Iraq Unravelling...Again

[ThunderJam]

Now, to address the 'lepercon' argument...

Yea you dumb!@#$%^&*es, its leprachaun

[AstroProdigy]

An important factor here is that your statement that there's a lepercon in your yard doesn't cons!@#$%^&*ute reasonable proof. You are basically some dude we only know over the Internet' date=' and your statement was made in a post on SSForum.net.[/quote']

He may be some dude we only know over the Internet, but it is HIS house. He is in charge of his house and if he doesn't know whether there's a leprechaun in his backyard then who will?

 

Looking for a statement saying Bush will not negotiate with Sadr is essentially another way of saying you want impossible proof because you don't want to believe the conclusion. It's essentially like saying you want to see me jump off a building to see if I can fly. I'll never do it because it's stupid to do so, but then you can claim as long as I don't do so then, therefore, I can fly.

 

What you forget, NBVegita, is that propaganda means a whole lot in an insurgency and refusing to acknowledge a legitimate organization (as legitimate as any other militia like the ones in the government) and instead referring to them as criminals you are essentially putting a barrier up to make it more difficult to negotiate with them.

 

Speaking of barriers, if you want more proof of Bush trying to push Sadr further from negotiations I read an interesting, although biased piece in the New York Times about it today. It had an interesting picture of what US forces are doing in Sadr city. Here. Essentially they built walls to cut up Sadr city. How this can't be construed as an act of containment is beyond me. Negotiation? Why negotiate when you can carve up Sadr city piece by piece and bomb the !@#$%^&* out of each piece until they submit? Here's the accompanying article.

 

Thunderjam: It doesn't just sound like a flame; it is a flame. When you're ready to post something relevant to the discussion feel free, but until then don't spam the thread with your nonsense.

Edited May 16, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aceflyer]

He may be some dude we only know over the Internet, but it is HIS house. He is in charge of his house and if he doesn't know whether there's a leprechaun in his backyard then who will?

 

He could be (and in this example, actually is) lying through his teeth. There's no reason why I'd believe he's telling the truth; it's not like he's a US General and it's not like he's saying this to the US Congress, after all.

 

Looking for a statement saying Bush will not negotiate with Sadr is essentially another way of saying you want impossible proof because you don't want to believe the conclusion. It's essentially like saying you want to see me jump off a building to see if I can fly. I'll never do it because it's stupid to do so, but then you can claim as long as I don't do so then, therefore, I can fly.

 

Your analogy doesn't follow. And we are hardly asking for impossible proof.

[AstroProdigy]

Well we all know that military never lies about anything and military generals never disagree with the president that's for sure!

 

It's not impossible, per se, for Bush to say it just like it's not impossible for me to jump off a building. It's just highly unlikely since it's political suicide for the former and literal suicide for the latter.

Edited May 16, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

Astro, the problem with your analogy is that you know if you jump off a building, you won't fly.

 

With Bush we have no idea what the actual outcome will be.

 

So in one corner we have evidence from the leader of the U.S. forces in Iraq, in the other we have the New York Times, which as you did state, is about the most bias paper out there towards bush and the bush administration.

 

As for the propaganda, I do agree with you, that it is a quite common tool.

 

But the problem with propaganda, is that with little to no evidence that a statement is propaganda it is really hard to argue. Specifically when you are attempting to argue it with logic. Even statistically, if you look at it, at least 50% of military statements are non propaganda, I don't have a source for that but I will assume that to be true, so it would be difficult to argue that this is propaganda without some decent measure of evidence.

 

You could possibly be quite correct in your !@#$%^&*umption Astro, that the U.S. is really not looking to negotiate and that it is all propaganda, but unfortunately Ace's !@#$%^&*umption that we are willing to negotiate his more founding than yours.

[AstroProdigy]

NBVegita you're really picking at hairs here. Fine I'll change the analogy to you telling me to play with a poisonous snake. I wouldn't do it because I would almost surely die, but you can claim that I gained an immunity and thus would not and as long as I don't get bitten by the snake your claim is therefore true.

 

I actually was referring to the New York Times trying to make the walling off of Sadr City look like it's not what it is; a way to try to get around winning the hearts and minds of Shiites by playing divide and conquer. Do you really think the New York Times is biased against Bush? Hardly; they're too easy on him most of the time. Man I think you should just come out of the Elephant Closet and admit you're a Republican. It's pretty sad that you taught a course on logic considering you can't even manage the basics. You can use the right words, but when it comes to applying a very simple example of critical reasoning you let your own opinions cloud your judgment.

