Why isn't Canada helping to promote civil war?

[gerryhatrick]

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. But there is truth in it.

Until the Americans leave, the violence will continue and grow.

Bush screwed up by starting an uneccessary war and not planning for the aftermath. That's done. Now the desire to leave Iraq better than it was found is an honorable one...but unfortunately it's not possible for the Americans to accomplish that.

Americans are the common enemy. It's not over there just fighting "terrorists", a MAJORITY OF IRAQIS feel attacks on Americans are justified.

So, how is it possible for the Americans to broker security and peace there? It's not.

America needs to leave. If civil war is going to break out, America can't prevent that. In fact, resentments caused by the American presence will only inflame sectarian violence.

If Americans leave then insurgents that are focussing all energy fighting Americans will be able to turn thier attention to rooting out real terrorists in thier midst who's only goal is to kill Iraqi civilians to create unrest.

[Wilber]

"Americans are the common enemy. It's not over there just fighting "terrorists", a MAJORITY OF IRAQIS feel attacks on Americans are justified."

A majority? Do you have something to base this on or is it just your opinion?

"America needs to leave. If civil war is going to break out, America can't prevent that. In fact, resentments caused by the American presence will only inflame sectarian violence.

If Americans leave then insurgents that are focussing all energy fighting Americans will be able to turn thier attention to rooting out real terrorists in thier midst who's only goal is to kill Iraqi civilians to create unrest."

They may not be able to prevent a civil war but without a despot like Saddam to keep a lid on things, one will be inevitable without US presence. The so called "insurgents" or "terrorists", if you can tell which is which, will just turn their attention to other Iraqis. Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, the place is another Balkans. The US leaving won't change that.

[speaker]

On the other hand the principle of democracy is that people should select their own government and means of politics.

[Wilber]

On the other hand the principle of democracy is that people should select their own government and means of politics.

Aside from Isreal, real democracies are hard to find in that region. It's not a concept that is well understood.

[newbie]

On the other hand the principle of democracy is that people should select their own government and means of politics.

Aside from Isreal, real democracies are hard to find in that region. It's not a concept that is well understood.

BINGO!

[geoffrey]

On the other hand the principle of democracy is that people should select their own government and means of politics.

Aside from Isreal, real democracies are hard to find in that region. It's not a concept that is well understood.

BINGO!

So we should just give up and let them suffer says the Left.

So much for helping out the disadvantaged, I guess those lefties only care about what they can see on their own streets.

[gerryhatrick]

"Americans are the common enemy. It's not over there just fighting "terrorists", a MAJORITY OF IRAQIS feel attacks on Americans are justified."

A majority? Do you have something to base this on or is it just your opinion?

You got me. It's nearly half:

"Nearly half of Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops, poll finds"

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...aq/13750156.htm

80% of them want Americans gone.

They may not be able to prevent a civil war but without a despot like Saddam to keep a lid on things, one will be inevitable without US presence.

Do you have something to base this on or is it just your opinion?

The so called "insurgents" or "terrorists", if you can tell which is which,

Oh, it's very easy to tell which is which. Insurgents attack coalition troops. Terrorists target civilians. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

It's interesting how Bush likes to blur the line between them, don't you think?

[gerryhatrick]

So we should just give up and let them suffer says the Left.

No, get out and give them a chance. Get out and reduce thier suffering.

It's quite simple.

When almost half of the population says it's OK to attack US troops and 80% want the US out it's time for the US to leave. Regardless of intentions they're no longer effective...no longer able to rally any positive movement.

Stop speaking in purely rhetorical terms and address the realities. Please.

[Wilber]

"Americans are the common enemy. It's not over there just fighting "terrorists", a MAJORITY OF IRAQIS feel attacks on Americans are justified."

A majority? Do you have something to base this on or is it just your opinion?

You got me. It's nearly half:

"Nearly half of Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops, poll finds"

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...aq/13750156.htm

80% of them want Americans gone.

They may not be able to prevent a civil war but without a despot like Saddam to keep a lid on things, one will be inevitable without US presence.

