posted
Significant contingents, maybe. But we're talking over 40% swings in a lot of countries in the negative direction.
There were a lot of talks about the US being "unified" with 70% approval. So I guess I'm working off of that baseline.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't "buy into it." But there is something of value in what was said.
Many of the insurgents currently fighting in Iraq, and funding those insurgents in Iraq, are from out of Iraq. Iran, Syria, whoever, they're contributing. And it's the same story in Afghanistan only worse, because we aren't really making a hardcore effort to roll them back.
I thought there was still a significant number of people who boycotted the second election. I'm happy to be wrong about that. Significant pro-American factions in Iran don't influence the government not to send support to those actually fighting Americans in Iraq, and pro-American forces in Afghanistan are hiding in small villages or caves, to say nothing of the fact that recent reports have said that due to our lack of progress in Afghanistan, that popular opinion is swinging against us and towards the WARLORDS, of all people, if for no other fact than they provide stability.
I don't think the Middle East is a united against us, certainly not united in the sense that Europe is united (which is in itself a joke at times). But, I think "Which is it: unifying the Middle East or creating pervasive sectarian violence there?" is a misleading question, because it assumes that it CAN'T be both, that it must be one or the other. While I don't necessarily think there is enough evidence to prove it all conslusively, I still don't like the question, as the situation is not static there. Things change daily. For all we know, when (not if) we leave, the problems we leave behind will create that much more anti-American sentiment against us.
Any minority, no matter how big or small will automatically disprove that they are "united" against us. But either way I think that is a ridiculous burden of proof. I'd bet everything I have that there are more Americans in the US that were and are against the war, than there are people in the Middle East united against us, and yet there's still a war of American aggression over there, which OUR minority was powerless to stop, to say nothing of the fact that over there it doesn't matter what the majority or minority want. Totalitarian governments do what they are going to do, without polling data, and if you don't like it, you can leave the country and join a terrorist group with little to no domestic consequence for the most part.
I might not buy into what Lalo is saying on the whole, but that doesn't make me incapable of noticing a good point amidst the muck, and I'm kind of surprised that you can't see it. Mayhaps if you weren't so busy being Hatrack's hall monitor you could have.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Unified" does not mean simply sharing one opinion. At least two people on this thread have been rather insistent at times that there either is or very soon will be a civil war in Iraq.
That's not unified.
And it matters.
It especially bears pointing out when one is calling someone else's shallow analysis of a situation dumb.
Your hall monitor crack aside, I see a lot of ill-thought-out pot-shots taken at not only politicians but a large segment of the body politic. It's tiresome. The anti-Bush contingent on this board is regularly dismissive and insulting to people who don't agree with their more extreme views. We've got shrill voices calling people stupid, or dupes, or immoral, or any one of a number of other insults here, certainly every week if not every day.
So I'm not going to let you insult me into attempting to extract a meaningful point out of the muck.
if Lalo wants his ideas to be analyzed or discussed, he can stop coating them in much.
Until then, I'll be a "hall monitor" as much as I want to be.
I've spent an enormous amount of time trying to inject facts into hysterical conversations. As soon as any rational analysis is injected into a thread that opens with a link to a lie-laden rant on a piece of legislation, all the people complaining about habeas corpus being destroyed and torture being approved - not to mention challenges to a law in court being criminalized - seem to dry up and move on to the next political hack link.
So when someone decides to not even link a bad source to support their calumny, I'm not going to restrain myself any more than the TOS requires me to.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two guys are fighting in the street. They revile everything that the other person stands for. A third guy walks up and tells them both to settle down, and realizing that this is a guy they both hate more than each other, they kill him, then go back to fighting.
And again, you seem to be asserting that sectarian violence and unified anti-US violence are mutually exclusive, and I see no proof of that. I don't see the proof, and while I see the logic behind it, I also see the logic behind both of them being true at the same time, which I also have no proof of. So proclaiming one true and the other false seems a fairly silly thing to say, especially, ESPECIALLY, coming from someone who spends a majority of his time in these types of threads attacking the veracity of people's statements and calling everyone and their brother out for not citing sources, like this message board is one giant term paper.
I'd ask for elaboration on what "The anti-Bush contingent on this board is regularly dismissive and insulting to people who don't agree with their more extreme views" means, but I don't want to derail this thread.
