I'm listening to Jimmy Severino in Boston while I crank out some photo work.

He's floating a rumor that the Dem plan for Iraq might be an all-out-hundred's-of-thousands-of-troops killing everything strategy in order to get err done.

Wishful thinking perhaps.

I'm listening to Jimmy Severino in Boston while I crank out some photo work.

He's floating a rumor that the Dem plan for Iraq might be an all-out-hundred's-of-thousands-of-troops killing everything strategy in order to get err done.

Wishful thinking perhaps.

Those wild and crazy Dems.................................:)

I'd support that. I'd support a complete withdrawal too. Poop or get off the pot.

Of course, poop is probably the better long-term solution. If we leave Iraq right now Iran will have a great opportunity to build a new Califate, and that's probably not a good thing.

Of course, poop is probably the better long-term solution. If we leave Iraq right now Iran will have a great opportunity to build a new Califate, and that's probably not a good thing.

Arnie has a Califate. The Iranians would have a Caliphate. Ya, we either double the troops there (using who-knows what troops) or keep what we have there as ready-reserve support for Iraqi forces so we aren't the ones running regular patrols.

He's floating a rumor that the Dem plan for Iraq might be an all-out-hundred's-of-thousands-of-troops killing everything strategy in order to get err done.

Not going to happen because it would require a draft and if you think the majority of people oppose the war now just wait.

Face it, rhetoric aside, very few people believe that Iraq ever had anything to do with "making us safer" and the numbers get fewer by the day.

there's been plenty of Dem talk about a big push, with additional trainers and advisors. after getting things under order, then doing transition to get their folks able to hold so that whomever is helping isn't going to get whacked by insurgent revenge. They had a Dem military guy discussing this, he's wrote books on counter insurgency and basically he laid out an entire method (with secondary methods for when things don't go as planned) to stabilze and transition.
I know your side likes to say 'you have no plans, but really we do, and maybe now we can debate them' this is so much better than 'stay the course and the dems have no plan'

we'll all admit we've F'd this thing up and are responsible. Even if we have to leave them to their civil war and say "we'll be back when you are done killing each other to help with the rebuild" ANYTHING other than what we are doing and something that has a start, middle and end. Failed, bottomless occupation just ain't cutting it. If sending more for a specific duration would help, set the timeline annd go. See we Dems aren't against the war per se (well we're against why we went there) we are against how poorly it is being run.

In 1999 an Iraq invasion was wargamed by the Pentagon - the exercise was called Desert Crossing. They came to the conclusion that to stabilize the country 400,000 troops would be needed, and the outcome was still iffy. I submit that stabilizing the country wasn't W's goal. His goal has already been accomplished, at least partly.

Arnie has a Califate. The Iranians would have a Caliphate.It would appear that I have been owned.

Newsflash, a million US troops will not suppress the will of two warring factions (Shiite/Sunni). Whether we like it or not, this is going to be something the Iraqis will have to fight out. They will have to fight for their democracy and freedom. Our troops are simply smack in the middle of a sh*t sandwich and we all know it. My bros that came back last month from the goat f*ck have said its at a point now that we will have no control over who holds the majority power over there. The insurgency became too powerful too quickly before anyone had realized and took action against it. It will remain to be seen if Iraq will be US friendly. You can explore and find similar sentiment at all the army/navy/military times news site forums.

I'm listening to Jimmy Severino in Boston while I crank out some photo work.

He's floating a rumor that the Dem plan for Iraq might be an all-out-hundred's-of-thousands-of-troops killing everything strategy in order to get err done.

Wishful thinking perhaps.

If Bush and Rummy had listened to the generals 3 years ago and gone in with 350,000 troops, we *might* have a tad more control as compared to what's going on right now.

Problem with re-invading, which is basically what it would amount to, is neither the US Army, nor the US Marine Corp have enough current capacity to pull it off. Both services, Nat'l Guard and Reserves included, are worn out and out of equipment. I doubt there's enough equipment currently in Iraq to simply "send the troops", and what's back here in the states is too worn out and too little to suffice. Ditto the troops themselves. The Army and MC are having major issues right now trying to keep the Iraq, Afghanistan, Balkans and Sinai forces deployed on a rotational basis (Up to 2002, we supplied half of the 1800 member peacekeeping force deployed to the Sinai desert as a result of the Israeli/Egyptian peace accord), so I would think that if anyone asks the generals, they're going to say "forget it, too little, too late".

SB

I'm listening to Jimmy Severino in Boston while I crank out some photo work.

He's floating a rumor that the Dem plan for Iraq might be an all-out-hundred's-of-thousands-of-troops killing everything strategy in order to get err done.

Wishful thinking perhaps.

You'll be more of a libby than Spyderman soon J...:D

Newsflash, a million US troops will not suppress the will of two warring factions (Shiite/Sunni). Whether we like it or not, this is going to be something the Iraqis will have to fight out. They will have to fight for their democracy and freedom. Our troops are simply smack in the middle of a sh*t sandwich and we all know it. My bros that came back last month from the goat f*ck have said its at a point now that we will have no control over who holds the majority power over there. The insurgency became too powerful too quickly before anyone had realized and took action against it. It will remain to be seen if Iraq will be US friendly. You can explore and find similar sentiment at all the army/navy/military times news site forums.

That's because you don't have a vision of how things could be different. No one wants to "surpress warring factions," that's the job of the Iraqi military when we leave.

Now that the other half of the country has a say in the political system, we can do one of two things about Iraq. 130K troops is a finger in a broken dam. Escalate troop deployment to 500k, to a million, and wipe out the buggers. Perform sweeps with the Iraqi military leading the way. Anyone found to have military weapons gets attacked and taken prisoner.

Or we can simply redeploy. But that's redeploy with a plan.

Policing a brewing civil war when we really don't know who's who...well that's just stupid.

Heck-of-a-job Rummy!

Now that the other half of the country has a say in the political system, we can do one of two things about Iraq. 130K troops is a finger in a broken dam. Escalate troop deployment to 500k, to a million, and wipe out the buggers. Perform sweeps with the Iraqi military leading the way. Anyone found to have military weapons gets attacked and taken prisoner.

This is the kind of simplistic gameboard strategy that got us in this mess to begin with. Wipe out the buggers? How are our troops going to pick them out of the general population? You do make it sound quick and easy, though.

If quick and easy is the order, then let's simply carpet bomb the damn sandbox with neutron bombs and get it all over with, and start right from scratch after the radiation clears.

Not to mention that both sides are killing each other...

Which side of the 'buggers' do we kill? I vote Kurds, we should stay the course on Saddam's policies.

We need to drastically increase the army's power, while drastically decreasing the militias power. I have no idea how it's going to happen...

Silas

heck here we are debating the various options of what to do in Iraq and we can actually discuss them and their merits.

isn't this nicer than 'you cut and runners are America Haters with No Ideas"?

