[besson3c]

Do you guys have any sense how bad things really are in Iraq? For months now, you've (loyal Republicans) have offered us platitudes about your love of America and how we need to protect America, but I guess right now it is too difficult to put aside your love of your party to look at reality. The reality is, we are in rough shape, and you should feel a strong sense of outrage at our leadership for getting us into this mess if your love of America is really what you say it is.

Our reputation has been tarnished, over 3000 American lives have been lost, and we have absolutely no viable exit plan coming out of the administration and party that got us into this in the first place! 3000 lives people! Three thousand!! Does that actually mean anything to you? Bush and company may have had the best of intentions, and I don't doubt that, but what really counts more is action. Action in getting it right in the first place, and action in correcting a wrong. For months, many Republicans lambasted Democrats for not having a viable plan, but now the shoe is on the other foot - where is your plan Republicans?

I see many of you have taken cues from Bush by offering overly simplistic "gotta win", "gotta fight them there so they don't come at us here". What does that mean? Gotta win what?

As near as I can tell, they are speaking to the broader picture of fighting terrorism... Sorry Republicans, you actually need to say that! And how will you get us there? In order to get us there, you need to figure out the situation in Iraq. The situation in Iraq is that the country is undergoing a civil war now. This is the defining state of affairs *right now*, you can't simply skirt around this and pretend it doesn't exist. How will you put an end to the civil war that is going on *right now*? Quit it with your brainless "gotta win", "Democrats want us to lose" tripe, which is overly simplistic crap that doesn't mean much at all, and tell us how you would deal with this civil war.

I think the real reason why some Republicans have resorted to saying this is because there is no great solution. We can talk about building up Iraqi security forces, but the reason why this hasn't happened thus far and Iraqi security forces are not the overwhelming force in Iraq right now is because the idea isn't the overwhelming force. Until the idea is the overwhelming force, there is no "winning". What is your plan here, Republicans?

Really, the only path we have is to back out. This civil war has been several years in the making, and it is much more complicated than what simplistic platitudes lend themselves towards. Why is there no substantive discussion as to what is really at the heart of the Shia/Sunni conflict? People like Ted Koppel/Marden make an interesting point about how our backing out would lead to a much broader conflict, but unfortunately this civil war could very well take several years, or even decades to work through. We simply cannot stay in Iraq forever with our current (or surge level) troop deployment, and Bush knows this. We have no sense as to how long this civil war is likely to last, and we don't even seem to be talking about this! We'll stay there "as long as it takes" is not a plan, sorry... For starters, it is extremely vague, and secondly, it may not be realistic. If this is the case, shouldn't this be built into this "plan"?

Yes, this is pretty partisan of me, but I'm simply at a loss in understanding why many Republicans don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation, and how big a deal this actually is. This is much bigger than partisan politics, morally and otherwise. I'm not claiming that the Democrats have all the answers, or that they have all things figured out. What I'm claiming is that you should feel a sense of outrage. That is my main point here.

Where is your sense of outrage?

[JonoMarshall]

I have very little outrage anymore, just dissapointment... we're all far too rich for our own good.

[Dakar²]

I won't pretend that I actually read this, but it does seem like you keep reposting the same sentiment every few weeks.

[Randman]

So, what is your idea what to do? Pull out now and let the region fall farther into anarchy? It's a bad situation and no one is happy with it but let's hear more potential solutions and less vague commentary about being outraged.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you guys have any sense how bad things really are in Iraq?

Yep. If they were three times worse, it'd be South Africa.

[BRussell]

I'm with you besson. I can't believe Sanjaya is still in! And no one seems to care!!!

[RAILhead]

Well, I'm enjoying looking at Haley's bod, so I hope she stays for a bit longer.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Randman 

So, what is your idea what to do? Pull out now and let the region fall farther into anarchy? It's a bad situation and no one is happy with it but let's hear more potential solutions and less vague commentary about being outraged.

I offered my solution and my justification for it. I might not characterize it as a solution per say, but certainly a viable and wise course of action...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I won't pretend that I actually read this, but it does seem like you keep reposting the same sentiment every few weeks.

Last time was me making a case for withdrawing now. This time, I'm trying to find out why more people aren't literally outraged at this administration.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Last time was me making a case for withdrawing now. This time, I'm trying to find out why more people aren't literally outraged at this administration.

I haven't watched/listened to the news for a week, and I'm much happier for it. My sense of outrage stopped a while ago when I realized that Bush & Co. were determined to stay on the course they decided on, no matter how poor that path might have been. The decision was made, and they acted on it.

I was trying to think of how many countries the US has successfully pulled out of and I couldn't think of any, except maybe Saudia Arabia. We have been in Germany and Japan, despite their transformation having gone swimmingly. We are still in Korea after 50 years. I don't see us pulling out of Iraq any time soon. There was a small media buzz last year about permanent bases being built there, but since then nothing.

As long as Iran is around, we'll be in Iraq, that is just the way I see it being. I'm not outraged anymore, just resigned to that fact.

[Chuckit]

And now the Democrats want to just back out, which is even worse. All the sides are playing partisan kickball with people's lives, and that's why they all piss me off.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And now the Democrats want to just back out, which is even worse. All the sides are playing partisan kickball with people's lives, and that's why they all piss me off.

How is backing out worse?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Well, I'm enjoying looking at Haley's bod, so I hope she stays for a bit longer.

Haley's performance last week was nothing short of incredible. Wait, no — I said "performance," but I mean "legs."

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And now the American people want to just back out, which is even worse. All the sides are playing partisan kickball with people's lives, and that's why they all piss me off.

Fixed it for you. At least be honest about it. And you're right about both sides playing partisan politics. The real problem is that not enough Americans care to get involved and let their representatives know, in no uncertain terms, what they want. The Democrats won the last elections on the Iraq issue; now they've succumbed to the politics as usual game. Write your representatives, whatever your views are, and let them know where you stand. I do, and I usually get answers back, and they don't always agree with me, but they know that if enough people disagree with them, they'll change their course.

[ApeInTheShell]

How many people watch the U.S. Senate or The U.S. House of Representatives? From my experience there are far more Americans watching the news or entertainment channels. Even the people who participate in demonstrations are probably just reading the results and did not see the actual debate about the Pork Bill.
Most of my friends or acquantices are not outraged because they simply don't care.
The fact of the matter is you or the majority of Americans voted for the Democrats to end the war. And now you and a majority of Americans will vote for a Democratic President to sign off on ending the war. If you can trust the people you voted to represent you to do the job then you won't need to be outraged. Because you know the war will end and peace will return to America. the end.