Much of the time I appreciate what I'd call a service that you perform on these boards. It isn't partisan, at least not that I've noticed as a trend, with you. But to be honest, sometimes it doesn't matter. When you take what Lalo said, and I'm just talking about that one sentence for the moment, about a united Middle East, and make a point of refuting it, and then expanding on it, and on, and on, it's ridiculous. I think you know that he wasn't intending his statement to mean that 100% of the Middle East is against us, in the same sense that a "united" United States can still have a 40% disapproval rating and still everyone says "united," which is to say nothing of the so-called "coalition" that was put together to prosecute this war to begin with. There was little extraction necessary in Lalo's statement, it was there, right on top, waiting to be plucked out, but you mucked the whole then together and pounced, and I think it's silly.
As a side note, so far as linking to sources goes, I'm at the point on this board where I don't even care so much when it comes to political discussions. Any link I come up with is going to have ten links from my opposition that refutes what I'm saying. The validity of my source will be discredited as partisan, because two people looking at the same site on this board can still come up with differing opinions on which particular political slant that site is made up of. So what's the point? Hard facts, hard evidence is still discredited. The only people who'll believe me are the ones that already agree with me, and everyone else will spend their time sniping at it until we all give up and go home. I just don't think it is worth the effort in what is supposed to be my precious little leisure time. And I know you feel the same way, as I've seen you say as much at least a half dozen times on various threads. But take from this what you will, and continue to do what you do. Regardless of how annoying I might find it a minority of the time it happens, I'd rather you continue to keep people honest than participate in the crap throwing that can go on around here.
I'd also add, in closing, on the subject of proving one's argument, that inability to provide a link does NOT automatically discredit the argument. I can say that the sky is blue, but not feel like looking for the link that talks about light wavelengths and whatever else is involved in the reasoning behind it, but that doesn't make my argument untrue, it makes me either tired, lazy, or busy. Using the lack of a link as an argument is weak, just as weak as it would be if the equivilant tactic were used in national politics at higher levels.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Two guys are fighting in the street. They revile everything that the other person stands for. A third guy walks up and tells them both to settle down, and realizing that this is a guy they both hate more than each other, they kill him, then go back to fighting.
Except their not doing that, are they. They're spending three times as much effort - maybe 10 times as much - to kill each other.
quote:think you know that he wasn't intending his statement to mean that 100% of the Middle East is against us,
And I didn't say it had to be 100%. You're doing to my point what you claim - but which I didn't do - to Lalo's. There are significant pro-American sectors in the middle east, and likely many people who are more or less neutral toward us. And, if you go by power rather than numbers - which I wouldn't normally, but has quite a bit of relevance when discussing the effects - there is even more pro-American sentiment in the middle east.
No one has even addressed the specifics of non-anti-American sentiment that I've pointed out.
quote: that inability to provide a link does NOT automatically discredit the argument.
Of course not. But, you'll note, Lalo didn't attempt to prove anything. Every single sentence is a conclusion. He didn't even attempt to state premises. Adding a cheesy link is easier than adding an actual chain of reasoning, which is why I stated it as "not even link a bad source." It's the lowest amount of effort someone can put into attempting to do more than simply state conclusions. There are many better ways to support one's conclusions that don't involve links. Lalo didn't bother to do any of those, either.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will B: imagine the strip, except that after every spraying (for whatever cause), there are suddenly many more wasps. If you were spraying a wasp's nest, yet every time you sprayed it there were more wasps, would you keep spraying it? That's why the strip doesn't work.
No matter what the cause of it, after our invasion of Iraq there were more terrorists. The strip can't accuse Democrats of not being willing to do what's needed to get the last terrorists that have already been whittled down by 'spraying' because the terrorists haven't been whittled down. There are more terrorists to get, and most of what we're doing in Iraq isn't even related to them (as it shouldn't be -- Iraq is about rebuilding, not antiterrorism).
We haven't even whittled down the sectarian violence in Iraq itself, much less terrorism around the world.
Of course, I disagree with many Democrats (and Bush, too) on the needed approach. I want to see a much larger US presence in Iraq where we actually do the things we have obligated ourselves to do, instead of either leaving or the insufficient efforts that we keep using despite them not working.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But gosh darn it, there were only three terrorists left. If only the token liberal had let me finish gassing them and their young in their homes, we wouldn't get stung anymore because we would have eliminated all the terrorists, because terrorists are a species with no culture or communication and can be dealt with, consequence-free, via regional elimonation of their race.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In case you hadn't noticed, the Iraqis are killing each other.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: They're spending three times as much effort - maybe 10 times as much - to kill each other.