 

Your argument about not knowing what is propaganda is irrelevant since I only said propaganda is important and didn't put a definitive label on any statement saying it's propaganda. You are !@#$%^&*uming at least 50% of military statements are non propaganda, but you forget the nature of public statements is, for the most part, propaganda in itself. Military statements aren't made to the public for the sake of getting the public's input on whether a course of action is going to work, but instead to inform them, either honestly or dishonestly, what you have chosen for them to hear.

 

Unfortunately Ace's argument rests on two !@#$%^&*umed premises that are completely unproven. One is that Petraeus and Bush agree on this issue, which would mean Bush's policy decisions have to promote the notion that the US wants to negotiate with Sadr. The other is that Petraeus was being honest, which is not proven and has never been proven by policy decisions. Playing up the attack on Sadr's forces as a positive step and a turning point in Iraq (at least until the administration realized it was doomed to failure) as well as trying to divide up Sadr's stronghold for the sake at chipping away at his influence are acts of war, not acts of negotiation. If we praised a South Korean attack on North Korea and then tried to wall off chunks of North Korea to make it easier to manage the country then no one would doubt that this was an act of war and we in no way wanted to negotiate.

Edited May 16, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

You are playing on less credible premises.

 

You are saying he is !@#$%^&*uming that Petraeus is being honest. Remember in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. I know that doesn't translate well into this, but you don't have any source to say that he's lied so far, so are we to assume that he is simply lying because it would better fit your argument? Or are we !@#$%^&*uming that all public officials lie? Are we !@#$%^&*uming that simply because he is the commander of the U.S. forces he lies?

 

The same could be used for his first premise.

 

NBVegita you're really picking at hairs here.Fine I'll change the analogy to you telling me to play with a poisonous snake

 

Firstly I'm not picking at hairs. If you're going to use an analogy that has a finite conclusion and compare it to an argument that has no discernable conclustion, it is a terrible analogy. Your analogy did not resemble the argument in any way.

 

Actually that would only work if I told you to play with a poisonous snake, !@#$%^&*uring you that I've had its fangs removed.

 

Military statements aren't made to the public for the sake of getting the public's input on whether a course of action is going to work, but instead to inform them, either honestly or dishonestly, what you have chosen for them to hear.

 

That would infer that all public statements are propaganda, as the same is true for all public statements. If you believe every statement made is propaganda, then I guess you never really know the truth of anything. Which philosophically is correct, as we do never know the truths of most things, but it makes debating impossible. If you can counter every statement made publically with the argument that it is/might be propaganda, there is no point in debating. Using that logic, if Bush started negotiations with Sadr tomorrow, you would still say that Ace is wrong because the negotiations are just a political ploy and not actual negotiations.

 

Ultimately this is coming to where it always does, you won't budge, neither will the other side. So it's really no use to keep debating this particular point.

 

As for being a republican, I've stated many times before, i am a republican, just a moderate republican. I'm just not a big believer in most conspiracy theories and thus take the opposite side of that argument.

[Aceflyer]

You are saying he is !@#$%^&*uming that Petraeus is being honest. Remember in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. I know that doesn't translate well into this, but you don't have any source to say that he's lied so far, so are we to assume that he is simply lying because it would better fit your argument? Or are we !@#$%^&*uming that all public officials lie? Are we !@#$%^&*uming that simply because he is the commander of the U.S. forces he lies?

 

Agreed. You can't simply assume Petraeus is lying because it would better fit your argument.

 

That would infer that all public statements are propaganda, as the same is true for all public statements. If you believe every statement made is propaganda, then I guess you never really know the truth of anything. Which philosophically is correct, as we do never know the truths of most things, but it makes debating impossible. If you can counter every statement made publically with the argument that it is/might be propaganda, there is no point in debating. Using that logic, if Bush started negotiations with Sadr tomorrow, you would still say that Ace is wrong because the negotiations are just a political ploy and not actual negotiations.

 

Agreed. The only way to make debating possible is to assume public statements are true unless there is clear evidence to show they are propaganda. If you start out !@#$%^&*uming everything is propaganda, then what's the point of debating? Everyone will simply then be able to make up whatever they wish and claim it to be the truth, as since everything is propaganda, there's no proof either way, eh?

