KrustyKidd

(in rsponse to my comment of "you seem to be under the idea that Iraq will simply unfold into three neat groups and then fight from their positions. Not so."}Gerry So, if they left, things would calm down then. They are not keeping the violence in check though. They are supporting an Iraqi government by supporting their weak military. Without that military giving some form of central gravitational confidence, the entire country will disolve into chaos with militias taking over, both Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite and, as it is apparent the military will fail, then of course logic dictates the government will soon follow - thus making any political moves redundent. The Bush admin doesn't say that. I do. Like you, I don't get my news and information from Bush, I go through various sources, none of them Fox, Gaurdian, Michaael Moore, Rush Limbaugh or talk show hosts. Anything that is dripping with resentement or ridicule in the prose I discount as tainted and not worth reading whether I agree or not. See, the natural state for an Arab is to be tribal. They don't form nations naturally, only by force and being conquered. Hence, the natural state for Iraq will be, in lack of authority, is factioned and, even within those Religious factions you will have geographical, ethnic, tribal, and in the case of Iranian influenced - politically factioned. That's a shit load of factions all with guns protecting themselves against other factions whom they view with distrust and suspicion. All while the opportunity to take what is theirs is a possibility that fills their dreams. Iraq is a country that has been forced to come together by force. Sunnis and Shiites were practically 'bussed' from other parts of the country in order to make a mix in Sadam's era. So, there are no neat lines wher one part starts and the other begins. The violence would be a three way split of confusing proportions. Sectarian mixed with power plays within those sects. Geography and ethnicity would also throw in a minor fourth. Shiites for example don't all agree. Some like this, some believe that and some want this and that but not this. And all have armies and land to protect and want more. There won't even be peace in the middle of nowhere if there is two shiite militias staring at one another for crying out loud. So, even if you took Sunnis and Kurds out of the mix along with Iran, there will still be fighting. Sunnis the same with Jihadists thrown into the mix along with former Regime members and such all trying to do something. Because the different Militias are all guarding their home turf. Without a central government, they retreat back into those areas and just hunker down. Little or no cooperation other than to increase their military power the place would turn into a land of Warlords like Afgtanistan. Remember Afganistan? The place that was so messed up that people actually liked it when the Taliban took over so there would at least be some sort of entity other than complete chaos? Well, that's what will more than likely happen in Iraq if the government is not supported by their weak military, which in trun is supported and trained by the US. They only need time, and you think that Saddam should have gotten years more of it after more than a decade of stalling and bullshitting but the people of Iraq only deserve three years.

Not only sectarian violence but violence within sects. you seem to be under the idea that Iraq will simply unfold into three neat groups and then fight from their positions. Not so. the Shiites are all divided into different factions with degrees of loyalty to Clerics, Iranians and the government itself. Same as the Sunnis and Kurds. It would be an absolute mess and one that is certain to make whatever you have seen so far look like a north American city park. I don't think so. Not in the way you seem to want them to. If anything it would be a phased pullout of cerrtain areas rather than a traumatic turnover. This here is a conciliatory move by the govermnet try and difuse the tension happening there. There being in the area where this even t occured. If anything, the US forces will simply temporarily speed up the tranistion of control to Iraqi forces until this particular event blows over. Known that one for sometime. Check out the Stratfor report at the Werewolf and it even gives the name and locations of them. It was one of the Stategies to effect the changes in Saudi Arabia and more than likely one reason why Syria is not a greater problem than it is.

Provoke a war? Sorry Gerry but there was already a war which was suspended under a conditional ceasefire. With the conditions not being adhered to by Iraq. Unless Iraq did some fast action in the form of complying it was going to happen though, even if it was a last resort. So we can use the analogy of the police officer, sure he is going to have to use the gun to subdue the suspect but, prepared to not have to if somehow, the suspect complies with the orders given.

Gerry, I realize what the topic is however, it is the same argument as the Downing Street memo. Same crap, worked from a different angle. It does vindicate Bush from the left catch phrase of 'rushing to war' though doesn't it? Anyhow, please do your homework and address the posts in which I have rsponded to you as you have a lot of catching up to do so no sense starting new stuff and falling further behind.