Do you have something to base this on or is it just your opinion?

The so called "insurgents" or "terrorists", if you can tell which is which,

Oh, it's very easy to tell which is which. Insurgents attack coalition troops. Terrorists target civilians. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

It's interesting how Bush likes to blur the line between them, don't you think?

"According to the poll's findings, 47 percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on American forces, but there were large differences among ethnic and religious groups. Among Sunni Muslims, 88 percent said they approved of the attacks. That approval was found among 41 percent of Shiite Muslims and 16 percent of Kurds."

Like I said, The Balkans all over again. It's also the Sunnis that are responsible for most of the attacks on other Iraqis.

[gerryhatrick]

"According to the poll's findings, 47 percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on American forces, but there were large differences among ethnic and religious groups. Among Sunni Muslims, 88 percent said they approved of the attacks. That approval was found among 41 percent of Shiite Muslims and 16 percent of Kurds."

Like I said, The Balkans all over again. It's also the Sunnis that are responsible for most of the attacks on other Iraqis.

The Kurds are living peacefully in the North. The fact that 16% of them approve of attacks on American forces is still quite surprising.

Differentiating between the Shiites and Sunnis is interesting, but the conclusion is the same. 41% is still a VERY high number of people to be saying they approve of Attacks on American forces.

Do you agree that an American presence is increasing violence?

[JerrySeinfeld]

"According to the poll's findings, 47 percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on American forces, but there were large differences among ethnic and religious groups. Among Sunni Muslims, 88 percent said they approved of the attacks. That approval was found among 41 percent of Shiite Muslims and 16 percent of Kurds."

Like I said, The Balkans all over again. It's also the Sunnis that are responsible for most of the attacks on other Iraqis.

The Kurds are living peacefully in the North. The fact that 16% of them approve of attacks on American forces is still quite surprising.

Differentiating between the Shiites and Sunnis is interesting, but the conclusion is the same. 41% is still a VERY high number of people to be saying they approve of Attacks on American forces.

Do you agree that an American presence is increasing violence?

you guys are WAY off. US needs to EXPAND its role in the middle east. Iran should be the next stop. They should consider flattening HAMAS too. this war of cultures is going to take a long term committment and will make the cold war look like a cakewalk.

its us versus them: a tolerant, free society against an intolerant society. if we don't stop the growth of islam now, it will infect the world and we'll ALL be living under Sharia.

[Black Dog]

you guys are WAY off. US needs to EXPAND its role in the middle east. Iran should be the next stop. They should consider flattening HAMAS too. this war of cultures is going to take a long term committment and will make the cold war look like a cakewalk.

its us versus them: a tolerant, free society against an intolerant society. if we don't stop the growth of islam now, it will infect the world and we'll ALL be living under Sharia.

You're off your nut.

[Wilber]

"According to the poll's findings, 47 percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on American forces, but there were large differences among ethnic and religious groups. Among Sunni Muslims, 88 percent said they approved of the attacks. That approval was found among 41 percent of Shiite Muslims and 16 percent of Kurds."

Like I said, The Balkans all over again. It's also the Sunnis that are responsible for most of the attacks on other Iraqis.

The Kurds are living peacefully in the North. The fact that 16% of them approve of attacks on American forces is still quite surprising.

Differentiating between the Shiites and Sunnis is interesting, but the conclusion is the same. 41% is still a VERY high number of people to be saying they approve of Attacks on American forces.

Do you agree that an American presence is increasing violence?

The only way we would know if the American presence is increasing violence is for the Americans to leave. My own feeling is that only violence against Americans will decrease if they leave. There will be a hell of a fight for control between the majority Shiites and the Sunnis who ran the country under Saddam and want to do so again. They just want the Americans out so they can really get at it. As usual the Kurds will be caught in the middle. Just my opinion but right now it is as good as anyone else's.

[gerryhatrick]

The only way we would know if the American presence is increasing violence is for the Americans to leave.

Well, you're making the point that sectarian violence could increase if the Americans leave. I suppose it might. There is a great deal of expert opinion at the moment which says the Americans are also increasing sectarian violence with thier presence because of the resentment it's causing (ie. Sunnis see Shiites as being supported by Americans).