[AstroProdigy]

I'm not !@#$%^&*uming Petraeus is lying. I'm saying it's a legitimate theory with just as much backing as the statement that Bush supports Petraeus' stance. All evidence shows that Bush does not want to cooperate with Sadr such as the praising of attacks on Sadr as well as the moves to cut up Sadr's stronghold to make it easier to control.

 

That would infer that all public statements are propaganda' date=' as the same is true for all public statements. If you believe every statement made is propaganda, then I guess you never really know the truth of anything. Which philosophically is correct, as we do never know the truths of most things, but it makes debating impossible. If you can counter every statement made publically with the argument that it is/might be propaganda, there is no point in debating. Using that logic, if Bush started negotiations with Sadr tomorrow, you would still say that Ace is wrong because the negotiations are just a political ploy and not actual negotiations.[/quote']

Well propaganda doesn't have to be lies. The commonly believed definition is that propaganda is lies, but in the actual definition there is no mention that it has to be lies only that it often is. It simply is information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.

Edited May 17, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

That it is quite true, but being most often propaganda is lies, as stated by yourself, how do we distinguish the statements to be truthful propaganda or untruthful? Which ultimately comes to the base of your argument with Ace. Ace believes the propaganda by Pet to be truthful, you believe it to be untruthful propaganda.

[Aceflyer]

Actually I don't even think Petraeus' statement was propaganda, as he was briefing the US Congress when he made that statement. He wasn't doing an interview or a press conference.

[AstroProdigy]

I'm actually trying to take a broad interpretation of the term "propaganda" when discussing government statements. I also only mentioned the possibility of Petraeus lying. I never said that this IS what happened nor that this is what I believe is most likely to have happened.

 

Petraeus, a practical military man, understands that negotiating with Sadr is key to peace in Iraq and his statement to Congress makes the case that the former !@#$%^&*essment is accurate.

 

However, the president, who is ultimately in charge in no way is required to agree with Petraeus. In fact considering his past history of absolute, overreaching statements such as "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" or "mission accomplished" it shouldn't be surprising that Bush is unwilling to negotiate with Sadr.

 

Getting a public statement from Bush disagreeing with his own general in a major way who he and his supporters have personally built up as the man who's going to fix everything in Iraq is virtually impossible. That would make the Bush administration look weak and indecisive, which they have carefully avoided doing throughout his presidency. It's completely out of character for Bush to say Petraeus is wrong even if he disagrees.

 

The proof lies in the actions taken towards Sadr and his militia. The Bush administration has been caught praising the attacks on Sadr unabashedly (at least until it proved to be an utter failure). Bush may have had to support Maliki in his attack on Sadr's militia in Basra, but he didn't have to label it positively as a defining moment. If he wanted to negotiate with Sadr he'd try to downplay the situation.

 

The US military is also actively working to cut up Sadr's stronghold in Sadr City at all costs (heavy death toll in building the wall) so that shows it's highly unlikely Bush has any plans to negotiate with Sadr, but instead to try to contain him.

 

It also makes no sense with the objectives of the Bush administration for Iraq on a political level to negotiate with Sadr. Sadr is supported by most Shiites and if Sadr were allowed to participate in elections he'd gain control of the Iraqi government or at the very least topple Maliki's government. If we negotiate with Sadr there's no way to legitimately keep him from participating in the elections in which he'd bring about a nationalist Iraqi government that would make a lot of the things America does there difficult to continue doing. Instead of negotiating with Sadr, treating him as the eternal enemy means we can do things like keep him and his people from running on the grounds that his militia must be disarmed first (even though every other major group in the governing coalition has an armed militia) knowing full well that he knows disarming his militia would be the end of him and his movement.

 

I guess my points would be:

 

Premise 1: Bush is ultimately in charge of Iraq policy, not Petraeus, so what Bush says and does is what US foreign policy becomes.

Premise 2: Petraeus himself is willing to negotiate with Sadr.

Premise 3: Bush has a history of playing absolutes.

Premise 4: Disagreeing with your own general, especially the one you put in charge personally, makes you look weak and indecisive.

Premise 5: Bush would avoid at all costs making a public statement making himself look weak and indecisive.

Premise 6: Bush praises attacks on Sadr unabashedly.

Premise 7: Bush is trying to contain Sadr by cutting up his stronghold.

 

Conclusion: There is little chance that Bush and, therefore, the US government are willing to negotiate with Sadr.

