Almost Exactly How I Feel About Iraq Today...

[DonkSlayer 1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...s/?nav=globetopStory posted below as well. Discuss.

[Mercury69 3]

she has on more makeup than that hot chick from the crying game.and beyonce is just not that attractive. sorry. never was, never will be.where's paris hilton?

Cutting and pasting for those of us not registered to the Post might be nice.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Cutting and pasting for those of us not registered to the Post might be nice.

Who's to Blame for The KillingBy Charles KrauthammerFriday, February 2, 2007; Page A15This week the internecine warfare in Iraq, already bewildering -- Sunni vs. Shiite, Kurd vs. Arab, jihadist vs. infidel, with various Iranians, Syrians and assorted freelancers thrown into the maelstrom -- went bizarre. In one of the biggest battles of the war, Iraqi troops reinforced by Americans wiped out a heavily armed, well-entrenched millenarian Shiite sect preparing to take over Najaf, kill the moderate Shiite clergy (including Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani) and proclaim its leader the returned messiah.The battle was a success -- 263 extremists killed, 502 captured. But the sight of the United States caught within a Shiite-Shiite fight within the larger Shiite-Sunni civil war can lead only to further discouragement of Americans, who are already deeply dismayed at the notion of being caught in the middle of endless civil strife. There are, of course, many reasons for these schisms. Some, like the fundamental division between Sunni and Shiite, are ancient. Some of the wounds are more contemporary, most notably the social devastation and political ruin brought upon the country by 30 years of Saddamist totalitarianism and its particularly sadistic persecution of Shiites and Kurds.America comes and liberates them from the tyrant who kept everyone living in fear, and the ancient animosities and more recent resentments begin to play themselves out to deadly effect. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, the overwhelming majority of them killed by Sunni insurgents, Baathist dead-enders and their al-Qaeda allies who carry on the Saddamist pogroms.Much of their killing -- the murder of innocent Shiites in their mosques and markets -- is bereft of politics. It is meant to satisfy instead an atavistic hatred of the Shiite heresy. The late al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was even chided by headquarters in Afghanistan for his relish in killing Shiites for the sport of it.Iraqis were given their freedom, and yet many have chosen civil war. Among all these religious prejudices, ancient wounds, social resentments and tribal antagonisms, who gets the blame for the rivers of blood? You can always count on some to find the blame in America. "We did not give them a republic," insists Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. "We gave them a civil war."Of all the accounts of the current situation, this is by far the most stupid. And the most pernicious. Did Britain "give" India the Hindu-Muslim war of 1947-48 that killed a million souls and ethnically cleansed 12 million more? The Jewish-Arab wars in Palestine? The tribal wars of post-colonial Uganda?We gave them a civil war? Why? Because we failed to prevent it? Do the police in America have on their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last year?Thousands of brave American soldiers have died trying to counter, put down and prevent civil strife. They fight Sunni insurgents in Fallujah, Ramadi and Baghdad, trying to keep them from sending yet one more suicide bomber into a crowded Shiite market. They hunt Shiite death squads in Baghdad to keep them from rounding up random Sunnis and torturing them to death. Just this week, we lost two helicopter pilots who were supporting the troops on the ground fighting the "Soldiers of Heaven" outside Najaf to prevent the slaughter of innocents in a Shiite-Shiite war within a war.Our entire strategy has been to fight one side and then the other to try to prevent sectarian violence -- a policy that has been one of the leading reasons Americans are ready to quit and walk away. They can understand one-front wars, but they can't understand two-, three- and four-front wars, with Americans fighting any and all in sequence and sometimes in combination.And at the political level, we've been doing everything we can to bring reconciliation. We got the Sunnis to participate in elections and then in parliament. Who is pushing the Shiite-Kurdish coalition for a law that would distribute oil revenue to the Sunnis? Who is pushing for a more broadly based government to exclude Moqtada al-Sadr and his sectarian Mahdi Army?We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But when Arabs kill Arabs and Shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on the one player, the one country, the one military that has done more than any other to try to separate the combatants and bring conciliation is simply perverse.It infantilizes Arabs. It demonizes Americans. It willfully overlooks the plainest of facts: Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war.

