Well, at least it wasn’t us that did it. And it takes their minds off cartoons.
Are we in the last stages before an all-out civil war? If cartoons cause such uproar how much worse of a provocation is this?
This is evidence that Iraq is about to split up. iran is backing the Shia…so the fact that a major Shia shrine was bombed means that the Sunnis will not accept the Shia-dominated government. More proof that the USA had better “get out of Dodge”.
How can anyone not conclude that civil war is the next step? maybe its a good thing-it would tie the Iranians down so they won’t think about making atomic bombs.
Iraq’s already in an all out civil war, and the Iraqi insurgents have been targeting Shi’ite mosques and holy places for a while. This is, of course, a bigger deal, because it’s not just a Shi’ite mosque, but really religiously significant to Shi’ites, not to mention a historical treasure.
This sort of thing, IM-factually-unsupported-O, is a large part of why there’s been so much anti-Western (and anti-Israel) sentiment deliberately whipped up recently by radical Muslims, including Shi’ites like Ahmedinejad of Iran. Because they know that the largely sectarian conflict in Iraq puts relations between Sunnis and Shi’ites in general (which are always somewhat strained, at least when the hard-line Wahhabi types are involved) on very delicate ground.
Losing the focus on a “common enemy” opens the way to more overt internecine Sunni/Shi’a hostility, with potentially very bad results for many Muslim countries, if not the whole Middle Eastern region.
IM-still-factually-unsupported-O, prepare to see a continuation of these mutually retaliatory sectarian attacks, plus continued efforts by radical Muslims to re-direct sectarian resentment back towards the “common enemy” again. All very, very bad news.
Um… yeah. I think it’s time to admit this isn’t going to work out. The plan for Iraqis to all join hands and sing merry songs may not have been realistic.
It’s time to back an independent nation of Kurdistan in return for the Kurds abandoning all territorial claims in Turkey. Move our forces to an area that actually has some stability. It can be our shining example of democracy in the middle-east.
The rest of Iraq is going to tear itself apart.
On the other hand, I doubt it will be long before it’s a common belief that we did it, or backed it. Or Israel, or both of us.
I doubt it’ll be a “good thing” for the people who get killed, or suffer in other ways. Also, the only thing that would stop the Iranians from trying to make nukes will by our retreat from the region. If we are there, prudence demands they make or aquire nukes.
I’ve believed for a while that the civil war was already going on, just low key because of the occupation. IMHO, sooner or later, either we will leave or the factional pressure will grow too large for us to contain, and a multisided free-for-all civil war will break out.
If civil war breaks out (and I’d say that’s still technically an ‘if’ right now, despite this provocative bombing of a holy Shia tomb), could the invasion of Iraq then categorically be called a mistake? When the claimed WMD threat wasn’t found, the justification switched to the humanitarian aspect of removing Saddam from power. Would those justifiers still say that the Iraqi people would prefer an all out civil war to Saddam’s continuing rule, or would they merely start blaming the Iraqi ingratitude for being invaded?
(Standard disclaimer: I hope Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy.)
Honestly, I don’t think anything will make the apologists admit the war was a mistake. I’m sure they will continue to blame their victims, as well.
One does not make an example of democracy by cherrypicking the region which doesn’t happen to have a war going on. Heck, one might as well wall off one small town in the midst of carnage and call it the MENA beacon. Democracy is supposed to be a means of allowing diverse groups to peacefully coexist.
No it isn’t. That would be dynastic monarchy. (E.g., the Ottoman Empire.)
Ideally it becomes that, but I rather doubt it ever starts that way. Our democracy began with only white male landowners being allowed to participate. Our peaceful coexistance was violently interupted by a civil war. Iraq seems to want to get the civil war going a bit sooner in their history than we did. Short of a dictator’s iron fist, I don’t know anyway to prevent them from having it.
It’s my opinion that democracies don’t work without a few pre-existing factors such as stability, education, and at least the possibility that a minority might actually serve a useful post in the government.
And we have been blamed for it, or at least our ambassador has.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11491483/page/2/
Americans and Jews. Well at least they didn’t blame Denmark. da-da-da-da
Bill O’Reilly is saying we should “hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible” because “[t]here are so many nuts in the country – so many crazies – that we can’t control them.”
Charming guy.
I mean, I’m not sure we can do much good by staying either, but I at least feel sorry for the poor Iraqi people, who can’t seem to buy a break. And while there certainly are some nasty people over there, we did our part in unleashing their potential for nastiness.
There are lots of perfectly decent Iraqis who are apparently about to go through the hell of a civil war, and there’s probably little we can do about it. We as a nation should be wearing sackcloth and ashes.
Since when?
Marc
Or opening our borders to Iraqi refugees.
Charming guy.
Wasn’t he the chickenhawk who called the people who wanted an immediate withdrawl (John Murtha and Cindy Sheehan) “pinheads” and likened them to Hitler Appeasers?
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
[QUOTE=yanceylebeef]
What? It ain’t hypocrisy just to change your mind.
Shall we Hitler-loving pinheads hold our breath for a retraction or apology, then? 
It’s not hypocrisy, that’s true. A better description of that sort of behavior would involve profanity.
I kind of like this idea. I’ve implemented numerous enterprise-wide software applications and found that “proof-of-concept” is an effective way to persuade people to accept changes. Seems reasonable to think that the same thing would work in this case too.
Plus, it would keep us in good standing with the Turks.
And I seem to recall that the Kurds actually* wanted* us to do this.