Edited May 19, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

[AstroProdigy]

It's not that Bush disagrees with one of his generals. It's that he would be disagreeing publicly with the general that he himself has built up through propaganda and now disagreeing with the man that people !@#$%^&*ociate with Bush becoming more competent would make him look indecisive. The point, however, is that this argument simply rules out the possibility of Bush publicly disagreeing with Petraeus, but in no way relates to the evidence of actions taken by Bush against negotiation with Sadr. Even if you could prove the former to not be necessarily true then you still have to prove his actions aren't done in a way that shows opposition to negotiation with Sadr.

 

P6 - Disagreed: When he does support the attacks on Sadr' date=' it's done very politically.[/quote']

This argument is irrelevant since every political move Bush makes is political. There's no newsflash there. The point is in the propaganda war Bush is taking an absolutist stance against Sadr that leaves no room for compromise.

 

Praising Petraeus doesn't support the conclusion that Petraeus sets the major policies in Iraq nor that Bush and Petraeus agree on negotiating with Sadr. Your spoiler there proves absolutely nothing, but does serve as a distraction. Until you address either of those two issues convincingly you aren't even addressing the whole point of all these posts.

 

The only points that Aceflyer has come up with to these questions is 1) Petraeus wouldn't contradict Bush based on pure speculation that it wouldn't happen.

Edited May 20, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

First off, your entire concept that Bush wouldn't disagree publicly with Pet is purely your opinion and thus speculation. So being there is no fact backing up your statement, there really is no need to counter the argument further than I already have.

 

Second, the idea that Bush is taking an absolutist stance is yet again your opinion and thus speculation.

 

My spoiler was just to show that the concept of Pet being a "puppet" is yet again just your opinion, and thus again speculation.

 

Ultimately your entire argument against these facts:

 

Pet says we're willing to negotiate.

Pet is the commander of the MNSTC.

Pet is a high ranking official in the Bush Administration.

Pet is the highest ranking official either governmentally and or militarily to make a statement concerning negotiations with Sadr

The United States has not contradicted Pet's statements.

 

Is simply your opinion and thus simply speculation.

[AstroProdigy]

When did I say Petraeus is a puppet?

 

Here's your proof for the US being willing to negotiate with Sadr.

 

Click here

 

Negotiation at its finest eh?

Edited May 23, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

Apologies, it wasn't you who alluded to that.

 

"The long-awaited military operation, which took place without the involvement of American ground forces"

 

"An Iraqi plan to mount an offensive was developed but shelved after negotiations between representatives from the Sadr movement and Shiite politicians led to a cease-fire accord.

 

That agreement permitted Iraqi troops to move throughout Sadr City."

 

Our only involvement:

 

"Late Monday night, the Americans removed slabs in the concrete wall they had erected to cordon the neighborhood, in order that Iraqi forces could p!@#$%^&* through. American M-1 tanks guarded the gaps throughout the rest of the night until the offensive began."

 

"No American ground forces accompanied the Iraqi troops, not even military advisers. But the Americans shared intelligence, coached the Iraqis during the planning and provided overhead reconnaissance throughout the operation. Still, the operation was very much an Iraqi plan."

 

I don't see anywhere in that article where it shows that the U.S. is not willing to negotiate. In fact we didn't even assist Iraq, our only big ally over there, with the offensive.

 

Yes that article is terribly !@#$%^&*ing. [/sarcasm]

[AstroProdigy]

Oooo I'm glad you fell into the trap of not reading through the whole article and making exactly the point I hoped you make.

 

"But the Americans shared intelligence, coached the Iraqis during the planning and provided overhead reconnaissance throughout the operation."

 

Sure the article is trying very hard to push the propaganda that the "Iraqi Army" is competent, but it did admit that the US was heavily involved and knew full well everything that was going on. Thanks for ignoring that part.

[NBVegita]

I read the full article.

 

Sharing intelligence and reconnaissance is not what I meant by "!@#$%^&*isting our ally"

 

You're treating the article as if we invaded Sadr ourselves.

 

Newsflash, if our ally is planning an offensive, and our ultimate goal is to train the Iraqi military to be self-sufficient, why in anyone's right mind would we not help them with intelligence/reconnaissance?

 

Just because we gave military intelligence to an ally does not signify that we are not willing to negotiate with the party we gave them intel on.

