Originally posted by KneverKnightTo the first question: that would be decided, one way or the other, by the Iraqis. It is their country, after all.
If all foreign (ie largely US) troops were to pull out tomorrow, how long would the new Iraqi government last? Would there be a general civil war?
To the second question: What do you think they're having now? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 Iraqis have died because of the war. Do you think the presence of foreign troops is leading to less violence or more?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderLess. If you dare find the details of how many Saddam DID KILL. Think about it. If you can.
Do you think the presence of foreign troops is leading to less violence or more?
Think real hard. Now we have "free media coverage".
But the number of people killed has declined. Mercifully. It's just that we now are free to see the killers as they continue to do what they have always done. The only difference now is that THE VERY SAME MURDERERS MUST KILL WITH STEALTH INSTEAD OF BOLDLY AS BEFORE.
If you don't believe me, then ask yourself WHY THE IRAQI PEOPLE ARE SO HAPPY NOW.
And they are. The killing is bad. But it was worse.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt could be worse ...
To the first question: that would be decided, one way or the other, by the Iraqis. It is their country, after all.
To the second question: What do you think they're having now? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 Iraqis have died because of the war. Do you think the presence of foreign troops is leading to less violence or more?
I dunno, hard to tell from the comfort of my easy chair, drinking red wine flown in, sated on my dinner, reading news reports on the internet.
Thing that I fear, for the Iraqis, is that if the US troops were withdrawn tomorrow, before the Iraqi army was ready, there would be an even bigger bloodbath as all restraint on "the insurgents" would be gone.
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightThe Iraqi army will NEVER be ready, as they are fighting for foreign occupiers against their own people. There's a word for that. They will fold up the moment the foreign troops withdraw; they won't even last as long as the South Vietnamese army.
It could be worse ...
I dunno, hard to tell from the comfort of my easy chair, drinking red wine flown in, sated on my dinner, reading news reports on the internet.
Thing that I fear, for the Iraqis, is that if the US troops were wit ...[text shortened]... bloodbath as all restraint on "the insurgents" would be gone.
I imagine there will be power grabbing WHEN (not IF) the US troops leave but that's what happens when you destroy the existing government of a country. Even if there is a war of partition between the various sides, it will be shorter and less bloody without the massive firepower of the US military. Countries have civil wars and survive (we even had one) but you don't HAVE a country if you're militarily occupied by foreigners and have to do their bidding.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderJust keep on prayin' mr. killer of women and kids.
The Iraqi army will NEVER be ready, as they are fighting for foreign occupiers against their own people. There's a word for that. They will fold up the moment the foreign troops withdraw; they won't even last as long as the Sou ...[text shortened]... re militarily occupied by foreigners and have to do their bidding.
You are showing your ego here. You just hope that the bad guys win so you can be shown as a "winner". You took a position and no matter the cost, you want the terrorists to win. That is the sad truth that I have seen in you from the beginning. You have fooled some into thinking you are a liberal. But to those of us who are liberal, we loathe you in every way. You are just a sad chimp who chose sides and now want the bad guys to win so that you can be right.
Did it ever occur to you that it is ok to move on and just adopt a new postion based on the latest and best observations? It is totally cool to do so.
Unless you are "STANGLIKE" and incapable of changing your mind.
Think about it. Do you really want the terrorists to win? Just because you said FROM THE START that they would? Silly damned chimp. I don't choose you at recess!
I thought about a good analogy for this Iraq thing: You tell sombody about protected sex, they go out and do it anyway and you now have a baby. What do you do with the baby? Surely, a baby is a good thing? Now somebody has to take care of the baby, protect the baby. that doesn't mean having the unprotected sex iin the first place was right. Invading Iraq wasn't good judgment. But now you have the baby. We hope the baby will grow up and be a good person. I know it's a very patronizing analogy, but it's the best i can come up with. The Iraqi war puts the opponents of the war in a peculiar position. It isn't a contradiction to be against the war, but for the new iraq. The new Iraq would have come anyway in time. Hussein couldn't last forever. Am I making sense?
1 edit
Originally posted by buddy2No.
I thought about a good analogy for this Iraq thing: You tell sombody about protected sex, they go out and do it anyway and you now have a baby. What do you do with the baby? Surely, a baby is a good thing? Now somebody has to take care o ...[text shortened]... yway in time. Hussein couldn't last forever. Am I making sense?
PS But hey I just made my 17000th move on RHP in our game! So let's have a beer!
1 edit
Originally posted by buddy2Sort of. But you are being simplistic in how evil people are, and the force that is required to confront evil.
I thought about a good analogy for this Iraq thing: You tell sombody about protected sex, they go out and do it anyway and you now have a baby. What do you do with the baby? Surely, a baby is a good thing? Now somebody has to take care o ...[text shortened]... yway in time. Hussein couldn't last forever. Am I making sense?
