More Troops, Less Troops, or.... Both?

[Battleborne]

Yes, links to partisan sites run by people who openly oppose the Iranian government. Did you learn nothing from Ahmed Chalabi? Ambitious ex-patriots are not reliable sources of information.

I note, too, that even these obviously biased articles are very, very weak. They cite scraps of anecdotal evidence but nothing of any real substance. Almost everything is hearsay and conjecture, not factual.

The U.K. spent weeks trying to crack down on these alleged Iranian infiltrators recently. Trouble was, they couldn't find any. The region of desert along the border that was supposed to be a veritable highway of Iranians and Iranian arms turned out to be just a barren expanse of sand after all.

As I said before, I've no doubt that there is some Iranian influence among some Shi'ite militias in Iraq. That's almost axiomatic. The question of just how significant and pivotal that influence is remains open. I believe that even our own military is now saying that the majority of the insurgent fighters in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreigners.

Please direct me to a link that supports your statement that our own military believes the majority of fighters are Iraqis!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Either the insurgents are a legitimate home-grown force, or they are being supplied and armed by outsiders. Either they are a legitimate internal group, fighting against the faction which runs the government, or they are an internal group being exploited by external groups to thwart the new government.

Ah, but what about the excluded middle. Circumstances is rarely either / or.

They can be an legitimate internal group, being supplied by the outside.

Were the Afghani Mujahadeen who fought against the Soviets illegitimate because the US supplied then with weapons?

A civil war is simply a war between two groups within a state. Where they get weapons from is irrelevant.

There is no middle, either the insurgency IS being supplied, funded and supported by outside sources, or it's NOT. If it is, this is not a generic civil war, it is a war of proxy waged by the outside sources, and we have every obligation to be the 'outside source' for the legitimate government. If the insurgents have little or no outside help, they will eventually collapse due to lack of infrastructure and inability to replenish their arsenal.

Either way, the answer isn't to run.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The fact of the matter is, the insurgents have no visible means of support here, unless they are being armed and backed by outside forces, they will eventually be defeated. If they are being backed by outside forces, we owe it to the Iraqi's to stand with them against the aggressors.

You don't spot the irony in your statement, Dixie?

The Iraqi government is backed by outside forces....

No, I don't see an irony. Of course the legitimate democratic government of Iraq is backed by the US, why shouldn't they be? You are suggesting it is fair to allow Syria and Iran to support the insurgents, but we can't support the legitimate government? I don't get how that logic works.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If this IS A CIVIL WAR.....

Then our House of Reps and Senate MUST take another vote in Congress as to whether we should support this NEW CIVIL WAR OBJECTIVE....

Congress DID NOT VOTE to help one faction over another in their own CIVIL WAR.....

A new vote for or against continuing in Iraq MUST, BY OUR CONSITUTION, be taken.

Write to you Congressman then! We've already had numerous votes for funding, if any of them fail to pass, the troops have to come home. If you want to take the position that this is a Civil War, then you have to realize the difference between a generic civil war, fought internally, and a civil war where outside influences are at play. If the insurgents are being supported by Syria and Iran, why can't the legitimate government be supported by the US? It seems to completely legitimize our presence in Iraq, if this is the case.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

There is no middle, either the insurgency IS being supplied, funded and supported by outside sources, or it's NOT. If it is, this is not a generic civil war, it is a war of proxy waged by the outside sources, and we have every obligation to be the 'outside source' for the legitimate government. If the insurgents have little or no outside help, they will eventually collapse due to lack of infrastructure and inability to replenish their arsenal.

Either way, the answer isn't to run.

Either you think that Israel is absolutely right about everything, every time, or you hate Jews. Either all cars are safe and well engineered or they're not. There is no middle ground.

This is the kind of stupidity that gives conservatives a bad name, Dix.