 

In fact if we refused to give Iraq intel it would be political suicide. We're supposed to be !@#$%^&*isting the Iraqi advancement into a stable military, not dictating what Iraq can and can't do.

 

Ultimately all that article shows is that Iraqi militants wanted to invade Sadr and the USA provided them with helpful information concerning the city.

 

Even prior to this attack, we have no clue what has actually occurred in Sadr. There could have been negotiations recently that went badly. Or a million other things to warrant attacking the city.

 

"Shiite militias began firing rockets at the fortified Green Zone from Sadr City in late March in response to the offensive in Basra."

 

Is just one example.

 

Ultimately Iraq needs to have one united power.

[AstroProdigy]

I read the full article.

 

Sharing intelligence and reconnaissance is not what I meant by "!@#$%^&*isting our ally"

 

You're treating the article as if we invaded Sadr ourselves.

 

Newsflash, if our ally is planning an offensive, and our ultimate goal is to train the Iraqi military to be self-sufficient, why in anyone's right mind would we not help them with intelligence/reconnaissance?

 

Just because we gave military intelligence to an ally does not signify that we are not willing to negotiate with the party we gave them intel on.

 

In fact if we refused to give Iraq intel it would be political suicide. We're supposed to be !@#$%^&*isting the Iraqi advancement into a stable military, not dictating what Iraq can and can't do.

 

Ultimately all that article shows is that Iraqi militants wanted to invade Sadr and the USA provided them with helpful information concerning the city.

 

Even prior to this attack, we have no clue what has actually occurred in Sadr. There could have been negotiations recently that went badly. Or a million other things to warrant attacking the city.

 

"Shiite militias began firing rockets at the fortified Green Zone from Sadr City in late March in response to the offensive in Basra."

 

Is just one example.

 

Ultimately Iraq needs to have one united power.

 

Well we did first start out with a massive air assault on Sadr City and the cutting up of 2 big pieces of it with walls. Then we shared intelligence with them and helped plan out the attack. Sounds like the US is trying to destroy the Mahdi Army to me.

 

We dictate what Iraq can and can't do all the time, but hey if it's something Bush wants them to do anyway then "we're supposed to be !@#$%^&*isting the Iraqi advancement into a stable military, not dictating what Iraq can and can't do".

 

I actually found out that the only reason Maliki and the Badr Organization's militias (the Iraqi Army) could go into Sadr City without massive American military intervention and not get annihilated was because of another ceasefire between Maliki and Sadr in which Sadr agreed to let Iraqi troops into Sadr City to do patrols as long as US troops weren't with them. Therefore, the Iraqi Army accomplished an assault on Sadr City without American military help with little trouble only because that was the deal. If we had sent American troops in that would have led to an actual conflict. Here's the link.

 

I'm not sure why Maliki decided to send so many troops all at one, but chances are it was to score a propaganda victory for the still gullible Americans that the Iraqi Army defeated Sadr in a battle. Considering that all the news reports were talking about how the Iraqi Army "did it all by themselves!" whereas the truce also stipulated not attacking Mahdi Army militia members and the heavy weapons that are supposed to be removed from Mahdi control have already been removed and hidden (as with the IED's that surprisingly disappeared before Iraqi troops moved in) there's no other way to see this, but as a propaganda move.

[NBVegita]

Sounds like the Iraq is trying to destroy Mahdi with U.S. help.

 

If we wanted to destroy Mahdi, it would be destroyed. Or at least mostly destroyed.

 

As for the propaganda, I thought we had already established that most if not all public statements are a form of propaganda, be it positive or negative.

 

And the way I cut propaganda is that most propaganda is just one person(s) view of the event/activity. It just so happens to be a public opinion.

 

Thats why I hate the use of the word, as you can classify almost every statement made in the news/media/public/military to be propaganda of some sort.

[AstroProdigy]

If we wanted to destroy the Mahdi Army, we'd have to destroy a large part of the population that supports them. That would only create for more recruitment to the Mahdi Army. Now do you see how insurgencies work?

 

Public opinion is what propaganda targets. When you see the media hailing Maliki sending troops into Sadr City as a great and shockingly oh so independent move without US troops then it looks like the government of Iraq is finally "standing on its own feet" and thus the occupation was good. When the truth is that there was a prior agreement to no resistance in return for only making patrols and without American troops involved you have to come to the conclusion that what happened in Basra would happen in Sadr City too (without American help which would prove my point). Therefore, if its not a victory, but instead an acknowledgment of failure, but is presented as a victory all over the American news then all it could be is propaganda.