[mk 11]

this is utter tripe. after the first gulf war in 1991 it was abundantly clear that removing saddam from power would create a power vacuum and that civil war would be the most likely outcome. a huge majority of middle east scholars and policy experts agreed with this assessment - an assessment leveled by president h.w. bush. saddam prevented civil war by ruling that country with an iron fist. the opposing sects didn't rise up against him (or each other) because he was obviously ruthless and tyrannical, and he was willing to commit genocide on his own citizens. most of the same people were saying basically the same thing in 2002-2003. this administration simply chose not to listen. if you are now trying to pretend that people didn't predict this would happen or that this is somehow the fault of the iraqis, you're suffering from a severe case of amnesia or denial. or you're still trying to find ways to remove accountability for the current administration.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I disagree with the main point of the article.But first:

Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, the overwhelming majority of them killed by Sunni insurgents, Baathist dead-enders and their al-Qaeda allies who carry on the Saddamist pogroms.

This is a bit misleading. It's really hundreds of thousands, though no one knows the exact figure. Some are as low as 400,000 and some as high as 900,000.Okay, on to the point of the article itself. Is America responsible for the civil war and the violence in Iraq? The answer is, of course, yes and no.Why Yes? I believe that the current state of Iraq is a result of several major US mistakes including a fundamental misunderstanding, or total lack of understanding, of the various groups that make up Iraqi citizens as well as a failure in practice to actually establish order or to pass on responsibility in a timely and effective manor.It is my opinion that the US government (or at least those responsible for the war itself) were way more concerned with planning the military aspect of the war (i.e. defeating the republican guard, yawn) than having any idea of what they were going to do after the war was over. I believe there was a total lack of understanding of the factions of Iraqi people, whether divided by religion, race, culture, or what not. I believe the US was totally unprepared for the extent to which these many parties or factions would not "get along" when not under the heavy thumb of a dictator. I also believe that the US failed to provide the stability necessary to ensure the success of Iraq or they failed to realize that stability was mostly impossible with their continued presence and instead failed to pass on the responsibility by successfully training, supplying, and maintaining an Iraqi army and police force.So, does all this mean that the United States is responsible for every death that takes place in Iraq as if we were killing them ourselves? Well, not in the sense that we are physically killing each citizen that dies in a suicide bomb. But did we create a climate where this sort of killing and civil war could take place? Well, we didn't create it, since much of it stems from conflicts of religion that are hundreds of years old or conflicts that arose under Saddam. But we certainly let it loose.

We gave them a civil war? Why? Because we failed to prevent it? Do the police in America have on their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last year?

Well, no, but if an outside power were to come into our country and were to replace the police force with something else altogether that totally failed to prevent any crimes whatsoever, then yes, I would in a way blame that outside power for the crimes that the police force was not able to prevent. Of course, this metaphor (like most of the article) is overly simplistic, but it's not my metaphor. I'm only pointing out the holes in it.And I dislike the idea of Iraqi's "rejecting" peace in favor of civil war. I think this is offensive (as well as flat out wrong) to the many Iraqi citizens who indeed do want peace, happiness, and stability for their country. It is not the Iraqis who reject peace but rather a relatively small (though extremely successful) group of insurgents who insist on fighting. So we should not, as the article hints, shift the blame from America to the Iraqis. Though the blame shouldn't be all on America in the first place.The problem with this conflict, like many conflicts in modern times, is that there is no one person to blame. The answer is always: it's complicated. WW2 was so convenient. Who's to blame for all of this? Hitler. It was that simple, really (okay, well maybe not, you have to consider the crippling effects of the treaty of Versailles.... never mind). But in this war, indeed there are clear "bad guys" (Osama, Al Qaeda, violent, murderous Iraqi insurgents). But the real causes of their conflicts remain misunderstood, under analyzed, and, for lack of a better word, complicated.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Some points in the article may be oversimplified, but more and more I believe that we would be in this situation today if we had found numerous weapons of mass destruction.So, hypothetically, our invasion was justified. What would the voices in Congress being saying today, should the violence be as intense? Would it be more obvious that these people are killing each other because of racism and radical religious fervor? It's a little like the argument about banning guns, etc. People say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Others say, "Well, if there were no guns, people couldn't kill each other with guns, especially by accident." Yeah but, guns don't pull their own triggers, and we're not pulling them for the violent terrorists and sectarian offenders.