"Lad?" Names? That is emotional. A sure sign you are running out of argument and, given the proof you have wihich is so old (Downing Street memo) and already been worked over with zip for results I wonder why you waste bandwidth here with it. Possibly, you might team up with Newbie who has started the exact thread and seems to be cutting your grass. Gerry, one of the points here you can respond to is that two months before the invasion it was a virtual given that Saddam would never be able to adhere to any of the dozens of resolution points he was commited to in time. Bush did give him every opportunity as did the UN with military action being a lsat resort however, we all knew there was little possibility he would be able to come clean in time. As Blix said 'cooperation was not immediate and unconditional.' We all knew how it was going to go anyhow as it's pretty hard to carry out twelve years of comming clean in two months so, good thing Bush was ready cause that what was comming down the pipe.

Five and a half years and nothing. Yes, so obviously dishonest. Get an argument for crying out loud, this baseless conjecture and emotional drivel makes you look like a troll poster. Wait, why don't you just address the ones of mine you have conveiniently skipped over? There's this one What is the point of that? So therefore it was OK to lie his way into a war? Besides the fact that your quote refers to "support efforts" (rather than START A WAR!) it's not relevant. It was to be done since the signing by Clinton by non military means but, since 911, things changed. So, it would be a deriliction of his duty to NOT attemp to effect this Regime Change it seems, by whatever method he could. I suppose that Saddam being in violation of resolutions and such and thus becomming a legitimate target for active regime change would then be the recipient of said support. After a decade of trying, the US was forced to act in order to get Iraq to comply. Of course it can be argued ineffectively they did not have to act as nobody has to do anything. They could stand down the forces they had in theater and allow him to do whatever he wanted or, simply become isolationist and allow the world to go on with whatever it does when controlled by Great Powers such as France, Russia and China and an Iraq with Saddam unrestricted.. Oh, I get it. You meant in case Hondorus effected the regime change the US should have provided moral support in the form of the USO or something. Ok, gotcha. And this one which was a tag along with Monty affair you didn't address which had some points which challenged your argument And then of course, you never once commented in any way to my speculation of what would happen if the US left Iraq. You can go here to do so. You were the one who said Iraq would be much better off if the US left Iraq so it should be interesting to see you refute any of the possibilities with reason. Oh, another argument maybe you can answer what Black Dog could not I think this all ties in with the 72% thread and your last post there so won't bother addressing it unless you wish but, the points are here anyhow.

Thank goodness. Some had said that he 'Rushed to war.'

No, if you read the article supplied you will see he is kick starting an impasse in the democratic business. Here, I'll give it to you

First one I found, lots more Obviously not talking to Bush. Yes, they're up to speed of course. Well if the government asked the US to leave, they might entertain it but they have not. In the meantime, giving some help to a new military doesn't seem outlandish considering your contention that there is a lot of bad stuff happening there. Might. However, if the US left just to 'see' if you were right or not, the whole thing would more than likely go down the tubes completely. So, why not wait a bit like the UN and US did with Saddam? No government? Then who is this Talabani guy you refer to? And, the major point of this is that Iran feels it can gain more from dicussion than subversion. That in itself is a major turning point and indicatin that something has changed dynamically that they need to do something of that magnitude. Eventually, they will have to sit down with the Iranians. At the moment I believe it is simply posturing to the Sunnis and to the Shiites to show they are no US or Iranian puppets.

Supporting and training Iraqi military units and conducting patrols and operations against insurgents and Jihadists. You mean the elections? Or the concessions made by all factions in the political process or rather, did you mean the acceptence by Iran to hold historic negotiations with the US over Iraq as they too, understand that not being part of the political process could weaken their position? Edit: None, just stop working agianst the situation by giving Jihadists and insurgents the hope they use to keep going, believing that if they place enough pressure, the US will fold under the anti war folks wishes. In short, just stop calling out for the US to leave and afford the Iraqis the same time generousity the UN gave Saddam - a decade.

There are a few people who are causing the trouble and, very effectively, this is by no means the majority. Suicide bombers can create much agitation, suspicion, physical damage and weaken even a strong government and can actually help topple a weak one. It is no novel idea that they would place any new government in a weak position. Hence, they need help, even if progress has been made. So, you didn't answer