[besson3c]

Sorry Ape, I don't understand what you are saying. Care to try again?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I guess the question is why did the whole world know that this is exactly how things would play out long before bush was even elected for the second time?

Heck I remember posting here years ago with a play by play of how the next few years will go or the US because of the re-election all of which turned out 100% true. If I am not into politics and can even figure it out, 300 million americans should have also.

[Face Ache]

No outrage?

If you want to get America's attention for more than 30 seconds, you need to fly a plane into a skyscraper or something.

In short, you have to make the news more interesting than E! Tonight for your average Joe.

Shock and Awe was pretty good television. Why didn't that get a second season?

[Atomic Rooster]

Where is your sense of outrage?

Too tired arguing with bricks.

[Orion27]

[QUOTE=besson3c;3340928]I offered my solution and my justification for it. I might not characterize it as a solution per say, but certainly a viable and wise course of action...[/QUOTE

We're not leaving, so buck up besson3c. Iranian actions of late almost guarantee we're not leaving. Brace yourself for the next phase. Armedinejad is going down. If the mullahs won't do it we will. The Saudi Kingdom is next. So besson3c, where is your outrage at Iran thumbing it's nose at the UN? Someone has to uphold the law. Who's it gonna be?

[besson3c]

What does the Iran/UN nose thumbing have to do with the Iraqi civil war happening right now, at this point? Focus Orion...

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What does the Iran/UN nose thumbing have to do with the Iraqi civil war happening right now, at this point? Focus Orion...

It's called the big picture. Iraq is linked to our liberation of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran is being squeezed by UN sanctions backed by US Force. Are you against enforcing UN resolutions? DSCC : Hillary talks Iran strike
Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel - International Herald Tribune

[besson3c]

Since when are we committed to "liberating" Iran and Saudi Arabia? Bush has insisted all along that he wishes diplomatic solutions with Iran.

Do you really believe the crap you say Orion? Since when has the Bush administration really had a grapple on the bigger issue? If they did, maybe they might have anticipated this civil war thing, you know? I mean, pick up a damn book... That the Shia and Sunnis do not get along is no secret! I don't claim to understand their history, but then again, I did not order the invasion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm with you besson. I can't believe Sanjaya is still in! And no one seems to care!!!

[typoon]

The only thing I'm outraged about in the Iraq War is the handcuffing of our troops by this administration. The rules of engagement need to change before the US will even be able to think about prevailing in Iraq. The military needs to be allowed to knock the terrorists back to the 7th century where they belong.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by typoon 

The only thing I'm outraged about in the Iraq War is the handcuffing of our troops by this administration. The rules of engagement need to change before the US will even be able to think about prevailing in Iraq. The military needs to be allowed to knock the terrorists back to the 7th century where they belong.

You do realize that we aren't fighting terrorists now primarily, but mediating a civil war?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You do realize that we aren't fighting terrorists now primarily, but mediating a civil war?

That's part of the problem. Very few people understand the issues involved here, because they don't want to understand anything that takes more than sixty seconds to explain, and they're in denial even if you do explain it. It's easier to focus on Anna Nicole Smith than it is to get outraged at the scandalous way our own government treats its veterans, and BTW, always has.

Here's an interesting read from Scott Ritter, appropriately titled Calling Out Idiot America. It's kind of long, so I apologize to those who don't have more than sixty seconds to spare, but, if you do, you might actually learn something (unlike what you get out of watching American Idol). BTW, make sure you note the last few sentences of the fourth paragraph; it might make you cry, or at least it should.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/24/49/

Published on Saturday, March 24, 2007 by Truthdig.com
Calling Out Idiot America
by Scott Ritter

The ongoing hand-wringing in Congress by the newly empowered Democrats over what to do about the war in Iraq speaks volumes about the level of concern (or lack thereof) these “representatives of the people” have toward the men and women who honor us all by serving in the armed forces of the United States of America. The inability to reach consensus concerning the level of funding required or how to exercise effective oversight of the war, both constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is more a reflection of congressional cowardice and impotence than a byproduct of any heartfelt introspection over troop welfare and national security.

The issues that prompt the congressional collective to behave in such an egregious manner have more to do with a reflexive tendency to avoid any controversy that might disrupt the status quo ante regarding representative-constituent relations (i.e., re-election) than with any intellectual debate about doing the right thing. This sickening trend is bipartisan in nature, but of particular shame to the Democrats, who obtained their majority from an electorate that expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the war in Iraq through their votes, demanding that something be done.

Sadly, Congress’ smoke-and-mirrors approach to the Iraq war creates the impression of much activity while generating no result. Even more sadly, the majority of Americans are falling for the act, either by continuing their past trend of political disengagement or by thinking that the gesticulation and pontification taking place in Washington, D.C., actually translate into useful work. The fact is, most Americans are ill-placed intellectually, either through genuine ignorance, a lack of curiosity or a combination of both, to judge for themselves the efficacy of congressional behavior when it comes to Iraq. Congress claims to be searching for a solution to Iraq, and many Americans simply accept that this is this case.

The fact is one cannot begin to search for a solution to a problem that has yet to be accurately defined. We speak of “surges,” “stability” and “funding” as if these terms come close to addressing the real problems faced in Iraq. There is widespread recognition among members of Congress and the American people that there is civil unrest in Iraq today, with Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence tearing that country apart, but the depth of analysis rarely goes beyond that obvious statement of fact. Americans might be able to nod their heads knowingly if one utters the words Sunni, Shiite and Kurd, but very few could take the conversation much further down the path of genuine comprehension regarding the interrelationships among these three groups. And yet we, the people, are expected to be able to hold to account those whom we elected to represent us in higher office, those making the decisions regarding the war in Iraq. How can the ignorant accomplish this task? And ignorance is not something uniquely attached to the American public. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the newly appointed chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, infamously failed a pop quiz in which journalist Jeff Stein asked him to differentiate between Sunni and Shiite. Reyes has become the poster boy for congressional stupidity, but in truth he is not alone. Very few of his colleagues could pass the test, truth be told.

The task of holding Congress to account is a daunting one, and can be accomplished only if the citizenry that forms the respective constituencies of our ignorant congressional representatives are themselves able to operate at an intellectual capacity above that of those they are holding to account. So rather than issue “pop quizzes” to our elected representatives, I’ve designed one for us, the people. If the reader can fully answer the question raised, then he or she qualifies as one capable of pointing an accusatory finger at Congress as its members dither over what to do in Iraq. If the reader fails the quiz, then there should be an honest appraisal of the reality that we are in way over our heads regarding this war, and that it is irresponsible for anyone to make sweeping judgments about the ramifications of policy courses of action yet to be agreed upon. Claiming to be able to divine a solution to a problem improperly defined is not only ignorant but dangerously delusional.

