View Single Post
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 01-17-2008, 07:30 AM
Variable's Avatar
Variable
Senior Member Offline
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Rating: 2 Votes / 5.00 Average
Posts: 7,894
Variable has a reputation beyond reputeVariable has a reputation beyond reputeVariable has a reputation beyond reputeVariable has a reputation beyond reputeVariable has a reputation beyond reputeVariable has a reputation beyond reputeVariable has a reputation beyond reputeVariable has a reputation beyond reputeVariable has a reputation beyond reputeVariable has a reputation beyond reputeVariable has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Iraqis Don't Really Want Us

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamroll View Post
The old adage "You reap what you sow", is in full effect here.
That's true for both sides right now. I'm not saying that Iraqis deserve to get bombed, but given the unfair stack of cards they were dealt, those groups who have not contributed to violence have little to no American presence it their parts of the country now. Sorry if that sounds 'humiliating' or 'arrogant' on my part, but it's not about that stuff, it's about leaving Iraq with the fewest lives lost.


Quote:
Well, off the top of my head, Muqtada al-Sadr is a very popular leader, but because he's on the "wrong side", they've been trying to demonise him, attack him, and even kill him. The US only pays lip service to "freedom and democracy", but when it suits them they ride roughshod over the will of the people. It makes any such claims seem greatly disingenuous. A similar example is the Palestinian choice, Hamas.
I don't disagree that the US talks out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to its support of 'democracy'. But when it comes to al Sadr, let's see how well that goes over when he tries to enforce authority over the different populations that share Iraq.



Quote:
Okay, let's say for argument's sake, we take your points, about Sunni and Shia hating one another, and violent tensions being existent pre-US-invasion, as given. Even if that is the case, the Americans are providing no security. There's thousands of American soldiers in the country and God knows how many contract killers, and yet there's still been sectarian violence. If they can't stop it when they're there in their hundreds of thousands, how is this a relevant argument against withdrawal?
I would have agreed with you until the troop surge proved me wrong. The Americans did provide more security, like you said they needed to, and now there's less violence.
Quote:

If at the end of the timetable there's still a need for other-than-Iraqi prescence to keep the peace, a deal should be worked out with other Muslim nations preferably of a similar culture (perhaps Syria, Iran (unlikely I know), or whoever) to have a mediating presence.
The only time I've ever heard another Arab country say they'd get involved, is when the told the US that if they leave, they'll send in support for fellow Sunnis under threat from a Shia majority.
__________________
I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.
~Martin Luther
Reply With Quote