Re: White Phosphorus in Fallujah

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, steveb wrote:

On 17 Nov 2005 21:33:38 -0500, Brock Hannibal <hamilcar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Though it was determined that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 it has
been shown quite clearly that he aided and abetted a number of terrorist
organizations both financially and by allowing safe haven.


The United States leadership deliberately lied about this issue, when
gearing this country up for an unecessary war. Poll after poll still
shows the majority of the US population was so successfully lied to
they still believe 9/11 and Iraq are linked.


This "power vacuum you" speak of, do you mean the fact that one of the
most bloodthirsty dictators the world has known is no longer in power?
And that the current elected government has not been able to quell the
terrorists yet?


If *bloodthirsty* were the test, the US would be liberating Zimbabwe,
and others. It isn't the test. The power vacuum is clear, when the US
have to launch (still) major military operations to attempt to gain
control of large parts of the country. The country is unable to
sustain a cohesive government without military support, and don't look
like being able to do so for a long time to come.

I think your rhetoric concerning "large parts of the country" is overblown. While there are suicide bombers in some of the cities I think that "large parts of the country" are pretty well pacified.


They are indeed responsible for much of the violence. OTOH, a US
senior officer recently pointed out that everyone in Iraq was now
shooting at Americans. Well that's united the Shia and Sunnis in a way
no one else managed.


No. The Shias are very much in control of the elected government. The
terrorists continue to attack civilian Iraqis, though. The elected
government is still asking for our help in security matters.


The Shias may have the tacit agreement of the West, that their
Government has some legitimacy. So did Saddam, for a generation.
However, much of the population currently in Iraq appears not to
agree. The Shias have shown little sign of accomodating either the
Kurds or the Sunnis, so how can peace be expected. It doesn't actually
make much difference, if you are Kurdish, who is subjugating you.

I think if you look into it, the Sunni Kurds are fairly happy with the approved constitution as are the Shia Arabs. The faction that is not so happy is the Sunni Arabs, who were in power along with Sadaam. However they are a minority and the Shia majority has compromised repeatedly with them to bring them onboard. Some major Sunni leaders supported the constitution that was approved by the voters.

In fact, the irony here is extreme. It is generally accepted that Al
Quaeda, and Osama Bin Laden were behind the horrific attacks in New
York and Washington ...... yet Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien were
sworn enemies, the one being a Moslem fundamentalist and the other a
secular dictator sponsored and supported by the West.


Yes, spot the irony, Al Qaeda in Iraq is bombing and killing innocent
Iraqis as we speak. Or do you think this violence in Iraq is a ground
swell of "freedom fighters" ?


Well I didn't deny this. We let them in. They will seek to establish
another Muslim state, and they may well succeed. Then what will we do?
Iran, Iraq, Syria, an unstable Jordan and wobbling Saudi Arabia. What
are we gonna do then? Israel must have a nervous trigger finger right
now.

I'm sure they do, but the pullouts from Gaza nad the West Bank appear to be strong moves in an attempt to achieve a more lasting solution in Palestine. Time will tell if they work.

No. What is happening in Iraq is civil war. You know about them, the
Yanks had one.


No. It's not a civil war. It's a terrorist sect of fundamentalist
Muslims trying to terrorize and thus get the majority of non
-fundamentalist muslims to submit to their will. There are not two
formal governments with armies and fighting for territorial control.
It's not at all like the US civil war.


The population of Iraq is split into 3 ethnic groups. Sunni, Shia and
Kurd. They are all currently fighting Americans and Brits,

That's not true from any reports that I've seen. The Shia and Sunni Kurds appear to have accomodated one another. Most of the Arab Sunni's are willing to negotiate and use the nascent political process to achieve their goals. A small faction of fundamentalist terrorists along with a minority af Arab Sunnis are the die-hards.

in between
killing each other. The government does not have control. It is civil
war.

I disagree. I read between the lines and it tells me that most of the civilian population is ready and willing to accept the results of the elections and the establishment of a constitutional republic.

You speak of a *sect of terrorist fundamentalists* as if they are
simply to be brushed aside. But fighting is happening all over the
country, and no one has control.

I think you're wrong. There are suicide bombers that attack all over, but in general the more conventional armed conflict is confined to some smaller areas.

It is major, open your eyes and count
the body bags.

I don't want to get into body counts. Suffice it to say that more Frenchman died in the single day of the battle of Waterloo than US soldiers in Iraq. 2000 men is a high price to pay but it pales as a number to our loses in other conflicts. If you imagine deploying 175,000 men in some remote, harsh environment, even if there was no armed adversary, there would still substantial casualties.


It is worth noting that the ill-advised excursion into Iraq has cost
almost as many allied lives as 9/11.


It is also worth noting that even the Sunni Kurds support the
liberation of Iraq by the US and its allies--the liberation of
24,000,000 people so that they will have basic human rights and the
right to democratic self government.


So where is it then? More Iraquis are dying at the hands of other
Iraquis than ever before. Where will the democracy come from? The
recent election was totally dominated by one side, and as we speak,


Isn't that the definition of democracy? The majority rules. But if you'd
bother to actually read the draft constitution that the majority of
Iraqis supported you'd find it quite enlightening. You'd discover the
protections for religious freedom and individual liberties are quite
extensive.


The majority of Iraqis didn't do anything of the sort. Many parts of
the country couln't vote, and wouldn't ever support a Government
comprised mostly of their religious and political opponents.

The majority of Iraqi's supported the new constitution. You can't possibly cite any evidence to the contrary.

You have to remember that Iraq was never a democracy. It wasn't even a
country until the British created it. They drew lines in the sand, and
they drew them in the wrong place. As a consequence, the only
stability possible has bappened under a ruthless dictator WE put
there. It's not that Iraq isn't ready for democracy. It's simply that
the factions withing Iraq will not accept a democracy imposed from
without, esp. one imposed by the United States.


They are voting.

Whatever is written is the document means jack ***, unless the people
genuinely give consent to it's adoption, and we are a long way from
that.


They are voting.

Govt. sponsored (or tolerated) death squads are removing opposition. 

So the soldiers and police fighting for the elected Iraqi government are
now "death squads" while the terrorists are merely opposition soldiers?

Nice spin, but I'm not buying it. 

Unfortunately, it's not spin. And I wasn't referring to soldiers. I
was referring to the roaming bands of militia sponsored by the
factions and terrifying even the elected officials.

More and more of those militias appear to be throwing in with the central government.

Good job George and Tony! 

So after the upcoming elections when it will be clear that a majority of
Iraqis support a democratically elected government what will you say?


I will say we were wrong. Yet again we meddled in another country and
got it wrong. We got it wrong when we put Saddam there, we got it
wrong when we removed him.


So you're saying what about what should happen now?

By the way. Don't think for one moment that I believe any other than
Saddam is a monster who ought to have been removed. But not by us.


Then by who? He had the 3rd or 4th largest standing army in the world.

--
Brock

"You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
    -Taylor

.