[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You’re naive if you believe Iraqi’s won’t be killed on a much grander scale. The responsibility will fall on the likes of you if the US listens to your ilk and makes a hasty retreat. What about those ‘consequences?’
Pure speculation.
If the US withdraws, I’m sure there’ll be no more dead Americans in Iraq, no more calls for resisting the occupier by Al-Qaeda and no more clashes between US troops and the insurgents.
Whether the Sunnis will stop killing the Shi’ites (and vice-versa) is another story. From the looks of it, the US is accelerating the balkanization of the place and exacerbating the sectarian fracture by building shameful separation walls.
Those walls are opposed not only by the population, but even by the Iraqi government who condemned the US for setting up these things. How then can the Iraqi officials look their compratriots in the eyes and claim they have sovereignty?[/quote]
Please point to the post where you felt the Iraqi Government had that sovereignity?
You don’t believe they do.
Therefore, you aren’t qualified to discuss the issue.
Of course, even the u.n. had grudging praise for the elections.
I don’t recall any American coercion. No hint of it.
Therefore, they are, of course, representative and fully sovereign.
However, I realize that your only goal is dominance over the region. That is, of course, being threatened. This explains you on here night and day with your shrill blather.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You’re naive if you believe Iraqi’s won’t be killed on a much grander scale. The responsibility will fall on the likes of you if the US listens to your ilk and makes a hasty retreat. What about those ‘consequences?’
Lixy:
Pure speculation.
[/quote]
You say, and then proceed to speculate yourself. Neither one of us has a crystal ball, we can only speculate.
Al Qaeda isn’t there merely to rid Iraq of the US. Surely, you realize this? You honestly believe that Al-Qaeda, foreign powers, and Sectarian totalitarianists will allow the Iraq’s elected government to stand?
Oddly enough, you’ve turned around and entertained the idea violence would continue. However, now there’ll be an undertrained, undermanned, undersupplied security left to provide security. You don’t think this will have a major impact on how brazen and open sectarian violence will become? Seriously? You don’t think Al-Qaeda and Iran will be even harder for the Iraqi government to counter?
Err, the walls aren’t built with separation in mind. They’re built with the best placement in mind for thwarting car bombers making it into markets and neighborhoods.
Some of those walls will separate sects simply because that’s how the best placement happens to be. Other walls end up with Shia an Sunni TOGETHER, because that’s how the best placement was determined. Some of these walls have caused no problems. The one’s that are a sore spot, are being reviewed. Don’t exaggerate.
No, not all the walls are opposed. Stop making crap up. Some of them are well regarded for stopping car traffic into markets, for instance. And no, the Iraqi government did not CONDEMN the US.
[quote]
How then can the Iraqi officials look their compratriots in the eyes and claim they have sovereignty?[/quote]
Umm, how about because when the Iraqi goverment asked the US to halt building, it did? They’re even now looking at other measures to try to achieve the same goals.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You say, and then proceed to speculate yourself. Neither one of us has a crystal ball, we can only speculate. [/quote]
No sir. What I wrote after that is irrefutable. But bare with me for a sec’…
Here’s what I wrote
If the US withdraws, I’m sure there’ll be no more dead Americans in Iraq, no more calls for resisting the occupier by Al-Qaeda and no more clashes between US troops and the insurgents.
The first part is obvious.
The second bit is natural. There will be no more justification for Al-Qaeda to call for killing the occupiers since there’ll be no occupation.
The last one is also self-evident once you distinguish between the insurgency and Al-Qaeda. While their methods and message might seem similar, their goals are not. One vowed to destroy the US, Israel, everybody and everything that don’t endorse their ideology. The other is merely trying to get you out of Iraq.
Like I said, Al-Qaeda is justifying their presence there by exploiting the chaos and grief of the locals after the invasion.
Iraqis are resisting Al-Qaeda, so its support base will decrease as soon as you withdraw your troops.
When you say “foreign power”, you mean the meanies and evil Iranians, don’t you? Newsflash: The US is a foreign power as far as Iraq is concerned.
Sectarian totalitarism is…well, an old issue that traces back to the Brits drawing lines maps. Naturally, every sect will want a part of the cake. I believe in their ability to coexist relatively peacefully and elect a government that serves the interests of everyone and protects the minorities. But that’s just my personal opinion and is based on nothing but my faith in the inner good of mankind.
