The Real Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]lixy wrote:
So you think a girl blowing herself up along with 42 others near a Shia holy site is not illustrative of “the real Iraq”?[/quote]

You’re not bringing us anything new here. Every news organization on the planet is reporting the event. We can all access CNN or the BBC if need be.

A little late for that, don’t you think? As much as it’d be nice to, we can’t rewind and try it differently.

Iraq is how it is right now. The situation can either improve, to everyone’s - but most importantly the Iraqi’s - benefit; or it can degenerate into more violence, more war and more deaths.

For someone who likes to claim a love of peace and of never wishing death to anyone, you sure seem to derive a gleeful schadenfreude from running up that tally.

102

[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
So you think a girl blowing herself up along with 42 others near a Shia holy site is not illustrative of “the real Iraq”?

You’re not bringing us anything new here. Every news organization on the planet is reporting the event. We can all access CNN or the BBC if need be.[/quote]

Ok.

I agree. It can’t be undone. Where we apparently diverge, is the nutjobs who still refuse to admit that it was a monumental blunder and keep defending Bush’s decision. We can - nay, we must - continue to bash their heads until they realize that wars of aggression are awful. If not, the morons who elected Bush the second time might just fall for another carefully crafted demonization operation.

Iraq hit rock bottom long ago. Things are going to get better. Worst case scenario, the place splits up into bits, which if you ask me, is the natural thing. The US can’t allow that as it will greatly benefit Iran while alienating Turks and Saudis.

As for Al-Qaeda, it ain’t going anywhere. It will remain a terrorizing and destabilizing force in Iraq and around the world long after we’re gone.

How do you figure?

103

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Yeah, we shouldn’t kick out a repressive dictatorship. See what happens.

Now, what should we do about The Saudi’s again?

Stop sending them money and guns, remove your military and make it clear you won’t stamp down a revolution against them. Do not invade the country.

What if Al-Qaeda steps up attacks there like they did years ago? What if they made a move against the monarchy like Khomeni did against the Shah in Iran? Just let the nuts take over? Is that the solution?[/quote]

It’s up to the people of a country how they want to be governed, and whether they are willing to experience the horrors of revolution/civil war to change their government and none of your damn business.

Say what you will about Khomeni, but it’s a step up from the oppressive puppet dictator the Americans installed. The revolution was a popular revolution, remember? If you had left them alone in the first place they would still have a fairly secular republic.

104

[quote]lixy wrote:
I agree. It can’t be undone. Where we apparently diverge, is the nutjobs who still refuse to admit that it was a monumental blunder and keep defending Bush’s decision.[/quote]

So?

By your own description, they’re nuts. Do you think you’ll cure them by becoming one yourself?

Bush was elected a 2nd time due to the abysmal failure of the Democrat at presenting a viable alternative.

The Iraq war was much younger then and many of the things we know now had yet to come out.

I’m pretty sure Bush couldn’t secure a 3rd term even if he was allow to pursue one.

You think that’s going to happen without any violence?

AQ’s importance is way overrated.

[quote]For someone who likes to claim a love of peace and of never wishing death to anyone, you sure seem to derive a gleeful schadenfreude from running up that tally.

How do you figure? [/quote]

Because it doesn’t really matter if the bombing killed 32 or 36 or 42. Unless a reported 32 turns out to be 32,000; a few more deaths won’t make the news any worse.

So, what point is there in posting 3 times about the same event unless you’re getting something out of it?

105

[quote]will to power wrote:

Say what you will about Khomeni, but it’s a step up from the oppressive puppet dictator the Americans installed. The revolution was a popular revolution, remember? If you had left them alone in the first place they would still have a fairly secular republic. [/quote]

Americans installed?

106

[quote]Sikkario wrote:
So what you are saying is we should have left Saddam, who gassed Kurds, invaded Iran and Kuwait, and defied the UN, alone and focused on the Saudis?

He gassed the kurds with our weapons, and at the time he gassed them, Iran was occupying that region, so he was technically attacking enemy forces.[/quote]

You say he gassed Kurds with our weapons. What wars have we or our allies used nerve gas? What wars have the Soviets (who supplied Saddam with weapons) and their allies used nerve gas? It was the Soviets who probably supplied the gas. They and their allies have a history of using it.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924846,00.html

To say it was the US would be anti-US revisionism.