So here is the quiz: Explain the relationship between the Iraqi cities of Karbala and Baghdad as they impact the coexistence of Iraq’s Shiite and Sunni populations.

Most respondents who have a basic understanding of Iraq will answer that Karbala is a city of significance to Iraq’s Shiite population. Baghdad is Iraq’s capital, with a mixed Sunni and Shiite population. If that is your answer, you fail.

Karbala is a holy city for the Shiites. Its status as such is based on the fact that Hussein, a grandson of the prophet Muhammad and son of Ali, the fourth caliph, was killed outside Karbala in a battle between Hussein’s followers and forces loyal to Yazid, son of Muawiyah, the fifth caliph. The two sides were fighting over the line of succession when it came to leading the Muslim faithful after the death of Muhammad in the year 632. Abu Bakr, a close colleague of Muhammad but not a member of Muhammad’s biological family, was elected as the first caliph after the prophet’s death, an act that many Muslims believed broke faith with a necessity for the successor of Muhammad to be from his family. Abu Bakr’s death brought about a quick succession of caliphs, all of whom met untimely deaths and none of whom were from the family line of Muhammad.

When Ali was elected as the fourth caliph, many Muslims believed that for the first time since the death of Muhammad the caliphate had been restored to one properly authorized in the eyes of God to lead the Muslim faith. In fact, upon Ali’s accession as caliph, one of his first acts was to seek to restore the Muslim faith to its puritanical origins, which Ali believed had been departed from by the merchant families closely allied with the third caliph, Othman. Ali’s efforts were bitterly resisted by merchant families in Damascus, which refused to recognize Ali as the caliph. The head of the Damascus rebels, Muawiyah, fought a bitter conflict with Ali, which weakened the caliphate and paved the way for Ali’s assassination.

Upon Ali’s death, the caliphate was transferred to his elder son, Hassan, but when this succession was challenged by Muawiyah, Hassan relented, transferring the caliphate to Muawiyah with the caveat that once Muawiyah died, the caliphate would be returned to the lineage of the prophet Muhammad. When Muawiyah died, the caliphate passed to his son, Yazid. This succession was challenged by Hussein, Hassan’s brother and Ali’s younger son, who believed that the succession, as dictated by Hassan when he abdicated, should have gone to someone within the direct line of the prophet Muhammad, namely Hussein. Yazid’s treacherous attack on Hussein and his followers, occurring as it did during prayer time, set the stage for the split in the Muslim faith between the Shiat Ali (Shia, or followers of Ali) and the Ahl-i Sunnah (Sunni, or the people who follow in the custom of the prophet Muhammad). Both Shiite and Sunni view one another as deviants from the pure form of Islam as taught by Muhammad, and as such functioning as apostates deserving death.

If you answered the quiz on Karbala in the above fashion, you would still be wrong. The split between Sunni and Shiite goes beyond simple hatred for one another. Not only did the religion split, but so too did the methodology of governance as well as the interrelationship between religion and politics.

There was a final chance at achieving unity within the Muslim world. In the year 750, at the battle of Zab in Egypt, nearly the entire aristocracy formed from the lineage of Muawiyah was annihilated when the Damascus-based caliphate clashed with predominantly Shiite rebels. Jaffar, a Shiite spiritual leader and the great-grandson of Hussein, was supposed to be elevated to the caliphate, thereby uniting the Muslim world, but was instead murdered by Al-Mansur, who established the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad. This final treachery created a permanent split between the Shiites and those who became known as Sunnis.

The Shiite faithful embraced rule by imams, infallible leaders who provide guidance over spiritual and political affairs. According to the majority of Shiites, there are 12 imams, originating with Ali. The 12th imam, also named Muhammad, is believed by many Shiites to be the Mahdi, or savior, who went into hiding at God’s command and will return at the end of days to bring salvation to the faithful. With the passing of the 12th imam, matters of spiritual and political concerns were dealt with by religious scholars, or the ulema. These scholars are products of religious academies, known as “hawza.” In Iraq, the city of Najaf is home to the most important hawza, the Hawza Ilmiya. Each hawza produces religious scholars, or “marjas,” who interpret religion and provide guidance over social matters to those who rally around their particular teachings.

The Najaf Hawza currently has four marjas, or grand ayatollahs, each of whom reigns supreme when it comes to matters of religion or state. The faithful look to their hawza for guidance in all they do, and the sermons given by the various marjas take on a significance little understood by those who aren’t born and bred into that society. To speak of creating a unified Iraqi state without factoring in the reality of the hawza and its competing marjas is tantamount to claiming one will seek to fly without factoring in the realities of lift and gravity.

So if you answered the question concerning the city of Karbala with anything remotely resembling an insight into not only the schism that exists between the Sunni and the Shiite but also how the development of the practice of the Shiite faith has led to an absolute insinuation of religious dogma into every aspect of social and political life in a manner that operates independently of any so-called central state authority, you would get a passing grade, enabling you to move on to the next city covered by the pop quiz: Baghdad.

It is not only the Shiites who are bound by religious ties seemingly indecipherable to the West. From the chaos that was created with the Islamic schism came a very fluid situation in the development of Sunni Islamic dogma, with the Sunnis embracing a notion of consensus among the historical Muslim community, a line of thinking that led to the creation of four so-called legal schools of Islamic thought (the Maliki, the Hannafi, the Hanbali and the Shafi’i). These schools produced Islamic scholars who in turn competed for a constituency of followers. While in theory Sunni scholars preached adherence to the customs of the prophet Muhammad, in practice the Sunni schools became intertwined in the affairs of state and business. This deviation from the pure practice of faith led to the growth of “mystic societies” known as Sufism. Sufi brotherhoods sprang up throughout the Muslim world, each preaching its own mystical path toward achieving personal growth through the teachings of the prophet Muhammad.

The Abbasid caliphate, which oversaw this period of religious “softening,” in which the pure practice of Islam gave way to a more secular tolerance of the baser concerns of man, was centered in Baghdad. It was the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in 1258 that signaled not only the end of the Abbasid caliph’s rule but the certification in the eyes of some Sunni faithful that Abbasid’s ruin was brought about by the lack of pure faith in Islam by those professing to be Muslim. One of the basic tenants of the Sunni faith was the notion of community consensus, or “taqlid.” Taqlid was actively practiced by three of the four “legal” schools of Sunni thought. The sole exception was the school of the Hanbali, which followed a stricter interpretation of the faith. A Hanbali religious jurist, Ibn Taymiya, rose to prominence in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion. He held not only that the Mongols were an enemy of Islam but that the Shiite Islamic state that emerged in Persia after the Mongol conquest was likewise anathema.

