Fair and balanced

[kosar]

disregard...i don`t have the energy or the inclination to getting into any more pissing matches....

g.l.

GW,

I saw your post a while ago, but didn't have time to respond before you deleted it. I'm sorry that you felt that it would lead to a 'pissing match'. That's not the case.

Perhaps the reason that you deleted it, was because it was not defensible.

It's hard for me to re-create your post from memory, and then respond to it.

But:

Your main point was that the Sunni's (Baathists) were evil because they had ties to the previous admin. And that my point was that these same people were defending their country, just like you or I would.

It's not just the Sunni's. I'm sure that Al-Sadr rings a bell? A shiite? Yes. Not a Sunni.

Yes, a political vacuum where each and every faction despises and will ultimately refuse a democracy.

This will continue be a total clusterfu*k, and for some of us, it's not 'monday morning Qb'ing'.

 

[dr. freeze]

lmao yeah they are defending their country by blowing up their own police force.....

good one genius

 

[gardenweasel]

kosar.....here`s the initial reponse to your post..........

indefensible?....i`ll let that slide...you`re obviously in the midst of an ether binge....
............................................................
"the ones that are "defending their country?"...

you know,the country with the political vaccuum?....well,that political vaccuum was caused by the removal of the baathists... the same baathists that filled all those mass graves....

the same baathists that rule neighbor syria with an iron hand...the very same syria that is helping promulgate and assist in the bombings and slaughterings and are fighting the possiblility of a democratic iraq....albeit doing it behind the scenes by opening their borders to terrorists......giving them access to iraq....and sending terrorists through lebanon to hit israel....

a similar situation was taking place in turkey...until the turks told syria in no uncertain terms that the assistance to islamic terrorists in the crossing of the turkish/syrian border has to stop or turkey would take action against syria.....in essence they threatened to attack syria and destroy it...

it did the trick and cross-border terrorism has reportedly ceased"....

..................................................................

that was my post...i`ll respond and then let you have the last word..

...they aren`t "evil" because they had ties to the previous administration...they`re "evil" because they practice a totalitarian-like form of governance that oppresses segments of their own society.....

these people aren`t defending their country.....many are from out of country...or are saddam loyalists....read the paper .....they are defending their brutal stranglehold on the people and the region...and trying to keep any alternative influence out of the region.....so they can continue to hold power over and oppress the people...or,in the case of the terrorists,proseylytize their islamofacism....

al sadr`s a shiite?....so what....you really think the large majority of shiite`s would want saddam back?...lol

and syria aids them by allowing foreign terrorists to cross their borders into iraq...... they couldn`t possibly allow any form of representative government to flourish in the middle east because it just might mean the end of their little theocracies and autocracies....and in the case of the terrorists,it threatens their move to proselytize the entire region to their islamofascist ideology...

iran is having much trouble with the educated youth of their country...as they try and get out from under the ayatollahs and mullahs....and move into the 21st century....wishing to practice a more modern,benevolent form of islam...

they are fighting any form of elections....anything that diminishes their control....

you say...."Yes, a political vacuum where each and every faction despises and will ultimately refuse a democracy."......

democracy isn`t easy...who thought the iron curtain would fall?...the berlin wall would come down?.....reagan was crazy,wasn`t he?....lol


do you really believe that the shiites and the kurds would prefer saddam to having some say in their own government?....

well,it may never happen..i`ll give you that.......i mean any form of representative government...where all the people are treated with basic human dignity.....where the debates aren`t about the correct way to beat their wives....or whether it`s correct to stone homosexuals or throw them off of cliffs......or to mass murder those that don`t agree with their religious philosophy....or aren`t from the same "tribe"...


it probably won`t happen....but,we`re there...alot of water has already gone under the bridge....rather than capitulate and let the baathists and terrorists resume the carnage,maybe we should do what we can to give those that want some sort of self determination a chance...

or just quit...pull out and let the terrorists and the saddam loyalists resume their oppression...if we leave...right now....what do you think will happen?...

defending their country?...from what?.. free elections and some sort of self determination?.....

by cutting women`s heads off that are iraqi citizens ...and bombing markets and hotels...

umm hmmm...

you could get work at al jazeera.....


noooo...they are defending their dominance....their tyranny.....their persecution of any that disagree...