That’s not odd. It’s just a logical extension of the non-speculative approach.
You mean THAT police:
The police force has also seen the infiltration[3] of its ranks by insurgents of various guises and motives. With access to privileged information, training and weapons they have used the force to their tactical advantage. Many police stations have been attacked, [4] had [5] weapons stolen from them and at times occupied by those who oppose the Iraqi government. As a result, many police officers have abandoned[6] their posts, others took off their uniforms and turned their weapons on the US forces who trained them.
Last I heard, you were planning to drop training them altogether.
[i]Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.
Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said. [/i]
I am CERTAIN that given the choice, the Iraqi people will naturally ally themselves with Iran. I am also pretty confident they can manage to counter Al-Qaeda by themselves.
Ok. How about CRITICIZE? I think in this context, they’re pretty similar. That’s the term the BBC used for its headline.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has asked for an end to construction work on a wall which would separate a mainly Sunni Muslim part of Baghdad from nearby Shi’ite areas.
“I asked yesterday that it be stopped and that alternatives be found to protect the area,” Mr al-Maliki told reporters in Cairo after talks with Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa.
The US military said last week it was building the wall in the Adhamiya quarter of Baghdad to protect the minority Sunni community from attacks.
Mr al-Maliki said he objected to the wall, even if the aim was to protect the district’s inhabitants, rather than to separate the two religious communities.
“I said that I fear this wall might have repercussions which remind us of other walls, which we reject,” he added, apparently referring to other cities divided in the 20th century, such as Berlin. [/i]
If he fucking listen once and awhile, I don’t think it’d be necessary at all. He just refuses to even begin to listen to congress. I just wouldn’t want Cheney as the actual president, so I don’t fully support impeachment at all. I’m not radical. I can wait the 2 years till he’s through.
Idiocy. The President is supposed to listen to Congress in matters that are exclusively his domain? And if he doesn’t, it rises to the level of a constitutional impeachable offense?
Do yourself a favor and learn up. I realize that pesky Constitution gets in the way of the Lefties’ dream world on a regular basis - but of you are going to impeach a sitting president, you are going to have to come up with something other than “he won’t listen to Congress on an issue I want him to listen to”.
Warmaking is the President’s domain. Maybe Bush should listen to Congress, maybe that would be good politics - but is he compelled to “listen” to them under pain of losing his job? Sheer stupidity. How old are you again?
Should we impeach members of Congress for not going the President’s way on issues?
Seriously, you have outdone yourself.
But, sorry, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” is a bit better than “They have WMDs and are a immediate threat to the safety of the US”.
Clinton’s lie was to a grand jury (and he ultimately was not impeached).
Bush didn’t “lie”, no matter how many times you write it on the page. The entire world that mattered thought Saddam had WMDs - and so did the most important group of all: Congress, who authorized action there.
And if Bush was evil enough to “lie” to get us into his war, why not plant WMDs so he doesn’t look “wrong” when he invades, thus taking air out of his initial campaign there? Wouldn’t he do anything to keep the momentum for his “corporate war” going?
You keep perpetuating this lie on partisan grounds - and it makes you look even dumber.
And please - keep making the argument that Bush should be impeached for doing his job and - sniff - not listening to the Democratically controlled Congress in an area exclusive to the President’s constitutional powers.
Pure entertainment.[/quote]
First of all, I don’t really want him impeached. I over reacted a bit. I apologize. But still, war making is NOT purely a presidential concern. That’s why only congress can declare war. I agree that he doesn’t HAVE to listen, he just should. It’s not just the dems in congress anymore. A lot of the GOP thinks the whole situation is a SNAFU over there.
My age is irrelevant. Ad hominem. Your first argument was better.
I don’t think Bush is evil. I don’t think were in Iraq because there oil there. I think he’s conceited. I think he’s willing to do whatever it takes to protect his “legacy”. I ALSO think he truly wants what is best for America, he just happens to believe that what is best for him and the richest sector of the populous coincides with that.
Bush, these days, keeps asking us to have patience. Have patience, and we will win. What happened to patience when the UN was inspecting Iraq for WMD’s? You say every thought they had WMDs… why is that a reason to attack them? And plus, it was very divided. A lot of people reasoned that a economically pathetic nation that was recovering from a war in Kuwait would probably not have the resources to build any real threat to the US.