Iran's foreign policy is based primarily on defense. Memories of their war with Iraq run deep in society there and they would be dertermined to never risk that again. Hence, the best way to prevent that is to control the country without being directly liable by covert political and open equipment support of Shiites there. So true, which is why Iran would never directly enter it with conventional forces, lowering their liability factor to support and advisory status. They of course, are doing this now but on a scale much lower than what would be if the US were not curtailing this activity and Shiite commuities had no other means of defending themselves. If possible yes. Will there be a government though? The situation with the US there is one where insurgents are doing whatever they can to weaken the government, With the US gone, many of the stops preventing the attacks will go along with them. Stops such as support for the Iraq forces, closure of Jihadist routes, protection of Sunni areas so they do not feel the need to work with Jihadists and such. If this is taken away, and Shiites have greater Iranian backing due to the necessity to protect themselves from Jihadists and insurgents, the Sunnis will have little recouse but to bring the support of the Jihadists along with aid from the Muslim world into their society. It's basicly a snowball effect and would escalate rather quickly. So quickly in fact that the government would crumble overnight as the military disintigrated just as fast as soldiers lost confidence in their ability to control anything and returned home to 'hunker down' with their tribes and communities if you will. It is simple survival and, would have the further detrimental effect of creating many power bases across the country, making negotiations and aid impossible until they begin to form alliances. Given that people of that region all desire power, it can easily be surmised that many of these power bases will wish to be a larger, more effective entity and thus, wars within factions cannot be discounted.

Generally accepted figure is thirty thousand over a three year period. Iraqi Body Count gives that as well as most credible humanistic organizations. The accepted figure of those killed by Saddam is between two and three hundred thousand over a twenty year period not counting lives lost during the war with Iran or Kuwait. The figures given (thirty thousand) include those killed by Iraqi insurgents and foreign Jihadists hence it would be fair to include those killed by Iranians during the war with Iraq so, five hundred thousand is actually a low figure. Make it seven or even eight. In any case, the US has saved lives. They know already. At least 65% of them do as they participated in the process. Well, Saddam got twelve years of opportunity, why is it the Iraqis themselves only get three? To say sanctions and resolutions were working is wrong as they were not yet the Iraqis, with US help, have come together in a political process with a greater percentage of the population voting under threat of death than those who do in most democratic countries. So, why is it the left was willing to cut Saddam so much slack when no progress was being made, yet give no time or opportunity to Iraqis when they are actively engaging in the political porocess? It just seems so hypocritical.

Pretty bang on with both Assessments Sami. That is the here and now. However, once survivial takes center stage, even within those sects there will be factions based on geography. The Iranians would be welcome and much needed supporters for many Shiites. Civil war, while not welcome, would be necessary to protect yourself and area from those who see it as an opportunity. In this case, there would be many only too happy to seize this opportunity.

I replied to this response but did not get even an acknoledgement from the individual who asked me to penyificate so will reproduce it for the general public. I mentioned that it will never happen as the repercussions are so terrible both tactically and strategicly but the individual who asked me this seems to think that all the pieces of the puzzle (if you can call the diverse ethnic, religious, cultural, political and racial groups not to mention economic and class status a form type piece of a formula that has a proper way to 'fit' together) proivided the US left. This is in no way designed to say the US has not opened a panoras box but, it has been opened nonetheless for reasons arguable in any other thread. Here are my thoughts. Of course, I could be wrong but I pray I will never have my prediction tested. More to follow.

His point is that if Bush knew that he was going to go to war with Iraq no matter what if possible, then he lied to the American people when he stated that war would be an action of the last resort. And to him, that makes hime happy because it means there is an oppoortunity for Bush to be discredited or even in a fantasy world - impeached. What he discounts is that Saddam was as predictable as a Musillini run train and that the administration knew he could never come clean even if he wanted to. Hence, it was a virtual given that the resolutions would be breached. And, if not with WMDs, it could and more than likely have been with the ecological reparations, POW returns, repatriation of foreign nationals, war reparations etc. Hence, when none of those had even been acted on in over ten years, one can figure without using a calculator that given that they take years to complete if they are even started at all that he would be in breach of something. Lo and behold, in the two months that Iraq actually got serious they turned in a document that Blix himself called 'disappointing' containing fake documents and then even testified that the actions by Iraq were not 'immediate and unconditional' which BTW were the exact terms 687 said that Iraq must be in order to be in compliance with 1441 which reiterated the authority that the US and the coalition had to take whatever action was necessary to get Iraq to comply. It's the stuff left wing dreams are made of is what the point is Monty. Same crowd that are angry for the US invasion killing Iraqs to the tune of thirty thousand while saving on average five hundred thousand from Saddam and his adventures. Very humanistic they try to portray themselves as they have a belief that by having the US leave Iraq as it is comming together, they now wish to have the US leave and watch a further two hundred fifty thousand die by disease and trauma. Very strange words for a group that are argueing that Bush did not give every oppoortunity to avoid war and are now saying that we should give democracy no more opportunity. Nothing to worry about, go back to Kojack.

