Do you think the 135 dead today was because of the US installing a PUPPET Govt. in Baghdad?

Question

All joking aside, we need to GET OUT of Iraq and allow things to take their natural course. It is not enough any longer for the Occupiers to pretend they are bringing peace or democracy to a country in which people are dying in these numbers daily.

What good is it if we have 140,000 thousand troops on the ground and they are as good as useless in stopping these attrocities?

Answer 1

Its becasue of a civil war in which we need to leave and let the Iraqis kill each other if they want to, its not our business. In my humble opinion when you make war and win you leave them in the stone age, but then I also thought we never should of invaded Iraq but gone after Bin Ladden, but hey what do I know, my middle son leaves for his 4th tour tuesday.

Answer 2

135 more dead today is because of the Civil War in Iraq. I wouldn't put it wholly on our head, but nor can we avoid all responsibility. While Sadam Hussein was in charge, many atrocities were being committed, but there was little to no Civil War ... certainly the infrastructure was better. Now that we went in to "free" the Iraqis from Hussein's dictatorship, people have fractured into different political groups. Because we are there as an occupying army, people are more desperate and more violence prone. In those ways, the deaths were our fault. It might make sense to say it's just different people dying than would have been dying had we no gone in. But we *did* go in, so we hold some responsibility.

Answer 3

Thing is of course we shouldn't have gone in to begin with.This is still a direct result of a failed and unnecessary invasion in a sovereign country that posed no immediate threat to the US.
However that country will keep giving trouble if we leave now without a diplomatic and military strategy.I like Clinton's plan calling for fased withdrawal and hitting the Iraqi government where it hurts if they don't meet certain goals namely in their wallet
It also includes a broad diplomatic strategy that the bi partisan Iraq study group also recommended

Answer 4

Thats because wthe terrioust know we have people like you yelling to cut & run. Did american troops kill those 135 people or did their own people kill them. We either get the job done there or we will have to do it here.I prefer it there.

Answer 5

The U.S. military drive to train and equip Iraq's security forces has unwittingly strengthened anti-American Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been battling to take over much of the capital city as American forces are trying to secure it. U.S. Army commanders and enlisted men who are patrolling east Baghdad, which is home to more than half the city's population and the front line of al-Sadr's campaign to drive rival Sunni Muslims from their homes and neighborhoods, said al-Sadr's militias had heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police and army units that they've trained and armed.

"Half of them are JAM. They'll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night," said 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the Army's 1st Infantry Division, using the initials of the militia's Arabic name, Jaish al Mahdi. "People (in America) think it's bad, but that we control the city. That's not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It's hostile territory."

The Bush administration's plan to secure Baghdad rests on a "surge" of some 17,000 more U.S. troops to the city, many of whom will operate from small bases throughout Baghdad. Those soldiers will work to improve Iraqi security units so that American forces can hand over control of the area and withdraw to the outskirts of the city. The problem, many soldiers said, is that the approach has been tried before and resulted only in strengthening al-Sadr and his militia.

Amid recurring reports that al-Sadr is telling his militia leaders to stash their arms and, in some cases, leave their neighborhoods during the American push, U.S. soldiers worry that the latest plan could end up handing over those areas to units that are close to al-Sadr's militant Shiite group. "All the Shiites have to do is tell everyone to lay low, wait for the Americans to leave, then when they leave you have a target list and within a day they'll kill every Sunni leader in the country. It'll be called the `Day of Death' or something like that," said 1st Lt. Alain Etienne, 34, of Brooklyn, N.Y. "They say, `Wait, and we will be victorious.' That's what they preach. And it will be their victory." Quinn agreed. "Honestly, within six months of us leaving, the way Iranian clerics run the country behind the scenes, it'll be the same way here with Sadr," said Quinn, 25, of Cleveland. "He already runs our side of the river."

Al-Sadr's success in infiltrating Iraqi security forces says much about the continued inability of American commanders in Iraq to counter the classic insurgent tactic of using popular support to trump superior military firepower. Lacking attack helicopters and other sophisticated weapons, al-Sadr's men have expanded their empire with borrowed trucks and free lunches for militiamen.

After U.S. units pounded al-Sadr's men in August 2004, the cleric apparently decided that instead of facing American tanks, he'd use the Americans' plans to build Iraqi security forces to rebuild his own militia.

So while Iraq's other main Shiite militia, the Badr Brigade, concentrated in 2005 on packing Iraqi intelligence bureaus with high-level officers who could coordinate sectarian assassinations, al-Sadr went after the rank and file. His recruits began flooding into the Iraqi army and police, receiving training, uniforms and equipment either directly from the U.S. military or from the American-backed Iraqi Defense Ministry.

Answer 6

1. We did not 'install a puppet government'.

2. I agree we should leave.