This is the kind of simplistic gameboard strategy that got us in this mess to begin with. Wipe out the buggers? How are our troops going to pick them out of the general population? You do make it sound quick and easy, though.

If quick and easy is the order, then let's simply carpet bomb the damn sandbox with neutron bombs and get it all over with, and start right from scratch after the radiation clears.

Really? So, sending in a million troops is easy? Where did you read that?

Wouldn't it make sense that you either wipe out the buggers with overwhelming force or you redeploy? What's the other option? Continue to police a civil war ? What's your f*cking plan? At least there's now an opportunity to change directions.

Oh, and like I said, let the Iraqi military lead the way. They'll be the ones who can seperate the Sunnis from the Shiites. Your selective reading and taking comments outa context is classic neocon.

Oh, and bite me you condescending prick!

Will the OP or mod squad please fix the title to "parties" which is the plural form of "party".

TIA

Deek

Really? So, sending in a million troops is easy? Where did you read that?

Wouldn't it make sense that you either wipe out the buggers with overwhelming force or you redeploy? What's the other option? Continue to police a civil war ? What's your f*cking plan? At least there's now an opportunity to change directions.

Oh, and like I said, let the Iraqi military lead the way. They'll be the ones who can seperate the Sunnis from the Shiites. Your selective reading and taking comments outa context is classic neocon.

Oh, and bite me you condescending prick!

we need to get the Arab League Militaries involved. every Arab nation benefits from a Sunni/Shia Civil war NOT happening as it could spill over borders and get the whole region.
Get the Islamic nations to pony up the 'military police' we'll use our boys for what they do best, showing up, kickin' butt. Besides hopefully Muslims will be happier being policed by fellow Muslims and hopefully not kill them so readily.
And send some SF's back to Afghanistan we got a bad guy to catch.

Not to mention that both sides are killing each other...

Actually, there are three sides: Suuni, Shia and Kurd (there might even be a fourth group in there too.

We need to drastically increase the army's power, while drastically decreasing the militias power. I have no idea how it's going to happen...

Silas

Divide Iraq into three separate countries/provences, one for each faction, yet with a common currency and some way to equally distribute the $$ from the oil and it'll get real cozy real quick, IMO.

Deek

we need to get the Arab League Militaries involved. every Arab nation benefits from a Sunni/Shia Civil war NOT happening as it could spill over borders and get the whole region.
Get the Islamic nations to pony up the 'military police' we'll use our boys for what they do best, showing up, kickin' butt. Besides hopefully Muslims will be happier being policed by fellow Muslims and hopefully not kill them so readily.
And send some SF's back to Afghanistan we got a bad guy to catch.

Now that's a great idea. I've been for taking the American face off this occupation for a couple years now. Since we like to outsource jobs... we could hire a few million Chinese at pennies on the dollar. Put the savings toward rebuilding. Unfortunately, the war profiteers would have to give up some of their contracts in order to get a sizeable foreign force in there. This shoulda happened when Bush first created this clusterf*ck.

(Sorry, but I just don't dig someone taking a swipe like that. Especially when they take stuff outa context and don't try to engage in a legit debate.)

Now that's a great idea. I've been for taking the American face off this occupation for a couple years now. Since we like to outsource jobs... we could hire a few million Chinese at pennies on the dollar. Put the savings toward rebuilding. Unfortunately, the war profiteers would have to give up some of their contracts in order to get a sizeable foreign force in there. This shoulda happened when Bush first created this clusterf*ck.

(Sorry, but I just don't dig someone taking a swipe like that. Especially when they take stuff outa context and don't try to engage in a legit debate.)

Starliner is (from what I recall) a left of center pragmatist. I think he was trying to illustrate how hard it will be to quell the insurgency. His tone didn't start it off right and it turned into flame throwing. I don't think it was either of your intentions.

Actually, there are three sides: Suuni, Shia and Kurd (there might even be a fourth group in there too.

Divide Iraq into three separate countries/provences, one for each faction, yet with a common currency and some way to equally distribute the $$ from the oil and it'll get real cozy real quick, IMO.

Deek

As for your first point...you're right but the sectarian violence seems to be sunni-shia AFAIK.

Second, I like the idea. I just need the details on how we're going to equally distribute the oil $$$ and how all the minorities in the newly apportioned provinces will like this deal. Not trying to be a jerk, I agree with your concepts, but I think this is much easier said than done,

Silas

... I have no idea how it's going to happen...

Silas

Neither do I.

You can't fight an insurgency with military force alone. This we learned from Vietnam... There has to be some sort of political negotiation.

You also can't police a country and put down a civil war with an inadequate military force.

Our boys/girls have become targets for snipers. Like IEDs, low cost and highly effective. You can only fight snipers with other snipers. Extremely dangerous for the general population.

At least now there's an opportunity to change directions...

At least now there's an opportunity to change directions...

I only hope we end up doing that.

Nancy 'San Francisco Liberal' Pelosi, may be more out of touch with America than the right thinks...she's not for withdrawal from Iraq!

I don't the Dems have the will to make the kind of dramatic changes it will take to end our role in Iraq. Win or not, they need to make sweeping changes, and I don't think they will.

Time will tell...

Silas

I only hope we end up doing that.

Nancy 'San Francisco Liberal' Pelosi, may be more out of touch with America than the right thinks...she's not for withdrawal from Iraq!

I don't the Dems have the will to make the kind of dramatic changes it will take to end our role in Iraq. Win or not, they need to make sweeping changes, and I don't think they will.

Time will tell...

Silas

they don't actually argue about her positions

they argue about what they think her positions are

they function from a strictly mythical base

they don't actually argue about her positions

they argue about what they think her positions are

they function from a strictly mythical base

Agreed, the idea that the Dems will somehow lose the war on terror is off the deep end...Their imminent victory already changed Bush's position on the war though.

I'm just afraid the Dems might not do anymore to 'win' it than their predecessors.

Silas

Really? So, sending in a million troops is easy? Where did you read that?

Wouldn't it make sense that you either wipe out the buggers with overwhelming force or you redeploy? What's the other option? Continue to police a civil war ? What's your f*cking plan? At least there's now an opportunity to change directions.

Oh, and like I said, let the Iraqi military lead the way. They'll be the ones who can seperate the Sunnis from the Shiites. Your selective reading and taking comments outa context is classic neocon.

Oh, and bite me you condescending prick!

I doubt you have good taste, so I'll pass on the bite.:D

Once again, please advise how the 'buggers' are going to be sorted out from the non-buggers? Until you answer that, then no, your stategery doesn't make realistic sense.

As as far as the Iraqi military goes, I wouldn't bet 10¢ on their help to put a lid on things as long as we are around.

So what do we do short of my neutron bomb stategery? Hell if I know. Put Murtha in charge.

Starliner is (from what I recall) a left of center pragmatist. I think he was trying to illustrate how hard it will be to quell the insurgency. His tone didn't start it off right and it turned into flame throwing. I don't think it was either of your intentions.