I shall take a few from "The CIA World Factbook", if that's ok.http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ao.html Bear in mind, the US and their CIA supported UNITA, in what was, on both sides, a tremendously brutal conflict. When democracy finally came, the US didn't get the result they hoped for, so they renewed the fighting. What is it called, again, when someone targets and murders the civilians of a democratically elected government with the aim of bringing down that gov't? Oh, yeah, Terrorism.http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bk.html How about one that hasn't happened yet...Taiwan? They wish democratic independence from a communist regime...and even the US won't come out publicly to support them. China would be a formidable enemy. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/er.html I would be happy to name some more but have to hit the hay. Here's some from a Wilkpedia visit if that's ok too. I got to 'K' I think and the point I believe was made so I started skipping around and missed probably a few. In any cawe, bloodshed of epic proportions is not a prerequisite of democracy. Some names. Oh, I supoose South korea would fit in there too. Bunch more there too that I don't recall having to lose two or three percent of their population in order to have a cold beer sitting in the fridge.

What is the point of that? So therefore it was OK to lie his way into a war? Besides the fact that your quote refers to "support efforts" (rather than START A WAR!) it's not relevant. It was to be done since the signing by Clinton by non military means but, since 911, things changed. So, it would be a deriliction of his duty to NOT attemp to effect this Regime Change it seems, by whatever method he could. I suppose that Saddam being in violation of resolutions and such and thus becomming a legitimate target for active regime change would then be the recipient of said support. After a decade of trying, the US was forced to act in order to get Iraq to comply. Of course it can be argued ineffectively they did not have to act as nobody has to do anything. They could stand down the forces they had in theater and allow him to do whatever he wanted or, simply become isolationist and allow the world to go on with whatever it does when controlled by Great Powers such as France, Russia and China and an Iraq with Saddam unrestricted.. Oh, I get it. You meant in case Hondorus effected the regime change the US should have provided moral support in the form of the USO or something. Ok, gotcha.

Beauty! I hate Baldwin cause he is an asshole and Hanitty, while a boring parrot, is effective at what he does. His interviews with peole who support the war range from soldiers to parents of those who have sacrificed their lives. He offers to go one on one with anybody and yet, is experienceing problems with mouthpieces like Baldwin, Moore, Shennan and such being no shows. He offers to debate them at collages where they go anyhow and meet them and donate the proceedes to charity and yet, they chicken out as they know he has them by the gonads with fact trumping rhetoric. I had no idea Baldwin said crap like that and now, i really won't watch his movies as I'll always remember him as a guy who didn't have the guts to show up. The real diamond in this though is Levin. He has to be the funniest man on radio! I only get him when I'm down near the big Apple on 790 but man, he is funny.

It was the offical US policy to effect Regime Change in Iraq. It was to be done since the signing by Clinton by non military means but, since 911, things changed. So, it would be a deriliction of his duty to NOT attemp to effect this Regime Change it seems, by whatever method he could.

Uh oh, got me on that one. Wern't

It's minor in a legal sense I'm sure as it can be argued that it was unavoidable as Saddam did not comply with the applicable resolutions. Being intent on going in there prior could easily be argued that it was a planning exercise based on the almost certain possibility that he would not comply. Much like a police officer unholstering a sidearm does not mean he is going to shoot.

Guess they were wrong. They have been wrong about a lot more than that too. Iranian influence and such. You are telling me nothing new. If you can find a person who is always right then it's time to believe in God.

No. I imagine that he was intent on invading Iraq immediately after, if not during the Afgan operation. The War was not illegal so what is the problem for him? Hmmm, that's interesting. He did want war no doubt yet had legal reasons to commit it with. Yet, he did say it was a last resort. I think that I shall go back to a question I have put forth to many prior to now. 'What would Bush have done if Saddam had actually done the unthinkable and stopped being Saddam?' Meaning, stopped being as predictable as a broken record and actually adhered to UN resolutions completely so the US had no excuse to take any and all necessary actions to get Iraq to comply with 687. I think there would have been no war. This question is essential as Saddam did not do that, and therefore, gave the opportunity for the US to do what it has done. Furthermore, I also believe that Saddam was played and backed into a corner where it was egostisticly and politically impossible for him to do nothing different. Pretty much, he was played like a violin the entire time.

Almost but not quite. Al Queda is not a force in Iraq. They are a presence and at the moment, a minor one at that. That is how I know that he meant those who were idealogically similar in mission. It was actually.