Of course there's a middle ground. What you fail to appreciate is that there are degrees of support and influence. Just because some of the insurgents in Iraq may be supported by entities outside of Iraq does not mean that all insurgents are supported by entities outside of Iraq.

This is elementary logic, Dixie. A universal affirmative can be only partially converted. All of Alma Coogan is dead but not all of the class of dead people is Alma Coogan.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As I said before, I've no doubt that there is some Iranian influence among some Shi'ite militias in Iraq. That's almost axiomatic. The question of just how significant and pivotal that influence is remains open. I believe that even our own military is now saying that the majority of the insurgent fighters in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreigners.

This is good news, because a completely internal insurgency means they have no ability to replenish their arsenal, and will eventually collapse to the much more powerful infrastructure of government, who has the capacity to replenish.

The problem with the pinheads argument that this is Civil War, is you are failing to recognize, it's not a generic civil war at all. If this were two internal factions within the country, both with the ability to produce arms and wage war, that is one thing, but if the insurgents are a proxy army for Syria and Iran, this is not a generic internal conflict, and we have every right to continue supporting and backing the legitimate government.

It's really simple. Either this is a generic internal conflict, mostly comprised of Iraqi's, in which case, they will eventually collapse due to inability to replenish their weapons, or this insurgency is being backed by outside forces, which have to be eliminated in order to secure the country. If the insurgents are being supplied and supported by Syria and Iran, this is even more justification and reason for the US to stay in Iraq and back the legitimate government.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Either you think that Israel is absolutely right about everything, every time, or you hate Jews. Either all cars are safe and well engineered or they're not. There is no middle ground.

This is the kind of stupidity that gives conservatives a bad name, Dix.

Of course there's a middle ground. What you fail to appreciate is that there are degrees of support and influence. Just because some of the insurgents in Iraq may be supported by entities outside of Iraq does not mean that all insurgents are supported by entities outside of Iraq.

This is elementary logic, Dixie. A universal affirmative can be only partially converted. All of Alma Coogan is dead but not all of the class of dead people is Alma Coogan.

No, it's really not stupid, it's quite simple. There is no middle ground here, either the insurgents ARE or AREN'T being supplied and supported from the outside. If what you claim is so, and the majority of the insurgents are Iraqi, and the outside support is very limited, the insurgency will collapse due to lack of ability to produce weapons and munitions, that is just common sense. If the insurgents are being supported by the outside, then we have an obligation to support the legitimate government of Iraq against a foreign enemy, and this is far from a "civil war".

 

[maineman]

Sorry 'Charlie Tuna'..Hezbollah was founded by Iran and is in fact supporting Sadr in Iraq...no wonder ya were at the bottom of your class!

I am well aware of Hezbollah's origins....and I do not doubt that Sadr is getting support from Iran. All I am saying is that the support does not come from "Hezbollah".... that term is not interchangeable with "Iran".

And where do you get off thinking you know anything about my class standing?

 

[maineman]

Dixie...was the Confederacy self sufficient?

If so, what WAS the purpose of the federal blockade?

what DID Raphael Semmes do during the CIVIL War?

And why do we call it the Civil War when, by your definition, it wasn't?

 

[maineman]

for that matter, where WAS the CSS Alabama built?

 

[Damocles]

Dixie...was the Confederacy self sufficient?

If so, what WAS the purpose of the federal blockade?

what DID Raphael Semmes do during the CIVIL War?

And why do we call it the Civil War when, by your definition, it wasn't?

What are the Iraqis trading for that support? The south traded in Cotton to pay those who "supported" them.

 

[maineman]

how does that change the equation laid out by Dixie? He claims that the presence of support from the outside means it's NOT a civil war?????

who cares what they have agreed to trade now or in the future? The fact remains that antagonists in civil wars frequently receive support from factions outside. That does not make it any less of a civil war.

Dixie is full of shit. and Henry Kissinger agrees with me on that point.

