Insurgents in control

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Sava


if I were allowed to go around shooting child molestors

Nothing is stopping you from joining the police force? Why not go ahead and do so?

And by the way, I would be correct in assuming you were also spouting this chickenhawk BS when Clinton was launching his wars too, right? And you consider both Wilson and FDR to be chickenhawks too I imagine, Wilson for his intervention and FDR for goading Japan into a fight. And I also assume, because you haven't served in the military, you will never support any war yourself?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
Pointing to April 2004, the worst month of the war, and saying 'we're doing better than then' isn't very convincing, lotm.

Okay. in fall of 2004, while the Shiite south was under govt control, and the fall of Baghdad was no longer imminent, Fallujah, the second largest city in Anbar province was under insurgeny control, and control of Ramadi the largest city and provincial capital was contested. Large parts of Samarra and Mosul were "no go" zones, as were most sunni areas in Baghdad, esp the Haifa street district. Was Haditha in govt control then? I dont remember - with Fallujah in insurgent control, and Ramadi and Samarra contested, i dont think anyone was even talking about places like Haditha.

Today Haifa street in Baghdad, and Mosul, are controlled by Iraqi forces. Fallujah is being reconstructed, and is the site of Sunni arabs registering to vote. While there is still an insurgent presence in Ramadi, it is far from controlling the city.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Sorry to remind you, but YOU were the one who mentioned holding guns to peoples heads and forcing them to vote. If what you MEANT was that its easy to get people to vote, but hard for them to accept the kinds of compromises and attitudes that democracy requires, we could have discussed that. I cant read your mind, and so I respond to the actual content of your posts. Im sorry if you have a problem with that.

Holding elections is no big deal-look at the elction of Charles Taylor in Liberal (slogan was He Killed my pa, he killed my ma, I'll vote for him)

Ive had enough experience with negotiations to know that they sometimes drag out.

They should drag out, if the question on the table are the very fundamental notions of what an Iraqi state should be.

Its task was to institute the first elected govt in Iraq, and to move to the next point in the process. It was always know there was a chance of failure, which is why there is a mechanism, specificed in the transitional administrative law, for what to do if a constitution is not reached, or if it loses in the referendum.

And of course, this would send a great message....Of course the admin. was moronic in drafting this particular plan.

The main problem we are facing is that only now are the basic issues of the meaning of an Iraq being discussed, and on top of that we are trying to rush the discussion.

But they could have had an even larger impact if they had registered in January. At that time the Sunni Arab parties opposed the entire process. Now they are trying to USE the process to get what they want. Thats a big difference. It means either A. They are more confident in the mechanism or B. They despair of stopping it with boycotts.

If the Sunnis had more of voice in the events currently happening, we would be even further behind-if the deadline is met today it will be because the Shiites and Kurds were able to cut the Sunni out and come to an agreement amongst themselves.

As for this "big difference", what is the actual practical difference? None. It is the Sunnis finding one more way of trying to stop a process they view as illegitimate because they have yet to accept their new subordinate role in Iraq.

Second, Iraq is in the first baby steps, only 2 years removed from a totalitarian regime. The Iranian revolution is 25 years on.

Its a bad sign that its taken 2 entire years to get to this point.

[Shi Huangdi]

Ive had enough experience with negotiations to know that they sometimes drag out.

The US Constitution didn't come into effect until 1789, 13 years after the Decleration of Independence. If Iraq is failure for going 1 week over the deadline when it has been just a couple years since Iraq was liberated, then I can't imagine what a failure we must be in comparison..

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


The US Constitution didn't come into effect until 1789, 13 years after the Decleration of Independence. If Iraq is failure for going 1 week over the deadline when it has been just a couple years since Iraq was liberated, then I can't imagine what a failure we must be in comparison..

Such comparisons are assenine.The US approved the articles of confederations, it first ruling charter, less than 16 months after delcaring independence and ratified them 2 years before the treaty of Paris.

besides, the failure of this assembly should be expected- putting such an artificial deadline on the drafting of a constitution was the fundamental mistake.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by GePap


Such comparisons are assenine.The US approved the articles of confederations, it first ruling charter, less than 16 months after delcaring independence and ratified them 2 years before the treaty of Paris.

besides, the failure of this assembly should be expected- putting such an artificial deadline on the drafting of a constitution was the fundamental mistake.

Of Course, the American Revolution began before the actual decleration of independence. For a more relevant comparison, Iraq was only given soverignity in late June 2005, so Iraq is still beating us by that count.