Iraq is not and was not ever a threat to the US. Period. Even if it had WMD’s, it wouldn’t have been. What are they going to do? Swim the bombs over?
Congress fell to fear. They became pussified and worried they’d lose their jobs if they didn’t support this scapegoat war.
I’ll ask one final question.
Why did we go into Iraq?
Why couldn’t Bush wait for the inspectors to say they found nothing?
Why did we attack so hastily when there was no clear and present danger?
Once again, I apologize for my polarized view. You were right on that part. I just think that the executive office has a responsibility to represent the people of his or her nation, and not his or her party.
I guess Great Satan is not building the wall after all.
Wow, the Iraqi PM said to halt the construction, and guess what? We halted the construction.
And as far as responsibility goes: If 19 highjackers would not have crashed planes into our buildings (although never linked to Iraq) I doubt we would have been anywhere near that country.
Wow, the Iraqi PM said to halt the construction, and guess what? We halted the construction. [/quote]
The wall IS standing. I asked for sources saying it’s been dismantled. Till then, I take such declarations as “Obviously we will respect the wishes of the government” as mere PR to divert attention from the fact that the wall was built.
Explain to me what 15 men from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon have to do with Iraq. Explain how is getting more than 3300 of your fellow Americans killed making up for the lost lives on 9/11. Show me how causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis not drawing support to Al-Qaeda?
Do you mean to tell me that you would have been less likely to buy the lies of the Bush administration had it not been for the trauma you experienced on 9/11?
Pathetic.
I lost confidence in your analytical ability when you re-elected the idiot for a second term, even after the Iraq fiasco. In any society with a free press and a population remotely interested in what’s going on around them, he wouldn’t have stood a chance. Oh, well, off-topic…
The very moment you post a General who predicts victory in Iraq (there are plenty), then you have credibility.
Until then, please hush.
JeffR
[/quote]
Credibility would start by being credible, something you and Mr. Head Hunter could never claim, note the (fake) “cry” of treason for beliefs held by the majority of americans (both parties)and countless current and retired military…all obviously patriots.
Short answer: ignore anything Lixy has to say about the current President (and most other topics). He will say whatever is convenient and vitriolic to serve his tragically childish ends.
And as far as responsibility goes: If 19 highjackers would not have crashed planes into our buildings (although never linked to Iraq) I doubt we would have been anywhere near that country.
Explain to me what 15 men from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon have to do with Iraq. Explain how is getting more than 3300 of your fellow Americans killed making up for the lost lives on 9/11. Show me how causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis not drawing support to Al-Qaeda?
I said in my post there was no link to Iraq.
Do you mean to tell me that you would have been less likely to buy the lies of the Bush administration had it not been for the trauma you experienced on 9/11?
Yes.
Because if was not for 9-11, there would been no basis for them to spread their lies. The attack justified the invasion in many people’s eyes just the same way you say the war is justifying Al Qaeda in many people’s eyes.
We are pathetic to believe lies yet the people who are following Al Qaeda are portrayed as victims? freedom fighters? explain that one.
And as far as your wall goes. What if it indeed stops the violence between the different sects? Should we tear it down then? It was built to stop violence, but the people there seem to like that sort of thing.
Also, right, there was no secretarian war before the US moved in. Many mass graves filled with Shia can explain why this was so, and why, with a power vaccume, this violence (centuries old, I might add) again started up.
It was the same in the baltics after the fall of Communism. If you’ve got to have a Stalinist leader to keep your people from slaughtering one another, maybe some people are better off that way.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You say, and then proceed to speculate yourself. Neither one of us has a crystal ball, we can only speculate.
No sir. What I wrote after that is irrefutable. But bare with me for a sec’…
[/quote]
Do you even know what the word speculate means? You claim everything you said was irrefutable? Yet, turn around and riddle your response with OPINIONS? Are you serious?
Newsflash Lixy! Al-Qaeda, and the cooperating ‘resistance’ groups, are targeting and killing Iraqis at a much greater rate! And, they are targeting the Iraqi people’s elected officials! Al-Qaeda and their extremist brethren will not allow the Iraqi people’s government to stand. You’re head is in the clouds if you believe that.
Bullshit. Your little ‘resistance’ groups’ sectarian death squads prove the lie. Don’t give me this crap about them only wanting the US to leave so they can form a unity government. Bullshit.