It's a lot easier to kill an Iraqi civilian, police officer, or soldier than it is to kill a much-better-equipped and protected American soldier. I think that significantly more Iraqis than Americans die on a per-attack basis -- consider this graph, which goes up to July. I haven't been able to find a more recent version, but I think both the dark blue and light blue bars would be longer now.
[Edited to insert the second quote.]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I feel like integrating my view into the analogy --
The Bush administration has been spraying the wasps nest, yet even though wasps are dying, there are more and more wasps there.
They want to keep spraying with the same old spray. (And replace some of the spray with the weak knock-off 'Iraqis standing up as we stand down' spray).
Many democrats in power see this and want to stop spraying and leave the area of the nest.
I (and hopefully others) see this and think its time to break out the industrial-strength anti-wasp spray.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
More soldiers, more capital, more openness on contracts (particularly get rid of this only-American-companies-get-contracts thing; the company that would do the job the best and cheapest should get the job. We're rebuilding a country there, we shouldn't be shortchanging the people there to better ourselves).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually currently in favour of American withdrawal under something resembling the McGovern-Polk plan.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that Iraq is the lynchpin that holds together a lot of political and military careers, do you really think that there are honestly significantly more to send? It seems extremely unlikely to me. Also, I've read articles (such as Slate) that have said that the military in Iraq and around the world is stretched as far as it will go.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, according to the Atlantic,one of the largest reasons that we have failed isn't so much because of lack of soldiers as it is that we haven't protected what we secure. That is, we take over a village, promise protection, then leave. Insurgents come in, shoot the mayor and police as an example of what happens to collaborationists.
The reason the soldiers have left these villages is, if I remember correctly, because of political objectives of chasing down high profile figures, not because they needed to leave.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I totally agree about corruption being a problem. 60 minutes profiled some of that corruption last night, to the tune of abouta billion dollars or so.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, when I've outlined my plans in more detail, rearranging priorities are involved. I was focusing above on the assets that would be required.
The military in Iraq and around the world is stretched as far as it can go without creating a political storm in the US -- that is, it would involve calling up far more members of the national guard, and sending troops on longer deployments instead of the shortest-feasible rotations they aim for now.
As to the national guard, this seems to me to be so obvious, I don't understand why it hasn't been done already. So, I'm kind of suspicious about whether or not it can be done without going below some minimum level of home/international defense or something.
I like your plan, but I think the political storm would be such that I wonder if it would be feasible. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't have just done a Germany on Iraq and just said that we're going to be there for the next 60 years mimimum, and if things are stable, then, we'll go home, if not, another 60 years. I do think a lot of things could have been solved if we had just done that.
If only Europe would send more troops. I know, I make me laugh sometimes, too. :/
quote:Except their not doing that, are they. They're spending three times as much effort - maybe 10 times as much - to kill each other.
And you're basing that on what? The fact that more Iraqis are dead than Americans? It's harder to cut a pineapple than a stick of butter with a knife. The terrorists are knives, we're pineapples, the civilians are butter. They're getting cut to ribbons by gunmen, and many of them don't have guns, and don't patrol wearing kevlar vests with ceramic armor inserts, and they don't have M-16s or drive in armored Bradleys.
I've seen zero evidence, numbers, or even suggestions from anything resembling an official that the insurgents are expending more resources attacking civilians than soldiers. There's less of us, more of them, we're heavily armed and protected, they're soft targets who get blown up in markets.
As for your second and third points, I disagree with the second, and the third, I wasn't referring to Lalo specifically, I was just musing in general.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, there's a book, and a summary of the plan was in the October 2006 issue of Harper's (which is where I read it). Some Googling turned up this, which purports to be a summary of the summary.
Lyrhawn, I posted a link to some data near the bottom of the previous page.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you're basing that on what? The fact that more Iraqis are dead than Americans? It's harder to cut a pineapple than a stick of butter with a knife. The terrorists are knives, we're pineapples, the civilians are butter. They're getting cut to ribbons by gunmen, and many of them don't have guns, and don't patrol wearing kevlar vests with ceramic armor inserts, and they don't have M-16s or drive in armored Bradleys.
You shouldn't have assumed that was my reason before wasting your effort refuting it.