More important, Ibn Taymiya broke ranks with the rest of the Sunni community, especially those who practiced Sufism, declaring all to be an affront to God. Ibn Taymiya rejected the notion of community consensus represented in the taqlid and instead professed that a true Muslim state could exist only where the political leader governed as a partner with the religious leader, and was subordinated to the religious through strict adherence to the “sharia,” or religious law. The Muslim jurists, or “ulema,” held total sway over society, to the extent that even matters pertaining to war were reserved for the religious leader, or imam, who was the only person authorized to declare a jihad.

During the Abbysid caliph, the term jihad had taken on the connotation of inner struggle. This interpretation gained wide acceptance with the spread of the Sufi brotherhoods, which were all about inner discovery. Ibn Taymiya rejected this notion of jihad, instead proclaiming that true jihad involved a relentless struggle against the enemies of Islam. For a while his teachings were popular, especially when they were being used to encourage the forces of Sunni Islam confronting the infidel Mongol invaders. However, his strict interpretation of Hanbali tenets were rejected even by other Hanbali religious scholars, and Ibn Taymiya himself was branded a heretic.

The teachings of Ibn Taymiya continued to be taught in certain Hanbali circles, including those operating in the holy city of Medina. It was here, in the 18th century, that a Arab Bedouin from the Nejd desert, in what is today Saudi Arabia, named Muhammed al-Wahhab emerged to create a movement that not only embraced the teachings of Ibn Taymiya but took them even further, preaching a virulent form of Islam that claimed to seek to bring the faithful back to the religion as practiced by the prophet Muhammad himself. Wahhab’s movement, known as the Call to Unity, reflected his strict interpretation of Islam as set forth in his book Kitab al-Tawhid, or the Book of Unity.

At first Wahhab was rejected by the Sunni scholars, and he was hounded and finally forced to take refuge in the tiny village of Dariya. There Wahhab befriended the local governor, Muhammed Ibn Saud, initiating what was to become a partnership in which the Saud family took on the role of emir, or political leader, while Wahhab became imam, or religious leader. The team of Bedouin warrior and Islamic fanatic soon led to what would become known as the Wahhabi conquest, bringing much of what is now present-day Saudi Arabia under their strict religious rule. In 1802 a Wahhabi army attacked Karbala and sacked the sacred Shiite shrine to Hussein. In 1803 the Wahhabis sacked Mecca, laying waste to the most holy sites in the Islamic world, including the Great Mosque. In 1804 the Wahhabis captured Medina, looted the tomb of the prophet Muhammad and shut off the hajj, or pilgrimage, to all non-Wahhabis. The rise of the Wahhabi empire was seen as a threat to all Islam, and soon a massive counterattack was mounted by the caliphate in Egypt. By 1818 the Wahhabis had been destroyed in battle, and everyone professing Wahhabism was treated as an apostate and butchered. The head of the Saud tribe was captured and beheaded, along with many of his fellow tribesmen.

Deep in the Arab deserts, a small number of Saudi tribesmen, strict adherents to Wahhabism, survived the Egyptian onslaught and began the struggle to regain their lost power. By 1924 the Wahhabis once again controlled Mecca and Medina, and by 1932 a new nation, Saudi Arabia, emerged from the Arabian deserts, governed by the house of Saud and with religious affairs totally in the hands of the Wahhabis.

To the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia there were two great sources of religious heretics: the Shiites, who ruled in Iran and represented a majority population in several Arab nations, including Iraq, and worse still, the Sunni Arabs, who rejected the true path as represented by the teachings of Wahhab. The puritanical form of Islam pushed by the Wahhabis was difficult to export, however, until the oil crisis of 1973, after which the Saudi government was able to fund the printing of Wahhabi literature and training of Wahhabi missionaries. In Iraq, there was some attraction to the puritanical teachings of Wahhabism among the Bedouin of the western deserts. However, with the rise to power of Saddam Hussein, Wahhabism and those who proselytized in its name were treated as enemies of the state. Wahhabism was still practiced in the shadows of Sunni mosques throughout Iraq, but anyone caught doing so was immediately arrested and put to death.

(continued)

[OldManMac]

(continued)

Wahhabi concerns over the weakening of the Muslim world by those who practiced anything other than pure Islam were certified in the minds of the faithful when, in April 2003, American soldiers captured Baghdad in what many Wahhabis viewed as a repeat of the sack of the city at the hands of the Mongols in 1258. Adding insult to injury, the role of Iraq’s Shiites in aiding and abetting the American conquest was seen as proof positive that the only salvation for the faithful could come at the hands of a pure form of the Islamic faith, that of Wahhabism. As the American liberation dragged on into the American occupation, and the level of violence between the Shiites and Sunnis grew, the call of jihad as promulgated by the Wahhabis gained increasing credence among the tribes of western Iraq.

The longer the Americans remain in Iraq, the more violence the Americans bring down on Iraq, and the more the Americans are seen as facilitating the persecution of the Sunnis by the Shiites, the more legitimate the call of the Wahhabi fanatics become. While American strategists may speak of the rise of al-Qaida in Iraq, this is misrecognition of what is really happening. Rather than foreigners arriving and spreading Wahhabism in Iraq, the virulent sect of Islamic fundamentalism is spreading on its own volition, assisted by the incompetence and brutality of an American occupation completely ignorant of the reality of the land and people it occupies. This is the true significance of Baghdad, and any answer not reflecting this will be graded as failing.

A pop quiz, consisting of one question in two parts. Most readers might complain that it is not realistic to expect mainstream America to possess the knowledge necessary to achieve the level of comprehension required to pass this quiz. I agree. However, since the mission of the United States in Iraq has shifted from disarming Saddam to installing democracy to creating stability, I think it only fair that the American people be asked about those elements that are most relevant to the issue, namely the Shiite and Sunni faithful and how they interact with one another.

It is sadly misguided to believe that surging an additional 20,000 U.S. troops into Baghdad and western Iraq will even come close to redressing the issues raised in this article. And if you concur that the reality of Iraq is far too complicated to be understood by the average American, yet alone cured by the dispatch of additional troops, then we have a collective responsibility to ask what the hell we are doing in that country to begin with. If this doesn’t represent a clarion call for bringing our men and women home, nothing does.

Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) and “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006)

[Nicko]

Isn't it a fact that most Americans can't even find Iraq on a map?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by typoon 

The only thing I'm outraged about in the Iraq War is the handcuffing of our troops by this administration. The rules of engagement need to change before the US will even be able to think about prevailing in Iraq. The military needs to be allowed to knock the terrorists back to the 7th century where they belong.