I'm not stupid enough to think my ideas are the only ideas. That would make me a neocon.

Taking comments outa context isn't debate. You came to the table and offered an alternative, the "change the face of the occupation" idea... That's debate.

When you visit the San Diego Zoo, it's very easy for the monkeys to sit back an throw their shat.

I think this is much easier said than done,

Silas

Sadly, that describes just about any option.

Deek

This is the kind of simplistic gameboard strategy that got us in this mess to begin with. Wipe out the buggers? How are our troops going to pick them out of the general population? You do make it sound quick and easy, though.

If quick and easy is the order, then let's simply carpet bomb the damn sandbox with neutron bombs and get it all over with, and start right from scratch after the radiation clears.


exactly..when will we ever learn from history. Yeah, despite close to 500k troops in Vietnam we were sure able to force out the vietcong and wipe em out easily....:rolleyes: We can't win this through force, the best bet is to win this by winning the support of the people...but Bush et al have F'ed up our international diplomacy and our image in the ME that that is not possible now. :mad2: I am proud to say that I voted for every independent that I could, one republican, our governor, who I still like, and one democrat- Amy Klobuchar who was VERY impressive in her campaign for the senate. Everyone else was a third party candidate, they all lost...but I exercised my right and voice by speaking against the status quo of the two party system. My problem with the assertion that more force will solve the problem is that it won't.....repeat after me Spydie......."A WELL THOUGHT OUT AND TRAINED INSURGENCY THAT IS FIGHTING FOR THEIR BELIEFS WILL OUTLAST OCCUPIERS EVERY SINGLE TIME".

I doubt you have good taste, so I'll pass on the bite.:D

Once again, please advise how the 'buggers' are going to be sorted out from the non-buggers? Until you answer that, then no, your stategery doesn't make realistic sense.

As as far as the Iraqi military goes, I wouldn't bet 10¢ on their help to put a lid on things as long as we are around.

So what do we do short of my neutron bomb stategery? Hell if I know. Put Murtha in charge.

Perhaps you didn't like my use of the term "buggers." I think it's a pretty civil term for the scum that are killing our boys/girls.

Perhaps you missed where I said the Iraqi military would lead the sweeps. How can you be certain they wouldn't? Seems quite Kreskin-esque if you ask me. Seems there already is some cooperation between our troops? Perhaps things are a little more complex than that?

My ideas are just that. Nothing is set in stone. When you offer up an alternative, then perhaps we can debate. But if all you're gonna do is attack, then I'm off to the Zoo. I'd prefer to give those monkeys their target practice. :cool:

..."A WELL THOUGHT OUT AND TRAINED INSURGENCY THAT IS FIGHTING FOR THEIR BELIEFS WILL OUTLAST OCCUPIERS EVERY SINGLE TIME".

I don't disagree. Although, it seems that we lost the hearts and minds of the people long ago.

Plus, not sending enough troops to begin with certainly has contributed to Rummy's and Bush's clusterf*ck.

So, what do we do? What's your idea? Do we not attempt to disarm a looming civil war before we leave, or do we just redeploy? It's a complex question.

If you can't bring the warring parties to the negotiating table how do you resolve their disputes?

How do we stop the snippers hunting our troops? We have to hunt them with snipper teams.

I chose a version of the Powell Doctrine. Sweep the country with an overwhelming force led by the Iraqi military. Shut down the borders and disarm the Sunnis and the Shiites. Capture and kill the buggers. Then get the fark out.

Doesn't mean it'll work...

Got any ideas?

exactly..when will we ever learn from history. Yeah, despite close to 500k troops in Vietnam we were sure able to force out the vietcong and wipe em out easily....:rolleyes: We can't win this through force, the best bet is to win this by winning the support of the people...but Bush et al have F'ed up our international diplomacy and our image in the ME that that is not possible now. :mad2: I am proud to say that I voted for every independent that I could, one republican, our governor, who I still like, and one democrat- Amy Klobuchar who was VERY impressive in her campaign for the senate. Everyone else was a third party candidate, they all lost...but I exercised my right and voice by speaking against the status quo of the two party system. My problem with the assertion that more force will solve the problem is that it won't.....repeat after me Spydie......."A WELL THOUGHT OUT AND TRAINED INSURGENCY THAT IS FIGHTING FOR THEIR BELIEFS WILL OUTLAST OCCUPIERS EVERY SINGLE TIME".

there is a way to do this, transition and control with locals. it is what this counter insurgency guy was discussing this AM. there's a whole methodology.
but Viet Nam was a far more differnent beast as supply lines, spies, insurgents could use the jungle to move to and fro. Harder to do in a desert. The Ho Chi Minh trail (which was actually a network of trails) made things extremely difficult.
and some occupations last, the soviet bloc is an example where insurgents couldn't get the job done. Think Hungary.

That's because you don't have a vision of how things could be different. No one wants to "surpress warring factions," that's the job of the Iraqi military when we leave.

That's exactly right... Oh, wait. Rummy disbanded the Iraqi military.


Now that the other half of the country has a say in the political system, we can do one of two things about Iraq. 130K troops is a finger in a broken dam. Escalate troop deployment to 500k, to a million, and wipe out the buggers. Perform sweeps with the Iraqi military leading the way. Anyone found to have military weapons gets attacked and taken prisoner.

That's another good idea...Oh, wait. We don't have a million troops to send there.

When your grandchildren's grandchildren are studying history, Viet Nam will be less important than the Whiskey Rebellion, but Iraq will be remembered as the first great failure of the US, and W will be know to be the worst president of modern times.

When your grandchildren's grandchildren are studying history, Viet Nam will be less important than the Whiskey Rebellion, but Iraq will be remembered as the first great failure of the US, and W will be know to be the worst president of modern times. And we will be remembered as the people who elected him TWICE (sort of).

And we will be remembered as the people who elected him TWICE (sort of).

and I can imagine that certain folks will revamp their positions when telling their grandkids about it in 20 or 30.

we need to get the Arab League Militaries involved. every Arab nation benefits from a Sunni/Shia Civil war NOT happening as it could spill over borders and get the whole region.
Get the Islamic nations to pony up the 'military police' we'll use our boys for what they do best, showing up, kickin' butt. Besides hopefully Muslims will be happier being policed by fellow Muslims and hopefully not kill them so readily.
And send some SF's back to Afghanistan we got a bad guy to catch.

Maybe I'm unaware of it, but other than OPEC, does an EU/NATO type of Arab league exist? If so, why don't they have a security force capable of deploying and policing their own territories conflicts?
Why can't the Arab members of the UN for a force and be responsible for keeping their yard clean? It's obvious that even when we're sincerely trying to help, western forces are seen as invading, capitalist enemies of Islam.
I suppose the West would be very much afraid of a United Arab league, feeling their union could be used for too much ill, ie-Israel ending, as well as good.