To start with, in their choice of targets. The insurgents target U.S. troops more than they target Iraqis. However, the insurgents make up a minority of the factions in Iraq. Sunni-Shiite violence is high. The Shi'a have target the U.S. very little. They are fighting each other far, far more than they are fighting us. Also, a large number of Iraqis fight on the same side as us.
The issue is whether they are unified against us. It's clear they aren't. If two sides spend significant efforts to kill each other, and only of those sides attack us, there's no credible way to claim unification against us.
quote:I've seen zero evidence, numbers, or even suggestions from anything resembling an official that the insurgents are expending more resources attacking civilians than soldiers.
If the premise "the insurgents are expending more resources attacking civilians than soldiers" mattered to my claim, you might have a point. But it doesn't.
The group being considered is not "the insurgents." It's Iraqis as a whole. Many fight on our side, many fight those fighting us and don't fight us themselves, and others fight us and others. That ain't unified against us.
quote:As for your second and third points, I disagree with the second,
You disagree that there are significant pro-American contingents in the middle east?
posted
Side issue: "they are killing each other." In some cases -- armed conflict between militaries and gang warfare -- "they" really are killing "each other." When a terrorist kills an innocent bystander, this isn't an "each other" deal; the bystander wasn't killing anyone.
I think it matters. "They're killing each other" is often used as a justification for turning compassion away from those who are merely unlucky.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
This sideargument has already gone on a half dozen posts longer than it should have, and I honestly just don't care enough to respond. So, you win. Congrats.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: To start with, in their choice of targets. The insurgents target U.S. troops more than they target Iraqis. However, the insurgents make up a minority of the factions in Iraq. Sunni-Shiite violence is high. The Shi'a have target the U.S. very little. They are fighting each other far, far more than they are fighting us. Also, a large number of Iraqis fight on the same side as us.
While I agree with your larger point to an extent, the data I posted at the bottom of page one includes attacks against Iraqi civilians. Up until July (again, I haven't found more recent data), attacks against Iraqis (including both security forces and civilians) were less common than attacks against the coalition. However, the definition of an "enemy-initiated" attack is unclear. If someone blows up a car full of Iraqis, but it's unknown whether the perpetrator was an insurgent (and how do you tell that, anyway?), does it count as an "enemy-initiated" attack?
If you have data handy supporting your "far, far more" claim, I'd like to see it, because I've been looking for it myself and haven't found it. Don't waste time hunting around if you don't have it on hand, though, because I'm sure I'll manage to hunt something down eventually.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: To this end, we think that the Iraqi government would be wise to request the temporary services of an international stabilization force to police the country during and immediately after the period of American withdrawal.
Why doesn't this mythical international force help out now?
quote: It would not attempt, as have American troops, to battle the insurgents. Indeed, after the withdrawal of American troops, as well as British regular troops and mercenary forces, the insurgency, which was aimed at achieving that objective, would almost immediately begin to lose public support. Insurgent gunmen would either put down their weapons or become publicly identified as outlaws....
I don't mean to offend, but this part really did make me rofl in real life.
Chaotic armed bands of gunmen are going to evaporate in the presence of a decreased military power because of lack of public support? Who do these guys think they are, politicians to go away when the polls are down?
Otherwise, some good ideas in the link. As I've already agreed with Fugu, independent auditing is a good thing.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This sideargument has already gone on a half dozen posts longer than it should have, and I honestly just don't care enough to respond. So, you win. Congrats.
Wow. What the hell was that about. You seem to be angry that I continued to discuss something you also continued to discuss.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just making a quick point to begin with, I didn't want to start a lengthy debate, and here we are doing point counterpoint over something I never really cared about enough to put forth my own opinions on to begin with, so I'm done arguing on behalf of the merits of someone else's.
Not your fault, I should've kept quiet before I even started.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:To this end, we think that the Iraqi government would be wise to request the temporary services of an international stabilization force to police the country during and immediately after the period of American withdrawal.
Why doesn't this mythical international force help out now?
If they did, they would be tarred with the same brush as U.S. troops, and thus attacked by the same people who are attacking U.S. troops now.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote:It would not attempt, as have American troops, to battle the insurgents. Indeed, after the withdrawal of American troops, as well as British regular troops and mercenary forces, the insurgency, which was aimed at achieving that objective, would almost immediately begin to lose public support. Insurgent gunmen would either put down their weapons or become publicly identified as outlaws....
