I’m not sure that’s going to work. The Iraqi army does actually pay them which may act as an incentive. And there have, in any case, been instances of the army/police being infiltrated and of them switching sides (the police chief in Mosul was just sacked after insurgents took over parts of the city and a portion of the Police force joined them).
Red Fury already posted a link to some stats of what people actually think.
Maybe if we had a weak, secularist govt, that had a no-fly zone enforced, and was being monitored for the development of WMDs? And then, how about if all the American soldiers that are being killed and wounded were back home in the USA with their loved ones. Now we just need a time machine.
No doubt you’ll simply dismiss said study as it does not align with your delusions. It’s the modus operandi of all True Believers.
Democracy = Majority rule. If that’s what Iraqis choose, who the hell are you to tell them differently? And in case you’ve forgotten, Saddam’s Iraq was a secular nation – which is exactly the reason the US supported him before. Allawi, the current US backed despot, is Saddam w/out a mustache, a **bloodthirsty ex-CIA informant, despised by his own people**
More uncited secretions. Just because you lay some vague claim to ‘The White Man’s Burden’ doesn’t make it so. As I’ve already proven to you, polls overwhelmingly favor an immediate exit of the occupying forces. Those are the facts – not the fiction you cling on to.
As opposed to the total anarchy and mass murder currently in place which you openly advocate, I favor giving the Iraqis the freedom to do as they will with their nation and their resources. Hysterical cries about a possible ‘genocide’ upon your departure are nothing but hysterical cries about a possible genocide. Should the Iraqis ask for, or need help after your departure, they can do so through legal channels. That would be through the UN, since some of you unilateralist neocons seem to have completely forgotten small details such as oh…legality.
Enjoy.
RyanLiam: *When did the US army ever think that they would be recieved as liberators? *
Maybe when they listened to Vice-President Cheney on March 16, 2003?
So the Coalition makes mistakes, am I denying this? Do I say I don’t believe it? You’re probably right with the evidence and cites you produce, doesn’t mean I don’t believe we did right thing.
Allawi doesn’t even come close to Saddams excesses. The US supported Saddam solely to weaken his country and the Iranians, end of story. Who says I’m against majority rule, who says I am against what they want? All I know is that saying that they want a type of government because a minority of religious nuts say so is hardly broadbased opinion.
Your cites from Asia times??? The most blatantly anti occupation news paper probably on the net?
Heres another article of their supposed excellent reporting.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK11Ak03.html
and the Muhajadeen
Notice the difference, ones depicted as innocents who just want to live their lives, and another as an aggressive militatist army hell bent on killing as many people as it can.
or some more
How impartial, how neutral. How factual.
What the Hell? No it isn’t some liberal White guilt which makes me feel obligated to help the Iraqis, its national and Global implications if we leave and let them fend for themselves, which would be a disaster if we do not train, supply and help them enforce the rule of law around Iraq. White mans burden, are you nuts? We invaded, we help. End of story.
I do not advocate mass murder or anarchy, but I’m not naive to think it would of been some walk in the park, and you should think of the even worse events which would happen in the event of an early Coalition departure.
You seem to think there would be an Iraqi state when we left, you’re gravely mistaken.
erm, in the first stages of the war, they did. We squandered that goodwill. And anyway, I was talking about Fallujah, nice to extract my sentance and use it in a completely different context.
See? In reference to Fallujah.
Didn’t think “rebels” had such a bad connotation to it. The rebels in Star Wars were the good guys. To me it has a more romantic edge. Like South American rebels fighting bravely against oppressive dictatorships. Perhaps you’d consider Moore’s minutemen more appropriate?
Anyway. Surely we can all agree that people who abduct civilians and make demands on their release which when not immediately met decapitate the hostages on video under liberal shouting of religious absurdities are terrorists.