The soviets tried that in Afghanistan in the 80s… or are you implying that the Americans are better at committing atrocities?

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Isn't it a fact that most Americans can't even find Iraq on a map?

That's why there are so few US troops there. The rest are wandering around Liechtenstein.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

The soviets tried that in Afghanistan in the 80s… or are you implying that the Americans are better at committing atrocities?

It's only an atrocity if someone lives to tell the tale.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Isn't it a fact that most Americans can't even find Iraq on a map?

No that would be most peace activists and of course, you.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No that would be most peace activists and of course, you.

Were you making a point, or is that just a really, really lame comeback?

[ebuddy]

Why is Civil War bad?

How did you think we would create Iraqi forces for dealing with Iraqis without civil war?

Of course I'm outraged. I'm outraged at the focus on one man and one administration when he's simply the third of three prior who had to deal with Saddam and Iraq.

- What about N. Korea? As if you wouldn't be calling for troops to come home the second that didn't go your way.

- What about Afghanistan? as if you'd somehow have the stomach for death over that worthless piece of crap.

- What about OBL? What about him? Haven't heard from him in several years. I've already put coins over his beady eyes.

- What about Iran? As if you're not already scared shxxless at this notion and we haven't even acted yet.

I see the point of blame going entirely in one direction because most don't either have the attention span or the memory to cover 6 years' time. Most of this nonsense is coming from those enjoying the enlightenment of hindsight. Not long ago, everyone was holding hands singing God Bless America and wearing US flags on their lapel. Now we can't remember what anyone said 6 years ago. What a crock of shxx we've become. I'm outraged. 12 years of failed economic sanctions and the idle threats of an International Body incapable of self-preservation. For Americans, it was easy to believe Saddam had WMD. He told us he did. He threatened to use them. Read the speeches of the last two Presidents. Read speeches by a host of popular Democrats then, just before, and during shock and awe. We've been listening to leadership from both sides of the aisle rail on the situation in Iraq for the past 12 years. I don't want to see the f'n word Republicans one more time without seeing Democrats in the same sentence. Otherwise, it's absolute dishonest BS.

There is violence because we've stirred the nest of bees and they want Iraq. We swat the bees and eliminate the nests. This is winning. Anything less is losing. Period. Oh, there will be disagreement for sure, but you can't convince me anything would have been different had we not invaded. Same difference, 12 years later. We need to do it on our time so our grandchildren won't have to because rest-assured; if the last two Presidents had to deal with a problem, the next two, and the two after that will also. You think the US is crooked? You think the Republicans are crooked? I agree. Now name for me an entity that isn't. Now ask yourself who has aligned with who and why it isn't natural that they do so. Now ask what friggin' side you're on and do something about it. Help send care packages. Tell them you support them 100% and that you're holding all of your elected officials' feet to the fire on their behalf back home. You tell them to win this God-forsaken thing and get home as soon as possible. Pulling out of Iraq is not a solution for anyone right now. The political pandering over this BS has me outraged and incensed beyond explanation.

No, certainly Russia is not partnering with Iran. Of course China and Russia aren't aligning resources. Why everything would be peaceful and we could all sing kumbaya and God Bless America if it weren't for... the Bush Administration. What makes any of you believe anything would be any different had we not invaded Iraq? Iran would no longer be imperialist, they'd love their neighbors including Israel? China and Russia would not be engaged in joint military operation because they wouldn't hate Bush and all of a sudden human nature would be something entirely different? This makes me sick to my stomach. Armchair quarterbacks and sofa soldiers throwing indictments around at Republicans for not having a plan. Since when is that damnable? What the hell was your plan, nothing? Give me a break. We stayed the course for 12 years and invasion was the change in plans. Don't like it? Too friggin' bad it was going to happen either way. I decided I'm not going to wait for a (D) to determine whether or not action is necessary.

I got a plan for ya; pick a side or plaster your "hate is not a family value" bumper sticker on your friggin' cabin in the mountains if you can't stomach it. Either way, we're all going to be fighting soon whether we want to or not. That's human nature for ya.

Scared of rhetoric like this? Well, at least that explains the partisan vitriol I get to read here. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Were you making a point, or is that just a really, really lame comeback?

One from a place ranked below Cambodia for literacy rate should probably remain silent about American ignorance.

You got anything to say or are you just stalking people who disagree with you?

[Orion27]

Essentially what Ritter is describing are the Dark Ages, tribal feuds and sectarianism. Muslims rallying around a fundamentalist feudal Wahhabism requires we pay attention. We either contain this strict fundamentalism to the middle east, or we encourage a brand of Enlightenment, to coin a term. How do we encourage a middle eastern renaissance? How do we get beyond sectarian and fundamentalist Wahhabisim? Is Armedinejad an acceptable solution? Is the House of Saud?
Repression has always been the tool which binds the middle east. If we can not free the middle east from Islamist repression and the intent of the Islamists is to export it's repression, we have no choice but to contain it. Where is the UN human rights activists when it comes to Islamist mysogynism? Where is the NOW gang? What about Darfur?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

One from a place ranked below Cambodia for literacy rate should probably remain silent about American ignorance.

You got anything to say or are you just stalking people who disagree with you?

a) Why did you feel attacked by the phrase "most Americans", when you, apparently, are a notable exception who IS able to find Iraq on a map?

b) Why should Nicko feel attacked for living in Kenya?

c) Nicko is obviously literate, and obviously more so than many of the other regulars here.

d) Stalking? No. My visits to the Poli Lounge are rare these days. Your bullshit post just happened to stand out.

e) Kenya ranks at #28 in world literacy rankings (69% literacy), as of 2007. Cambodia is at #53 (35% literacy). Now, go find Iraq on a map. (Hint: Try googling for that. Maybe it'll work this time. )

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

What about Darfur?

Darfur is in Sudan...a long way from the Middle East. Similar to Iraq the conflict in Sudan is also about oil. Lucky for them, China protects Sudan with their UN veto in exchange for access to oil and other support. Don't fool yourself in coming to the conclusion that ANY of these conflicts are being caused by religion.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Darfur is in Sudan...a long way from the Middle East. Similar to Iraq the conflict in Sudan is also about oil. Lucky for them, China protects Sudan with their UN veto in exchange for access to oil and other support. Don't fool yourself in coming to the conclusion that ANY of these conflicts are being caused by religion.

Yes, it's just another silly little civil war about oil. We should just stay out of it and let play out. If we get involved we'll just be accused of protecting big oil to satisfy our profligate lifestyles. Better the Chinese are involved with their impeccable human rights record. Let the chips fall where thet may.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why is Civil War bad?