 

[smurphy]

What are the odds that whoever comes out the January election will be able to lead peacefully. By it's very makeup, Iraq is almost predisposed to be a violently run country. Ever since the Brits purposefully drew it up to include 3 opposing groups, it's been doomed to 1 or 2 groups being oppressed by whichever group is lucky enough to be in power.

This really is very similar to Vietnam - in that we seemed to rush into it without enough sense of history of the people. We had it in our heads that Saddam was the culprit. Rid him and everything will be OK. Just like not having a sense of the Vietnamese history of fightingagainst invaders nearly non-stop for a couple generations, we're running into the same kind of buzz saw in Iraq.

It seems like our downfall every 30 years or so is ignorance. We don't do our homework and we pay for it. We were given ample statements of warning. The Iraqi public said over and over again that they were greatful, and we would be welcomed for a few months. Now many moderates are basically in a mindset that we are occupiers who won't leave. Soooooo, what do we do? We can't leave, but staying gets tougher everyday.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"What are the odds that whoever comes out the January election will be able to lead peacefully. By it's very makeup, Iraq is almost predisposed to be a violently run country"

--very true Smurph

I'll go one further as everyone sees worse scenerio as civil war in aftermath I believe what we have now is civil war with just the 20% minority (Sunnis) doing the fighting. You had the minority running this country for decades and the Kurds and Shites being oppressed. They see a reversal coming and will do anything and everything to prevent it.The future will be determined by whether the Kurds and Shites decide to fight or take the path of least resistance. One thing they can't claim this time is that we left them hanging like George Sr and Swartzkoff.

 

[kosar]

lmao yeah they are defending their country by blowing up their own police force.....

good one genius

In their own way, yes. Apparently you missed the part about trying to fill the vacuum, or in the case of the Sunnis, trying to preserve the status quo, which of course is the same thing.

Blowing up your own countrymen of course ridiculous to you and me, but you continue to refuse to accept the enormous differences between our culture and theirs. Just like this misguided admis has all along. That's why we are where we are.

 

[kosar]

GW,

In the end, none of that will matter. What I mean is, yes, of course the Sunni's are defending their stranglehold on the Iraqi population and the Shiites are trying to take over that role and turn Iraq into an Iran lite.

Yes, of course the Sunni's are bad. But go one country to the west and see what Shiite strangleholds are all about. It just doesn't matter who ends up emerging the victor from the forthcoming (ie, when we leave) inevitable civil war.

Your examples of the Berlin Wall falling, and the Iron Curtain being torn down have absolutely no relevance to this current situation. The reason should be obvious, but many here in this country *still* don't get it. It's religion. Democracy is not only 'tough', but in that region it's impossible.

You say:

"defending their country?...from what?.. free elections and some sort of self determination?....."

Here we go again. Yes, it seems incredible to us that a country would not want free elections and self-determination. They aren't us.

You say:

"or just quit...pull out and let the terrorists and the saddam loyalists resume their oppression...if we leave...right now....what do you think will happen?..."

If we leave now, the same thing will happen as whenever we leave down the road. Mass chaos. Civil war. Only with thousands less casualties and without the incredible vulnerability that we have right now as a result of virtually every key unit being bogged down playing traffic cop. This can't go on indefinitely. I think we should see them through an election in January and totally get the hell out of there. We could stay 5 years, 10 years, whatever, but there is no possible way that anything that we implemented, or tried to implement would stick more than 2 hours after we pull out.

 

[dr. freeze]

actually i will give you that the admin refuses to acept reality, but i do not....

i believe that if you fight a war against these people you need to fight it and not dance around the tulips

unfortunatley the liberal peaceniks who control the media will not allow the war to be fought as such as we have already seen them sabotage one marine who was doing his duty

unfortunately bush is not reaganesque and is more clintonesque in regards to political correctness

 

[kosar]

actually i will give you that the admin refuses to acept reality, but i do not....

i believe that if you fight a war against these people you need to fight it and not dance around the tulips

unfortunatley the liberal peaceniks who control the media will not allow the war to be fought as such as we have already seen them sabotage one marine who was doing his duty

unfortunately bush is not reaganesque and is more clintonesque in regards to political correctness

Freeze,

I really don't think you have a good handle on military strategy and the actual, major problems in the application of what your suggesting in this type of a war.

What you don't get is that we *aren't* 'dancing around the tulips.' We've talked about this before. You cannot level or nuke entire cities. You just can't, man. And you can't order everybody to leave an area within a certain amount of time and then level it. The insurgents will mostly leave right along with the other 100,000, or whatever, now homeless, businessless citizens.

