OCCOM BILL wrote:I wonder if at some point the Sunnis/insurgents will collectively realize that;
A. Majority is going to rule
B. The Shia will have majority, no matter how much trouble they cause.
C. It is very much in the Sunnis best interest to have a Shia majority that more closely resembles the U.S. vision than the Iranian alternative.
Part of the problem is "the Sunnis/insurgents...collectively" agree on
almost nothing except the use of violence. There in not one single
insurgency. There are Ba'athists, nationalists and jihadists just for
starters. According to a very interesting article in the Feb. 20 NY Times
Magazine, at least some of the nationalists are interested in opening
negotiations. Al-Zarqawi and his forces will never negotiate and probably
mark for death those who do. The high-ranking Ba'athists know there is
little or no forgiveness forthcoming for them so they have nothing to lose.
Kara wrote:Dys, stay crabby as hell. I'll let you know when there is reason to dance in the streets. It won't be in our lifetime.
If you live at least another 10 years, you will change your mind!
Wellllll .... your schtick is somewhere between a street mime and finger nails across a chalk board .... and your Pee Wee Herman needs work .... maybe some visuals.
Re the head-banging reiteration of ican's variation of truth:
As Emerson said,
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Some people are just plain obnoxious. Truth becomes secondary.
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
Strother Martin
If George Bush had stood before the American people after 911, when they expected a plan to get Osama, and announced that the US would be invading Iraq to "bring democracy" to the country, my guess is that he would have received little or no support from progressives or conservatives. And certainly he could not have used oil to justify his pre-emptive invasion. Hence the WMD lie. Now that we're there, the "spreading democracy" theory is being used to justify the invasion retroactively, which is absurd.
The elections came and went, which is all they had to do. No matter how many people showed up and what conditions prevailed, the elections would be spun into a "success". Weren't we sold the same crap about Vietnam re democracy ? All those years and all those young lives, for what ? We could not force democracy down the throats of the Vietnamese then, and we cannot do it now with the Iraqis. Vietnam took decades to find its place in the modern world, and that happened only after we left.
But, as I said, IMO, this war was never about "spreading democracy". Some think it was about oil, some think it was about revenge, but it was never about spreading democracy. (If Bush is really interested in spreading democracy, why not start with his oil buddies in Saudi Arabia?)
What any post 911 military action should have been about was getting bin Laden, and that would not necessarily have translated into invasion or regime change anywhere. Instead, Bush's attitude and actions have fueled anti-American sentiment globally increasing the ranks of terrorists and making us less safe, have spread our military dangerously thin, and have actually brought terrorists into Iraq where a new regime may very well be dominated by religious extremist fundamentalists rather than secularists.
The ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq have been there for hundreds of years, and as with Yugoslavia, hostilities resulting from these divisions were kept under control by the reigning tyrant. The notion that these divisions can be put aside and the country united peacefully under a democratic system is naive. In the end, the country now known as Iraq may end up partitioned along these ethnic and religious lines, as happened with Yugoslavia.
I began this post with the statement: "If George Bush had stood before the American people after 911, when they expected a plan to get Osama, and announced that the US would be invading Iraq to "bring democracy" to the country, my guess is that he would have received little or no support from progressives or conservatives." It was, IMO, simply wrong to go there, and I believe history will, in the end, bear that out. Sadly, thousands of innocent people will have to die first.
angie, Thousands of lives have already been paid. I wonder for what rewards?
If the so-called "liberal" media would show the flag-draped coffins coming home daily, as they did with Vietnam, more people might perhaps be asking themselves that very question.
The conservative government controls what the liberal media is allowed to show.
Kara - the people of Iraq danced in the streets after they were allowed to vote freely. Even CNN showed them dancing in the streets...over and over and over.
Angie - CNN scrolls the numbers of US dead and wounded and coalition dead and wounded on their 24 hour news service just about every hour on the hour. I think it's the families of the servicemen who objected to the news stations showing the flag-draped coffins returning home.
JustWonders wrote:I think it's the families of the servicemen who objected to the news stations showing the flag-draped coffins returning home.
There certainly will be a primary source on the web, but for now I'm just quoting this magazine:
Quote:Since 1991 news media have been banned from covering the arrival of remains of military personnel at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where bodies are prepared for burial before being shipped to hometowns. Shortly before the war in Iraq began in 2003, the Pentagon issued guidelines for U.S. military installations around the globe, prohibiting coverage of "the movement of remains at any point." The White House has said that its policy is intended to protect the privacy of families of the fallen.
Source
Quote:"We must pay attention to the privacy of the families. That's what the policy is based on," White House spokesman Trent Duffy told reporters, describing that as "our first priority."
[...]
We must pay attention to the privacy of the families. That's what the policy is based on," White House spokesman Trent Duffy told reporters, describing that as "our first priority."
[...]
White House officials say the administration is strictly enforcing a policy that has been in place since the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
Source
If even one family objects (and some have), that is reason enough for me. I don't have to see a coffin with a flag draped over it to be reminded of the sacrifices this country has made.
If c.i. is right, then CNN would also be prevented from scrolling the daily toll and CBS would also be prevented from mentioning it each and every single night.
JW, There's a big difference between flag-drapped coffins and numbers on a screen.
The flag draped coffins (Vietnam) made it impossible not to ask ourselves: What are we doing, why are we doing it, and is it worth it ?
Most Americans, I think, need to be reminded exactly what the real costs of Bush's invasion of Iraq are in order to arrive at an honest response to those questions, rather than a herd-mentality one.
JW, that's pure bollocks.
Bereaved families are wondering why no senior administration figures come to see them. How many funerals, or even remembrance services, for these soldiers has GWB attended?
Most families want the sacrifice of their son or daughter to be marked, not ignored.
GWB's approval rating is off the high end of the charts among both the military and their families. And the wishes of the families are going to continue to be respected by this administration despite what you who have invested nothing, risked nothing, or lost nothing think.
There comes a time when some things just won't be politicized for the advantage of those to use them as clubs.
BTW, too bad this isn't being politicized.
Oh 
You find truth obnoxious 