How did you think we would create Iraqi forces for dealing with Iraqis without civil war?

I didn't think we should have instigated our invasion in the first place without an entirely sound plan that included support with a number of other countries, as this is indeed a global problem. The plan never added up to me, and it appears that I was right to have my doubts.

I see the point of blame going entirely in one direction because most don't either have the attention span or the memory to cover 6 years' time. Most of this nonsense is coming from those enjoying the enlightenment of hindsight.

I definitely don't think that the Democrats and past administrations are blameless, but it is a little easier to be frustrated with the current decisions that are playing out now and we are seeing the effects of now than it is to get worked up over what is now history. I understand your frustration relating to our short-sightedness, and agree with you though. It just seems a little more productive to try to get a grapple on what is happening *now* and who is responsible for what is playing out now (in order to isolate these individuals and demand a change) than it is to assign blame over individuals that are no longer a part of the picture.

There is violence because we've stirred the nest of bees and they want Iraq. We swat the bees and eliminate the nests. This is winning. Anything less is losing. Period.

Who are the bees? Who is "they"?

I'd say we've swatted the bees' nest, and that there is nothing to "win" right now in Iraq. You are welcome to diffuse my rant by placing blame on Democrats, I don't really care... I just want to change what is happening right now, I'm less concerned about an accurate history book.

Oh, there will be disagreement for sure, but you can't convince me anything would have been different had we not invaded. Same difference, 12 years later. We need to do it on our time so our grandchildren won't have to because rest-assured; if the last two Presidents had to deal with a problem, the next two, and the two after that will also.

You know, by biggest problem with this operation has been, by far, the execution of it more so than the decision itself. The fact that the administration honestly thought we would be treated as liberators is just not acceptable. The fact that the administration thought this war would be over in 6 months is just not acceptable. If we are going to do something this important and significant, we should have gotten it right. We haven't.

Pulling out of Iraq is not a solution for anyone right now. The political pandering over this BS has me outraged and incensed beyond explanation.

I take back my claim, if I ever made one, that pulling out is a "solution". By definition, it is not, but it is our best course of action, and I've yet to hear a sound argument which defies my reasoning.

We stayed the course for 12 years and invasion was the change in plans. Don't like it? Too friggin' bad it was going to happen either way. I decided I'm not going to wait for a (D) to determine whether or not action is necessary.

I think what you are doing is conflating these two ideas:

- we should never have invaded with any sort of plan, regardless of how sound, no matter what the circumstances, no matter what

- we should have never invaded with the Bush administration plan


I would say that most people fall into the second category. Whether people would have gone along with a better plan is hard to say now, because Bush managed to sell his plan to many people - politicians and citizens alike. However, while I blame many Democrats for feebly signing off on the plan, I do recognize that it is not the job of private citizens to scrutinize plans like this, so I understand how people could have been fooled.

What is frustrating is people who cannot separate their emotional investments from the reality of the situation *now*, and recognize that the plan, quite frankly, sucked, and consequently we are in serious trouble now. I don't think many appreciate the gravity of the situation now, and seem to prefer justifying their mistake in judgment with the sort of discourse that has been so damaging to us now. Why is it important to recognize a mistake? It may seem like I take pleasure in rubbing mistakes in peoples' faces. Certainly, a part of me enjoys being right as is the case with all of us, but more importantly I want people to really start thinking about whether they support this current lack of a plan, and I want people to feel a sense of outrage over what I feel is entirely unacceptable. This seems like the first step towards actually making changes. We need a plan, the Bush administration's strategy is not a sound plan.

Don't be a Democrat or a Republican, especially as you are not on their payroll, be a human being! Why should you care who comes up with a winning plan, or which party is better overall? Just get it right, I don't care who does it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

a) Why did you feel attacked by the phrase "most Americans", when you, apparently, are a notable exception who IS able to find Iraq on a map?

Because his bullshit post happened to stand out.

b) Why should Nicko feel attacked for living in Kenya?

Because when you launch a bullshit accusation against "most Americans" and it is found to be inaccurate, you should expect an attack going in. That's why he posted it.

c) Nicko is obviously literate, and obviously more so than many of the other regulars here.

His "substantive" posts seem to indicate otherwise, but I understand you may be a little bias. After all, you likely see eye to eye.

d) Stalking? No. My visits to the Poli Lounge are rare these days. Your bullshit post just happened to stand out.

Funny how my "bullshit post" is the one that caught your attention.

e) Kenya ranks at #28 in world literacy rankings (69% literacy), as of 2007. Cambodia is at #53 (35% literacy). Now, go find Iraq on a map. (Hint: Try googling for that. Maybe it'll work this time. )

Speaking of bullshit posts, why don't you try reading the link you posted? It's from 1992. Surprisingly, when you edited the link to say; 2007 you had to type over wfb/1992/rankings/literacy Mine were from 2005.

Couple of lessons you could learn from this little exercise;
1) If you're going to accuse a nation of being ignorant, make sure they don't rank 24 places above you in literacy and...

2) If you're going to accuse someone of a "bullshit post", try to ensure you're not posting blatant bullshit.

*Hint; Try googling moron.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Yes, it's just another silly little civil war about oil. We should just stay out of it and let play out. If we get involved we'll just be accused of protecting big oil to satisfy our profligate lifestyles. Better the Chinese are involved with their impeccable human rights record. Let the chips fall where thet may.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I didn't think we should have instigated our invasion in the first place without an entirely sound plan that included support with a number of other countries, as this is indeed a global problem.

There is no entirely sound plan for war. You simply must understand this. The plan must shift in accordance with complications. The problem is political paralysis straining our ability to react in a timely fashion. There were a host of reasons why we didn't receive the number of other countries' support that you would've like to have seen, but that doesn't mean we didn't have the support of a number of countries. For one thing, there were some personal interests at stake that happened to complicate matters and conflict with the interests of the countries who wanted to act, but that's just another forgotten element in the partisanship behind all this. A global problem and an International body incapable of integrity and self-preservation.

The plan never added up to me, and it appears that I was right to have my doubts.

The plan was the elimination of 10,000 for the freedom of over 22 million. (Lieberman's words)

A noble goal, but a difficult task that is not wrapped up neatly in 5 years.

I definitely don't think that the Democrats and past administrations are blameless, but it is a little easier to be frustrated with the current decisions that are playing out now and we are seeing the effects of now than it is to get worked up over what is now history. I understand your frustration relating to our short-sightedness, and agree with you though. It just seems a little more productive to try to get a grapple on what is happening *now* and who is responsible for what is playing out now (in order to isolate these individuals and demand a change) than it is to assign blame over individuals that are no longer a part of the picture.