I think the violence will drastically decrease if Americans leave. My opinion, but I think there's a lot more evidence to back it up than there is for your own.

[Wilber]

The only way we would know if the American presence is increasing violence is for the Americans to leave.

Well, you're making the point that sectarian violence could increase if the Americans leave. I suppose it might. There is a great deal of expert opinion at the moment which says the Americans are also increasing sectarian violence with thier presence because of the resentment it's causing (ie. Sunnis see Shiites as being supported by Americans).

I think the violence will drastically decrease if Americans leave. My opinion, but I think there's a lot more evidence to back it up than there is for your own.

Maybe so but it is easy for us to spout off when we know we are in no danger.

[scribblet]

So we should just give up and let them suffer says the Left.

No, get out and give them a chance. Get out and reduce thier suffering.

It's quite simple.

When almost half of the population says it's OK to attack US troops and 80% want the US out it's time for the US to leave. Regardless of intentions they're no longer effective...no longer able to rally any positive movement.

Stop speaking in purely rhetorical terms and address the realities. Please.

If you think their suffering will be reduced when the U.S. leaves, I think you need to take your head out of the sand, the country will fall into complete anarchy. Many more will die at the hands of their own people, as they are now.

If they had a referendum, and the people voted the U.S. out, then I would say they should leave, but until these different religious factions can learn to control themselves and get along peacefully it will be a mess. That is, until another Saddam like dictator comes along and takes control, hopefully he will be more benign.

[JerrySeinfeld]

you guys are WAY off. US needs to EXPAND its role in the middle east. Iran should be the next stop. They should consider flattening HAMAS too. this war of cultures is going to take a long term committment and will make the cold war look like a cakewalk.

its us versus them: a tolerant, free society against an intolerant society. if we don't stop the growth of islam now, it will infect the world and we'll ALL be living under Sharia.

You're off your nut.

You must be right. Islam's intention is NOT to spread and conquer infidels.

[Biblio Bibuli]

you guys are WAY off. US needs to EXPAND its role in the middle east. Iran should be the next stop. They should consider flattening HAMAS too. this war of cultures is going to take a long term committment and will make the cold war look like a cakewalk.

its us versus them: a tolerant, free society against an intolerant society. if we don't stop the growth of islam now, it will infect the world and we'll ALL be living under Sharia.

You're off your nut.

You must be right. Islam's intention is NOT to spread and conquer infidels.

And spread it will if the white infidels keep insisting on supplying them with money so that they can have 22 kids.

[Black Dog]

If you think their suffering will be reduced when the U.S. leaves, I think you need to take your head out of the sand, the country will fall into complete anarchy. Many more will die at the hands of their own people, as they are now.

If they had a referendum, and the people voted the U.S. out, then I would say they should leave, but until these different religious factions can learn to control themselves and get along peacefully it will be a mess. That is, until another Saddam like dictator comes along and takes control, hopefully he will be more benign.

This underlines the fallacious nature of the defense of the occupation. First: by acknowledging the current state of strife, you concede that the U.S. prescence is largely ineffectual when it comes to maintaining security. They aren't even in the equation. So the question then becomes are they making the situation worse by being there? I'm inclined to say yes.

You must be right. Islam's intention is NOT to spread and conquer infidels.

Islam is a religion, a philosophy: a concept. Concepts don't have intentions. Now, do Muslims (the practicioners of Islam) intend to conquer infidels and sprad their religion by violence? Maybe some do. But most don't. Indeed, the core belief of Islamic radicalism (and its adherents such as Osama bin laden) is that the Muslim world is fighting a defensive war against Western imperialism. That's why you hear Osama talk about re-establishing the Caliphate in the Middle East, not in Oshawa.

[Argus]

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. But there is truth in it.

Not noticeably so.

Until the Americans leave, the violence will continue and grow.

