US Senate votes to divide Iraq

trex · October 3, 2007

Not really tough at all. There is no answer, and never has been one. It's just the normal state of affairs. Some people somewhere in the world are always bound to hold crazy beliefs. Some people somewhere in the world are always bound to be in a state of suffering. We can't fix everything. Best thing we can do is not mess with things beyond doing what is necessary to assure our own (and our allies) interests and security.

well that pretty much sums it up, i guess. unfortunately.

the debate is always about the two opposing views, but where there are extremists on both sides, left vs right, extreme liberal vs extreme conservative, both are an equal part of the problem that brings conflict and ultimately totalitarian rule. blanket statements like "they must all be eliminated" can be heard from each of these two groups. while a third group, the moderates are the real answer to making peace.

we need to break out of the viscious cycle of mindless extremism, not become part of it

better not to call yourself a lefty or a righty, but discuss the issues case by case.

use intelligence, not dogmatic attachment to ideology.

Shakeyhands · October 3, 2007

Huh? The Senate is part of Congress.
They can do as they damn well please thank you very much.....see definition of INVASION and OCCUPATION. Iraq is bought and the USA is making the car payments.

So glad we weren't stupid enough to co-sign on that loan.

Good luck with that.

bush_cheney2004 · October 3, 2007

So glad we weren't stupid enough to co-sign on that loan.
Good luck with that.

But that's the point, isn't it. Whether Canada "signs on" or not, the US/UK pulled the trigger anyway. Because they can.

Edited October 3, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

sharkman · October 3, 2007

some excerpts wrt Iraq
and one more for good measure

so in 1996, Israel was looking to remove Saddam Hussein, as an important Israeli strategic objective.

Make no mistake Israel is in an expansionist mode.

Well, that explains everything. When you talk about Israel being in a expansionist mood with regard to Iraq, you are not refering to the usual type of expansion with invasions and occupations. No no, you refer me to far left wing conspiracies. Keep drinking that kool aid.

Edited October 4, 2007 by sharkman

GostHacked · October 4, 2007

But that's the point, isn't it. Whether Canada "signs on" or not, the US/UK pulled the trigger anyway. Because they can.

Just because you can, does not mean you should. Just because you have the ability, does not guarantee your expected outcome. Since I can actually kill you Bush_Cheney, I guess I should just go ahead and pull the trigger. I would like to, but does that mean I should? Would that benefit me at all? Or would I just get some deranged sick twisted pleasure out of all of it. I should do it, for I like to see people suffer. To HELL with 'live and let live', we need to liberate those lower life forms.

Absolutely Disgusting. Tsk tsk tsk.

Not a surprise, it was spoken about in Perle and Feith's Clean Break papers (written for Netanyahu). Israel has been wanting this for some time now - it all has to do with the balance of power - currently with Israel on top.

Divide and conquer. Borders are not well respected in the Middle East so it seems that dividing up Iraq won't do much either. I have heard about this prospect even before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Breaking up Russia only helped create a buffer zone of breakaway states that wanted to become autonomous.The USSR used to border many Middle East countries. The US would have had a tough time to invade and start the middle east transformation with the USSR right on the doorstep of some of the Middle East countries. Much easier after those states broke from the USSR.

EDITED FOR YOUR PLEASURE

I must add that it seems this plan for the Missle East...er MIDDLE east, has been in the works for more than 30 years, maybe 50 years.

End of this Edit.

Before

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationUSSR.png

After

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationRussia.svg

The more factions you can pit against each other, while claiming to be a friend to both.. oh ... just read my taglines at the bottom of this post. :blink: :blink: :blink:

Edited October 4, 2007 by GostHacked

kuzadd · October 4, 2007

Well, that explains everything. When you talk about Israel being in a expansionist mood with regard to Iraq, you are not refering to the usual type of expansion with invasions and occupations. No no, you refer me to far left wing conspiracies. Keep drinking that kool aid.

IMO, it is you drinking the kool-aid.

Oh and I am referring to exactly that kind of expansion, invasions, occupations, etc.,

bush_cheney2004 · October 5, 2007

Just because you can, does not mean you should. Just because you have the ability, does not guarantee your expected outcome. Since I can actually kill you Bush_Cheney, I guess I should just go ahead and pull the trigger. I would like to, but does that mean I should? Would that benefit me at all? Or would I just get some deranged sick twisted pleasure out of all of it. I should do it, for I like to see people suffer. To HELL with 'live and let live', we need to liberate those lower life forms.
Absolutely Disgusting. Tsk tsk tsk.