This one from The Washington Post is fairly hilarious:
Isn’t there supposed to be a “not” in that last sentence somewhere? But even with that, it still speaks of the difference. One part promise not to insult, the other not to torture.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48959-2004Nov14.html
Nice come back though…
You must be joking. Exactly what the hell do you think American commanders were talking about when they spoke of using bombing attacks to install “shock and awe” in the Iraqis?
They were trying to terrorize them.
Don’t make jokes about staplers; your claim that the American did not frighten IRaqis “intentionally” was bullshit. Fear and terror is always a tactic when a strong country attempts to subdue a weak one.
Fair enough. If you believe doing the “right thing” involves going into a war for false pretenses and outright lies. As a result of which thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis have died and continue to die.
Nonsense. With the US’s backing had the strongest military in the MENA region – Israel excluded of course. It was only after GW-I that Iraq’s military was decapitated. The US supported Saddam for two reasons: 1-He was a secular, pro-American dictator, who, through his iron-fisted rule, guaranteed both the unity of that country and it’s secularity. 2-Used him as a proxy battering ram against the fundamentalist Iranian regime, with whom the US still had scores to settle.
Meanwhile, with the US’s backing, Allawi has already declared martial law and backed a repressive and murderous campaign against those that would dare disagree with thier mutual agenda.
You do. Because if you knew even a bit of history of said country you’d also know that the Shite majoirty is overwhelmingly religious. Thus in an open election, odds are very good to great that they’ll choose someome like Sistani. And we also know that Rumsfeld said that such a result “would be discouraged.”
You’re welcomed to Pit each and every news source that dares stray from your blinkered worldview. Doesn’t mean they are not reputable or giving us a fair analysis. And Asia Times is most certainly a reputable news-source and not some fringe leftist organization.
But while you do that, I’d like to see you address and refute their commentary instead of simply attacking the source. If you’re capable that is.
Seems pretty accurate to me. And yes, very good, honest reporting. If your only problem is that it differs from your ideology, best that I can tell you is that is your problem not mine. Just as the article says, you’re the one being fooled by the propaganda, not I.
No. It’s doesn’t say that at all. Try reading it again. And again. Eventually you should be able to discern what the article says. Hint: pretty much what I’ve already told you in my prior post.
Indeed. Glad you noticed. because that is exactly what is happening in Iraq right now. Complete chaos, a war for independence but in name only.
“Disaster” for whom, exactly? And why the certainty? If you’re privy to some inside Manchester info on Iraq that hasn’t been made public, by all means, please share.
You may say that you don’t, and for all I know, even believe as much. But that is exactly what is happening on the ground. Thus that is what you’re, perhaps unwittingly, advocating.
Not sure if it’s occured to you in the past, but it’s actaully a very good idea to read the cites one provides. Because if you had, you might have noticed that whole article does nothing but strenghten my argument and poke more holes into yours – if that’s still possible. There are only so many holes one can poke into Swiss cheese before it stops being cheese.
From same:
Indeed. Thank you for making my case for me. Not that I need any. Help that is.
Cognitive dissonance, does the term mean anything to you?
TTFN
Do you really think that there’s any way of avoiding disaster? Honestly?
As gung-ho as the American people may be right now about the war, they will tire of it eventually. Americans are people of short attention spans, and aren’t really all that interested in global ramifications. All they’ll care about is that tax dollars are being poured into another country and American kids are coming home in boxes. Add to this that our politicians are cowards at heart. Eventually, the tide of public opinion will be so against remaining in Iraq that politicians will have to bow to the “will of the people” (as idiotic as it may be) and bring the troops home. It’s all a matter of time.
Of course, as soon as we’re gone, the puppet government will begin to collapse. There’ll probably be a civil war, which the president (whoever he may be) will be reluctant to get us involved in because Americans will be tired of war. A hard-line anti-US dictator will take power, and within twenty years of that happening, we’ll be back in Iraq wondering what the fuck happened.
I really don’t see any way of avoiding this. Bush’s resolve may keep us there during his presidency, but the pendulum will swing back eventually. What about his successor? Or the president after that? One of them will eventually bow to the pressure.