you join the ranks of American 'big dics'? The resulting genocide is no accident. Our only option is to minimize it - and that means pulling back out of the cities - letting the Iraqis decide what they want - just like in Lebanon when Israel created the same mess by listening to their 'big dic'. Lessons of history repeat when ....

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

We broke it and we own it as only the educated were saying in 2002. Did you hear them or did you join the ranks of American 'big dics'?

I said the very thing in 02. And did I hear them, what the fuck does that mean? I was on active duty in the Army then. And you? What the hell were you doing about it in 2002??

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I am talking about Iraq... this thread is not about Afghanistan.

It is not that simple any more. You cannot isolate Afghanistan from the equation. Iran and Pakistan tie the two together. The situation is so complicated now, that you cannot only consider Iraq. I agree that in an ideal world, the troops should be pulled out of Iraq, but it is not that simple. I wish is was, believe me.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

It is not that simple any more. The situation is so complicated now, that you cannot only consider Iraq. I agree that in an ideal world, the troops should be pulled out of Iraq, but it is not that simple. I wish is was, believe me.

And that my friend is a very true statment. In fact the most insightful one I have read on here. We are all from the armchair quarterback club. Hindsight is a guilt free position on most issues.