[DonkSlayer 1]

But did we create a climate where this sort of killing and civil war could take place? Well, we didn't create it, since much of it stems from conflicts of religion that are hundreds of years old or conflicts that arose under Saddam. But we certainly let it loose.

I think "letting it loose" is giving us a bit too much credit. We didn't build an arena and say "have at it". They have more freedom now than under Saddam, and many have chosen to perpetrate violence.

[Mercury69 3]

Thanks for the cut and paste...All I'm going to add is that this ia an increasingly grim situation in which no one will come out a victor. Many thousands more will die and the region may never see peace. Instability in the Middle East has increased decade by decade and seems to be reaching a feverish frenzy. When will Iran weigh in with their growing military might? Who will pop Israel with a mass destruction device, initiating wave upon wave of reprisal? Will Afghanistan be completely forgotten, along with the thousands of troops still there? Probably not, seeing as there are reports of Taliban action coming this spring to a border region near you. What's Syria doing that is keeping them unusually quiet?It's a huge fckn mess and money may very well be to blame.

[Ouch-8s 5]

Some points in the article may be oversimplified, but more and more I believe that we would be in this situation today if we had found numerous weapons of mass destruction.So, hypothetically, our invasion was justified. What would the voices in Congress being saying today, should the violence be as intense? Would it be more obvious that these people are killing each other because of racism and radical religious fervor? It's a little like the argument about banning guns, etc. People say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Others say, "Well, if there were no guns, people couldn't kill each other with guns, especially by accident." Yeah but, guns don't pull their own triggers, and we're not pulling them for the violent terrorists and sectarian offenders.

What? Can you explain that bit again? I don't quite understand your point. Are you saying that if there had been WMDs, then the current situation would be the same but more acceptable to the public? And if that is what you mean, would your aunt be your uncle if she had a penis?

[DonkSlayer 1]

What? Can you explain that bit again? I don't quite understand your point. Are you saying that if there had been WMDs, then the current situation would be the same but more acceptable to the public? And if that is what you mean, would your aunt be your uncle if she had a penis?

I didn't phrase it really succinctly (I was putting out hypothesis, I'm not contending the invasion was justified as-is), but yes, I'm saying that the public would feel less worse about it, because there wouldn't be much argument on whether we should've gone in or not.Seriously, look at the criticism that comes from the opposition, the mainstream media, and alternative media. "Illegal", "unjustified", etc etc...I very much doubt that we'd be hearing all the flak we are now.

[JoeyJoJo 20]

[Ouch-8s 5]

I didn't phrase it really succinctly (I was putting out hypothesis, I'm not contending the invasion was justified as-is), but yes, I'm saying that the public would feel less worse about it, because there wouldn't be much argument on whether we should've gone in or not.Seriously, look at the criticism that comes from the opposition, the mainstream media, and alternative media. "Illegal", "unjustified", etc etc...I very much doubt that we'd be hearing all the flak we are now.

Okay, well then I still don't understand your point. Unless it was just to argue in favour of a hypothetical situation. No thanks.I'm bored at work, but I'm not that bored...

[strategy 4]

I didn't phrase it really succinctly (I was putting out hypothesis, I'm not contending the invasion was justified as-is), but yes, I'm saying that the public would feel less worse about it, because there wouldn't be much argument on whether we should've gone in or not.Seriously, look at the criticism that comes from the opposition, the mainstream media, and alternative media. "Illegal", "unjustified", etc etc...I very much doubt that we'd be hearing all the flak we are now.

Even if we had found WMDs, mk's arguments above would be no less sound than they are today.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Even if we had found WMDs, mk's arguments above would be no less sound than they are today.

Except, the premise is wrong. We are not pulling the triggers for those Iraqis.

