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

Dixie said:
OK....I'll correct you. You are, of course, wrong. The key concept that you seem to gloss over is "join together". If there is a sunni baathist, and that sunni does not want to see a government that is dominated by shiites..... if there is also a shiite loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr who does not want to see a government that allows any voice whatsoever to moderates or sunnis and would prefer to see an Iranian clone theocracy... Those two individuals are not "joined together".

Yes, they are, they have a common objective. This joins them together, whether they cooperatively work together, that is a different matter, but they certainly are joined together to defeat democracy in Iraq. That is the only point that needs to be considered here, and it is valid.
Click to expand...

no...they do not hold a common objective. They are not "joined together" They are diametrically opposed to one another. They wish, above all else, for the other's failure. If you gave a sunni the option of living with the existing government where they had a small minority voice, or living under a total shiite theocracy united in philosophy and purpose with Iran, I am sure that the sunni would begrudgingly accept the former before the latter. Similarly, if you asked a member of Sadr's militia if he would prefer the current government to one controlled by secular sunni baathists, I am sure that HE would begrudgingly accept the former as well.

The only common objective they have is each other's demise.
 
The point is....you want to make this some unified "joined together" bunch of bad guys fighting the poor beleaguered Iraqi government, and it is just not that simple.....

No, I have said all along, it is a very complicated and intricate anti-democracy insurgency, fueled mostly by outside influence. Your side has argued for the simplistic view you describe, in claiming it is a Sunni/Shiia Civil War. I'm glad to see you're coming around on this, and no longer think it's a simple matter of Sunni's and Shiia's fighting for control, as you earlier articulated. I'm glad to see you realize it is very complicated, and there are many factors at play, with many players and much at stake, it's better than thinking this is a futile quagmire we have no business in. I think you're progressing!
 
Dixie is unreal. It's like we've been riding around in a car with him driving, screaming at him to stop & get directions or at least think about where he's going, for over 3 years. He's been plugging his ears the whole time, yelling "nyah, nyah, nyah...I'm not listening!" Now that we're in the wilderness, lost, with no viable options, he unplugs his ears and asks why we've been living in a fantasyland, and why we can't just discuss what to do now like mature adults....
 
The 2005 election, was not an affirmation of Bush and an american occupation.

I didn't state that it was. I think it's fairly clear it was an affirmation of Democracy, and the current government of Iraq. Don't you?
 
it is infinitely closer to a sunni-shiite civil war than it is to pro-democracy good guys fighting valiantly against foreign anti-democracy insurgents.

and Iran does not give any money to sunnis...and I never even implied that they did. ;)
 
no...they do not hold a common objective.

Well, sure they do, you said it yourself, Maine...

Syria doesn't want to see democracy flourish in Iraq....Syria is not Al Qaeda. Syria is baathist, just like Saddam was. Iran doesn't want to see an independent democracy flourish in Iraq - it wants a theocracy that is aligned with Iran and completely under the influence of Iran. Iran is not Al Qaeda.

Uhmm.... this is what is known as a "common objective."
 
you'll notice, Dixie, that in the quote above, I was talking about Syria and Iran....NOT the insurgents that they support. The insurgents that they support do not hold a common objective at all except each other's defeat.
 
IGNORE MM.


this post was for dixster

maineman said:
it is infinitely closer to a sunni-shiite civil war than it is to pro-democracy good guys fighting valiantly against foreign anti-democracy insurgents.

and Iran does not give any money to sunnis...and I never even implied that they did. ;)
Click to expand...


No.

"Holding an election" has nothing inherently to do with democracy. Elections are just a mechanical excerscise. Logistics, if you will. Democracy is an ideology and human value that took 500 years to develop in the western world.

Iraqis went to the polls to vote for their favorite sectarian party or religious party. Shia saw the "election" as a way to wrest power from their foes, the sunnis, who had oppressed them for decades.

Ultimately, some hard-line Shia - Like Muqtada Al Sadr - is going to come to power, or be "elected". Mark my words, Dixster.