 

I'm not saying the US media is controlled by the US government. That would be misleading and give too much credence to a mass unproven conspiracy. It's just that the US media is mostly owned by a handful of businesses and these businesses want sensational stories that make them a profit. The Bush administration, as we can all agree, is a master at propaganda and would be looking for anything that would make the occupation look better. I mean look at the "surge". That was a huge propaganda move to convince Americans that we have a real plan. In hindsight the surge by itself only increased the attacks on US soldiers and only the ceasefire with Sunni insurgents and the Mahdi Army reduced violence, but just about everyone was convinced the surge was working. All the media and all the politicians were in agreement that the surge was working yet the people who looked beyond the propaganda move (liberals mostly) could clearly see back then exactly what it was and what it would lead to. Bush wants to hand the Iraq War to the next president and he's doing a great job with it.

 

Don't kid yourself that the moves Maliki is making is independent. Even the attack on Basra was being planned with the US. They didn't want Sadrists to win in the upcoming provincial elections and take over Basra and some other southern provinces. The only way to stop them was to remove them physically. It was all being planned out, but Maliki was impatient and made the move sooner than he was supposed to and that's what was a surprise to Bush.

[NBVegita]

Remember astro, I'm not talking specculation.

 

In an argument about politics, you can't use specculation. In a discussion you can.

 

Your theory is flawed. If every time you killed a people their urge to fight became stronger, how is it that Husein was able to keep peace on the threat of m!@#$%^&* genocide? He killed more iraqi civilians, destroyed more rebel armies and managed to keep a more peaceful country than we have been able to do after 5 years of work.

 

After doing further research, the mahdi army is completely anti-U.S. It only makes sense that the U.S. would now encourage military action, being Sadr himself says he has no plans to negotiate with the U.S. I'm not calling them right or wrong, but when you have a rebel group who will not negotiate, there is only one course of action to take. (Note: By saying Sadr will not negotiate with us does not mean we are not willing to negotiate with them)

 

As I said, you can call just about every statement made publically propaganda. Even stating the truth publically falls under the blanket of propaganda (for the most part).

[FMBI]

Your theory is flawed. If every time you killed a people their urge to fight became stronger, how is it that Husein was able to keep peace on the threat of m!@#$%^&* genocide? He killed more iraqi civilians, destroyed more rebel armies and managed to keep a more peaceful country than we have been able to do after 5 years of work.

 

That's a nice theory, the only problem is that it's two totally different things. Hussein had complete control of the nation, had secret police, and was ready to take any steps necessary to remain in power (which is the reason we knocked him out so easily in '03 - he was more worried about the home front than about a US invasion) - and, most importantly, although he was an absolute dictator, he delivered. Even after we bombed the !@#$%^&* out of Iraq and then applied incredibly devastating sanctions, he kept the place running, albeit at a much lower level of prosperity.

 

The US, on the other hand, went in with virtually no force, had no plan to pacify civilians through force or peaceful coercion, relies on "the other sect" (IE Sunni v Shia or Shia v Sunni) to make their own death squads to hunt down opponents of peace, and we've kept saying "We're handing power over" without making any attempt to, thus making both us and the Iraqi "government" look bad. And I won't even get into the "reconstruction," - the majority of the funds were just skimmed off and never went anywhere, and a lot of the rest went to useless projects ($50 million hospital in a town without power, anyone?).

 

It's two entirely different situations. Saddam was a ruthless, arrogant !@#$%^&*, but he made good on his promises - the US preached "peace" and "democracy," then did virtually nothing for the people on the ground, all the while indiscriminately killing (or hiring Iraqis to kill) civilians.

 

People under Saddam didn't have the power, or the reason, to stand up to him, whereas in the case of the US, they see an oppressive foreign power that has a lot of strike force but no staying power, and therefore they can easily undermine us in the long term by creating local "free concerned citizens" who are willing to avenge the death of their fathers, brothers, or (in all too many cases) mothers or sisters.

 

After doing further research, the mahdi army is completely anti-U.S. It only makes sense that the U.S. would now encourage military action, being Sadr himself says he has no plans to negotiate with the U.S. I'm not calling them right or wrong, but when you have a rebel group who will not negotiate, there is only one course of action to take. (Note: By saying Sadr will not negotiate with us does not mean we are not willing to negotiate with them)

 

Uhh.. you've backtracked about 15 times on this now, you wanna give up or switch positions again?