 

[Damocles]

how does that change the equation laid out by Dixie? He claims that the presence of support from the outside means it's NOT a civil war?????

who cares what they have agreed to trade now or in the future? The fact remains that antagonists in civil wars frequently receive support from factions outside. That does not make it any less of a civil war.

Dixie is full of shit. and Henry Kissinger agrees with me on that point.

They are not doing it for "trade" in this case. There is a difference.

 

[maineman]

so you agree with Dixie and disagree with Henry Kissinger on this point?

Are you suggesting that the sunnis and shiites in Iraq are NOT engaged in a civil war because both sides are receiving aid from outside the borders of Iraq?

 

[Damocles]

so you agree with Dixie and disagree with Henry Kissinger on this point?

Are you suggesting that the sunnis and shiites in Iraq are NOT engaged in a civil war because both sides are receiving aid from outside the borders of Iraq?

*SIGH* Again with the liberal all or nothing policy. Is there a difference between a nation trading with a group in civil war as compared to simply supplying them with no trade agreement whatsoever? Yes there is.

Could it still be a civil war? Of course.

You don't have to deliberately be obtuse. That same all or nothing that you accuse "Cons" of seems to have seeped into the liberal lexicon more and more lately....

 

[maineman]

the fact that the sunnis are getting support from sunnis outside of Iraq and the shiites are getting support from shiites outside of Iraq IN NO WAY makes this any less of a civil war.

Is it EXACTLY the same as if the factions were BUYING their IED's with bales of cotton? no.

does that distinction mean anything to the discussion about whether or not Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? no.

 

[Damocles]

the fact that the sunnis are getting support from sunnis outside of Iraq and the shiites are getting support from shiites outside of Iraq IN NO WAY makes this any less of a civil war.

Is it EXACTLY the same as if the factions were BUYING their IED's with bales of cotton? no.

does that distinction mean anything to the discussion about whether or not Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? no.

No, buying or trading with somebody can make or break your economy. There is a huge difference between trading and simply funding a rebellion...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

so you agree with Dixie and disagree with Henry Kissinger on this point?

Are you suggesting that the sunnis and shiites in Iraq are NOT engaged in a civil war because both sides are receiving aid from outside the borders of Iraq?

Why don't you try to stick to THIS war, and what I say, instead of misinterpreting Kissinger? I am suggesting there are two kinds of "civil war" and it's important we discern which type this is, if it is indeed a Civil War.

If Iraq is divided between two internal factions fighting for control of the country, that is a generic civil war, and we don't need to be in the middle of the conflict. If Iraq is being subjected to insurgents funded and aided by outside sources, that is a completely different matter, and not a generic civil war.

You can't compare it to the American Civil War, where there were two legitimate governments internally fighting for control of the country, that was a generic civil war, and yes, there was support from the outside, that wasn't what determined it was or wasn't a civil war, and is not my argument.

What is happening in Iraq, falls into one of the following categories...
A. An internal insurgency and generic civil war-- will ultimately collapse.
B. An internal insurgency somewhat aided by outside sources--- Aid has to be eliminated for the insurgency to collapse.
C. An internal insurgency completely funded and backed by enemies of Iraq-- We are obligated to help defend our allies against outside aggression.

Regardless of which category you personally feel that Iraq falls into, there is no reasonable argument for leaving. Either the internal faction will collapse without ability to support itself, or the Iraqi's are fighting a war of proxy with the insurgents, against Syria and Iran, in which case, we are justified in helping the legitimate government of Iraq defeat them.

 

[maineman]

and you suppose that Sadr is getting all of HIS aid from the US? Are you really suggesting that only the sunni militias receive aid from the outside?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

and you suppose that Sadr is getting all of HIS aid from the US? Are you really suggesting that only the sunni militias receive aid from the outside?

What are you trying to establish? That it's "fair" for the insurgents to get outside aid? That the enemies of Iraq are "justified" in funding an internal conflict in Iraq? Who's side are you on here? It's a little fuzzy to me.