Are you advancing an argument against the withdrawal, or something else?
Let me ask you this, though;
If there aren’t any U.S. troops there, will the American electorate care if there’s a civil war in Iraq?
If it hikes the price of oil (and it would) they might care (though whether they’d understand the connection is another matter)
Personally, my HO and WAG is that Iran won’t allow there to a be major civil war in Iraq.
Unless we piss 'em off.
Iran benefits from a stable and now very Iran-friendly neighbor.
Well, what Casey and Rummy are saying isn’t exactly what I had in mind, but if it gets us out who cares? I would relax the requirements for a reduced insurgency on the grounds that our presence supports and justifies quite a bit of it so if we leave the turmoil will quiet down. Do I know this? Of course nots but I’m not sure the powers that be know otherwise either.
What I am reasonably sure of is that we are in great danger of losing what support we have among the majority Shiites and that ain’t good.
Your recollection is just fine – in fact my post remains upthread in black and white and it’s not exactly worthy of rocket science thesis status, quite the contrary, it’s about as straight forward and simplistic as the one I was responding to. It’s the inherent irony in having a native French-speaking poster having to ‘translate’ what was plain to all to read in the first place that only reaffirms my belief that ‘debating’ Kool-Aid consumers is beyond futile.
Not that I need remind you but in the binary world of Bush-Apologists, you’re either “with us or against us.” In that vein, your – very valid – question has already been answered. Pathetic what ideology can, and does, to a man. Such as stripping them of the capacity to think for themsleves.
Resist an invading force and by some bizarre definition you’ve become a “terrorist, blowing-up children.” No guerrilla methodology distinctions required nor necessary.
Hey! At least it’s not overly taxing on the little grey cells of The Faithful®.
And a reasonable man you are: Iraq PM urges quick pullout of US forces
As I’ve said before – over and over – Sistani’s been simply playing the US occupation as a means to an end. An end that has/had little to do with even your ‘noblest of intentions’ – if one were naive enough to think there were any to begin with.
What’s that they say about making your bed?
That was my first thought too – to relax the requirement for a reduced insurgency. Then it occured to me that the powers that be will just declare that a reduced insurgency exists and come home.
We will also declare victory. There will be a lot of totally unjustified back patting.
Meanwhile, I hope our women and men returning home will be treated to the benefits and support they deserve from our government. They have consistently had it from the citizens.
In my opinion there will be one test alone of our mission: Will a Constitutional Democracy survive for all of Iraq? President Bush said that he wanted the country to be a beacon of hope for all of the Middle East. Then it must survive intact in the form of a democracy.
Hollywood and BushCo aside,I’d be interested in knowing how you’d you feel if any number of members of the Iraqi resistance were to recieve similar treatment from their countrymen? As in “heroic deeds” for instance.
Fat chance. After the band stops playing and the bumper stickers peel they become just a bunch of bitching veterans trying to parlay a couple of years of duty into a lifetime sinecure.
There’s something that worries me more than civil war in Iraq, and thats being forced to choose a side in that war. Which would pretty much have to be the Shia, would it not? Our previous commitment, if it is still “operational”, is for a federal Iraq, an Iraq apparently intended to be largely the same except without Saddam. A democratic Iraq.
Which would mean, would it not, that if the majority of Iraq’s citizens decide, in a free and fair election, to empower a Shia majority hostile to the formation of an autonomous Kurdistan…well, I’m sure you can fill in the rest on your own. Which would make this the…what? third? fourth? fifth?..time that the hapless Kurds have trusted us and been thoroughly buggered for it.
And if they decide to brutally oppress the Sunni, are we going to sacrifice our best and brightest to protect them? Against the will of the majority, against the wishes of the legitimately elected government of Iraq?
About the only thing worse than picking a side would be not picking a side, trying to enforce peace and stability and have everybody hate us. If they don’t already.
Yes, we did most definitely and strenuously fuck this up. Yes, by any reasonable moral standard we have a duty to fix what we broke. If we can.
What I’m seeing now appears to be hoping against hope, hanging on in the desperate optimism that maybe, just maybe, it will somehow work out. That we can bet it all and draw three cards to fill a straight flush.
Sound familiar? Its deja voodoo all over again, with sand instead of jungles. Those that refuse to learn from history make the rest of us repeat it. And John Kerry’s question comes back to haunt: who will be the last soldier to die for this colossal blunder?
And, eluc, Donald Rumsfeld has already stated catergoically that an agressive or theocratic Shia government is simply “not going to happen”. Should civil war break out, it might even seem that the least worst option would be a secular Sunni leader who can unite the country under a stable rule and offset the power of the mullahs who might seek alliance with evil Iran.
But, who? 
05-03-2004, 01:55 PM #48
alaricthegoth
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 864
Location: Dock of the Bay
apologies for the inaccurate link–copied text from address bar instead of trackback.
- I would like to stand up for my buiddy, Saddam.
Events have proven that the predictible result of ruling an alienated majority with a priveleged minority is not pretty (think electrodes and genitals, ya’ feel me?)
Indeed, we ourselves are, at this moment, turning to the Republican Guard for managerial talent.
Accordingly, I propose we replace Negroponte with a man who has a proven record of successfully providing Baghdad with electricity and security to (most–not all, but most…) Iraqis.,
To Wit:
Submitted for your approval, a new man in an old man’
s body
He’s tanned, rested, and ready.
The tailors are pulling basting stitches,
The makeup girls are ready.
Back,
better than ever,
(with $35000. worth of bridgework)
You loved him in '90,
Now show him love today
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Leeetts Get READY TO RUMBLE,
Welcome back to the squared circle,
Sadam “El Guappo Sincro” Hussein.
Something else. I think we should leave as soon as possible, but, unlike you, I have no illusions about the consequences.
About as much as they care about about the slaughter in the Darfur province of Sudan.
I’m not accusing them of blowing up children because they are resisting an invading force. I’m accusing them of blowing up children because, well, they are blowing up children!
Dozens of them in the last two weeks alone.
How many children did George Washington’s army deliberately blow up per week during the revolution?
I don’t know why I even bother responding to posters like you who harbor such insane and radical beleifs. It’s obviously bunk, and any sane person reading it would recognize it as such. I guess it just bothers me to see such nonsense posted on the SDMB and go unchallenged. It reminds me of how far this place has sunk.
Your post suggests that you believe there is but one “insurgency” in Iraq. Have you any reason to believe that? If so, what is the nature of that insurgency? Is it religious in terms of motivation, or entirely secular?
I put it to you, sir, that you know what we know, which is to say “diddly squat”.
My post says nothing that suggests that whatsoever.
I know that equating the terrorists in Iraq to the American founders shows some on the wacky left for what they are: anti-American nutjobs. The fact is that you havn’t denounced these foolish comparisons and instead choose to invent things about my posts to attack. In light of this it seems to me that that partisan bickering is more important to you than any battle against ignorance.
The suggestion that base motivations, whether real or imaginary, have some relevence to the validity of an argument is the very definition of ad hominem. You could look it up.