...And so began the Iraqi Civil War

Remove all ads!

Perhaps he means those journalists who were paid off by the administration to hype its policies. Sorry, forgot, it's only those journalists who dare to question anything these guys do who are irreponsible...

Yes, well, that tends to happen with weak arguments - and propaganda as well ...

 

Yeah, you win. I'd certainly trust Ralph Peters over these guys (who don't support our troops), or the MSM with its commie pinko terrorist sympathizers like George Will and William F. Buckley.

 

Thank you BTA. That exactly sums up the point of the article. If you go back and read the earlier posts some posters ( to remain nameless) were beating their chests in triumph that they were right and Bush was wrong. However, they were basing their "victory" on weak evidence at best.

It is still possible that Iraq may implode. I'm hopeful that it won't, and this has nothing to do with my supporting Bush. It saddens me that people hope it implodes just so they can say "I told you so". That is a terrible outlook on life.

 

And it's a legitimate point.

There is one major issue with the article, however. No doubt he's correct about the spike in support for US presence. The question, and not one he addresses (although, since his article is essentially a critique of the media, I suppose it falls outside the scope of the article) is how long the spike will last. I seem to recall that Iraqis like having America around initially, and look how that's turned out.

I have zero confidence in our leadership's ability to capitalize on the spike and make something lasting out of it. I'd love to be wrong, though.

 

I agree that it would be terrible and callous to hope that Iraq implodes to prove a point. No one I know, however, thinks that way. The idea that everyone on the left is rubbing their thighs together in anticipation of an almost unestimable tragedy for the Iraqi people is just another talk radio fantasy.

In that same vein, one could also take the media of the right to task for seeking to spin an Iraqi civil war as a good thing.

 

Snook's post reminded me of something: I have read how Europeans are accused of "Schadenfreude" - of gleefully watching the situation deterioate. When some are allowed to speak one is led to think no one her worries about a fire too close to home for comfort (never mind care about the people that get slaughtered there each and every day).

'tis funny how these things go. First the self-absorbed, money-grabbing, heartless weasels and other such niceties - now the petty ones, laughing over the dead. Some have smearing really down to an art.

 

While the current situation there has turned into the worst case scenario AFTER Saddam left....let's all remember how it was for many of those citizens BEFORE he was captured. Perhaps we should free him and send him back....so he can line up his own people again and murder them like he did before? Running and dodging....afraid to walk the streets? Horrible, yes. But remember all the mass graves -- those people didn't even have a CHANCE to run.

 

Allthough the situation in Iraq is not a civil war (thank god for that), it doesn't mean it is not a war zone. After all everyday there are deaths there, and to be more specific legimitate forces deaths (US, GB, and Iraqies).
But the situation i've read in that article and in most articles i am reading about Iraq, i read only what happens in Baghdad and Vassora. Is Iraq consists of only these two cities? I think not. The info we get as to what really happens in Iraq is to say the least fragmented.
The same thing happens to Afganistan, where in the lack of a second city with a strong foothold of UN forces (or US take your choice) we refer to the rest of Afganistan as a whole. And obviously it looks from the Red cross reports as well as any non goverment organization reports that things there are simply to put medieval. Tribal and warlords fighting to keep their lands and profits rising. Don't forget that the white poppy production (the plant that is producing opium and from there heroine) is skyrocketing again in Afganistan, after the effort that the Taliban regiment put to destroy its production.
In parallel in Iraq noone believes that the goverment that is (or still hasn't??) formed will manage to hold for long. Or should we say that the only thing that works in Iraq is the oil production and nothing else?
And if we accept that fact, does that makes us content with the extend of rebuilding it was supposed to have occured?
Or with the fact that the vision of Democracy and human rights respect from everyone, is being rapped everyday even by those who supposedly went there to ensure the truth of that vision?

 

Well, Saddam was one of our favorite dictators during the 1980s...then he made the mistake of threatening the oilfields.

It's funny about how it never really seems like a war; until it's one of your children who gets killed. Then the war becomes real enough.

Snook - I don't ever need to "thump my chest" about George II being wrong - he proves THAT everyday...

And is it really only those of us on the left who are concerned about civil war in Iraq?

[ March 07, 2006, 07:49: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I am sorry but Spelly i will really disagree on this. I have heard Iraqies saying the opposite in greek reporters.
And to be totally honest what has Shaddam done, which is so far worse than the actions of other politicians, to classify him as a tyrant of diabolic stature?

The killing of the Kurds? Which was done under the blind eye of USA too? Or you believe that US administration knew nothing about it? Because you know Kurds are being chased down like animals, and every three years or so we have a pogrom against them by the Turkish Army. But USA administration conviniently forgets that and all the human rights these people don't have in Turkey. But still remembers the rebellion that once Kurds made in Iraq (where they enjoyed a certain level of autonomy) and was crushed down by Shaddam. And this happened only once.
You mean the few mass graves they found which must be filled (allthough filled can be a very mischieving word) with bodies of regime opposers? Well name me a totalitarian regime which has not this kind of mass graves. And some of these regimes are being supported by US goverment, ok?

