Re: Civilian Deaths in Iraq Decrease Significantly

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:23:30 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"NoName" <noname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ldgag31qs26lndilnm3frjlt2kt3rgndgu@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:03:40 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"NoName" <noname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eae8g3p0eha8s3tbnpblfsu693v36bdapr@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:20:19 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"NoName" <noname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qa28g31n57bgvkg7dk2onh6qa0lj7msnjm@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:43:11 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"El Castor" <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:oiq5g3l4cl426ob1reu0sncgf9ia2r17im@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:18:11 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"George Z. Bush" <georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1IwMi.125$J82.26@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bill wrote:
The number of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed in
the war fell in September to levels not seen in more than a
year. The number of civilians killed in Iraq last month
decreased by more than 50 percent from the number in August.

U.S. military deaths were the lowest since July 2006,
according to figures compiled by the U.S. military, the Iraqi
government and The Associated Press.

The surge sure is working.....only SEVENTY American young men and
women
died in Iraq in September. That's wonderful......we should have a
party
to celebrate it.

Doesn't your comment depend on whether success in Iraq is important
or
not
important?

Jerry a couple of senators (Brownback (R), Biden (D), have proposed
that the United States promote the partition of Iraq into three
administrative and political entities -- Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite --
governed by a weak central government located in Baghdad. If that
brought about a stability which would allow the United States to
pull
out, even if all three entities were not friendly toward the United
States, or democratically governed, would you consider that
"success"
had been achieved?

First of all, I do not think we should be telling the Iraqi people
what
they
should do about their country. It is up to them what kind of country
they
want. And NO, if we end up with a country that is not friendly to the
interests of the United States, I would not consider that a success.

So would another dictatorship be OK with you, if that is what Iraqis
wanted?

Dictators are never what the people want, regardless of what country you
are
talking about. Besides, you can never really know for sure what the
people
"wanted" when someone takes over a country without a vote of the people.

How would you determine what they want? By majority vote?

The simple act of voting, if it represents a true reflection of what the
people want, is by definition, what they want....

The Shiites have numbers far in excess of Sunnis. If Shiites want to
engage in ethnic cleansing of Sunnis and Sunnis do not have the
political clout in the Legislature to stop this, is that OK with you?

If the other groups are not willing to fight for their freedoms, they
deserve what they get.

And should the U.S. stay and assist in this? If the U.S. allows the
Shiites to do this I would think that would make them exceedingly
friendly to the U.S. The problem is the three groups, Shiites,
Sunnis and Kurds, do have not identical goals for what kind of country
they want -- not even close to agreement. That is why the U.S. can't
stop them from doing violence to each other. That fact seems to have
escaped your childish idealism.


The U.S. should help them to the extent of giving them an opportunity to
succeed. At some point, they have to step up to the plate and accept
responsibility for running their own country. When they have the
responsibility, then what happens after that is their fault, no one
elses
(assuming of course they are allowed to do that). As for whether they
will
EVER be able to come together, I do not know if that will ever happen.
But,
they should be given that chance, and it does not help when there is an
active insurgency in their country.

But the very people you want to help are actively participating in
the insurgeny -- there are more than one insurgency.

No, it would be correct to say that a "small percentage" of the people are
actively participating in the insurgency, and that the insurgency is also
made up of people coming from other countries.

The U.S. has
been waiting and waiting for the Legislature to act to reach a
political settlement between the various Iraqi factions but that
settlement seems further and further away as time progresses.
How much opportunity should we offer -- for long long -- while
our troops die there? When do you say, "enough already"? They
do have a sovereign government now and no one in the U.S. can
prevent them from passing any laws they wish to. So of course they
are allowed to do that.



It comes back to the question, is success in Iraq important or not
important.

Well, you say Iraqis have the right to choose their own form of
government and destiny as a people on the one hand, and yet you
go on and on as if the U.S. is responsible for their destiny.
So what is most important? That the Iraqis get the government they
choose to have or that the U.S. insists that the only success is
the type of government and loyalties to other nations we wish them
to have?

Depends on which side you are looking at this issue from. From the U.S.
point of view, it is what is in the best interest of the United States.
From an Iraqi point of view, it is what is in the best interest of the
people of Iraq.

Which of these signals "success" in Iraq? You have fallen into the
trap, Jerry, of believing the U.S. has the power to determine the
future of Iraq. What the Iraqis may construe to be a suitable
government and ties to other nations (such as Iran) may seem to be
a successful outcome to them but not to the U.S. I suppose in that
case we could reinvade them and try again?

I think Jeff is right on this one. Iran will trump the U.S. in
gaining the loyaltiese of the majority of Iraqis -- the Shiites.


Only, "if" we let them.....

But Jerry, you said it was up to the Iraqis to have the kind of
government they wanted. And a sovereign government can surely
set it own foreign policy? Now you are saying the U.S. will not
"let" them do as they please in the interests of the kind of
"success" we want, not what they want.

How do you resolve that dilemma? Why would you not allow the people
of Iraq to decide what is in their own best interest even if the
U.S. doesn't agree?

Your thinking is very muddled. And you contradict yourself.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: why USA is a regime
    ... It was the USA who consistently vetoed resolutions to ... The UN's mandate in Iraq prior to the USA invasion was not to teach Saddam's ... Hussein refused Oil-For-Food in 1991 and waited until the country was in ruins ... resistance in Iraq is not from local Iraqis, ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: computer simulation
    ... since he never ran the country. ... Bush has treated the Iraqis like children. ... you need to see the validity of the Iraq war. ... So it's okay for us to oppress the Iraqis, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: US accidentally kills 9 Iraqi civilians
    ... " Iraq launched missiles into Israel, ... disband the government, fire all government workers, closed all the ... Saddam Hussein had those people under his thumb. ... Iraqis don't want to be occupied, ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: US accidentally kills 9 Iraqi civilians
    ... " Iraq launched missiles into Israel, ... Millions of Iraqi citizens have been forced out of their own country. ... disband the government, fire all government workers, closed all the ... Iraqis don't want to be occupied, ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: OT - Recent War Ads tie Iraq to 9/11
    ... Since you bring up Iraq, what percentage of the population are Shia? ... What if we brought in the UN and could convince the neighbors of Iraq to help out with training and policing so that the Iraqis could feel more comfortable with people of their own faith helping them. ... Well, the Iranians are kind of devoted to their religion, but there are many secular aspects to their country and their people are secular in many ways, although that has been declining in recent years. ... They resist centralized rule and instead, prefer to have local control over small, or in some cases large, areas of land. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)