Dying for a nation that's not...

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Bullypulpit, Jun 5, 2007.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <blockquote>Of all the absurdities attending our unending war in Iraq, the greatest is this: We are fighting to defend that which is not there.

    We are fighting for a national government that is not national but sectarian, and has shown no capacity to govern. We are training Iraq's security forces to combat sectarian violence though those forces are thoroughly sectarian and have themselves engaged in large-scale sectarian violence. We are fighting for a nonsectarian, pluralistic Iraq, though whatever nonsectarian and pluralistic institutions existed before our invasion have long since been blasted out of existence. In the December 2005 parliamentary elections, the one nonsectarian party, which ran both Shiite and Sunni candidates, won just 8 percent of the vote.

    Every day, George W. Bush asks young Americans to die in defense of an Iraq that has ceased to exist (if it ever did) in the hearts and minds of Iraqis. What Iraqis believe in are sectarian or tribal Iraqs -- a Shiite Iraq, a Sunni Iraq, an autonomous Kurdish Iraqi state, an Iraq where Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani or Muqtada al-Sadr or some other chieftain holds sway. - <a href=http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/199777.html>The Sacramento Bee</a> </blockquote>

    The Shi'ite led Iraqi 'government' is on vacation for two months while our troops fight and die in Baghdad's streets. Iraqi security forces either don't show up, or show little interest in doing more than settling grudges with Sunni rivals in the areas our troops have cleared. Combined US/Iraqi forces hold 1/3, or fewer, Baghdad neighborhoods. The death toll amongst our troops is already on a pace to outstrip last month's casualties. Yet Bush and his administration fiddle while Baghdad burns.

    With more and more retired generals who served on the ground in Iraq, Gen Sanchez being the latest, speaking out against the administration's policy in Iraq. Bush and Co talk of a 50 year presence in Iraq as if that would be the magic sword to cut the Gordian knot that Iraq has become under the leadership (I'm using that term lightly here) of their administration.

    Iraqi citizen's don't see a unified Iraq, rather they see it as territories divided between Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ias and are taking steps on their own to establish those divisions, particularly amongst the Sunnis and Shi'ias, the Kurds are doing fine on their own.

    The Bush administration couldn't have foreseen these consequences as they lacked the breadth of vision to actually see the sweep of history in that region, and elsewhere. In their arrogance, they simply assumed that they could go in, take out Hussein and a grateful populace would quickly fall in line behind whatever government was installed. Never mind that it was Saddam Hussein's ruthlessness and brutality that kept these sectarian rivalries at bay.

    We have a recent lesson in what happens when a strong-man dictator is removed from the scene abruptly. Remember Yugoslavia? Tito's death gave us the horrors of ethnic cleansing as Serbs and Croats slaughtered each other in an internecine struggle that had been contained by the force of Tito's rule. But history has been but a a minor footnote to Bush and his cronies, they didn't forget history...they simply ignored it. And now, they've repeated it.
     
  2. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    But what isn't discussed in the piece is how we leave a "stable Iraq". It's certainly not going to be following the course laid out by Bush who, as Georgie Anne Geyer pointed out, is "...setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of 'our country's destiny.' ".

    It can't be done absent the involvement of all the nations in the region, including those Bush and his cabal don't want to talk to.
     
  4. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Iraqis are fighting abck against the terrorists

    Here is only one example - there are many


    Ordinary Iraqis Wage a Successful Battle Against Insurgents
    By ROBERT F. WORTH

    Published: March 22, 2005


    AGHDAD, Iraq, March 22 - Ordinary Iraqis rarely strike back at the insurgents who terrorize their country. But just before noon today, a carpenter named Dhia saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming towards his shop and decided he had had enough.

    As the gunmen emerged from their cars, Dhia and his young relatives shouldered their own AK-47's and opened fire, police and witnesses said. In the fierce gun battle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after the police arrived. Two of Dhia's young nephews and a bystander were injured, the police said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/i...=4fab5dc83f59b0ae&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
     
  5. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    So why, then, do we need to spend out blood and treasure in that benighted land?
     
  6. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    The surge is showing signs of progress. Therefore, Dems must try to push for surrender. Dems cannot and will not allow progress to be made - they have already said the war is lost

    If the US military and the people of Iraq start to win - that is a huge loss for the Dems
     
  7. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Surrender? To whom? Can you cite one credible, independent instance of a Democrat calling for surrender?...To anyone? Or are you content, as usual, to parrot the White House talking points and expect to be taken seriously?
     
  8. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    When you tell the enemy when you are leaving, before the job is done, so they will have a free hand to do what they want - it is surrender
     
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,509
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    Ahh , your free to rant using Liberal talking points though right? That of course is DIFFERENT, right?
     
  10. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Of course it is

    BP speaks for the betterment of the common good and for the DNC
     

Share This Page