107

[quote]will to power wrote:
Say what you will about Khomeni, but it’s a step up from the oppressive puppet dictator the Americans installed. The revolution was a popular revolution, remember? If you had left them alone in the first place they would still have a fairly secular republic. [/quote]

Do you support what the Iranians have done and are doing in Lebanon? Do you support Hezbollah?

108

[quote]pookie wrote:
So, what point is there in posting 3 times about the same event unless you’re getting something out of it?
[/quote]

And, I might add, what do the foreign fighters get out of killing civilians? The US military did not kill these people. The foreign fighters we are at war with did. Should we leave AQ be to kill more civilians or go a head fighting them? I think it is in our interest and in the interest of the Iraqis that we defeat AQ.

Also, why did AQ attack civilians? Lixy constantly claims the civilian deaths are low and most of the attacks are against our troops. His example is also an example of this not being the case. The fighters targeted civilians. It does not matter if AQ is there because we invaded first, they are doing the most indiscriminate killing and your link proves it. They have no right to target civilians and we have a right to stop them or if not us, the awakening council.

109

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, while you aren’t getting much credit amongst Iraqi’s for security gains, it seems as if negative responses have dropped considerably.

[i]Instead, poll respondents credited the Iraqi government, police and army.

In the poll, however, more than half the Iraqis, 53 percent, felt that the rapid buildup of U.S. troops in Anbar province and in Baghdad has made overall security worse, not better. Even those negative findings, however, were a sharp improvement since a similar poll last August. Then, 70 percent said the American buildup had made matters worse in the areas it had emphasized. Only 18 percent said it had improved their conditions then, compared with 36 percent now…

In line with that, the poll’s findings on “views of the U.S. presence” in Iraq were the highest since the invasion. Asked whether the “invasion was right,” 49 percent said it was. The previous high had been 48 percent in the first poll of the series, by ABC News in February 2004, a virtual tie with the current level due to the poll’s 2.5 percent error margin…

In August, 57 percent of Iraqis had replied that it was “acceptable” to attack U.S. forces. The poll released Monday found that number had dropped to 42 percent.

Likewise, 47 percent said last August that the foreign coalition’s forces should leave Iraq. In the new poll, that had dropped to 38 percent…[/i]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_poll [/quote]

111

[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
I agree. It can’t be undone. Where we apparently diverge, is the nutjobs who still refuse to admit that it was a monumental blunder and keep defending Bush’s decision.

So?

By your own description, they’re nuts. Do you think you’ll cure them by becoming one yourself? [/quote]

So, reporting a story where dozens of Iraqis get blown up and updating the tally is becoming a nut?

[quote]Bush was elected a 2nd time due to the abysmal failure of the Democrat at presenting a viable alternative.

The Iraq war was much younger then and many of the things we know now had yet to come out. [/quote]

We knew everything we needed to know from the very beginning. De Villepin presented it pragmatically. You needed to be a raving lunatic to think

You don’t know that. That is exactly what I have been saying in 2004.

[quote]Iraq hit rock bottom long ago. Things are going to get better. Worst case scenario, the place splits up into bits, which if you ask me, is the natural thing.

You think that’s going to happen without any violence? [/quote]

That’s not what I claimed, now did I?

Iraq is held together by very little. Iraqi nationalism is an oxymoron. Breaking it up is the path of least resistance. Violence will ensue, but not nearly as much as all the bloodshed we witnessed since 2003.

[quote]As for Al-Qaeda, it ain’t going anywhere. It will remain a terrorizing and destabilizing force in Iraq and around the world long after we’re gone.

AQ’s importance is way overrated. [/quote]

I totally agree.

Maybe to you it “doesn’t really matter”. Personally, I think a 25% increase is worth reporting. It doesn’t make the tragedy any worse, but 10 folks is definitely noteworthy.

If somebody sets off a bomb in Montreal tomorrow and you first report the casualties as 32, would you not update it as more bodies are uncovered?

I’m paid by the word.

112

[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m paid by the word.[/quote]

By Iran, no doubt.

113

Well, what should the US do? Leave Iraq and let AQ kill more civilians or continue to battle them with the help of Iraqis who are sick of being targeted?