Not when they’re walking into each other’s neighborhoods and executing dozens of the opposite sect’s civilians. Or, bombing each other’s markets. Not only is this part speculation, it’s badly supported speculation.
And, more speculation from you. Guess what? The most influential Sunni that has taken up the fight against Al Qaeda relies on who Lixy? That’s right, the US!
If US troops leave Iraq in a hasty withdraw, he and his supporters will parish. AL Qaeda, and the sectarian Sunnis using Al Qaeda, will destroy him and all the others. They are relying on the US for training, uniforms, weapons, and even as back up.
And, you better believe Al Qaeda will be supporting a side. They are going to make sure that an anti-Al Qaeda faction doesn’t take power.
Newsflash: The US is a foreign power that has been ASKED to stay in Iraq until security can be handled on their own. Who asked the US to stay? Iraq’s ELECTED government. You can view the UN resolution in which Iraq requested the continued presence of US and Ally troops if you’d like.
Now, what ELECTED government asked Iran to put it’s filthy hands into Iraq? What ELECTED government asked your “resistance” groups to kill a tragic amount of Iraqis on purpose to “rid the country of the US?”
There are no ‘resistance’ groups in Iraq. Only terrorists attempting to thwart the elected Iraqi government’s attempt to bring security to the nation.
Who the hell elected your noble little terrorists? What vote empowered them to act on behalf of the Iraqi nation? Who the hell elected them to “chase out the occupiers?” Not the Iraqi people.
Can you show me the vote where the Iraqi people as a nation elected your terrorists to run havoc? I can show you the vote where the Iraqi people chose the government that asked the US to stay.
You claim you’re not speculating, but turn around and use phrases such as, “I believe,” and “But that’s just my personal opinion…” Do you have a split personality? Damn near the entire paragraph was pure speculation. And, pie in the sky speculation at that! How the heck can you make such a claim when Iraqis are by far the biggest killers of Iraqis. And pretty much on sectarian lines too!
Wait, what?! How is speculating the possibility violence would continue, after you’ve speculated violence wouldn’t, non-speculative?
Ah, yeah, your insurgent groups have manged to infiltrate the Iraqis security forces. All in order to run sectarian death squads while in uniform. Or, to blow themselves up while amongst the Iraqi people’s police force, so they can kill Iraqi officers having lunch. But hey, thanks for demonstrating that the Iraqi security forces won’t be able to handle security on their own yet. You unwittingly supported my argument.
And, you know something? You’re not worthy of lacing up the boots of the majority of those Iraqi troops and police officers. They are putting everything on the line to keep their country from being torn apart by your little “resistance” groups.
They’ve lost a tragic amount of men trying to prevent your terrorist pals from overthrowing the people’s elected government. They die every single day raiding sectarian death squad hideouts, bomb and weapon caches, and while guarding markets from suicide bombers. Have some respect for your betters.
So, yeah, exactly where does that even remotely say we’ve abandoned training Iraqi troops? Why did you make a claim, and then post something that didn’t back up what you said? It’s saying the US has decided it will have to do a large part of the work because Iraqi troops won’t be able to do it alone in the near future. Not that we’ve stopped training Iraqi troops. Read the damn thing. You just wasted my time.
Are you delusional? Not even all the Shia factions want to be allied with Iran…
“Pretty confident” means you admit to speculating again. See above as to why they can’t.
No, in this context, they’re not similar.
You started by saying the Iraqi Government “CONDEMNED the US.”
But, now you have to settle with the Government merely “criticizing the baghdad wall…” What an absolute joke.
[quote]
I know people in Iraq who say the walls are still standing. But I welcome your sources on this.[/quote]
Did you even read your own article? And, are you asking if every wall will come down? No, every wall won’t. Not all of the walls face widespread objection as in this instance. Not every wall had the problem with isolating sects (which your article notes wasn’t the intention). Some of them were built to protect MIXED neighborhoods and markets.
In this case, the objection was widespread, and so the project was halted and other methods to secure the neighborhood will be reviewed. Wow…
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I said in my post there was no link to Iraq. [/quote]
Well, it’s always nice to hear it twice…
Right. Saddam was a monster. No two ways about it. But the argument hardly stands the cynical argument that he was your best ally as far as combatting terrorism is concerned. And we all know that the war on terror was the guise under which the invasion was sold to the US populace.