When your grandchildren's grandchildren are studying history, Viet Nam will be less important than the Whiskey Rebellion, but Iraq will be remembered as the first great failure of the US, and W will be know to be the worst president of modern times.

When we left VietNam, we didn't have to be concerned about the Vietnamese blowing up our skyscrappers.

I sincerely hope that my grandchildren's grandchildren will be living in a world that will still allow the study of world history from an American perspective.

When we left VietNam, we didn't have to be concerned about the Vietnamese blowing up our skyscrappers.

I sincerely hope that my grandchildren's grandchildren will be living in a world that will still allow the study of world history from an American perspective.

You are right...since the reason we were there was because if we bugged out...we would be forced to fight them here. After, Japan, S. Korea, the Phillipines and finally Australia fell to the communists.

Historically speaking of course.

World History from an American perspective? You mean the outdated turn of the 20th century patriotist historical movement? Or the "everyman his own historian" movement of the latter 20th century that opened up multiple perspectives in a search for some sort of totalizing nature of history?

You are right...since the reason we were there was because if we bugged out...we would be forced to fight them here. After, Japan, S. Korea, the Phillipines and finally Australia fell to the communists.

Historically speaking of course.

World History from an American perspective? You mean the outdated turn of the 20th century patriotist historical movement? Or the "everyman his own historian" movement of the latter 20th century that opened up multiple perspectives in a search for some sort of totalizing nature of history?

I enjoy your sarcasm. I'm confident that Viet Nam blunted communist aspirations. But, the point was, and I am sure you know, that the VC simply wanted us to leave, and didn't care about the destruction of western civilization.

In terms of what I meant about the future of history teaching in the US, the point was the following. If we lose this war, there ain't gonna be no American history.

I enjoy your sarcasm. I'm confident that Viet Nam blunted communist aspirations. But, the point was, and I am sure you know, that the VC simply wanted us to leave, and didn't care about the destruction of western civilization.

In terms of what I meant about the future of history teaching in the US, the point was the following. If we lose this war, there ain't gonna be no American history.

Not being sarcastic at all. This is chapter and verse of the notion of those (whether it was LBJ or Nixon or even Ford) that ending the war in Vietnam would mean the ascent of Communist Totalitarianism in the Far East leading across the Ocean and up to the Shores of our west coast. Vietnam was misread from the outset...well before the French cried mercy after Dien Bien Phu...the U.S. was misreading everything in the myopia of the prism of monolithic one state communism. They misread the nationalist intentions of Ho, the backed horrible people in the South, the undermined their own agreements after the Geneva Accords of 54-55 etc.

Everything that was thought about what might happen in Vietnam...was wrong, overblown, or plainly false.

There was no "stunting" communist incursion elsewhere since it was not communism that Ho's people were fighting for primarily...they were fighting for pure nationalism, with communism as a front.

I could happily furnished declassified documents that show all of these points...directly from the Joint Chiefs and the State Department...if you want.:D

As for the history of America...I have a strong feeling about our resiliance... no matter whatever the outcome of Iraq.

the ole Domino Theory, and it was EXACTLY "Stop it there before it Spreads" whjich is "Fight them there so we don't fight them here". I remember, Reagan used it as well for his support iof the Contras, otherwise the commie sandanistas and their ilk would get Mexico and then we'd have commies on our border.

But it is, from what I keep analyzing, this sort of lack of historical perspective that plagues the Con mind. It's like they have no memory, or it is replaced with mythic memory. I know there's a Social Psychology thesis in here.

I remember Nixon and watergate
I remember Reagan and Bush and Iran Contra
I now remember Bush and Iraq

I at least read about McCarthy-ism and the RedScare
I saw how Fear was used to intimidate the general public
I saw how it was repeated as the War on Drugs and those colored people and their gangs
I saw how it is being repeated now with colored people and their terror

People ask me why I don't trust the Republican Party (I don't trust the Democrats much more in all honesty, at least they tend to cheat for regular folks causes) and I say, they haven't done anything trustworthy in my 40 frickin years.

Cons are like Bush "Fool me once shame on you, uh er I can't remember the rest"
which is why they are repeatedly fooled.

Vietnam was misread from the outset...well before the French cried mercy after Dien Bien Phu...the U.S. was misreading everything in the myopia of the prism of monolithic one state communism. They misread the nationalist intentions of Ho, they backed horrible people in the South, they undermined their own agreements after the Geneva Accords of 54-55 etc.

Everything that was thought about what might happen in Vietnam...was wrong, overblown, or plainly false.

There was no "stunting" communist incursion elsewhere since it was not communism that Ho's people were fighting for primarily...they were fighting for pure nationalism, with communism as a front.

You nailed it, TMB, and it gives critical insight to why Bush and his neocons are blowing it in Iraq. The insurgents are also acting out of nationalism. Their countrymen know it, including the reluctant police and army soldiers. The only way out is by negotiation, getting the warring factions to declare a truce, while we get the hell out and leave them to decide their own fate.

Most Democrats, including Pelosi, who said about the same thing the other night in an interview, agree. Many of them remember the lessons learned in Vietnam.

Increasing military power, as we did in Vietnam, wouldn't do a damn thing but increase the violence and outrage world opinion.

Furthurmore, making a peaceful gesture to the Arab world would placate their hostility somewhat. Sure, they'd celebrate a victory over the great satan, but having proved themselves, they could as likely back off as push forward in their terrorist strategy.

You nailed it, TMB, and it gives critical insight to why Bush and his neocons are blowing it in Iraq. The insurgents are also acting out of nationalism. Their countrymen know it, including the reluctant police and army soldiers. The only way out is by negotiation, getting the warring factions to declare a truce, while we get the hell out and leave them to decide their own fate.

Most Democrats, including Pelosi, who said about the same thing the other night in an interview, agree. Many of them remember the lessons learned in Vietnam.

Increasing military power, as we did in Vietnam, wouldn't do a damn thing but increase the violence and outrage world opinion.

Furthurmore, making a peaceful gesture to the Arab world would placate their hostility somewhat. Sure, they'd celebrate a victory over the great satan, but having proved themselves, they could as likely back off as push forward in their terrorist strategy.

Iraq is not Vietnam and I think your comparison is an over simplification. It is not a nationalist struggle, they already have their own country and their own government. This is a sectarian power struggle and the cooperation of various elements of the police force is either sectarian or driven by fear. There are so many warring elements it is much like LA if there were no controlling authority and the gangs were deciding which one would run it. Much of the violence and murder is about consolodating power by various warlords. Eventually, one of them or the government is going to emerge in control.

the ole Domino Theory, and it was EXACTLY "Stop it there before it Spreads" whjich is "Fight them there so we don't fight them here". I remember, Reagan used it as well for his support iof the Contras, otherwise the commie sandanistas and their ilk would get Mexico and then we'd have commies on our border.

But it is, from what I keep analyzing, this sort of lack of historical perspective that plagues the Con mind. It's like they have no memory, or it is replaced with mythic memory. I know there's a Social Psychology thesis in here.