We shouldn't be haggling over pet pork projects as if to make a mockery of the severity of the issue in Iraq. We shouldn't be hemming and hawing over 20,000 troops. (though there is already evidence of progress) We've got troops stationed all over the world. We need to amass a front and yesterday. We need to get our friggin' US flag lapel pins back on, sing God Bless America and start overwhelming these despots with force. I'm frustrated with "dipping our toes in the water" to not give other nations the wrong impression. We've already given the wrong impression. Distaste for the US is not a recent anomaly. Forget how we look to the rest of the world. This I blame on our current Administration, but they are simply echoing the same BS we've heard from both sides of the aisle for the last 12 years. When in doubt, do something. That's what we're doing. There's only one way out and it should look a lot more like a cornered badger than it does currently.

Who are the bees? Who is "they"?

The insurgency. If the problem is Iran, let's address it for real. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis are hopeful for their future and want freedom and prosperity. The fact of the matter is that most did embrace our arrival with open arms. I've got footage taken from a friend who served there to prove it.

I'd say we've swatted the bees' nest, and that there is nothing to "win" right now in Iraq.

Swatting them is not enough, their nests need to be eradicated. This will only be accomplished by numbers and presence and immense, swift force.

You are welcome to diffuse my rant by placing blame on Democrats, I don't really care... I just want to change what is happening right now, I'm less concerned about an accurate history book.

You'll notice my blame goes across both sides of the aisle. I'm tired of hearing opposition to "stay the course" when that's what we did for 12 failed years of economic sanctions. I'm tired of hearing "pull out" as if the globe would immediately become less imperialistic and hostile. Somehow, human nature would vanish and we'd all welcome our soldiers home bolstering a naive and false sense of security. This world will come to a head of ideals. Those ideals are at odds with one another in the ME, but their resources have called out to many. Partnerships are vast and our globe extremely volatile. There's no doubt in mind if you knew what this Administration knows, you'd do the same. Problem is, if they outright told you, you'd likely move to the mountains.

You know, by biggest problem with this operation has been, by far, the execution of it more so than the decision itself. The fact that the administration honestly thought we would be treated as liberators is just not acceptable.

Not acceptable? It was true. Again, I have footage to confirm it. There are over 22 million people in Iraq. If the majority really hated us as much as you seem to think, we'd have a few more problems than you're seeing on the nightly news.

The fact that the administration thought this war would be over in 6 months is just not acceptable. If we are going to do something this important and significant, we should have gotten it right. We haven't.

While I'd readily admit political paralysis and moments of incompetence, to frame the entire action in this way is disingenuous and not representative of what is truly going on there. With over 22 million people there, we would not be debating whether or not there is a civil war. Just about everyone who has visited is saying things different from what you're saying. Take what you read and see on the news with a grain of salt. As people, their interests are likely helping them get it wrong too.

I take back my claim, if I ever made one, that pulling out is a "solution". By definition, it is not, but it is our best course of action, and I've yet to hear a sound argument which defies my reasoning.

Iran taking over Iraq. Iran partnered with Russia for immense resources and Russia in joint military operation with China. Bad, worse, and tragic. All good arguments in my opinion. When we argue about "oil", we're being partisan. When we scream "haliburton", we're being silly. When we yell "Cheney", we're being simpleton. When we scream about no WMDs, we're being duped. When we indict "Rummy", we're being ignorant. When we call for troops to come home, we're being naive.

I think what you are doing is conflating these two ideas:

- we should never have invaded with any sort of plan, regardless of how sound, no matter what the circumstances, no matter what

- we should have never invaded with the Bush administration plan

Okay, but let's consider the options;

- UN assistance and decision-making? Nope. Takes too long and too many people with conflicting interests to act in a reasonably timely manner or to expect them to act honestly.
- More economic sanctions? Nope.
- Another UN Resolution, a 14th or 15th calling for "extra-real-serious consequences"? Nope.
- Attack Afghanistan? Why? What's in Afghanistan? OBL? I'd be willing to bet he's already belly-up. He's one man. Afghanistan is not a global struggle in the center of the ME with a wealth of resources for which all developing countries are vying. This notion that Afghanistan is somehow the center of struggle is also naive.
- Attack N. Korea? Nope. I mean really, you think they'd be easier than Shias and Sunnis?
- Attack Iran? Nope. If we can't stomach Iraq, I can assure you we can't stomach Iran. Iran needs to occur from the inside-out and evidence suggests this movement is under way.

Non-plans each and every one. This is nothing less than complete inaction, head-burying to bolster a false sense of security so we can stave off the inevitable for 12 more years. No thanks. I want our kids to have a history book to read.

What is frustrating is people who cannot separate their emotional investments from the reality of the situation *now*, and recognize that the plan, quite frankly, sucked, and consequently we are in serious trouble now.

What is frustrating is people who cannot separate their need for "peace" today from common sense. The reality of the situation is mass imperialism on a global scale. That is the situation *now*. You can deny it, you can remain isolationist and pretend entities are not aligning resources, but this is ignorant and your children will pay dearly for our complacency and lack of resolve. Pulling out now would be both and none of the problems we face with human nature on this globe will go away. We will have dealt a serious blow to our credibility as the only nation who would act against a tyrant. This is not good. I've yet to hear a sound argument that defies this reasoning.

I don't think many appreciate the gravity of the situation now, and seem to prefer justifying their mistake in judgment with the sort of discourse that has been so damaging to us now. Why is it important to recognize a mistake? It may seem like I take pleasure in rubbing mistakes in peoples' faces. Certainly, a part of me enjoys being right as is the case with all of us, but more importantly I want people to really start thinking about whether they support this current lack of a plan, and I want people to feel a sense of outrage over what I feel is entirely unacceptable. This seems like the first step towards actually making changes. We need a plan, the Bush administration's strategy is not a sound plan.

There is no sound plan for war against any formidable opponent. Period. This notion is Utopian and naive. There is no peace among human kind, only contractual agreements. Those agreements are only as solid as the people behind them. Too many can't appreciate the gravity of an entire globe of interests and imperialism all approaching eventual conflict with one another. I'm not interested in admitting mistakes, saving face, or PR of any kind. I'm interested in victory. Victory can only occur when democracy in Iraq is able to flourish. The Iraqi wants it. A few thousand don't. Eliminate the ones who don't. When the insurgents have been rendered quacks with silly white robes and conical hats convening over a bonfire, I'll be satisfied we've done our job and our troops can come home. Until then, Iraq remains a powder-keg for every power interested in fortifying their ideal and their position on this globe. If we don't win it, they will. We may disagree on which ideal we'd likely support, but I do not waver in preference and it doesn't include an (R) or a (D).