Even Bush's friends have given up on their original idea of a "Democratic" Iraq. You're valiantly cluthcing onto old and outdated GOP talking points.
 
Last edited:
as I said before:

maineman said:
no...they do not hold a common objective. They are not "joined together" They are diametrically opposed to one another. They wish, above all else, for the other's failure. If you gave a sunni the option of living with the existing government where they had a small minority voice, or living under a total shiite theocracy united in philosophy and purpose with Iran, I am sure that the sunni would begrudgingly accept the former before the latter. Similarly, if you asked a member of Sadr's militia if he would prefer the current government to one controlled by secular sunni baathists, I am sure that HE would begrudgingly accept the former as well.

The only common objective they have is each other's demise.
Click to expand...
 
maineman said:
it is infinitely closer to a sunni-shiite civil war than it is to pro-democracy good guys fighting valiantly against foreign anti-democracy insurgents.

and Iran does not give any money to sunnis...and I never even implied that they did. ;)
Click to expand...


It is curious to me, the way you always want to attribute these phrases and words, like "good guys" and "good vs. evil" and "fighting valiantly". Do you perceive Democracy as something that isn't good, or anti-democracy as something that isn't evil or bad? Is fighting for Democracy, against forces opposed to it, a good or bad thing, in your humble opinion? Because this sounds to me like you don't really think we should take a proactive position in support of Democracy over anti-democracy, that we should remain "neutral" on the matter. Is this how you feel? Just be honest.
 
This was where my response was SUPPOSED to be posted.


Dixie said:
The 2005 election, was not an affirmation of Bush and an american occupation.

I didn't state that it was. I think it's fairly clear it was an affirmation of Democracy, and the current government of Iraq. Don't you?
Click to expand...



No.

"Holding an election" has nothing inherently to do with democracy. Elections are just a mechanical exercises. Logistics, if you will. Democracy is an ideology and human value that took 500 years to develop in the western world.

Iraqis went to the polls to vote for their favorite sectarian party or religious party. Shia saw the "election" as a way to wrest power from their foes, the sunnis, who had oppressed them for decades.

Ultimately, some hard-line Shia - Like Muqtada Al Sadr - is going to come to power, or be "elected". Mark my words, Dixster.

Even Bush's friends have given up on their original idea of a "Democratic" Iraq. You're valiantly cluthcing onto old and outdated GOP talking points.
 
maineman said:
you'll notice, Dixie, that in the quote above, I was talking about Syria and Iran....NOT the insurgents that they support. The insurgents that they support do not hold a common objective at all except each other's defeat.
Click to expand...

Yes, they too share the same common objective of eliminating democracy in Iraq. They are not killing each other, there is no internal insurgent fighting happening, so that isn't the case. They are killing pro-democracy Iraqi's and Americans, and trying to disrupt the democracy in Iraq, because they share a common objective. Sunni and Shiia issues are being heavily exploited by the insurgents, because this is effective, not because there is some great divisional split among Iraqi's, as I posted above, Sunni's and Shiia are participating in the Unity Government, in huge numbers.
 
It is curious to me how you just blythely ignore many points that I make that apparently make you uncomfortable and to which you cannot find some easy pat answer. WHy is that? Just be honest.

In answer to your question. I think America ought to always act first and foremost to further her own enlightened self interest.

I strongly believe that having a toothless Saddam in power in Iraq who still could, nonetheless, keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another, could still keep islamic extremists from overrunning his country, and could still keep Iranian regional hegemony in check....I strongly believe that having him in power was in America's enlightened best interest...and that removing him for your chivalrous reasons was foolhardy and we are paying the price for your idiocy today.
 
Even Bush's friends have given up on their original idea of a "Democratic" Iraq.

Oh really? So, Bill Clinton no longer thinks it was a good idea to replace Saddam with Democracy in Iraq? When did he recant this policy?
 