And most importantly, doing that wouldn't quell this situation even a little.

I agree that the marine got screwed by that asshole reporter, but that sort of thing has little or nothing to do with the failure of this occupation.

You cite 'political correctness', and use that marine as an example. So let's say now that as a result of that injustice, other troops will be less likely to shoot apparently unarmed Iraqi's(although 4 more got court martialed after that incident for killing an unarmed, majorly wounded teenager who was picking up trash along the road). How does that affect our problem of controlling this country?

 

[djv]

I keep seeing Saddam killed thousands. But it seems many of those were over 12/14 years ago. Many during the Iran war. Because he was gasing his population was never one of the excuse for us to invade. If it was then we should have complete the mission in 91. I mean he had gassed most by then and we didn't give a chit? We can replace him with a new government and I give it less then a year. Then they fight all over again. It's just the way it is. What do we do then send troops back again. We can't win this in the way we want. We can't make it like it;s the 52 state. But of ofcurse no one gave a chit to remember or think that thru. So now were down to it's about election?

 

[gardenweasel]

i said that the chances of some sort of "real" government of the people is a very long shot....

i agree...totally....after centuries of being bogged down in tribalism..religious law...brutality......

what kept this country "intact"(the best word i can think of),was the brutality of saddam....the rule by fear and violence.....even though he wasn`t actually a part of the islamofascist element,he held them at bay...through fear,intimidation and brute force...

that,unfortunately,is what is understood in the middle east...

are we condescending,arrogant p-icks for saying these people aren`t capable of what other free societies are capable of?.... .....no..we have to be realistic..

i do believe that the shiites and kurds and other victims of the baathists would prefer to not return to business as usual...

we`re there....we have to,at least,give them a chance...

would i make the bet that this will work...no...

would i prefer that we abandon the pursuit,knowing the immediate consequences?....no...

lets get these elections in the book...then see the lay of the land...

we are at a distinct disadvantage...we have rules...we have bounds...the bunch that want to see the elections fail...to see some sort of fair government of all the people fail...they have no rules...no bounds....no morality,as we understand it...

i ask this....with terrorists trying to bring us down.....with islamofascism integrating itself into europe.....and beyond....do we follow europe`s lead?.... stick our heads in the sand...and hope it all goes away?...

do we leave iran alone to develop wmd`s?....so maybe they can pass them off to some shadowy surrogate.terrorist group to attack israel....and potentially start ww3....or maybe pass them off to some terrorist to sneak into our country on some cargo ship?.....

do we just throw up our hands...squeeze our eyes tightly shut like europe did in ww2...and are doing now... and hope for the best?

what if iraq actually did have wmd`s?...we`d never have known...not with all the bribery and duplicity going on at the u.n..

should we do nothing?...do we depend on entities like the u.n. to do the right thing?

what`s the answer?....

it`s not black and white...

but to abandon....at least before the elections take place...would be utter stupidity...what message would that send...to the rest of the middle east?....the world?..

that`s not an option...

 

[djv]

I agree have election to late for anything else. But once done and asked to leave to we? It could happen. As for going in first place. Well Iran needs elections and has WMD. Or do they? Or is it true because Fox news says so. N Korea needs election and we know they have WMD. The list grows. And we have no right to tell any of them then need elections. Sounds like we spent 65 million last two years in Ukraine. We even say it's true. But we say it's to help them with there democracy. Ah thats make it all OK.

 

[smurphy]

unfortunatley the liberal peaceniks who control the media will not allow the war to be fought as such as we have already seen them sabotage one marine who was doing his duty

unfortunately bush is not reaganesque and is more clintonesque in regards to political correctness

The situation with the marine is irrelevant. I did not hear one person on any media outlet bash him. If anything, I kept hearing the exact opposite. If it was up the media I watched and listened to, he would have been given a medal.

Reagan would never have put us in this situation. If you look back at his foreign policies - he was firm without getting us into stupid situations like this. He helped us "win" the Cold War almost entirely through diplomacy and covert actions. How many actual wars did he send us into? Grenada? Everything else was threats and crafty dilpolmacy - never isolating us from allies. I'd bet that Reagan would have done what was necessary in Afghanistan and then used more forceful diplomacy. He was much too smart todo what Bush the amatuer is doing.