 

And as for why the Mahdi army might be anti-US.. I don't even want to go into the cliches, but what would you think if you were part of a populist movement that had worked to gain the will of the people during a tyrant's reign at home, and then an invading power came in, took out that leader, and then made your life worse after promising to make it better? I'd be pissed as !@#$%^&*. Your "when you have a rebel group that will not negotiate" statement is about as logical as saying that we had a right to bomb Cambodia and trigger Pol Pot's genocide because the North Vietnamese were heading through on their way to the RVN.

 

And finally.. think through the bull!@#$%^&* and ask yourself, once and for all, what "right" we have to be there in the first place. We invaded, found no WMDs (please, mention the 20-year old Chems that everyone already knew he had.. come on), triggered the death or relocation of an estimated 5 million people (compare that to Hurricane Katrina?), and we're still failing in the "duty" to the Iraqis that the neocons make so much out of. Yes, we've still got "good" news coming in, but the problem is that we aren't the ones benefiting from that. As soon as it's feasible, the groups that are currently "cooperating" with the US will drive us out, because it will gain them even more support - and the US is at least partly to blame for that because we've refused to make an actual peace, we've just pushed for temporary, unofficial peaces to gain a fighting advantage (which is what they're doing right now, and what you seem to be so angry about).

 

And on a related issue that is being oddly ignored by the (shamelessly liberal propaganda machine)* media - what would happen if the US withdrew tomorrow? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. There'd be a short-term flareup, probably a few thousand people would die (which is a tiny amount in comparison to what we - and, admittedly, our opponents - have done), and then it would quiet down. Why? Because in a proxy war, the ammo only lasts so long, and only one belligerent can gain complete support without outside intervention. There have been dozens of long-term civil wars, but almost every single one of them lasted as long as they did because of constant help and support (contras, Afghanistan, Sudan atm, Lebanese civil war [arms traffickers], Korean war, Chinese Civil War, and the "South African Border War") - if the outside powers stop screwing around, then the locals take care of things on their own - and, contrary to current belief in the US, it often isn't as bad as when the higher powers keep screwing things up. The victorious powers know that they have limited resources, and they know that if they're too harsh, the losers can start a new movement to at least put a thorn in their side, and possibly overthrow them. Compare this to great power intervention, where you have nearly unlimited resources stretching across a vast distance, and you have no need to really worry about the fate of the losers.

 

The only feasible option is for the US to leave Iraq, because, as Howard Dean (slimy, slippery, slick, !@#$%^&* that he is) said, it is a war that cannot be won. The consequences of the US "winning"** are to stay in Iraq, spend trillions more on the war, dislocate even more Iraqis, create permanent tension in the near east, ensure that the EU will aspire to military power as well as economic power (reversing a trend that they've been pursuing for quite a long time - and it'll be directed at us), and cause even more harm to the Iraqi oil fields (some of them have been permanently damaged by the methods we used to "repair" them during the war). On top of all that, the US is already struggling to stay afloat (as some commentators have been pointing out, 90% of the populace never escaped the 2001 recession - in addition, with virtually nil growth rates for this year, consider what growth rates would have been if CPI gave an accurate picture of the economy - say, instead of 3% price rises, how about the 15% that really happened?) - it is impossible to maintain this war past the 10th anniversary, and there is no conceivable benefit to staying that long. If we want to "win" the war in a way that could actually be classified as winning, we'd have to stay in for a total of 15-20 years, and even then Iraq would still be little more than a client state with old US military equipment. If you're willing to spend another trillion for a small gain (or perhaps none at all, as the violence is likely to flare up again, and then the "gains" of the surge will evaporate - get out while you're ahead, as the saying goes), then you're welcome to it, but I don't see the point.

 

*That's called sarcasm.

**In the current media usage of the term.

[NBVegita]

First off I implicitly stated I'm not calling it right or wrong so that we don't go even further off track debating the concept of why we're in Iraq.

 

Second it was not back tracking, it was supporting why, besides the fact that the Iraqi army is our ally, we would help them attack Sadr.

 

Third my statement about Saddam was not to show a parallel, just to show that insurgents are not black and white as Astro was attempting to portray.

 

I'd love to see if you have a single viewpoint that isn't morbidly cataclysmic.