[strategy 4]

Except, the premise is wrong. We are not pulling the triggers for those Iraqis.

Do you really think we need to be physically pulling the triggers to be responsible for the deaths?Ever heard of cause and effect?

[DonkSlayer 1]

Do you really think we need to be physically pulling the triggers to be responsible for the deaths?Ever heard of cause and effect?

Yes.and,Yes. Pulling a trigger of a gun = a bullet comes out of it.Not, deposing a dictator = AK47's randomly start killing people.

[mk 11]

Except, the premise is wrong. We are not pulling the triggers for those Iraqis.

perhaps a metaphor will help. if you take your car to a mechanic, and he tells you that your car is unsafe to drive yet you refuse to listen and drive it anyway and cause a major accident on the highway, who or what is responsible? the car? or you?

[Ouch-8s 5]

Yes.and,Yes. Pulling a trigger of a gun = a bullet comes out of it.Not, deposing a dictator = AK47's randomly start killing people.

Where's that "arguing on the internet is pointless" picture?If you a) have heard of cause and effect and b) don't think it applies here, then I think I'm done.

[Ouch-8s 5]

perhaps a metaphor will help. if you take your car to a mechanic, and he tells you that your car is unsafe to drive yet you refuse to listen and drive it anyway and cause a major accident on the highway, who is responsible? the car? or you?

Clearly the mechanic for not issuing and enforcing a Resolution to stop you from driving...

[strategy 4]

I'm reminded of a song by Avril Lavigne.

[DonkSlayer 1]

perhaps a metaphor will help. if you take your car to a mechanic, and he tells you that your car is unsafe to drive yet you refuse to listen and drive it anyway and cause a major accident on the highway, who or what is responsible? the car? or you?

The answer is You, but I would equate driving the car to pulling a trigger. I don't think the metaphor relates well.I'll pose one to you:The new governor in your state decrees that all roads and interstates are now speed limit-free. As a result, traffic fatalities climb. Who caused those deaths?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'm reminded of a song by Avril Lavigne.

Sk8ter Boi?(and yes, I do know the cute spelling of the song. You got a problem?)

[turd ferguson 1]

perhaps a metaphor will help. if you take your car to a mechanic, and he tells you that your car is unsafe to drive yet you refuse to listen and drive it anyway and cause a major accident on the highway, who or what is responsible? the car? or you?

George Bush.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Sk8ter Boi?(and yes, I do know the cute spelling of the song. You got a problem?)

I'm a fan as well.

George Bush.

Of course.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

The answer is You, but I would equate driving the car to pulling a trigger. I don't think the metaphor relates well.I'll pose one to you:The new governor in your state decrees that all roads and interstates are now speed limit-free. As a result, traffic fatalities climb. Who caused those deaths?

Responsbility starts with the governor. To anyone who says otherwise: What's the point of having people in charge, then?DonkSlayer, I think you're really missing the point here. GW Bush- and his neocon advisors- either:a) KNEW that an invasion of Iraq would lead to a bloody civil warorB) DID NOT KNOW that an invasion of Iraq would lead to a bloody civil warIf (B) is the case, then he and his war cabinet are guilty of being almost-impossibly inept and ignorant. As MK stated, this has been very an incredibly predictable outcome, even going back 15+ years. And they are responsible for their gross negligence, period. If (a) is the case, and the Oval Office knew an invasion of Iraq would lead right to where we are today BUT JUST DIDN'T CARE, then- having had all that information and the ability to see the consequences of his actions (no matter if he was pulling the trigger or merely clicking the safety off)- then the Office of the President is CERTAINLY responsible. Here's an analogy for you. I know a girl who is suicidal. She's really depressed. So I tease her and I'm cruel to her and I make her feel like shit. After a few weeks, she blows her brains out. "Well, I didn't pull the trigger. In fact, I never even TOLD her to pull the trigger. It's not my fault she killed her self; I didn't make her suicidal." Yeah, but you're still responsible. You KNEW your actions would lead to an increased risk of her killing herself, and you did it anyway. So you have to bear some portion of the responsibility. If you hadn't done what you did, she'd still be alive.Wang