The presence of the Americans is the only thing stopping Iraq from sliding into civil war. Civil war was long considered inevitable once Saddam was toppled or died, btw. Iraq is a mishmash country made up of distinct elements which dislike and distrust each other. The only hope of Iraq not sliding into civil war is if they can somehow be satisfied with their new constitutioni, new parliament, and the compromises they represent.. The presence of religious zealots with their own mini armies, however, is something which threatens that.

Americans are the common enemy.

Odd how most of the violence is being commited against Iraqis.

[gerryhatrick]

The presence of the Americans is the only thing stopping Iraq from sliding into civil war.

Your own opinion.

The presence of religious zealots with their own mini armies, however, is something which threatens that.

The foreign fighters are in the minority in Iraq, according to the US military. The bulk of the fighting the US is engaged in is against Iraqis.

Odd how most of the violence is being commited against Iraqis.

Where are you getting your false information? The VAST MAJORITY of the violence is against US troops.

[tml12]

Gerry,

Argus's statements are pure facts, not opinions. The Americans are keeping Iraq sane, this link (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/NEWS07/603030355/1009) proves most of the violence is being committed kills Iraqis, and the U.S. is democratizing Iraq and killing mostly terrorists, not Iraqis.

[JerrySeinfeld]

If you think their suffering will be reduced when the U.S. leaves, I think you need to take your head out of the sand, the country will fall into complete anarchy. Many more will die at the hands of their own people, as they are now.

If they had a referendum, and the people voted the U.S. out, then I would say they should leave, but until these different religious factions can learn to control themselves and get along peacefully it will be a mess. That is, until another Saddam like dictator comes along and takes control, hopefully he will be more benign.

This underlines the fallacious nature of the defense of the occupation. First: by acknowledging the current state of strife, you concede that the U.S. prescence is largely ineffectual when it comes to maintaining security. They aren't even in the equation. So the question then becomes are they making the situation worse by being there? I'm inclined to say yes.

You must be right. Islam's intention is NOT to spread and conquer infidels.

Islam is a religion, a philosophy: a concept. Concepts don't have intentions. Now, do Muslims (the practicioners of Islam) intend to conquer infidels and sprad their religion by violence? Maybe some do. But most don't. Indeed, the core belief of Islamic radicalism (and its adherents such as Osama bin laden) is that the Muslim world is fighting a defensive war against Western imperialism. That's why you hear Osama talk about re-establishing the Caliphate in the Middle East, not in Oshawa.

HAHAHAHA! As far as the whole "western imperialistic" theory you are living in a dreamworld my friend.

And as for what "most" Islamics want, it doesn't matter. There are two types of muslims: radical violent fanatics and those who don't speak out against them out of fear.

[Black Dog]

HAHAHAHA! As far as the whole "western imperialistic" theory you are living in a dreamworld my friend.

Well, given I'm simply relating the stated objectives of Al Qaeda. But I guess you know better than they do. Whatever.

And as for what "most" Islamics want, it doesn't matter. There are two types of muslims: radical violent fanatics and those who don't speak out against them out of fear.

You realize you're talking about 1.2 billion people, right?

The Americans are keeping Iraq sane, this link proves most of the violence is being committed kills Iraqis, and the U.S. is democratizing Iraq and killing mostly terrorists, not Iraqis.

If the Americans are keeping Iraq sane, why are so many Iraqis killing other Iraqis?

[JerrySeinfeld]

HAHAHAHA! As far as the whole "western imperialistic" theory you are living in a dreamworld my friend.

Well, given I'm simply relating the stated objectives of Al Qaeda. But I guess you know better than they do. Whatever.

And as for what "most" Islamics want, it doesn't matter. There are two types of muslims: radical violent fanatics and those who don't speak out against them out of fear.

You realize you're talking about 1.2 billion people, right?

The Americans are keeping Iraq sane, this link proves most of the violence is being committed kills Iraqis, and the U.S. is democratizing Iraq and killing mostly terrorists, not Iraqis.

If the Americans are keeping Iraq sane, why are so many Iraqis killing other Iraqis?

1.2 billion people who apparently have nothing bad to say about the violence and terrorism being committed in the name of islam. where are the clerics speaking out my friend?