Shaddam was not better or worst than most of the politicians with a strong will to succeed. He did some bad things (IMHO attrocities), which were supported and even provided the means too by the very same two nations that have finally invaded his country.
And to tell the truth, i strongly believe that the invasion in Kuwait was done with the silent-and under the table-assentence of the US goverment.
Shaddam was too stupid not to see the obvious trap. He did not, and his "promotion" to that devil figure was the final piece of the puzzle.

How USA can get a tighter grip on the most valuable resource on the planet at the moment, oil.

I don't mind having a paladin in the world (a Paladin Nation that would be a nice idea) trying to make the world better. But i really find it quite disturbing to realize that that certain guy can turn from paladin to blackguard and to paladin again depending on who is before him.
I guess that this is far more worse than a guy who is blackguard and only that. Because at this situation at least you know at all times with whom you are dealing with.

 

Perhaps we should free him and send him back. Objectively looking at the situation as it curently exists, Iraq was safer for most Iraqis when Saddam was in power. I'm not trying to trivialize the atrocities committed under Saddam's regime. Yes, there were torture rooms, rape rooms, and murders of those that opposed the state. But I would argue that the chances of finding yourself in one of those situations while Saddam was in power was far less than the chance you have now of catching a stray bullet, or being in the wrong place when a suicide bomber decideds to blow himself up.

I firmly believe that the world as a whole was NEVER safer with the removal of Saddam. The greatest threat from Iraq is that it has become a terrorist training ground - but that is the direct result of the invasion - it was never that way under Saddam. However, in my naivety, I believed that IRAQ was safer without Saddam. And now, it certainly appears that Iraq isn't safer either. Truth be told, the only group of people who are in a better position now than before are the terrorist groups - and that certainly was not the point of the invasion.

Say what you will about Saddam - he certainly is deserving of almost any insult you can throw his way. But one thing he knew much better than the U.S. was how to maintain order in Iraq. I'm not saying how he did things was OK, but the facts at this point are incontrovertible - Iraq today is not a safer place than it was under his rule.

It doesn't give me any joy to think of the U.S. failures in Iraq, and I won't bother going through a litany of reasons - we've all heard them already, many times over. The bottom line is the U.S. entered into a very questionable war, and the only way we were going to get out of there with a happy ending is if the ends justified the means - which basically can be defined as "things are a lot better now than they were before". Now, three years after the fact, it still appears that things are much worse than they were before.

 

I kinda don't think turning back the clock is an option here. Sure, some Sunnis would welcome Saddam back, but no Shiites would, and the Kurds would probably declare northern Iraq to be southern Kurdistan. Plus, there isn't much of a moral argument for installing someone like Saddam in power, who would only "solve" the unrest in Iraq through violence and oppression, which at this stage, now that the Shia have experienced at least a little self-determination, would have to be spectacular (a far, far, far worse option than the current occupation).

 

Hopefully Iraq will end up for the better before the U.S. leaves-true, things have technically been worse off since the U.S. invasion, as in there's a greater chance for more people to die. But hopefully all this will result in a good thing, i.e. Iraq is on its way to the freedom and democracy the U.S. promised. However, even if this becomes the case, it in no way justifies the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Yes, Saddam was a cruel, evil dictator. HE opressed his people horribly. But does this mean the U.S. should invade every country that has an opressive government? The U.S. doesn't have the resources (or the stamina) to do that. So why Iraq? There turned out to be no "weapons of mass destruction", and even if there were, plenty of other countries have the same. So, I ask again, why Iraq? What was so special about the opression in Iraq that made it worthy of the U.S.'s aid? It speaks to me of ulterior motives.

 

Sorry Blackthorne TA, to have caused you pain...I just thought it relevant, and wasn't aware of the previous arguments (though I suppose I should have guessed as much).

 

@Bion
No the option to turn back time does not exist. After all Shaddam is now a burned card. Most of his power was just a myth after all (or better yet a well constructed myth by both him and his rivals US and UK)

But that does not eliminates the fact that things were better than now.

Furthermore the eastern Kurdistan as you say is now more possible than before. In a case of a civil war it will be the first nation to emerge from the rumblings of Iraq.
These guys have their goal set for many years now, and a civil war would just fit in perfectly.

After all they have soils which are rich in oil and other minerals, which means that they will either be totally and utterly crashed (difficult to happen, this would be genocide) or they will be protected by the Coallition against the other nation that never wishes this to happen Turkey.

And Turkey is the reason that Kurdistan hasn't emerged right after the fall of Shaddam. Instead they were promised by the coallition a broad autonomy (they helped a lot especially after Turkey denied help) which now they enjoy. But i tell you for sure that the Kurds are dreaming one thing and one thing only. Their own nation.

 

What's really frustrating is that it did not have to be this bad. Actually, had it not been for the poor planning, the greed of corporate America to get into all that government money, the incompetence of the administration, some good things could have come from all this mess. A free Iraq, with a modern government, would have been a very desirable thing for everyone, except America's enemies (the terrorists).

The curious thing about this thread is that there may not be a full blown civil war in Iraq (yet) - only what may be a prelude - but the only thing certainly stopping one is the presence of American soldiers. So, does that mean we are there for how long? One more year? two years? maybe five years? Our story seems to be like the old tale about an Amercian soldier in Vietnam, who stepped on a land mine but it did not explode. But, he could not step off of it either without it going off. All he could do was stand there... waiting.... So what's the real exit strategy guys?