You have the right idea though. Time is a constant in the universe, and once a thing "happens" it is the fool who preoccupies himself with what "might have been" because it "didn't happen".
It is the most bitter pill a chimp can swallow. To do away with the "position" they took as a "mighty warrior chimp" and say. "Ok. Well. Now what is the situation? I sure as hell lost out on the notion that Saddam should remain in power."
Is a free Iraq a good thing? This is what the pseudo Libs must confront and answer. There is no if, and or buts. It is a done deal. So is it a good thing or a bad thing?
Brutal confrontation of the world can focus one away from euphemisms of 'babies' if one applies the intellect.
Another famous old saying I just made up. <edit> and No... I don't ever expect the marauder to understand. He will pray for the success of the terrorists forever. That is the side he chose, and change is too painful to even consider.
Originally posted by buddy2Makes sense to me, it's all about trying to make the best of one's mistakes. Do you cut and run? Or do you play the cards?
I thought about a good analogy for this Iraq thing: You tell sombody about protected sex, they go out and do it anyway and you now have a baby. What do you do with the baby? Surely, a baby is a good thing? Now somebody has to take care of the baby, protect the baby. that doesn't mean having the unprotected sex iin the first place was right. Invading Ir ...[text shortened]... he new Iraq would have come anyway in time. Hussein couldn't last forever. Am I making sense?
Originally posted by KneverKnight" Playing the cards" means condemning tens of thousands or more of human beings to death for a policy doomed to fail. At some point, rational human beings have to look realistically at what's going on and realize that the chance that the US can impose a pro-Western, puppet government on the Iraqis without the continued presence of US troops and continued bloody resistance is nil. The sooner the government comes to this obvious realization, the sooner we can stop killing and being killed for a plan that is doomed to failure. Further, even if it could succeed, it would not be worth the incredible cost in death, maiming, suffering and the mental scars that the virulent form of mass murder that is war impose on both sides and both peoples. End the madness NOW.
Makes sense to me, it's all about trying to make the best of one's mistakes. Do you cut and run? Or do you play the cards?
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderLOL
" Playing the cards" means condemning tens of thousands or more of human beings to death for a policy doomed to fail. At some point, rational human beings have to look realistically at what's going on and realize that the chan ...[text shortened]... is war impose on both sides and both peoples. End the madness NOW.
It will be fun to see you slink away from RHP next year when Iraq graduates it's first class of women politicians.
Snark.
Come on marauder. You can do it. Just think about changing your mind. It can be done. Really.
I loved your use of "puppet". Has it ever occured to you that the people of Iraq have been yanked by the best of them for years? By murdering dictators? You make me smile. Then you just piss me off. The world has enough terror. Come on over to the side of the victims.
But then I have a froidian moment. You chose "marauder" which is a killer of kids and women. Was that a froidian slip on your part? Or an admission that you really don't give a shit. As long as you are right?
Stupid chimp. Everything bad about chimps. Marauding against the weak and helpless.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not sure if you are correct in asserting that this policy is doomed to failure. I can't tell you if the average Iraqi (whatever that is) has some sense of national identity. From what I can tell, there are at least three groups; the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites who may have stronger ties to their own ethnic background than to the idea of a nation called Iraq.
" Playing the cards" means condemning tens of thousands or more of human beings to death for a policy doomed to fail. At some point, rational human beings have to look realistically at what's going on and realize that the chance that the US can impose a pro-Western, puppet government on the Iraqis without the continued presence of US troops and ...[text shortened]... lent form of mass murder that is war impose on both sides and both peoples. End the madness NOW.
There's gotta be a better way than all out civil war ...
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightThat's up to them. It's just hubris for the US to think that they can dictate to everyone, everywhere in the world what kind of government they can have or how they can divide up the territory they live in. There was this little place called Vietnam where the US wouldn't admit its policy was failing until over 2 million people were dead; same story for the Soviets in Afghanistan. Funny thing about people; they don't like to be ruled by foreigners. Go figure.
I'm not sure if you are correct in asserting that this policy is doomed to failure. I can't tell you if the average Iraqi (whatever that is) has some sense of national identity. From what I can tell, there are at least three groups; ...[text shortened]... d Iraq.
There's gotta be a better way than all out civil war ...
Originally posted by no1marauderI hear you, it's like the British Empire dividing up the world as it crumbled, ignoring regional opinion.
That's up to them. It's just hubris for the US to think that they can dictate to everyone, everywhere in the world what kind of government they can have or how they can divide up the territory they live in. There was this little place called Vietnam where the US wouldn't admit its policy was failing until over 2 million people were dead; same ...[text shortened]... in Afghanistan. Funny thing about people; they don't like to be ruled by foreigners. Go figure.