ER
McGentrix wrote:So many words yet you say nothing Set.
That is something upon which you are uniquely qualified to judge. If i had said nothing, why have you put so much effort into replying?
Quote:I doubt even you believe that.
Your doubt has no more foundation than the absurd statements from authority which you have been throwing out here. I know that to be the truth, and had stated it again and again here. Did you think the Ba'aht party just magically appeared when Hussein took power in 1978? King Faisal and the Crown Prince were assassinated in 1958, and General Kassem proclaimed a republic, outlawing all political parties. The Kassem government was overthrown in 1963, at the time when the Ba'ath party was founded, yet another in a string of pan-arabist parties. The Ba'ath party was in power for fifteen years before Husseing appeared on the scene. Without our interference, they'd have remained in power long after Hussein's death. Your ignorance of the history of the middle east does not condition what i believe.
Quote:I have been over this previously, not doing it again here. He had them, he used them.
Translation: you can't provide a coherent answer to the question of how womd served to maintain Hussein's power, so you intend to dodge the question.
Quote:Why is Kim Jong-il still in power? His devastating good looks?
The maintenance of a police state erected by his father more sixty years ago, which predates the existence of all media outlets in North Korea, and which are now strictly controled by Kim. Do you suggest that the people of North Korea just went along with Kim-il Sung until he had acquired womd, and then were cowed into submission thereafter? Jesus, you come up with some hysterical crap. Do you contend that such despots stay in power because they threaten to nuke their own nations? God, you crack me up.
Quote:hmmm... thje government is made of a parlimament elected by the people to represent the people. They have a president representing each major sect and a prime minister run under a constitution created by Iraqis. Yeah, it's a republic, excuse me for using a generic term. A true democracy won't work there anymore than it would in the US.
So now you claim to be oracular, and to state that true democracy wouldn't work in the United States. As a loyal toad-eater of King George II, i can see why you think so. A true democracy would work in Iraq, it is simply a case that the Sunni population would be marginalized, and the Kurds would likely return to a state of rebellion. At all events, it makes a mockery of the Idiot in Chief's mealy-mouthed assertions about democracy in the middle east. As i've pointed out, there can be no assurance that the Shi'ite majority will not take over, unless we stay there and enforce an acceptance of an American dictated status quo. Is that what you intend for Iraq? Do you believe the American public will accept that? I don't.
Quote:in the near future yes.
I gues this sentence fragment refers to continued American presence. The which is the burden of what i've been saying.
Quote:Are you confidant that it won't?
I'm confident that we don't know, and can only be sure by keeping a large military presence for decades to come. Your analogy to Europe does not work--there is no cold war, there is no Soviet Union poised to rush into Iraq if we leave. Of course, it never surprises me to see you make an incomprehensible hash of anything which requires your to think for yourself beyond the pale of neo-con propaganda.
Quote:Why did the invasion of South Lebanon take place? That should be an easy answer for you. Your exagerrations do not change the facts that Israel is no threat to Iraq as long as it remains a republic of and for the people of Iraq. (I would have said democracy, but you seem to take offense at that.)
Yes, i find it idiotic to refer to the present condition of Iraq as democracy. There is no exageration involved. Israel invaded southern Lebanon claiming to defend themselves from the PLO. This was in the same era which saw them launch an airstrike against Baghdad a few years later. The remarks you quoted, though, referred to Iran as well as Iraq, although you ignore that. Neither Iraq nor Iran has any reason to consider Israel trustworthy in its relations toward Muslims--witness their dealings with the Palestinians. Without the US there to twist their arms, there is no reason to consider that a Shi'ite dominanted state in Iraq would not consider Israel a potential threat. After all, Isreal has ignored and violated far more United Nations resolutions than Iraq ever dreamed of doing.
Quote:I am sure most Europeans have seen the US presence as more of a boon than a bust, but that is Europe.
Yes, that was Europe sixty years ago, and this is Iraq now. Firstly, your pathetic attempt at analogy breaks down because Iraq is a single nation and Europe is a continent. It further breaks down because half of Europe was under the military thumb of the Soviet Union, and the presence of American armies, Dutch armies, French armies, Belgian armies and British armies in Germany was seen as a line of defense against the Soviet Union.
In case no one has mentioned it to you, McG, literally thousands of Americans and Brits have been killed in Iraq, and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, with more dying each day. It seems they are far less chamed with the circumstance that the Germans were 60 years ago.
Quote:There is no telling how long our troops will be in Iraq. I'm not privvy to the future, are you?
No, but anyone who cares to go to the PNAC web site can be privy to their agenda, which foresees
permanent American military bases in southwest Asia, and mentions Iraq as the locus. This is my point all along--it won't work unless we are there indefinitely. I don't believe either that Americans will indefinitely accept such a circumstance; nor that a day will ever come when leaving will be anything more than letting go of the tiger's tail.
Quote:Yeah I know that. That's why I said "As long as the present constitution of Iraq stays in place, Iraq will not become a Shi'ite state, but an Iraqi state."
You just pointed out that none of us have credentials as prognosticators. Repeating your drivel does not alter that Iraq can change overnight if we leave, and brings us back to my point since i first put my oar in here. The only assurance that a threat will not arise there again is a permanent American military presence. I see no reason for to believe the American people will accept that--nor the Iraqis.