I don't mean to offend, but this part really did make me rofl in real life.
Chaotic armed bands of gunmen are going to evaporate in the presence of a decreased military power because of lack of public support?
"Evaporate," no. I don't agree with them that it would be immediate. However, I do think it wouldn't take all that long. The insurgency continues because the people support it. The government wants you there; the people want you gone, as evidenced by both polls and attacks. I think the continued presence of American troops in Iraq is far and away the single most aggravating factor in the ongoing violence.
Obviously there's a real risk that Iraq could descend fully into civil war, though I don't think that's a foregone conclusion as others seem to. In either case, however, I don't think there is a number of American troops that can realistically be deployed to Iraq that could prevent the outbreak of civil war in the face of determination to wage one by sufficient numbers on both sides.
I don't think the McGovern-Polk withdrawal plan is a wonderful thing, but at the moment I'm tentatively calling it the least bad of the realistic options I can see.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To this end, we think that the Iraqi government would be wise to request the temporary services of an international stabilization force to police the country during and immediately after the period of American withdrawal.
Why doesn't this mythical international force help out now?
If they did, they would be tarred with the same brush as U.S. troops, and thus attacked by the same people who are attacking U.S. troops now.
Why wouldn't they become the new U.S. and attacked by the same people who are attacking U.S. troops now?
quote: quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote:It would not attempt, as have American troops, to battle the insurgents. Indeed, after the withdrawal of American troops, as well as British regular troops and mercenary forces, the insurgency, which was aimed at achieving that objective, would almost immediately begin to lose public support. Insurgent gunmen would either put down their weapons or become publicly identified as outlaws....
I don't mean to offend, but this part really did make me rofl in real life.
Chaotic armed bands of gunmen are going to evaporate in the presence of a decreased military power because of lack of public support?
"Evaporate," no. I don't agree with them that it would be immediate. However, I do think it wouldn't take all that long. The insurgency continues because the people support it.
A lot of the people support it because they fear for their lives and their loved ones lives, or did you not believe me when I posted about 'insurgents' murdering officials in various villages to make a point?
Do you genuinedly think that people want the U.S. gone because of what the U.S. has done to Iraqis? (edit: because we are worse than the alternative?)
Your argument seems to be that the presence of the U.S. induces in various groups in Iraq and elsewhere a kind of super nationalism to kick the U.S. out, and that once the U.S. (the enemy) is gone, they will coexist peacefully.
This is not true.
All the polls that I've seen have indicated that support has gone from high to low, not because the U.S. is the U.S., but because we can't provide security and people want order and security, no matter who can give it to them.
The reason there is chaos in Iraq is because there is not enough force to force order and quell those that are promoting chaos. WE are not promoting chaos, WE are promoting order.
Taking away force is only going to increase the ability of 'insurgents' to sow chaos and kill each other. As others have mentioned, many groups in Iraq are killing, raping, and molesting each other with cheerful abandon because they can. People turn to the various Islamist and warlords and whatnot for protection, not out of some hatred of the U.S.
quote: Obviously there's a real risk that Iraq could descend fully into civil war, though I don't think that's a foregone conclusion as others seem to.
Why not? If we leave, I will bet any amount of money you like the Kurds are going to split off and form their own state. How do you think Turkey is going to react to that?
If we leave, you think Iran is going to say, well, the U.S. is gone, I guess now that it's easier to have a friendly puppet country next door and bolster our security and power, we'll just stand down and bring our agents home because anything else would just be wrong. Yep.
quote: In either case, however, I don't think there is a number of American troops that can realistically be deployed to Iraq that could prevent the outbreak of civil war in the face of determination to wage one by sufficient numbers on both sides.
With international help, we can quell the violence. The choice to me is clear, the world can get is hands dirty and help the U.S. impose--yes, I said impose--order on Iraq, or it can stand by and watch it burn with clean hands.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why wouldn't they become the new U.S. and attacked by the same people who are attacking U.S. troops now?
Because, as the plan suggests, they would be Arabs. The overarching emphasis in the plan -- and what I think makes it the best of a sorry set of options at this point -- is on Arabs helping one another and them -- our -- selves.
quote:Do you genuinedly think that people want the U.S. gone because of what the U.S. has done to Iraqis?