I remember Nixon and watergate
I remember Reagan and Bush and Iran Contra
I now remember Bush and Iraq

I at least read about McCarthy-ism and the RedScare
I saw how Fear was used to intimidate the general public
I saw how it was repeated as the War on Drugs and those colored people and their gangs
I saw how it is being repeated now with colored people and their terror

People ask me why I don't trust the Republican Party (I don't trust the Democrats much more in all honesty, at least they tend to cheat for regular folks causes) and I say, they haven't done anything trustworthy in my 40 frickin years.

Cons are like Bush "Fool me once shame on you, uh er I can't remember the rest"
which is why they are repeatedly fooled.


all of us conservative, although, I have to say, I am more independent-libertarian now, than true republican. I believe I spoke to the historical similarities above.

Iraq is not Vietnam and I think your comparison is an over simplification. It is not a nationalist struggle, they already have their own country and their own government. This is a sectarian power struggle and the cooperation of various elements of the police force is either sectarian or driven by fear. There are so many warring elements it is much like LA if there were no controlling authority and the gangs were deciding which one would run it. Much of the violence and murder is about consolodating power by various warlords. Eventually, one of them or the government is going to emerge in control.

I would agree with this opinion. (but I think you are understating it by many degrees). The construct of Iraqi society, is not centered on pure nationalism. From what I have read (by people who hopefully know)...the first construct is tribal, then it is religious, then it is ethnic and only after that is there a nationalist..."I am an Iraqi."

Of course this also makes our mission just as dangerous. Because our troops are caught in the crossfire of a civil war (I wait patiently for this terminology to be used now that Rummy is hanging out at a bar singing "glory days.")

In Vietnam, Ho was THE LEADER, he led a strong nationalist movement and the people that followed him fought in one direction. This that we find ourselves in...is much more untenable.

Iraq is not Vietnam and I think your comparison is an over simplification. It is not a nationalist struggle, they already have their own country and their own government. This is a sectarian power struggle and the cooperation of various elements of the police force is either sectarian or driven by fear. There are so many warring elements it is much like LA if there were no controlling authority and the gangs were deciding which one would run it. Much of the violence and murder is about consolodating power by various warlords. Eventually, one of them or the government is going to emerge in control.

Just ask the insurgents if "it is not a nationalist struggle." Like Vietnam, US occupational forces are squared off against an enemy drawn from and indistinguishable from the population at large, and intent first of all, on killing as many Americans as possible to get the US to withdraw. They may be jockeying for power amongst themselves, but that doesn't explain the increased numbers of American deaths.

There are some, Pelosi for one, and analysts like one interviewed from the Institute for Policy Studies, a lefist think tank in DC, who believe that if the US leaves, the warring factions would be forced to stop shooting at each other and work together. They have co-existed peacfully before and they could do it again. The presence of US troop is the catalyst fanning the flames.

Just ask the insurgents if "it is not a nationalist struggle." Like Vietnam, US occupational forces are squared off against an enemy drawn from and indistinguishable from the population at large, and intent first of all, on killing as many Americans as possible to get the US to withdraw. They may be jockeying for power amongst themselves, but that doesn't explain the increased numbers of American deaths.

There are some, Pelosi for one, and analysts like one interviewed from the Institute for Policy Studies, a lefist think tank in DC, who believe that if the US leaves, the warring factions would be forced to stop shooting at each other and work together. They have co-existed peacfully before and they could do it again. The presence of US troop is the catalyst fanning the flames.

I think SNAKE is recognizing a distinction. Vietnam and Ho in particular had a goal of uniting the country under one ethnic identity and one flag. The average civil warrior in Iraq is looking to break off their piece of the pie. The problem (and a reason for the American deaths uptick) is that in and around Baghdad...these three ethnic identities, multiple tribal identities and two religious sects...all co-mingle.

Just going away will not make them stop fighting...they don't feel the need to work together for peace. This is what makes our answer on what we do...so very difficult.

The construct of Iraqi society, is not centered on pure nationalism. From what I have read (by people who hopefully know)...the first construct is tribal, then it is religious, then it is ethnic and only after that is there a nationalist..."I am an Iraqi."

Of course this also makes our mission just as dangerous. Because our troops are caught in the crossfire of a civil war (I wait patiently for this terminology to be used now that Rummy is hanging out at a bar singing "glory days.")

In Vietnam, Ho was THE LEADER, he led a strong nationalist movement and the people that followed him fought in one direction. This that we find ourselves in...is much more untenable.

First of all, the presence of a hated occupational force, as the British found themselves in after WWII and the American are in now, is actually giving the various ethnic groups a sense of national identity they may not have had before.

Secondly, Vietnam translated means "5 states." They were invaded periodically by the Chinese, then the Japanese, then the French, then the US. Each invasion strengthened Vietnamese nationalism among the 5 "states" with separate ethnic identities.

Iraq may not be as advanced as Vietnam in this sense of national identity, but US presence is undoubtedly strengthening it.

First of all, the presence of a hated occupational force, as the British found themselves in after WWII and the American are in now, is actually giving the various ethnic groups a sense of national identity they may not have had before.

Secondly, Vietnam translated means "5 states." They were invaded periodically by the Chinese, then the Japanese, then the French, then the US. Each invasion strengthened Vietnamese nationalism among the 5 "states" with separate ethnic identities.

Iraq may not be as advanced as Vietnam in this sense of national identity, but US presence is undoubtedly strengthening it.

Not really in need of a history lesson.

I am not arguing against either one of your positions, merely pointing out that there are differences between then and now...based on cultural and societal distinctions.

I think SNAKE is recognizing a distinction. Vietnam and Ho in particular had a goal of uniting the country under one ethnic identity and one flag. The average civil warrior in Iraq is looking to break off their piece of the pie. The problem (and a reason for the American deaths uptick) is that in and around Baghdad...these three ethnic identities, multiple tribal identities and two religious sects...all co-mingle.

Just going away will not make them stop fighting...they don't feel the need to work together for peace. This is what makes our answer on what we do...so very difficult.

was far less complicated. as stated.

it is why sometimes I think we should just leave Iraq and say "We'll come back and help ya rebuild once yer done killing each other"

oh and take pictures, we shouldn't be responsible for damage done after we leave

my tongue is planted....

was far less complicated. as stated.

it is why sometimes I think we should just leave Iraq and say "We'll come back and help ya rebuild once yer done killing each other"

oh and take pictures, we shouldn't be responsible for damage done after we leave

my tongue is planted....

shoot atp...that sounded like a good plan, why'd you have to go and tell me it was sarcasm?