Of course, you can't directly compare the two. But the point is forming a new government, especially in a country with no history of democratic governance, isn't an easy task and you would be foolish to expect for everything to run smoothly or for their not to be significant delays in the process.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Of Course, the American Revolution began before the actual decleration of independence. For a more relevant comparison, Iraq was only given soverignity in late June 2005, so Iraq is still beating us by that count.

And such comparisosn mean nothing since in Fact Iraq was soverign and had a constitution as of Marh 1st, 2003. Any comparisons to a brand new state are worthless.

Of course, you can't directly compare the two. But the point is forming a new government, especially in a country with no history of democratic governance, isn't an easy task and you would be foolish to expect for everything to run smoothly or for their not to be significant delays in the process.

I think the better statement is that it was foolish from the start to think that simply removing the previous government by military force would all of a sudden inevitably lead, or even pluasibly lead, to a liberal stable democracy in Iraq, which was the neo-con notion behind this entire enterprise.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Nothing is stopping you from joining the police force? Why not go ahead and do so?

because you have to be an ******* to be a cop and I'm not an *******... at least... not THAT kind of *******.

And by the way, I would be correct in assuming you were also spouting this chickenhawk BS when Clinton was launching his wars too, right? And you consider both Wilson and FDR to be chickenhawks too I imagine, Wilson for his intervention and FDR for goading Japan into a fight. And I also assume, because you haven't served in the military, you will never support any war yourself?

I disagreed with Clinton's wars... as I've made it quite clear. I've also referred to Clinton as a draft dodger. But the difference is, Clinton didn't RUSH to war. He used military action when all other options were exhausted.

and to the Wilson/FDR

maybe if FDR attacked nationalist China in response to Pearl Harbor, your analogy would be at least remotely relevant.

[DinoDoc]

Well he did funnel resources away from the fight against the people that attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

As for this "big difference", what is the actual practical difference? None. It is the Sunnis finding one more way of trying to stop a process they view as illegitimate because they have yet to accept their new subordinate role in Iraq.

Its not clear to me that the IIP and even the AMS are still trying to stop the process. They definitely want to make sure that federalism isnt used as a way of depriving them of control of oil wealth.

Its a bad sign that its taken 2 entire years to get to this point.

Its not possible to create democracy through war, but IF its possible, its doable in 18 months?

[Pekka]

I agree with rah. Many people take secret pleasure when US has failures. And since US is superpower and meddles with everything, there's bound to be lots of failures, and lots of successes. The 'I told you so' is often simple reason for pleasure, even if one predicted negative outcome. So that alone woudln't be anti-US, but some do take lot of pleasure to see US fall in things. Not talking anyone in here, but in general.

But I guess it has lots to do with the fact that often US and it's leadership comes with the 'this is how it is and how it's going to be, like to or not'. So if you don't like it, and you think this will fail miserably, and if it does, then well you can say you were right, and even superpower couldn't turn it to something else.

So it's double edged sword. I say that's the price you have to pay being a superpower basically, because outside US you are constantly under 'this is hwo it is' rhetorics in everything, and that basically is sometimes very not cool. But that's the way it is and will be who ever the superpower is so.. I see nothing strange in this, or wrong.

[Berzerker]

So chill or be chilled.

You should write titles for Bond movies.

As for Iraq, sometimes I'm really skeptical, sometimes I reflect on how long it took for Japan and Germany and they lacked the ethnical differences.

Patience...Iraqis put up with decades of dictators, they'll need time to iron out their differences. This can work, and I believe it will work. They wont have a government I could support, but what else is new?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Patience...Iraqis put up with decades of dictators, they'll need time to iron out their differences. This can work, and I believe it will work. They wont have a government I could support, but what else is new?

If by "work" you mean that there will eventually be one or more stable governments ruling what is now Iraq, then you're surely right. Stable governments are no big deal; Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea all have them. But the question is, will these governments be friends of the US, or enemies? Will they be buffers against Islamicist terrorism, or sources of it? Will the world be a safer place because they exist, or an even more dangerous one than it was when Saddam was around? And the biggie: did young men and women fight and die advancing US interests, or inadvertently setting them back? It seems very plausible right now, unfortunately, that the latter option is the likelier one in each of those questions.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Berzerker
They wont have a government I could support, but what else is new?

[Dr Strangelove]

One problem we'e likely to have in Iraq is that the Iraqi Sunnis tend to be more metropolitan and worldly than the Shiites. If removed from the influence of Saddam Hussein they would likely write a more liberal constitution, at least with respect to the rights of women and the relationship of religion to the state, than will the Shiites. The Shiites are likely to write a constitution that will make us wince when we read it. Both would likely stab the other in the back.