MM

Man you can make me laugh, this decision came hard to me ted, me being a Neo-con warmonger and all.

I'm glad I could make you laugh, I know this couldn't have been an easy decision (nor an easy article to write).

I'll just add this though. All over the world people see images of Americans killing each other here in the states. They see our murder rates, our gang activity and all the other violence.

Many come off thinking that that is how all Americans truly are. They think that all of us live in constant fear of being murdered every day.

We know that isn't true because we know that most of us will never see the violence that goes on in some parts of our country.

That is how I see what is going on in Iraq. The elections and other situations showed us that Iraqis DO want to be free. Most ARE able to live peacefully with the "others" without killing them.

Hoever, since we get nothing but a constant diet of the violence and bombings over there, it is easy for us to fall for the same misconceptions people in other countries have about us.

Reactionary politics seems to be the only thing motivating anyone today. Everything is the end of the world. We can't continue making huge policy changes based on single incidents anymore. Not if we want to help Iraq to be free... Not if we want to continue to be free...

"As a corollary, does the presence of our soldiers, as a partial buffer, potentially disincentivize some Iraqi citizens from acting to correct these problems."

If there were anything they could really do, but I don't think there is much. The average Iraqi has as much chance defeating terrorists there as the average Columbian has of doing something about the drug cartels.

I agree with some here that we are too hands off. I think these strongholds of insurgency have to be broken without care of international disdain. I think we need to stop coddling people like Sadr and let him know that he either does all he can to stop violence or he'll have to start watching for drones like the rest of the loons.

Rewarding him by giving people like him Iraq on a silver platter though? Not hardly. Our mistake isn't leaving, it's not returning the violence onto the people who openly promote it.

15 by Demosthenes Locke Friday, February 24, 2006

but an unwillingness on the visible parties to negotiate to any extent

exactly, the Sunnis left the barginning table as soon as the Shiites retaliated for the bombing of their second most sacred Mosque, the sunnies should have stayed and denounced the bombing. Instead they used it as an excuse to run away and not negotiate.

17 by BakerStreet Friday, February 24, 2006

"As a corollary, does the presence of our soldiers, as a partial buffer, potentially disincentivize some Iraqi citizens from acting to correct these problems." If there were anything they could really do, but I don't think there is much

they citizens could be just "giving up the terrorist" and let the authorities handle it. Like most neighborhoods they know who belongs and who does not.

If there were anything they could really do, but I don't think there is much. The average Iraqi has as much chance defeating terrorists there as the average Columbian has of doing something about the drug cartels.

This argument, however, is pitting individuals against a group. I agree that an individual will not be able to trump the power held by a group. But what's to prevent those individuals from forming their own counter group for the purpose of opposing that which is harming them?

I pose this more as devil's advocate than anything.

The only way to handle an insurgency is with brutal, overwhelming force. It should be dealt with as a display of our capacity and capability. Hands off should be reserved for times of peace, and in times of peace, we should do our best to not impede in the day to day affairs of other countries.

How do you propose to do this, though? Maybe by just starting to kill off any leaders who are impeding progress? Strategic strikes have been used by Israel for years, but they never seemed to curb terrorist attacks for long.

I don't think people have enough of a commitment to this war to accept any form of a draft. Were this an ideological war, perhaps that would change. Although it may now involve foreign combatants, this was still a war between two countries(okay a coalition and a country) with different ideological bases.

At times, it seems as though we are painting ourselves into a corner, since the cause is not so elegant and the specter not so great as to raise people's ire, as in say WWII.

#20 by Demosthenes Locke Friday, February 24, 2006

This argument, however, is pitting individuals against a group. I agree that an individual will not be able to trump the power held by a group. But what's to prevent those individuals from forming their own counter group for the purpose of opposing that which is harming them?

with all the weapons in Iraq the people could rise up and rid the country of terrorist if they wanted to. As of now the average citizen has the luxury of not having to fight due to others fighting for them.

I believe this great country {America} would not be as great if we let the french do all the fighting of the British in the revolutionary war, as the first American sat on the sidelines and watched.

We are great because of average men that were willing to spill their own blood for FREEDOM.

"with all the weapons in Iraq the people could rise up and rid the country of terrorist if they wanted to. As of now the average citizen has the luxury of not having to fight due to others fighting for them."

Hmmm, so Iraqi civilians can stop insurgents armed with bombs, RPGs, and automatic weapons, when the US with billions of dollars, advanced military and law enforcement can't stop gangs armed with saturday night specials and cheap semi-autos? The NRA has 4 million memebers or so in the US. There are many, many more people with guns here. Why don't we rise up and stop people from making our inner cities war zones?

I think you are being a bit judgemental, and, frankly, a bit hypocritical. If you think about it, you're asking a lot of people with a lot less resources and who have lived in a regime for 30 years that trained them to fear and stay silent. We have a lot of well-armed folks in Iraq. You really think that Iraqi civilians can do something they can't?

Or is it you think we are bound by particular rules and you want the Iraqi people to abandon them and kill people they think are a threat wholesale? I differ with some of our rules, don't get me wrong. If you think it is a bloodbath now, though, you just tell Iraqis to head out into the streets with guns and kill whoever their bias leads them to believe is a threat.