Don't be a Democrat or a Republican, especially as you are not on their payroll, be a human being! Why should you care who comes up with a winning plan, or which party is better overall? Just get it right, I don't care who does it.

We need resolve, will, support, and a strong stomach to win. You and I are the ones to win this battle, not an (R) or a (D). I'm not concerned with parties, I'm concerned with getting it right. Going in was right. Winning is right. Pulling out is wrong. There's absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because his bullshit post happened to stand out.


Because when you launch a bullshit accusation against "most Americans" and it is found to be inaccurate, you should expect an attack going in. That's why he posted it.


His "substantive" posts seem to indicate otherwise, but I understand you may be a little bias. After all, you likely see eye to eye.


Funny how my "bullshit post" is the one that caught your attention.



Speaking of bullshit posts, why don't you try reading the link you posted? It's from 1992. Surprisingly, when you edited the link to say; 2007 you had to type over wfb/1992/rankings/literacy Mine were from 2005.

Couple of lessons you could learn from this little exercise;
1) If you're going to accuse a nation of being ignorant, make sure they don't rank 24 places above you in literacy and...

2) If you're going to accuse someone of a "bullshit post", try to ensure you're not posting blatant bullshit.

*Hint; Try googling moron.

I'd like to try some of what you're taking but the side effects are disturbing.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I'd like to try some of what you're taking but the side effects are disturbing.

Erm…he's right about the 2002 thing. That page says it's taken from the 2002 CIA World Factbook.

[tie]

ebuddy, if you can't come up with a coherent reason for us being in Iraq, then we should leave.

This is nothing less than complete inaction, head-burying to bolster a false sense of security so we can stave off the inevitable for 12 more years. No thanks. I want our kids to have a history book to read.

What does that even mean?

There is no sound plan for war against any formidable opponent. Period. This notion is Utopian and naive. There is no peace among human kind, only contractual agreements. Those agreements are only as solid as the people behind them. Too many can't appreciate the gravity of an entire globe of interests and imperialism all approaching eventual conflict with one another. I'm not interested in admitting mistakes, saving face, or PR of any kind. I'm interested in victory.

The reality of the situation is mass imperialism on a global scale. That is the situation *now*. You can deny it, you can remain isolationist and pretend entities are not aligning resources, but this is ignorant and your children will pay dearly for our complacency and lack of resolve. Pulling out now would be both and none of the problems we face with human nature on this globe will go away.

Iran taking over Iraq. Iran partnered with Russia for immense resources and Russia in joint military operation with China. Bad, worse, and tragic. All good arguments in my opinion.

Your worldview is so detached from reality, I guess you have adopted these paranoid fantasies so you can justify still supporting Bush. We're in Iraq now in order to stop China from allying with Russia, Iran and Iraq?!

Actually -- not talking about ebuddy any more! -- it scares me reading these forums sometimes. You see that the same people supporting US policy now would have supported Hitler had they lived in Germany, or Saddam Hussein had they lived in Iraq. In Iran, they'd be ranting about how they need to develop nuclear weapons to stop Israel -- "You can deny it, you can remain isolationist and pretend entities are not aligning resources, but this is ignorant and your children will pay dearly for our complacency and lack of resolve." No need for facts to back up their positions, no evidence needed -- "Take what you read and see on the news with a grain of salt." Just a fully grown conspiracy theory, and absolute loyalty to the government is all that is required. "There's no doubt in mind if you knew what this Administration knows, you'd do the same. Problem is, if they outright told you, you'd likely move to the mountains." It's a bit frightening how this kind of conflict brings these people out of the woodwork.

[ApeInTheShell]

The Democratic party tolerates war and it usually takes a President to convince them otherwise. I think the Democrats approved of the war initially because they thought it was going to be like Desert Storm. Once we take out Saddam Hussein the country will restablize itself and we can leave to work on our own country. Most people tell us that the U.S. administration has no plan for Iraq and they want to stay the course. This is true.
However, let us just imagine if we were still at war with Afghanistan. The Democrats would call for an immediate withdrawl because it is not working out. But we are in Iraq and they want to pull out.
So what is my point? President Bush is going to stay the course and the Democratic party will have a plan in place to withdrawl as soon as he leaves office. Once the new President is sworn in the senate will pass a bill and pull out our troops leaving the country of Iraq in chaos. It will appear to be in our best interests to become friends with Iran. That means Israel will be fair game for the Palestianians who want to wipe it off the map. The U.S. will also become good buddies with the United Nations because that war in Iraq really pissed them off.
The most likely scenario is we will be hit by terrorist attacks again because we have grown comfortable and the war on terror (according to Democrats) is over. But this time it will be cities across the world and no one will see it coming.
Then Besson will be crying out, "Where is the outrage?"

[besson3c]

Sorry Ape, I'm still not sure I'm following your stream of consciousness, I don't know if it is just me...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I understand you may be a little bias.

No, but I *know* a little bias - he's right over there!

:: points at table across the room ::

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Speaking of bullshit posts, why don't you try reading the link you posted? It's from 1992. Surprisingly, when you edited the link to say; 2007 you had to type over wfb/1992/rankings/literacy Mine were from 2005.

My apologies - something went wrong. Whatever the hell happened THERE. Carelessness in a hurry - you got me.

Here's the numbers from 2007:
Literacy - total(%) 2007 country rankings - Flags, Maps, Economy, Geography, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System

Cambodia: #94 - 74% literacy.

Kenya: #68 - 85% literacy

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Couple of lessons you could learn from this little exercise;
1) If you're going to accuse a nation of being ignorant, make sure they don't rank 24 places above you in literacy and...

a) See above and try again.

b) So you assume Nicko is Kenyan because he lives there? And again: Who ranks 24 places above Nicko, personally? You? Your Mom? Buckaroo?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

2) If you're going to accuse someone of a "bullshit post", try to ensure you're not posting blatant bullshit.

*Hint; Try googling moron.

Moron may refer to:
Moron (psychology), a psychology-related term for a person with a genetically determined mental age between 8 and 12
Moron, a minor character in the Book of Mormon
Moron, a song of Sum 41 from the compilation album Rock Against Bush, Vol. 1, also a bonus track on Chuck
Moron, a KMFDM song from their 2003 album WWIII.
eBuddy, a poster at the MacNN forums.

Places named Moron:
Moron, Switzerland, a mountain and a village in the Jura mountains, Switzerland
Mörön (river), a common geographic name in Mongolia
Morón for places in Spain and South America