Go ahead if you want to and have the opportunity....pull the trigger. But I am not worried, because that is what's missing from your position...the will to act, alone or in concert with others. It's a powerful option that often strengthens lesser measures, including "diplomacy". Your "pleasure" is irrelevant.

kuzadd · October 5, 2007

In war, things get blown up. That's quite different from cultish Ottoman animals intentionally defacing everything in their path because some psychotic genocidal maniac told them God said to do it.

Are you referring to GWB, cause he said ,God told him to invade Iraq.

Glad we agree on that , along with all the religious fanaticism, that is quite cultish, indeed, in the military as promoted, through the Pentagon and right-wing christian groups.

definitely psychotic genocide.

Moonlight Graham · October 14, 2007

Let the Iraqi's divide their own country. U.S. forces need to leave (whuile dumping food & bags of money on the way out), let the inevitable civil war occur, and let the chips fall where they may. It will be unfortunately bloody, but few countries have come to be without fighting as a catalyst. Canada is one of the lucky ones.

For every day the U.S. stays in Iraq, another angry Iraqi who lost a loved-one to "civilian casualties" points his gun at U.S. soil.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Moonlight Graham

jbg · October 14, 2007

For every day the U.S. stays in Iraq, another angry Iraqi who lost a loved-one to "civilian casualties" points his gun at U.S. soil.

I am getting irritated at the number of posts that single the US out for responsibility for death in the world. Islam rather than the US is the force in most of the world's wars.

GostHacked · October 14, 2007

I am getting irritated at the number of posts that single the US out for responsibility for death in the world. Islam rather than the US is the force in most of the world's wars.

You are either with us, or against us.

Lets' roll.

Mission Accompished

The surge is working.

Give it till Sept.

THe US is be biggest contingency in Iraq, They have the most troops in the country. They do more operations in Iraq. The US has more private 'Blackwater" types than any other country. It is not hard to understand that most of the civilian deaths are from the US simply because they are doing most of the fighting in Iraq. Britian has under 5000 soldiers in the country. And they are the largest army in Iraq besides the US. IT is simple math and numbers that make the US responsible for death in Iraq. I won't go as far as to say the world. But it would be close.

BUUUUUUT someone will point me out that I am wrong.

Go ahead if you want to and have the opportunity....pull the trigger. But I am not worried, because that is what's missing from your position...the will to act, alone or in concert with others. It's a powerful option that often strengthens lesser measures, including "diplomacy". Your "pleasure" is irrelevant.

The will to act is there. The will to act without just cause is not there for me. The reason I would not have acted, is for all the failed intelligence before the war. Regardless of where it came from it was bad intelligence. All of which did not make a good case for invading Iraq. I knew that before the war started.

The case made to invade Afghanistan was more just because most of the intelligence was correct, and justified the invasion, which Canada jumped on board. But Canada did not jump on the Iraq-wagon. Why is that? Are we idiots? Stupid simpletons? Or felt that there was just not enough proof to invade Iraq. It was not an imminent direct OMG WE INVADE AT DAWN threat to the US. Was not even a threat to the US pal Israel in the Middle East.

OH the will is there, but you better give me a damn good reason before I pull the trigger. Also, if I pull the trigger and the intel you gave me was wrong, are you going to hold yourself responsible for it? Or blame someone else?

Actions have consequences. What better tactic to avoid those consequences by never going through with certain actions.

DogOnPorch · October 14, 2007

The US is be biggest contingency in Iraq, They have the most troops in the country.

I think the Iraqis have the most troops 'in-country' at 165,000. Only a certain portion would be combat troops...same with the US and UK forces. It runs about 10-1 between support and combat troops. The 'Insurgents' have a similar number of combat troops (no actual support troops for these guys).

It is not hard to understand that most of the civilian deaths are from the US simply because they are doing most of the fighting in Iraq. Britian has under 5000 soldiers in the country.

According to antiwar.com, the overwhelming number of civilians are dying at the hands of the insurgents...usually in some sort of bomb attack.

BUUUUUUT someone will point me out that I am wrong.

Happy to help out.

-----------------------------------------------------

In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine.