No, though I do think that's part of it. Part of it is also the fear tactics that you describe.
quote:If we leave, I will bet any amount of money you like the Kurds are going to split off and form their own state. How do you think Turkey is going to react to that?
They might well do that, though I doubt it would be immediate since they're already essentially autonomous. The probable reaction of Turkey is one reason why they might be less inclined to separate in the near term.
quote:If we leave, you think Iran is going to say, well, the U.S. is gone, I guess now that it's easier to have a friendly puppet country next door and bolster our security and power, we'll just stand down and bring our agents home because anything else would just be wrong. Yep.
No, I don't think that.
(Smiley intended to denote friendliness, not snarkiness.)
quote:With international help, we can quell the violence.
I don't think this is true, and the international community's track record on this is not exactly stunning -- this is only tangentially related, but I'm reading about what's happening in the Congo these days and it honestly makes me want to cry.
I think as long as there are Western (especially U.S.) troops in Iraq, there will [for various reasons] be an insurgency, and it will be bloody.
I don't think your argument is unreasonable, and I can respect the position espoused by you and others who favour increased troop deployments from the U.S. and others. What I would essentially like to see from you is acknowledgement that you at least partially understand my position, even if you don't consider it to be reasonable, rather than the incredulity and sarcasm you've applied so far. I'm not trying to persuade you, and I'm not looking to be persuaded -- at least, not in this thread -- in a large part because my opinion is not yet fully formed. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you genuinedly think that people want the U.S. gone because of what the U.S. has done to Iraqis?
I think a very big factor is that somewhere around 70% of the Iraqi populace say that they don't believe that the U.S. is going to leave, no matter what the government says. There's a big difference between a single country (more or less) having troops on the ground and avoiding setting any definite conditions for leaving and a multi-national force who are in with a definite plan.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: What I would essentially like to see from you is acknowledgement that you at least partially understand my position, even if you don't consider it to be reasonable, rather than the incredulity and sarcasm you've applied so far. I'm not trying to persuade you, and I'm not looking to be persuaded -- at least, not in this thread -- in a large part because my opinion is not yet fully formed. [Smile]
I understand your position. I believe that you are a man of integrity and are proposing what you think is best for Iraq. My snarkiness is totally unwarranted.
I take full responsibility for getting angry and being snarky in this thread. I am ashamed to have brought those things to this thread, mostly because you have done nothing to deserve it. Please accept my sincere apologies.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I agree with your larger point to an extent, the data I posted at the bottom of page one includes attacks against Iraqi civilians. Up until July (again, I haven't found more recent data), attacks against Iraqis (including both security forces and civilians) were less common than attacks against the coalition. However, the definition of an "enemy-initiated" attack is unclear. If someone blows up a car full of Iraqis, but it's unknown whether the perpetrator was an insurgent (and how do you tell that, anyway?), does it count as an "enemy-initiated" attack?
I'm pretty sure that "enemy-initiated attacks" are targeted more at the coalition. But there are multiple Shiite and at least some Sunni's who are involved almost exclusively in the sectarian violence - i.e., attacks on each other.
So you have insurgent attacks on Iraqi forces/officials, insurgent attacks on Iraqi civilians, and non-insurgent attacks (which are against other Iraqis). This is the universe of attacks - the denominator.
And you could probably just quote the article in the thread, it only shows a sentence of it without a subscription.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said I was done arguing on behalf of the merits of someone else's point. Doesn't mean I still can't ask questions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So you have insurgent attacks on Iraqi forces/officials, insurgent attacks on Iraqi civilians, and non-insurgent attacks (which are against other Iraqis).
You said Shiite on Shiite attacks are insurgent, but there you said that attacks on other Iraqis are non insurgent attacks? Or did you mean Shiite militia on Shiite Militia?
Why don't attacks on civilians count as insurgent?
What about Sunnis/former Baathists? What about non-native Iraqis? What about any of those groups' attacks on coalition soldiers (which I would assume are automatically insurgent)?
Honest questions, the term insurgent is bandied about a lot all over the place, and it'd be nice to settle on a definition, which by the standards of our government means pretty much ANYONE who is attacking ANYONE over there that isn't government sanctioned.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You said Shiite on Shiite attacks are insurgent
I did?
quote:Why don't attacks on civilians count as insurgent?
Um, how do you get that from "insurgent attacks on Iraqi civilians"?
quote:Honest questions, the term insurgent is bandied about a lot all over the place, and it'd be nice to settle on a definition, which by the standards of our government means pretty much ANYONE who is attacking ANYONE over there that isn't government sanctioned.