Silas

Viet Nam was a tragic detour that probably only delayed the ultimate success of a coherent policy that was followed for 40 years. The most important lesson of Viet Nam is that more Americans died there AFTER Nixon won election based on the belief that he would end the war.
Iraq is the worst strategic mistake in US history. I don't believe that there was ever any realistic possiblity of creating a stable, pro-Western governamnt there, and whatever possibilty that might have existed disappeared when (or before) Rummy disbanded the Iraqi army without first disarming it. Islamic theocracy threatens all industrial economies and the foolish US prosecution of the war has only made the religious nuts stronger.
A thousand years from now, the mistakes of Iraq will be the source of legends equivalent to the story of the Trojan Horse. And in case you miss my point, the Trojans were not the ones who lived to tell that story.

I think SNAKE is recognizing a distinction. Vietnam and Ho in particular had a goal of uniting the country under one ethnic identity and one flag. The average civil warrior in Iraq is looking to break off their piece of the pie. The problem (and a reason for the American deaths uptick) is that in and around Baghdad...these three ethnic identities, multiple tribal identities and two religious sects...all co-mingle.

Just going away will not make them stop fighting...they don't feel the need to work together for peace. This is what makes our answer on what we do...so very difficult.

Mossadegh and Hussein had the same nationalistic goal in Iraq, as Ho did in Vietnam. It would be difficult to "break off pieces of the pie" territorially, with the various ethnic groups intermingled, as they are also outside Baghdad. The best they could hope for would be political enclaves, like in most democracies, where one ethnic or religious group would have power by numbers and votes.

Mossadegh and Hussein had the same nationalistic goal in Iraq, as Ho did in Vietnam. It would be difficult to "break off pieces of the pie" territorially, with the various ethnic groups intermingled, as they are also outside Baghdad. The best they could hope for would be political enclaves, like in most democracies, where one ethnic or religious group would have power by numbers and votes.

Mossadegh led Iran and they will be the first to tell you they are not Middle Eastern...they are Persian...a nationalist vein that goes back to at least Thermopylae. Again, they have a different cultural construct.

Hussein if one is looking for analogy...was Tito of Yugoslavia. Through his strong arm and leadership cult, he held different ethnicity, cultures and societal constructs together. When he left, and the power vaccuum took hold, the country broke completely apart.

Outside of Baghdad and its immediate surrounding...sects and tribes dominate. There is far more kurish homogeneity in the north and shia homogeneity in the south. Naturally, any federalist condition or parcelling of the country would come with one of two things...cleansing...or travelling.

Mossadegh led Iran and they will be the first to tell you they are not Middle Eastern...they are Persian...a nationalist vein that goes back to at least Thermopylae. Again, they have a different cultural construct.

Hussein if one is looking for analogy...was Tito of Yugoslavia. Through his strong arm and leadership cult, he held different ethnicity, cultures and societal constructs together. When he left, and the power vaccuum took hold, the country broke completely apart.

Outside of Baghdad and its immediate surrounding...sects and tribes dominate. There is far more kurish homogeneity in the north and shia homogeneity in the south. Naturally, any federalist condition or parcelling of the country would come with one of two things...cleansing...or travelling.

And to TMB, of course, for again setting the record straight.

Comparing to Yugoslavia is interesting, but the Serbs were caucasian Christians, a powerful majority, and they sought to eliminate an already impoverished Muslim minority with Middle Eastern roots, isolated in the south. Wouldn't that be closer to racist whites persecuting blacks, rather than say, Presbyterians persecuting Southern Baptists? Iraqis share a common Muslim religious identity. Their genetic inheritance is the same. They've blended peacefully in the past. Why couldn't they, with a fresh sense of national identity, get along now?

Mossadegh led Iran and they will be the first to tell you they are not Middle Eastern...they are Persian...a nationalist vein that goes back to at least Thermopylae. Again, they have a different cultural construct.

Hussein if one is looking for analogy...was Tito of Yugoslavia. Through his strong arm and leadership cult, he held different ethnicity, cultures and societal constructs together. When he left, and the power vaccuum took hold, the country broke completely apart.


and lefty progressive as well. and his ousting was at the request of British Petroleum (had a different name at that time). Isn't it nice when Govts do the bidding of corporations, and they make a bunch of dough and the WORLD winds up paying for it? Again Mossadegh's nationalist plan involved sharing the county's wealth with its people.

I absolutely agree that the Balkan model is the most accurate for Iraq. Which (considering Condi and Go were old Cold warriors) is why I'm so shocked they didn't see what has transpired coming from a mile away.

an iron fist does a nice job of maintaining a thin veneer of peace.

TMB extra Bonus points for droppin' Thermopyale. Without that shepherd giving the goat path to the enemy, who knows how long Leonidas could have held, though he should have sent a few Spartans to watch the path and oversee the non Spartan troops responsible for guarding it. weren't they Thraecians? The original cut annd runners.

Just ask the insurgents if "it is not a nationalist struggle." Like Vietnam, US occupational forces are squared off against an enemy drawn from and indistinguishable from the population at large, and intent first of all, on killing as many Americans as possible to get the US to withdraw. They may be jockeying for power amongst themselves, but that doesn't explain the increased numbers of American deaths.

There are some, Pelosi for one, and analysts like one interviewed from the Institute for Policy Studies, a lefist think tank in DC, who believe that if the US leaves, the warring factions would be forced to stop shooting at each other and work together. They have co-existed peacfully before and they could do it again. The presence of US troop is the catalyst fanning the flames.

One thing that explains the upturn in US casualties is the upturn in American involvment. We have sent people to clean out areas previously cleared and turned over to Iraqi forces. The overwhelming majority of casualties are Iraqis and most of those are not combatants. I think the peaceful coexistance we saw under Saddam was because he killed anyone who stepped out of line and their relatives and anyone who lived in the neighborhood or looked like they were thinking about moving there. The government is not yet strong enough to disarm the militias and the US has not comitted the number of troops to that particular cause. We are involved in a holding action while we try to train the Iraqis and get their government strong enough to control their own country. This is not a nationalistic movement with any central loyalties. It is feudal Europe or China under the warlords.

shoot atp...that sounded like a good plan, why'd you have to go and tell me it was sarcasm?

Silas

about the stuff that breaks after we leave

One thing that explains the upturn in US casualties is the upturn in American involvment. We have sent people to clean out areas previously cleared and turned over to Iraqi forces. The overwhelming majority of casualties are Iraqis and most of those are not combatants. I think the peaceful coexistance we saw under Saddam was because he killed anyone who stepped out of line and their relatives and anyone who lived in the neighborhood or looked like they were thinking about moving there. The government is not yet strong enough to disarm the militias and the US has not comitted the number of troops to that particular cause. We are involved in a holding action while we try to train the Iraqis and get their government strong enough to control their own country. This is not a nationalistic movement with any central loyalties. It is feudal Europe or China under the warlords.

goes beyond feudal all the way to tribal

but Snake if you KNOW all this, then why would you support unseating thhe only guy who could keep it in line? especially sinnce he was also pretty good at keeping Iran in line.
Some of the areas we cleaned and didn't turn over to anyone, we just left them in our whack a mole game. There isn't enough Iraqi forces yet to secure. and the militias are armed with weaposn WE didn't secure in our MAD dash to Baghdad, so can we please quit blaming the troops?

goes beyond feudal all the way to tribal

but Snake if you KNOW all this, then why would you support unseating thhe only guy who could keep it in line? especially sinnce he was also pretty good at keeping Iran in line.
Some of the areas we cleaned and didn't turn over to anyone, we just left them in our whack a mole game. There isn't enough Iraqi forces yet to secure. and the militias are armed with weaposn WE didn't secure in our MAD dash to Baghdad, so can we please quit blaming the troops?