114

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Americans installed?[/quote]

Yes. The democratic government was overthrown by the US and Britain using troops loyal to the Shah with the understanding that the Shah would be their puppet.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Say what you will about Khomeni, but it’s a step up from the oppressive puppet dictator the Americans installed. The revolution was a popular revolution, remember? If you had left them alone in the first place they would still have a fairly secular republic.

Do you support what the Iranians have done and are doing in Lebanon? Do you support Hezbollah?
[/quote]

Could you clarify what that has to do with this conversation? Not that I mind giving you my answer, but it seems a separate issue. If they were, say, supplying troops to defend the present government against its people or supporting an unpopular revolution I could see what you’re talking about, but neither of those is the case.

Anyway, I still don’t see what you have against people ‘making a move against the monarchy’ as you put it. Americans did that at one point, and it didn’t seem to be a problem. There’s more than one monarchy I’d like to see go down, and yes the Saudis are one of them.

115

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Well, what should the US do? [/quote]

How about learning from its own mistakes?

I agree that most of the harm has already been done. There is no way of knowing if getting out of Iraq will increase the violence in the short term. However, I am positive that if your troops stay there, it will make things worse for everyone in the long run.

116

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Well, what should the US do?

How about learning from its own mistakes?

I agree that most of the harm has already been done. There is no way of knowing if getting out of Iraq will increase the violence in the short term. However, I am positive that if your troops stay there, it will make things worse for everyone in the long run.[/quote]

Why when the troops are fighting al-Qaeda. If we leave, AQ will not go away. What should be done to stop them if we leave? Is Iran going to move in to fill the void? Do you think Iran can defeat AQ?

117

[quote]will to power wrote:
Could you clarify what that has to do with this conversation? Not that I mind giving you my answer, but it seems a separate issue. If they were, say, supplying troops to defend the present government against its people or supporting an unpopular revolution I could see what you’re talking about, but neither of those is the case.

Anyway, I still don’t see what you have against people ‘making a move against the monarchy’ as you put it. Americans did that at one point, and it didn’t seem to be a problem. There’s more than one monarchy I’d like to see go down, and yes the Saudis are one of them. [/quote]

  1. You said Khomeni was better than the Shah. In what way? They exported their Shia revolution into Lebanon. I wanted to know what you think of this because it is a direct result of the revolution you said you supported.

  2. What do I have against the people making a move against the monarchy. I have seen what has happened in Iran and the Shia revolution exported to other countries and a subsequent rise in global terrorism.

The ones who want to topple the Saudis are AQ. I have also seen their terrorist acts attacking targets across the globe and they are not even in control. Give them the oil, the 2 Holy cities, the cradle of Wahabism, and Islam itself, and I shutter to think what will happen.

118

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

  1. You said Khomeni was better than the Shah. In what way? They exported their Shia revolution into Lebanon. I wanted to know what you think of this because it is a direct result of the revolution you said you supported.
    [/quote]

I’m from a Shia background.

[quote]
2. What do I have against the people making a move against the monarchy. I have seen what has happened in Iran and the Shia revolution exported to other countries and a subsequent rise in global terrorism.

The ones who want to topple the Saudis are AQ. I have also seen their terrorist acts attacking targets across the globe and they are not even in control. Give them the oil, the 2 Holy cities, the cradle of Wahabism, and Islam itself, and I shutter to think what will happen.[/quote]

It’s the Sunni’s that are primarily attacking you. AQ is all Sunni; bin Laden calls for the death of Shia Muslims [this is a part of the reason all the Sunni v Shia fighting is going on]. Similarly, in Iraq most of the anti-US militias [and sentiment] is from Sunnis.

Also, it’s not just AQ that want to topple the Saudis. They would make things worse, yes. But if AQ tried to take over, and the populace asked you to step in and help them that would be different to you stopping any and all revolutions.

And again, what happened in Iran was a direct result of their government being toppled by the US in '53. That’s why they have a government so hostile to yours, and there’s is absolutely nothing unreasonable about that fact.

119

Yes. Bin Laden killed our last ally in Afghanistan, Mohammed Reza Shah (an Uzbek Shi’a), right before 9/11.

The Sunnis are traditionally the bullies. I’m not pretending that the Shi’a don’t engage in jihad as well, but the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, and most of these other organizations are Sunni. To the Sunnis, the Shi’a are Rafidite dogs.

120

[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
42 by the latest count.

Is there a point to this running total?
[/quote]

He shamelessly roots for death. He laughs at it. He is an asshole.