The cost of Democrats defeatism

[EN09]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting how suddenly Iraqi's not helping US troops is suddenly the democrat's fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. It isn't anyone's fault at least not on the US.

I'm all for securing Iraq's borders so others can't get involved and allowing them to settle things for themselves. Much like meeting out behind the school in the woods and settling things fair and square. No buddies juming in, etc.

If they want a socialist/dictator type of environment, that too, is something they can have. Democracy isn't for everyone, and everyone isn't for Democracy.

But if a country is involved in shenanigans with terrorist/al quada dealings, and it pours over into our cuntry or on our citizens, I'd reserve the right to take them out as well.

I could be considered a hardcore Hawk I guess. But I'm sick and tired of others whining about the US and how everything is our ault. Perhaps we should allow N. Korea to feed itself and Africa to go down to AIDS too. I have no problem with that either, no one likes us, we'll take our ball/money/assistance and come home.

I'm all for leaving Ira. Screw'em. But it isn't as simple as blaming the LEft or Right, Lierals or Neo-cons or Bush or Clinton for that matter as some simpletons think.

EN

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
At this point its probably true. Sec of Defense said that dissent was encouraging Iraqi Gov't to get their act together since it made clear that US wouldn't stay forever, but since that time things have gotten worse in terms of political reconciliation. So its probably true, it does discourage Iraqis from helping.

The broader picture is that this is a tragedy, caused by Bush, mismanaged by Bush, with no end in sight. So any finger pointing must begin with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So the perception that America will cut and run, which started with Viet Nam and tainted every conflict since then, is Bush's fault. I didnt realize he was that powerful.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
It must be kept in mind that not all U.S. forces will be pulled out when the surge ends. A large number will remain into the foreseeable future, ready to reinforce and support loyal neighborhoods and villages.


[/ QUOTE ]

"loyal villages"... loyal to whom, the Shi'ites or the Sunnis? or maybe to al-Sadr, or to some other militia?

An Iraqi power-sharing government does not have the citizens, politicians or even Iraqi military's loyalties: their loyalties almost entirely run to factional and tribal lines, not to greater Iraqi unity.

Maybe the Iraqis will unite against al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq with the USA's help - but that doesn't answer the more important question regarding sectarian strife, hatred, history, and struggle for power between the Shi'ites and Sunnis.

In the other thread, you seemed to base your optimism that the U.S. would win in Iraq and that Iraq would become stable and free, on "faith". Do you have also "faith" that the Shi'ites and Sunnis will come together and be copperative and peaceful in governance with each other, despite many centuries' history showing the opposite, and despite current power struggles and factional alignments? If so, why do you have faith that the Sunnis and Shi'ites will all of a sudden NOW decide to get along with each other?????


I think you are doing the same thing Bush anmd many Westereners do: project Western thinking on Middle Easterners and assume that that's how they will think too. Well, it ISN'T. And current evidence, as well as history both ancient and modern, contradicts hope for optimism between Shi'ites and Sunnis.

I really hope you have more reason to think these good things will occur, beyond just having pure faith. So far ytou haven't made a rational pragmatic case for an optimistic outlook, though. All you've done to address that point is what Bush et al have done: use "shoulds" and "how good it would be" and phrases like that. There is no rational anbalysis of what is actually likely to occur nor is there any rational cataloguing of reasons for why the Iraqis will discard their engrained factional hatreds and struggles for factional power. All we have, from you, Bush, Cheney, Rice, and dozens of politcal commentators, is one vast long call for FAITH - and faith in the Middle East, no less, lol.

It would be humorously ironic if it weren't so serious.

Al-Qaeda isn't the foremost challenge Iraq faces. Sectarian strife and struggle is the most serious challenge Iraq faces, and I don't see any rational reasons to suppose that those issues will go away or be overcome - even in the long run. A partition may be the only possible, if imperfect, solution.

Thanks for reading.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
what does iraq have to do w/ WTC bombings, US embassy attacks and USS Cole?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly had the US invaded Iraq awhile ago, they would never have happened. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what does iraq have to do w/ WTC bombings, US embassy attacks and USS Cole?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly had the US invaded Iraq awhile ago, they would never have happened. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That might even be true. Unfortunately, in hindsight the time to nation build in Iraq was 1991.