22 by BakerStreet Friday, February 24, 2006

Hmmm, so Iraqi civilians can stop insurgents armed with bombs, RPGs, and automatic weapons,

are not the Insurgents just armed civilians? not the terrorists, the insurgents.

Seems to me the Iraqis are not involved enough in fighting for their own freedom.

It is headed for civil war baker, no matter how you cut it, for too long the people of Iraq were subjugated and to many feuds that will boil over. We over threw Saddam, let them work it out.

I would appreciate it if you did not call me a a hypoctite, just because we disagree on some things.
A free man and clear thinker can change their mind about things, and that is all I did, change my mind.

it's not "all of a sudden" this decision comes after years of thinking and watching
The Muslims are nuts killing each other, we ned to let them work out their own problems. - Moderateman

May I say, "Wow".

It takes nuts, to openly change your mind and proclaim your stance particularly after your support for the Iraq war.

Good job. Yes, I like the change of position you've made, but that's not the reason I say good job, it's because of this:

A free man and clear thinker can change their mind about things, and that is all I did, change my mind. - Moderateman

I don't know if Iraq is already on the road to civil war, but I would say I've thought the risk a highly plausible one. Yes, I agree Iraqis will have to fight for freedom and establish their own government by their own volition.

Hypocrite: One who says one thing and acts in a contradictorily.

You're words aren't out of line with your step.

A corollary of Baker's point is that this stuff is much more in our faces than what goes on here in our own country. The gang violence & daily mayhem that occurs here is accepted as ordinary & is rarely newsworthy on a national level. Everything bad that happens every day in Iraq is "news" here because the media have an agenda - convincing people like Mod that the war is & has been not worth it. The media formed the conclusion that the war was unjustified long ago & have been doing everything they can to make their case ever since, spectacularizing everything that supports their preformed opinions and ignoring most everything else. I'm sad that Mod has fallen victim to them, though I certainly respect his right to change his mind after consideration.

The media formed the conclusion that the war was unjustified long ago & have been doing everything they can to make their case ever since, spectacularizing everything that supports their preformed opinions and ignoring most everything else. I'm sad that Mod has fallen victim to them. - Daiwa

Possibly. However, the speculation that Iraq would fall into civil war doesn't necessitate an agenda. The mere fact that it is such a plausibility is what held some from supporting our involvement in Iraq in the first place - not mere politics, e.g.; Bush bashing.

Finding the reasons behind possible civil war in Iraq will be tomorrow's debate - it should have been yesterday's debate had there been thoughtful consideration of all the elements involved before going to war with Iraq. Unfortunately we only received scare tactics and some heart-string pulling to soothe bleeding hearts.

I very much hope it has not been only the recent reports of unrest in Iraq that has persuaded ModerateMan to change his position. I would be curious to hear what has been going through his mind that made him come to this decision.

"Perhaps it would confuse them if we ran away more!" ~ Monty Python & the Holy Grail. - ParaTed2k

Very, very funny.

You can't lay that on the average Muslim, though. If the average Muslim in Iraq were killing people, there would be blood running in the streets - Bakerstreet

Self-cleaning oven, anyone?

Everything is the end of the world. We can't continue making huge policy changes based on single incidents anymore. - ParaTed2k

This, however, is not funny, but equally as true as your other quote I commented on. This is the way I saw 9/11. Everyone running scared, making huge detrimental policy changes based on a single incident - with no looking to the future.

Hypocrite: One who says one thing and acts in a contradictorily. - moi

Dang. I can't edit my remarks.

The sentence should read:

Hypocrite: One who says one thing and acts contradictorily.

"It is headed for civil war baker, no matter how you cut it, for too long the people of Iraq were subjugated and to many feuds that will boil over. We over threw Saddam, let them work it out."

You have to ask yourself WHY they are headed for a civil war. Because they want to kill each other? If these splintered factions wanted to do that, there would have been a heavy toll in lives from day one, and bombs like the one we have seen would have been going off daily.

You said it yourself. Iraq is full of armament. Why haven't they been using it? Because the average Iraqi wants peace. What is happening now is they are being goaded into civil war by people who aren't even Iraqis, preying on the splintered nature of their nation. Why do you think that insurgents have been targeting Iraqis since day one?

So, do we make it a success for al Qaeda and Iran and the rest that will benefit for a destabilized Iraq? The only way it would end is from Iraq being torn into three peices and ceasing to exist. Those pieces will then just become puppets for larger powers like Lebanon has been for 30 years, and they'll be strongholds, jumping-off points for terrorist organizations.

That would be an utter failure of what we are trying to do there. If you want to give up, fine, but accept that it is defeat and admit that we are surrendering Iraq to those who want to bust it up and use the pieces against us.

24 by Deference Friday, February 24, 2006

May I say, "Wow". It takes nuts, to openly change your mind and proclaim your stance particularly after your support for the Iraq war.

dunno about nuts, deference, just takes an open mind and some serious soul searching.

#25 by Daiwa Friday, February 24, 2006

I'm sad that Mod has fallen victim to them, though I certainly respect his right to change his mind after consideration.

not really, I am fully aaware of the MSM and how they twist things to suit there own agenda.

My change came from serious consideration of all the facts and the fact is these nutjobs {iraq} are going to get there revenge on each other.