Dixie said:
Yes, they too share the same common objective of eliminating democracy in Iraq. They are not killing each other, there is no internal insurgent fighting happening, so that isn't the case. They are killing pro-democracy Iraqi's and Americans, and trying to disrupt the democracy in Iraq, because they share a common objective. Sunni and Shiia issues are being heavily exploited by the insurgents, because this is effective, not because there is some great divisional split among Iraqi's, as I posted above, Sunni's and Shiia are participating in the Unity Government, in huge numbers.
Click to expand...

you are wrong. sunnis are blowing themselves up in shiite marketplaces and vice versa. they are most definitely killing one another.

Huge numbers? what bullshit!
 
Dixie said:
Yes, they too share the same common objective of eliminating democracy in Iraq. They are not killing each other, there is no internal insurgent fighting happening, so that isn't the case. They are killing pro-democracy Iraqi's and Americans, and trying to disrupt the democracy in Iraq, because they share a common objective. Sunni and Shiia issues are being heavily exploited by the insurgents, because this is effective, not because there is some great divisional split among Iraqi's, as I posted above, Sunni's and Shiia are participating in the Unity Government, in huge numbers.
Click to expand...


"they too share the same common objective of eliminating democracy in Iraq. They are not killing each other, there is no internal insurgent fighting happening, so that isn't the case"

Ooops....


1) "US delight as Iraqi rebels turn their guns on al-Qa'eda"
By Oliver Poole in Qaim

"American troops on the Syrian border are enjoying a battle they have long waited to see - a clash between foreign al-Qa'eda fighters and Iraqi insurgents."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...rq04.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/04/ixworld.html


2) 'Enemy on enemy' fire signals split among insurgents in Iraq

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/21/news/rebels.php


3) "Deaths Across Iraq Show It Is a Nation of Many Wars, With U.S. in the Middle"

"The fighting in Iraq is not a single conflict, but an overlapping set of conflicts, ... Muslim militiamen and other armed groups — all fighting each other. ..."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-map7oct07,0,3782980.story?coll=la-home-headlines
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Even Bush's friends have given up on their original idea of a "Democratic" Iraq.

Oh really? So, Bill Clinton no longer thinks it was a good idea to replace Saddam with Democracy in Iraq? When did he recant this policy?
Click to expand...

It's always "gotcha" partisan politics with you. That is one of the biggest reasons we are stuck in this mess; Bush cheerleaders were more concerned about defending him as "right" than taking an objective look at the situation.

What exactly did Clinton say? If he said we need to stay the course until we successfully establish a western-style democracy in Iraq, I vehemently disagree with him...as does Kissinger, Baker, Adelman, et al.

There are very few people talking like you are, Dixie. Do you read the news? Do you really have an understanding of where things are in Iraq right now? You have never been very good with reality...
 
I strongly believe that having a toothless Saddam in power in Iraq who still could, nonetheless, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.

If we had some sort of puppet control over Saddam, perhaps you make a valid point, but we didn't. Regardless of this, we aren't discussing what COULD have been, we've moved beyond that debate, remember?

And you didn't answer the question, you side-stepped it. Here, I'll post it again....

Is fighting for Democracy, against forces opposed to it, a good or bad thing, in your humble opinion? Because this sounds to me like you don't really think we should take a proactive position in support of Democracy over anti-democracy, that we should remain "neutral" on the matter. Is this how you feel? Just be honest.
 
1) US delight as Iraqi rebels turn their guns on al-Qa'eda
By Oliver Poole in Qaim

"American troops on the Syrian border are enjoying a battle they have long waited to see - a clash between foreign al-Qa'eda fighters and Iraqi insurgents."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...4/ixworld.html
Click to expand...


WOW! That is GREAT NEWS, Prissy! If the insurgents are now turning on each other, this thing is all but over with! Yea!!!! VIVA AMERICA!
 
Dixie said:
WOW! That is GREAT NEWS, Prissy! If the insurgents are now turning on each other, this thing is all but over with! Yea!!!! VIVA AMERICA!
Click to expand...


You dumbass! That's what I've told you for years!

The iraqis will hunt down and kill al qaeda, once the provoking nature of an american occupation is removed.

This is what John Murtha said a year ago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top