senseiman said:
For one thing, 90% of the international forces in Iraq are American. Secondly, the insurgency is flaring in only four of Iraq's provinces ALL of which are occupied by US forces.
We also a larger active military than the other countries. Seondly, thank you for admitting that the conflict is only present in four spots of Iraq and not encompassing the entire country as the wolrd media would have us believe.
senseiman said:
As for the insurgent side of the order of battle, it seems that at most 10% of insurgents are foreigners, almost all of them Arabs who share the same language, religion and culture as Iraqis (as opposed to 100% of the coalition forces who have nothing in common with the Iraqis). The remaining 90% probably do contain a large number of Ba'athists, but it also seems likely that a large number of them are regular Iraqis who are seeking to avenge the loss of family members, have joined out of tribal loyalty or are simply among the 70% of Iraqis who are unemployed thanks to the war. Then there are the Shi'ite militiamen under Moqtada Al-Sadr - whose father was murdered by Saddam - who were all enemies of the Ba'ath party.
That percentage doesn't gel with the information I've been getting. We've obviously got different sources. Also, if it's not about retaining control, then why put yourself in the sights of a Marine sniper? This "occupying force" just took out your genocidal dictator, and the quickest way to remove said force is to vote on your new constitution, elect your leaders and get your new government up and running. But noooo, you're gonna sign up for your RPG. Brilliant.
senseiman said:
Actually the French, Germans and Russians would never have been stupid/arrogant enough to invade in the first place.
More like they're too corrupt.
See: Oil-for-Food Scandal.
senseiman said:
Better there than here? How exactly would thousands of militant Islamic radicals who probably earn about a dollar a day ever be able to afford to fly to America and, better yet, how would they get into the country?
Same way they did the last two times, with funding from bin Laden and his network of financiers. And, like last time, they would enter through that great champion of freedom in the world, Canada. Feel better about yourself?
senseiman said:
Thats a cheap shot. For one thing, the reason the UN withdrew from Iraq is because their headquarters was blown to pieces in the orgy of violence brought on by the US invasion. Maybe if US forces could have restored security (which they were obliged to do as the occupying power) the UN could have returned. Secondly this war was started under US, not UN authority so why the hell is the onus suddenly on the UN to go cleaning up the US's mess?
Cheap? Arguably. Inaccurate? Not at all.
See: Sex-for-Food scandal; Congo.
The UN ran at the first hint of danger. You know, like Clinton with Somalia. That's exactly what our enemies want, and the precedent for expecting that from us was Jimmy Carter. But more on him later...
If the UN won't stop genocide, can't prevent wars, can't or won't provide humanitarian relief, then what purpose do they serve? Why do they still exist? The UN wanted to be in Iraq to keep an eye on "American atrocities", but things got a little too hot in the kitchen. Boo hoo.
senseiman said:
The Carter years? My god, what a terrorist bloodbath that was! I take it you are referring to the Iran hostage taking in which a grand total of ZERO American hostages were killed? Compared with Bush where -- lets see....we've got 3000 killed on 9/11, half a dozen killed by Anthrax, about 1,500 troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and over 10,000 more wounded....Yup I can sure see how much we have Bush to thank for.
Carter set the standard for appeasement and cowardice. Yes, I'm talking about the 444-day Iran hostage crisis which came about because Carter turned his back on the Shah, our questionable but reliable ally. Things have only gotten worse since then. Nobel peace prize... HA! How many people, how many countries did he liberate from tyranny? How many regimes did he end? Any progress in the Cold War? Nope. Haiti? Don't get me started. What did he do? He got Sadat killed, that's what. The one Egyptian who would sit down at the table with Israel. Carter barely protected his family from a rabbit. He shouldn't have been trusted with the country.
Things didn't get much better under Clinton. Terrorists bomb the WTC? Treat it like a criminal act and give the attorneys something to do. Prevent the CIA from connecting the dots. Take an enemy that's willing to kill themselves in an attack and threaten them with life in an American prison. Terrorists from the same group bomb US embassies abroad. Make a speech. Fire a missile. Get a hummer. Focus your AG on Bill Gates. Worked great, didn't it?
Or, you could topple a dictator who has a history of financing terror and invading his neighbors, preferably one who is violating a UN cease-fire agreement, and give the terrorists a place to die far from your citizens' homes and businesses. Will it be easy? Painless? Quick? Without sacrifice? Perfect? Will it be easy for people who are used to encapsulated sitcoms and climate control to stomach? Gee, I don't know where you got that idea. Maybe from the guy who fought wars from 15,000' in the air and ran at the first sign of blood?
Keep in mind that only 37% of colonists supported America's Revolutionary War in 1776. Also remember that ending slavery in the U.S. was seen as an impossible goal in 1860. In '81, Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq without provocation and was condemned by everyone, including Reagan. (They even did it on a Sunday to minimize the body count. It worked: Only one French scientist was killed.) The anti-war voices in this country were loud and clear against our fighting Germany prior to 1941, as they had never attacked us. Just because something is unpopular or difficult, doesn't mean it's wrong or not worth doing. Afghanistan and Iraq are only in their teething stage, and we're not done there. It's going to take a while and it won't be easy. But impossible or a joke? No.