Also, how can you look people in the eye and talk about mass graves when Turkey has been doing the same to the Kurds, the Indonesian to the East Timorese with your weapons and your full support? The argument that it was out of mercy for the oppressed Shi’ites quickly crumbles under scrutiny.
Short answer: ignore anything Lixy has to say about the current President (and most other topics). He will say whatever is convenient and vitriolic to serve his tragically childish ends.
Also, how can you look people in the eye and talk about mass graves when Turkey has been doing the same to the Kurds, the Indonesian to the East Timorese with your weapons and your full support? The argument that it was out of mercy for the oppressed Shi’ites quickly crumbles under scrutiny.
Bull.
How many Kurds did we save from death with the no-fly zones in Iraq, and who are our best allies in that country? The Kurds.
I see a hell of a lot more AK-47s in third world countries than I do M-16’s. When you hold Russia accountable for it’s arms sales, then you can talk about us.
You really can’t hold us responcible for Turks killing Kurds when this kind of action has been going on for centuries. The Turks killing Kurds, Shia, Armenians have been going on a long time BEFORE 1945.
who sold them the weapons to do that?
Your arguement also crumbles. You mean to tell me if Turkey were not an ally of the US, there would be no guns or weapons of any kind in the country? They would get their weapons from some one else and still kill Kurds unfortunately. Because that is what they were doing FOR CENTURIES!!
I did not say that the US invaded Iraq to save the Shia. I said the reason there was not secretarian violence in the country
was because you had a dictator in charge who killed any opposition. To compare this to the Turks and Indonesians is just another way for you to spew your anti-american venom.
What happened in Syria in Hama, Darfur in Sudan? Syria, Sudan have never been allies of the US. How did they commit those atrocities with out US weapons and support? Or are they ok in your eyes since there was/is no US involvement?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
3. You really can’t hold us responcible for Turks killing Kurds when this kind of action has been going on for centuries. The Turks killing Kurds, Shia, Armenians have been going on a long time BEFORE 1945.
who sold them the weapons to do that?
Your arguement also crumbles. You mean to tell me if Turkey were not an ally of the US, there would be no guns or weapons of any kind in the country? They would get their weapons from some one else and still kill Kurds unfortunately. Because that is what they were doing FOR CENTURIES!![/quote]
You evidently don’t know much about the supression of the 90’s. The flow of US weapons to Turkey increased as soon as the atrocities started, and during its peak, Turkey become the world’s largest recipient of US arms (for obvious reasons, Israel is taken out of the picture).
But if you choose to look at it the pragmatic way, then you aren’t in a position to condemn Saddam, Castro or any other tyrant. Personally, I’ll stop dealing with a person if I see him/her abuse others with stuff I gave him…
If that is true, then why are we allies with the Kurds in Iraq. Aren’t they allied on both sides of the Iraq-Turkish border?
There is one sect of wahabi Kurds who are our enemies, but other than that, there are little problems in the Kurdish areas of Iraq.
If what you are saying is true, shouldn’t those people hate us?
And if we can’t condemn dictators who commit atrocities, you can’t condemn us for selling arms until you condemn the Russians for selling more weapons to third world countries than any nation in the history of the world.
You know, FUCK IRAQ, Fuck the govt. here, there, and fuck Bin Laden. Sorry for the language, but my testoserone is rising!!! The same 4 or 5 guys who spout the great Dubya are just trying to say if you aren’t a republican, you must be dumb.
Kiss my ass. You all say “family values, and the terrorists will come here if we pull out of Iraq!” Bull. They are all over the world, and the biggest terrorists on the planet right now are Cheney and Bush.
If you are the bad dudes you think you are, you would have enough confidence in yourself to defend yourself if the need arises. And if you really have some balls, join up, go over there and defend our country in a sand box. Damn keyboard warriors…
I did not say that the US invaded Iraq to save the Shia. I said the reason there was not secretarian violence in the country
was because you had a dictator in charge who killed any opposition. To compare this to the Turks and Indonesians is just another way for you to spew your anti-american venom.
What happened in Syria in Hama, Darfur in Sudan? Syria, Sudan have never been allies of the US. How did they commit those atrocities with out US weapons and support? Or are they ok in your eyes since there was/is no US
involvement?