Good post, DA!February 17 2004 at 11:07 AM
|smike (no login)|
from IP address 22.214.171.124
Response to Objectively speaking
Excellent, rational conversation for a change!!!!
OK, first, to answer your questions about an islamic state. Sixty percent of the population is shia and they have already been organzied, they will all vote for an islamic state. Democracy, not desperation, will rule the day.
BTW, I think this is the reason the insurgents are getting antsy, they know they cant win, they do not want an islamic state any more then Bush does, they are sunni and, as a minority, will be certain to feel the wrath for decades of subjugation. So the longer they postpone a general election, the longer they persist the state of anarchy, the longer they postpone the freedom Bush promised, the longer they prevent democracy. Freaky eh, democracy being your adversary an all.
Second, the American plan is dead, today, even the governing council put it to bed. Last week, the leader, claimed they were going to institute a state of Islamic law, something Bremer had to threaten to veto. (he does that, your civil war will start the next day) So, adminstratively and democratically, an Islamic state, with Islamic laws, is in the offing and pretty well inevitible. Democratically! Not through an insurectionist war. Paradox, eh?
Theres the rub, dude, they want, and will have, a state of government diametrically opposed to everything America wanted when the neohawks prepared there little regime change long before 911 and there is F all you are going to be able to do about it, not without thwarting the priciples of democracy in front of the whole world.
Speaking of the crazies, just who are they killing on a regular basis? Not the poles or the brits as you would suggest, thats for sure. Statistics tells us this. No, the targets are Americans and those deemed to have colaborated, the percieved creators of the attack and those Iraquies who would support them. Once the foriegners get in iraq, it will get worse (for Americans) and only more confused as tyhe coalition forces are forced to adapt to multiple, perhaps unallied enemies and it will contiue as the occupation force (US) is pulling the strings. Not months, DA, but years and years.
Theres the next rub. As long as America is seen as an occupation force, as long as they are balls deep in a situation they cannot control, exposed and vulnerable, Iraq will be the hotbed of anti-American based terrorism, something, if we are to believe reports, that has yet to manifest. At this time, its home grown violence, as in the case of the attack on falluja, where it has now, regardles of earlier claims, been prioven to be composed of iraquis, not foriegners.
The solution is evident, DA.
In order to make Iraq safe for iraquies, we must remove the scource of violence, the target of the terorists/insurgents wrath. That would be the occupation, DA. Catch 22. Now, the only way for America to extract itself from the no win situation (no win cause they are going to vote for an Islamic state no matter what you do) is to create conditions wherein the UNSC would be willing to assume command or withdraw and let civil war rage. NATO is not going to come save your bacon like in Afghanistan. Let me ask you, how many nations promised help but backed aff the minute bush withdrew from his attempt for a new respolution. Ten thousand from India, at a minumum, and they were paying there own way. The remainder of the world?
And why did the UN leave iraq, DA? Cowardice, as you would infer, or because America, as the occupation force, failed to provide the security they SAID they would and clearly cant provide security to this very day. It was the same with the red cross and several other NGO humanitarian agencies.
They did not cut and run.
Thjey withdrew from an untenable situaion cause America failed it's responsiblities to protect them. That was the deal when they arrived, in case you've forgotten. Boooom!
Same with the Red Cross, another humanitarian operation, not military. Boooom!
As an occupation force, DA, that was Bush's responsibility and it was clearly defined prior to the UN deployment. When you failed, and they got the sheet blown out of em for your negligence, they left. I dont blame em, frankly, who wants to be a martyr for the sake of delivering a bowl of gruel? So, while you might want to condemn em for leaving, one has ONLY to look at the reason why they left if you want to blame somebody.
As for Iraq, listen, what do you think is the hold up then?
Why is nobody willing to help?
Why does nobody trust the Buhs, and through him, the United States of America, except those nations which, surprisingly, America is virtually paying for the entire deployment? How many countries, as did Canada, who said they were wiling to fully commit the moment the UN said go. Fifty, sixty, hundreds of thousands of troops? Million, perhaps billions of dollars?
Now you might think its naive on my behalf, but I think the fact that Bush has been proven wrong so many times about Iraq and the fact that he refuses to acknowledge the truth and move on is the central reason no one wants to risk assisting.
NOBODY TRUSTS HIM, and through him, America is general.
So its time to come clean. Time for Bush to admit he was wrong about the reasons for war, apologize to the world community for slagging them in the run up, specially OLD Europe then, for the sake of Iraq, not Haliburton, implore the international community to go to iraq to do what Americans cannot; stablalize the nation and restore law and order.
Turn over complete power to the UNSC, bring in an international force of blue berets, peacekeepers, not an occupation force. Proclaim legitimate democratic elections, not that suspect caucus system the governing council just trashed. The terorist will then go home, with no Americans to kill, and an islamic state in the offing, why continue with the killing? Remove the target of of the crazies, the occupations force, remove the colloboartion aspect by making the police report to the UN, not the Americans, who are, throughout the middle east, now pretty much reviled and viola, the first step to regional peace.
IN essense, restore legitimacy to the operation. And if the first step to restore legitimacy is an apooligy from Bush, so be it.
Until then, DA, your on your own.
And that aint right.
There are one hundred and sixty plus nations in the UN, many of em who have yet to stand forth and deploy troops on a UN mission, Russia and China comes to mind, in addition to most of ther middle eastern nations who, like all the of the word, refused to dispatch troops without UN authority.
So give them that authority, DA, get the hell out of iraq and concentrate on the job at hand, tracking down that son of a bitch bin laden.
You cannot win in Iraq, DA, the moment the people go to the polls, the sacrifice of the American forces will be for nought and another pro-iranian, pro-islamic state will be created.
A very, very rich one.
I probably missed a few points, but its time to go to the Y for a swim. CYA later.
BTW thanks, good conversation.
BTWm, that dude in the botton corner of the screen maming jack off motions is Uncle Sam! snicker. At least in this instance.