When did I do that?

are you saying now you haven't been a supporter of this president and this war now?

or are you saying, "Well he F'd up getting us in there but now we're there so..."

cuz I don't ever recall you saying this war was sold to us on a false bill of goods.

One thing that explains the upturn in US casualties is the upturn in American involvment. We have sent people to clean out areas previously cleared and turned over to Iraqi forces. The overwhelming majority of casualties are Iraqis and most of those are not combatants. I think the peaceful coexistance we saw under Saddam was because he killed anyone who stepped out of line and their relatives and anyone who lived in the neighborhood or looked like they were thinking about moving there. The government is not yet strong enough to disarm the militias and the US has not comitted the number of troops to that particular cause. We are involved in a holding action while we try to train the Iraqis and get their government strong enough to control their own country. This is not a nationalistic movement with any central loyalties. It is feudal Europe or China under the warlords.

"Cleaning out areas" no matter who does it, is always a temporary situation, if there aren't enough troops to stay and occupy the place. Even then, using conventional military tactics to ferret out the insurgents from the general population ends up being counter-productive. Just like in Vietnam, if you'll excuse my insistence on drawing similarities, weeks or even days after a sweep, the enemy returns to strike again. That's the genius of guerilla tactics. When attacked, you quickly withdraw back into the population, hide out for awhile, then strike back when opportunity arises. That's how the Viet Cong operated with impunity all over the countryside and drove our military crazy. The insurgents are doing it again in Iraq.

The militia phenomenon is a response to the central government's inability to control the countryside and prevent lawlessness and chaos. Militia leaders could be convinced to lay down their weapons if they perceived they or their people would not be attacked by rival militias or US troops. While it may be true that Iraq is an unwilling co-mingling of several ethnic groups mistrustful of each other, with grudges long buried in history, nonetheless, in their current dilemma, they must eventually be willing to pull together in some kind of national unity, if for no other reason, than to free themselves from US occupation.

This is the best thread on the Iraq situation that I have been a part of, and not just because I started the thread, (OK, maybe just a little because).

Everyone has had very good points, but allow me to cut the BS.

Western Civilization needs oil. Middle east has oil. Radicals in Middle East want to end Western civilization. Leader of Western Civilization has staked said civilization on defeating radicals through force.

Put your politics aside, put history aside (as best as you can on both counts). What is your gut telling you for a solution.

Back in Feb of this year I had dinner with a good friend of mine who happens to be an economist for Bush. Needless to say we had an animated discussion on this very topic. At the time I asked him why don't they just partion Iraq into three seperate nations. Honestly, I can't remember why he thought that was a bad idea. It seems the most logical solution to me.

So there you have my gut feeling. 3 from 1. We correct Churchill's biggest mistake and call it over by leaving the region what it was before 1921.

What say you's?

This is the best thread on the Iraq situation that I have been a part of, and not just because I started the thread, (OK, maybe just a little because).

Everyone has had very good points, but allow me to cut the BS.

Western Civilization needs oil. Middle east has oil. Radicals in Middle East want to end Western civilization. Leader of Western Civilization has staked said civilization on defeating radicals through force.

Put your politics aside, put history aside (as best as you can on both counts). What is your gut telling you for a solution.

Back in Feb of this year I had dinner with a good friend of mine who happens to be an economist for Bush. Needless to say we had an animated discussion on this very topic. At the time I asked him why don't they just partion Iraq into three seperate nations. Honestly, I can't remember why he thought that was a bad idea. It seems the most logical solution to me.

So there you have my gut feeling. 3 from 1. We correct Churchill's biggest mistake and call it over by leaving the region what it was before 1921.

What say you's?

The reasons I have been read about are 3 fold.

First, the partition gets really dicey in and around Baghad (where all of the groups intermingle) and those Sunni stronghold areas are devoid of oil so any federalization of the country into 3 sections would involve...some kind of payments to the Sunnis for oil profits...a major sticking point.
Second, any recognition of a Kurdish state would send the Turkish into a fit, they have there own "suppression" issues with Kurds in Turkey that would like to take some of Turkey and add to a newly established Kurdistan.
Finally, most egregious for the U.S. would be a slow manipulation of the Shia south by Iran, essentially enlargening its power base, without the ramifications that come with them doing so militarily by the U.S...they would have a free hand of more money and oil.

Personally, I like the idea of a 3 state system to end the violence...but just don't know how to make it work.

Personally, I like the idea of a 3 state system to end the violence...but just don't know how to make it work.

The threat of a good glassin' over may work.... :eek:


A 4th state, consisting of the Baghdad area (think DC) shouldn't be out of consideration. According to Wiki, something like 90% of Iraq is unexplored in terms of oil. Finding oil in that region could resolve the Sunni problem. A 5th state down near the gulf could prevent any one group from controlling access to the gulf.

Maybe three states isn't enough?

The reasons I have been read about are 3 fold.

First, the partition gets really dicey in and around Baghad (where all of the groups intermingle) and those Sunni stronghold areas are devoid of oil so any federalization of the country into 3 sections would involve...some kind of payments to the Sunnis for oil profits...a major sticking point.
Second, any recognition of a Kurdish state would send the Turkish into a fit, they have there own "suppression" issues with Kurds in Turkey that would like to take some of Turkey and add to a newly established Kurdistan.
Finally, most egregious for the U.S. would be a slow manipulation of the Shia south by Iran, essentially enlargening its power base, without the ramifications that come with them doing so militarily by the U.S...they would have a free hand of more money and oil.

Personally, I like the idea of a 3 state system to end the violence...but just don't know how to make it work.

Yeah that seems to be what I recall from my discussion in Feb. I heard a good point this morning on the radio. Col Jacobs said it could be difficult to do because the currently elected government of Iraq might not want to.

That point never crossed my mind. Telling?

Does anyone think it likely that a single-state scenario will NOT involve violent suppression of the minority faction?

Does anyone think it likely that a single-state scenario will NOT involve violent suppression of the minority faction?