[old dogg]

On August 26, leaders of Iraq's three major sectarian groups, Sunnis, Shi'ites; and Kurds, laid down the basis for a settlement by clearing away the most galling issues preventing reconciliation: provincial autonomy, the status of ex-Ba'athist party members, and the release of Sunnis in custody without charge. This may well be the first step toward a lasting political order.

Need it be added that it was reported virtually nowhere in the U.S.?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/070827/issues.html?.v=1

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
On August 26, leaders of Iraq's three major sectarian groups, Sunnis, Shi'ites; and Kurds, laid down the basis for a settlement by clearing away the most galling issues preventing reconciliation: provincial autonomy, the status of ex-Ba'athist party members, and the release of Sunnis in custody without charge. This may well be the first step toward a lasting political order.

Need it be added that it was reported virtually nowhere in the U.S.?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/070827/issues.html?.v=1

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the info.

IMO it will take a great deal more than that agreement to successfully overcome centuries of sectarian struggle and hatred.
Thanks for answering my question with something specific, though. That's the sort of thing I'm looking for.

[EN09]

Actually I don't feel or believe it is a Democrat defeatism per se. Before they were running for Congress, etc. they blamed Bush/Cheney/Halliburton for the situation matraed how they voted for the military solution before they voted against it. Including holding up the military budget in doing so... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I'm tired of the "Had I known then what I did now..." BS. Ya didn't and ya don't so git over it! Act on what you have and don't make excuses about your previous actions to sway the general public. Ya didn't.

They, the Democrats, were quick to use Cindy Meehan and the anti-war mantra to gain their seats and control in an animalistic way. Now that they're there, all of a sudden it seems that, er, maybe, possibly, ummm... "We may need to stay a couple more years" as Hillary so adeptly/backpeddling stated. Geez Louise... Do something will ya? Ya voted for it... Ya voted agin' it...You wanted out... Now ya want to stay.... I'm d-i-z-z-z-z-y...

STICK BY YOUR PRINICPLES!!!

I have no problems with someone taking action, fully committed in their beliefs, and accepting the responsibilty, low polls, et, for it - and CONTINUING - to follow your beliefs despite "popular opinion".

But the wishy-washy say this and that to gain seats and then do nothing, or at least not much, gathers no respect at all. Even from their Democrat constituents. Which is why the current Congress is sufferring the lowest approval rates in years. Nice going Lefty.

A "Where are they now?" thread might be interesting...

EN

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At this point its probably true. Sec of Defense said that dissent was encouraging Iraqi Gov't to get their act together since it made clear that US wouldn't stay forever, but since that time things have gotten worse in terms of political reconciliation. So its probably true, it does discourage Iraqis from helping.

The broader picture is that this is a tragedy, caused by Bush, mismanaged by Bush, with no end in sight. So any finger pointing must begin with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So the perception that America will cut and run, which started with Viet Nam and tainted every conflict since then, is Bush's fault. I didnt realize he was that powerful.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The perception that American will cut and run" is not Bush's fault. How could it be Bush's fault, and how you think I am saying that is beyond me, Bush is for escalation and staying in at all costs. I agreed with OP, that the possibility of withdrawal is hurting the effort in the way described and its clearly the fault of those creating that possibility...those in power that want us out. This really should be obvious.

My point was that broadly this is Bush's war. He started the car and drove it off the cliff. Now we are blaiming others who want to eject and not helping us steer.

When I did this, someone else seemed to be saying its Clinton's fault. Personally, I blame the big sun. If the sun were smaller, it would be too cold to have people on earth. So then the US wouldn't be stuck in Iraq since it takes people to live in Iraq and fight there. Oh big sun, why do you hate America?

[EN09]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that broadly this is Bush's war. He started the car and drove it off the cliff.

[/ QUOTE ]

That clears things up. My bad. Didn't know Iraq began when Bush took the oath. I seriously doubt ANY prez, living, past, present or in the future would want to go to war needlessly or nonchalantly w/o reason. A 4yr term twice isn't enough time to launch a dictatorship and enjoy the fruits of their labor to get there.

EN