---Field-Marshal Erwin Rommel

M.Dancer · October 14, 2007

It is not hard to understand that most of the civilian deaths are from the US simply because they are doing most of the fighting in Iraq.

Iraqis killing iraqis is the single highest reason for civilian deaths. For every civilian killed as a result of an american action, 100 iraqis are killed by car bombs and terrorist attacks.

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

bush_cheney2004 · October 14, 2007

You are either with us, or against us.

You botched this quote...again.

Actions have consequences. What better tactic to avoid those consequences by never going through with certain actions.

What better tactic indeed....and that which is missing as I stated. Doing nothing is never better than doing something.

jbg · October 14, 2007

THe US is be biggest contingency in Iraq,

Contingency? Learn one of Canada's official languages, please.

jbg · October 14, 2007

Iraqis killing iraqis is the single highest reason for civilian deaths. For every civilian killed as a result of an american action, 100 iraqis are killed by car bombs and terrorist attacks.
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

I remember, after the Shatilla and Sabra massacres by Christian Phalangists of Muslims, an Israeli official saying "Lebanese kill Lebanese and the Jews are blamed".

GostHacked · October 15, 2007

Contingency? Learn one of Canada's official languages, please.

Hey buddy, thanks for being helpful and contributing a great reply in this thread.

Let me clear up my post by saying the US garners more attention because they are the largest foreign group inside Iraq. And so my quote is not exact. Hell Bush changes what he says all the time anyways. Maybe I am getting Bushisms Derrangement Syndrome.

The US wanted to be all high and mighty with the invasion of Iraq, this was all forseen before the war. The results are exactly what planned. Divide and conquer.

As they step up, we will step down.

bush_cheney2004 · October 15, 2007

The US wanted to be all high and mighty with the invasion of Iraq, this was all forseen before the war. The results are exactly what planned. Divide and conquer.
As they step up, we will step down.

Not really....Canada couldn't "step up" when it came to Iraq, as it was already tapped out for stepping up in Afghanistan, Op Apollo, Haiti, etc., and it certainly did not oppose the invasion a la France & Germany. Chretien was quite comfortable sitting on the fence, and Martin wanted a piece of the post invasion contract action.

Moonlight Graham · October 15, 2007

I am getting irritated at the number of posts that single the US out for responsibility for death in the world. Islam rather than the US is the force in most of the world's wars.

What the heck are you talking about? I didn't blame the world's casualties on the U.S. This thread is about Iraq. The U.S. led the invasion of Iraq, therefore they are responsible for the majority of civilian casualties in Iraq.

jbg · October 15, 2007

What the heck are you talking about? I didn't blame the world's casualties on the U.S. This thread is about Iraq. The U.S. led the invasion of Iraq, therefore they are responsible for the majority of civilian casualties in Iraq.

Shiites and Sunnis kill far more Iraqis than US forces do.

I find you tough to debate with.

Moonlight Graham · October 15, 2007

Shiites and Sunnis kill far more Iraqis than US forces do.
I find you tough to debate with.

Interesting. link?

DogOnPorch · October 15, 2007

Interesting. link?

Here's yesterday's civilian death toll: 43 killed, 75 wounded.

http://antiwar.com/updates/

Of those only 3 KIAs are credited to US/UK forces. They were however suspected insurgents according to the same site.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KAM536376.htm

Past dates show similar trends.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Even Castles made of sand, fall into the sea, eventually.

---Jimi Hendrix

jbg · October 16, 2007

Here's yesterday's civilian death toll: 43 killed, 75 wounded.
http://antiwar.com/updates/

Of those only 3 KIAs are credited to US/UK forces. They were however suspected insurgents according to the same site.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KAM536376.htm

Past dates show similar trends.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Even Castles made of sand, fall into the sea, eventually.

---Jimi Hendrix

Thanks. I'm tired and you saved me the work of demonstrating the obvious to the challenged.

DogOnPorch · October 16, 2007

Happy to help. Some of these folks would have us believe US GIs are lining up Iraqi women and children and executing them for crossing the road on a 'Don't Walk' signal.

That is when not re-writing history...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sons of Islam everywhere, the jihad is a duty - to establish the rule of Allah on earth and to liberate your countries and yourselves from America's domination and its Zionist allies, it is your battle - either victory or martyrdom.

---Sheikh A. Yassin