I agree that there will most likely be violent suppression but that also depends on the minority factions. If they are in armed rebellion, it would seem logical and right that their elected government would disarm them. What we have to worry about would be is there an avenue for political redress in their Constitution. Our own government would and has, put down armed insurrection by violent means.

when the soldiers that would have suppressed it were fired by the US provincial authority

500K trained soldiers told to take their guns, go home and find something else to do

they did

they became insurgents

when the soldiers that would have suppressed it were fired by the US provincial authority

500K trained soldiers told to take their guns, go home and find something else to do

they did

they became insurgents

Then what makes you think they would have been what we needed in the military of the new government? Part of the problem today could well be that many of them are filtering back into service and they are what makes up the death squads.

Your hostility toward this adminstration comes out in every comment you make. Lets see how your party heros and heroins will be speaking in the coming weeks. Do you suppose they will be as divisive and condemning as they have been and you still are?

predominantly Sunni or Sunni run and they became part of the forces of the insurgency
(though your side likes to label them terrorists)
that's what happens when half a million trained and professional killers find themsleves without work, especially since we didn't control their arms.

the death squads disguised as miltary now are mostly Shi'a and we trained them.

I'll be harsh on my own, but they weren't the ones who went into this mess thinking it would be a cakewalk, greeted as liberators, etc... 6 days, 6 weeks I doubt six months
this is a complex situation and at least my side admits as such.
Just because I think George is an incompetent boob (check his lifelong record, he is) doesn't mean I hate him.

predominantly Sunni or Sunni run and they became part of the forces of the insurgency
(though your side likes to label them terrorists)
that's what happens when half a million trained and professional killers find themsleves without work, especially since we didn't control their arms.

the death squads disguised as miltary now are mostly Shi'a and we trained them.

I'll be harsh on my own, but they weren't the ones who went into this mess thinking it would be a cakewalk, greeted as liberators, etc... 6 days, 6 weeks I doubt six months
this is a complex situation and at least my side admits as such.
Just because I think George is an incompetent boob (check his lifelong record, he is) doesn't mean I hate him.

Don't try to glorify murderers, the tactics they use are terrorism and that makes them terrorists. They are fighting the elected government of Iraq today and there is nothing noble in that. There is a political process in place that was not there previously. Had they been retained in the military their loyalties would be as they are today. The good guys in this conflict are the government forcesx that are loyal to and defending the government elected by the people, that is the only nobility involved outside the Americans that are helping this process to grow.

What you call an insurgency and seem to have some degree of respect and admiration for, is an armed rebellion by a minority that wishes to retain the power they once exercised and held by ruthless exercise of violence and torture. Real torture, not that that so inflames your anti Bush passions in Cuba and Abu Ghraib under American control.

I agree that there will most likely be violent suppression but that also depends on the minority factions. If they are in armed rebellion, it would seem logical and right that their elected government would disarm them. What we have to worry about would be is there an avenue for political redress in their Constitution. Our own government would and has, put down armed insurrection by violent means.Well, we have a chicken and egg problem here. Both sides are already armed and fighting, so what one side calls a fight for survival the other might call an armed rebellion. In those circumstances, the conclusion that it's logical and right for one side to violently suppress the other is perhaps a bit too neat. My point, poorly made, was that while there might be good arguments against partition, the likelihood of violence probably isn't one. Which addresses TMB's first argument against partition.

so the US Colonists were terrorists then
so were the French Underground
the Jews in the Warsaw Ghettos
all them Confederates in the South
the Hungarians against the Soviets

lame-o

had we kept these guys employed we'd have 500K more Iraqi peacekeepers and 500K less people to train.

the good guys in the conflict have sided with Al Sadr in case you haven't been paying attention. the good guys have death squads and terrorist tactics. the good guys told W to go get bent. the good guys like Iran.

Well, we have a chicken and egg problem here. Both sides are already armed and fighting, so what one side calls a fight for survival the other might call an armed rebellion. In those circumstances, the conclusion that it's logical and right for one side to violently suppress the other is perhaps a bit too neat. My point, poorly made, was that while there might be good arguments against partition, the likelihood of violence probably isn't one. Which addresses TMB's first argument against partition.

There is always some saving point of honor if you dig deeply enough but the fact remains that there is an elected government in Iraq today. That election gives them some degree of legality and authority. We had the Sunni faction that refused to take part in the election and stands in armed rebellion against that government. This would be the same Sunni faction that once held power through ruthless use of force. That alone seems to remove their claim to legitamacy today. Then we have Shia Mullahs that will have to be repressed by whoever ends up running things.

A partition would lead to three armed factions, one supplied by the Iranians the other by the Sunni regional powers like SA and one supported by the Turks. We would still get a bloodbath in a reunification at some point when one faction or the other was strong enough to do so. Supporting this government and helping it grow strong enough to govern may prove too difficult but it hasn't done so yet. It will be interesting to see what plans and results we have now that we have some degree of bipartisan responsibility for the outcome.

Then we have Shia Mullahs that will have to be repressed by whoever ends up running things..
uh Snake the elected govt is in cahoots with Al Sadr, last I checked he was a Shi'a mullah

A partition would lead to three armed factions, one supplied by the Iranians the other by the Sunni regional powers like SA and one supported by the Turks.
.

why would the Turks support one, who the Kurds? The Turks fear a Kurdish rebellion as much as Saddam did. Oh and the Iranians would support the 'elected govt'. these points are ignorant of the area.

A partition would lead to three armed factions, one supplied by the Iranians the other by the Sunni regional powers like SA and one supported by the Turks.Which faction would the Turks support?

Which faction would the Turks support?

I would think they would have to help the Kurds to some degree.

you need to spend some time with some history books and books on the region. A free Kurdistan in Iraq would be a threat to the stability of Turkey, they'd link with the Kurds in Eastern Turkey and try to make that part of Kurdistan as well. So why would the Turks want to help someone who would lead to rebellion in their own country?

TMB can ya learn this fellow sumthin'?

you need to spend some time with some history books and books on the region. A free Kurdistan in Iraq would be a threat to the stability of Turkey, they'd link with the Kurds in Eastern Turkey and try to make that part of Kurdistan as well. So why would the Turks want to help someone who would lead to rebellion in their own country?

TMB can ya learn this fellow sumthin'?

Then I guess they are on their own the 'cause it's been proven that we ain't gonna help them either.

He tries.

sold Saddam the chems to poison them under/during Reagan (Rummy handshake photo)
then we abandoned them post GW1 under Bush
Now W freed them without thinking about the LT ramifications of the region

Do 3 wrongs make a right in your book?

...sometimes I think we should just leave Iraq and say "We'll come back and help ya rebuild once yer done killing each other

Our war hero congressman Murtha said about the same thing in an interview with Katie Couric on CBS tonight. He said militarily we're in an untenable position, and it's draining the treasury of 8 billion a month, money that could be spent on problems in this country. (Or used to draw down the outrageous deficit.) He also said 70% of Iraqis want us to leave. I've also heard this from other sources. So "hasta la vista, baby, it's all yours."

I'm on the pulse baby. No sense us dying over them wanting to kill each other.
Kinda like dating a psycho chick.
"Call me when you get yer crap together"