Insurgents are those who want to overthrow the current Iraqi government, at least how I'm using it. There are definitely unsanctioned militia groups not classified as insurgents - there's a current program to try to convert them to regular Iraqi army, something not being offered to insurgents.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, apparently they have to be card carrying members of a militia group in order for them to register on your roster of insurgents. My bad.
quote:Shiite militia attacking police and other Shiite.
Okay, so, non Shiite militia attacks don't count as insurgent attacks, and "other Shiite" means...what?
And what does "Non-insurgent attacks (against other Iraqis)" mean?
And what about Sunnis/Baathists?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry, apparently they have to be card carrying members of a militia group in order for them to register on your roster of insurgents. My bad.
Lyrhawn, please lose the attitude. You've misquoted me several times now, and it's old. I did not say anyone had to be a card-carrying anything.
There are armed, violent groups that want to overthrow the government and groups that don't. I've called the former insurgents. It was a classification in order to list the types of people committing violent acts over there. I'm not sure why you're so hot about it, and I'm not sure why you keep misstating my position.
quote:Okay, so, non Shiite militia attacks don't count as insurgent attacks, and "other Shiite" means...what?
Those would be the people other than the police being attacked by the Shiite militias that were the subject of the sentence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Misquoted? I'll cop to the sarcasm, but every quote in my last lost is exactly what YOU said. So you're either blind, or you're pretty ridiculous for calling me a liar.
I'm not misstating your opinion, I don't understand your opinion.
You're making contradictory statements one after the other, and they don't mesh. You've limited it to Shiites, or else you aren't, and just haven't mentioned the other groups involved, so I'll leave that as an undecided on your part rather than assigning a position to you.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You said that the insurgency was "Shiite militia attacking police and other Shiite."
You didn't mention the Sunni and or Baathist parties involved with the insurgency, so I wanted to know if they are included in your definition, or if you are excluding them, and why you are doing so. Is that not a reasonable question?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You said that the insurgency was "Shiite militia attacking police and other Shiite."
No, I didn't. I said the article was about Shiite militia attacking police and other Shiite.
quote:So you're either blind, or you're pretty ridiculous for calling me a liar.
I really don't get this. I did not limit the insurgents to Shiites only. I have no idea why you think this. I don't know why you keep insisting on it
"Why don't attacks on civilians count as insurgent?" clearly implies that I have, at some point, said that attacks on civilians count as insurgent. I haven't. You said I said that they have to be card carrying members of a militia group in order for them to register on your roster of insurgents. I haven't.
I have not contradicted myself once. I'd like to see you show me where I have with my own posts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You asked me to provide the text of the article. I gave you a way to read it yourself (with bugmenot) and summarized it for you. I did not say that was how I was defining insurgents.
Sheesh. I know they were MY WORDS. I never introduced those words as the definition of insurgent.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry. Misunderstanding. I thought your first sentence was a way to read the article, and the second and subsequent posts are your definition and clarifications.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was more surprised than hurt. I'm actually considering buying the McGovern-Polk book now, because I'm curious to read a more robust version of their rationale. It's only about CDN$15 at Amazon.ca, so I figure I'll pick it up when I have something else I want from there.
What's happening in Iraq concerns me on two levels. First, as someone with Arab background and with Iraqi friends, it's hard to see such horrific events there (and elsewhere in the region). Second, the action currently being led by Canadian, British, and (IIRC) Dutch forces in Afghanistan seems to be developing in an eerily similar way, and our new minority Conservative government is responding in a similar way to your own government (that is, stepping up the rhetoric).
Dagonee:
quote:So you have insurgent attacks on Iraqi forces/officials, insurgent attacks on Iraqi civilians, and non-insurgent attacks (which are against other Iraqis). This is the universe of attacks - the denominator.
Yes, I agree with this summation. I'm going to continue looking for more robust and more recent data, insofar as I think it exists.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
twinky, I'd like to see it. BTW, the first category includes coalition forces (as representatives of the Iraqi government) as targets, something I meant to clarify.
I'm also distinguishing between attacks targeting forces and encounters either initiated by Iraqi/coalition forces against insurgents or initiated by insurgents against other targets but leading to an encounter with Iraqi/coalition forces.
I have no illusions that each encounter could be perfectly classified.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
