Iraqi insurgent groups confident of victory - Report.

[techumseh]

Yes, the gratuitous insult is what passes for unconditional surrender on these pages.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by techumseh
Yes, the gratuitous insult is what passes for unconditional surrender on these pages.

In this case it is used since arguments dosen't seem to be accepted.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Spiffor

It is nothing like the exterminations that'll take place when civil war breaks out.

If that's your concern, maybe Canada and France should send 100,00 troops each to help out.

Nope. The US has the means to continue this war. Pulling out is a choice, not a necessity for them (as the war itself was a war of choice). It's not our responsibility to alleviate the pain of the US here. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by techumseh


I remember the same scary predictions before the North Vietnamese defeated the south and before the ANC defeated aparthied in South Africa. Still, it can't be discounted entirely.

The North and South Vietnamese people shared the same religion, there wasn't any religious hatred between them. A lot of people were killed when the communists took over, primarily those who were too closely connected with the old South Vietnamese government.

In the case of South Africa the moderating effect of the ANC had a lot to do with the relative lack of reprisals against the white South Afrikaners. Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu worked very hard to ensure the safety of the whites. Iraq will have no such luck. Tje Sunni component of th insurgency has made it very clear that do not recognize the majority status of the Shia and that they expect to eventually control the government when the coalition is gone.

[techumseh]

Maybe. But an alternative explanation is that media and politicians villify their enemies and use fear to keep their own side fighting. In these examples, the "forces of evil" have been more civilized in victory than our military and political leaders have predicted. I expect the Iraqi's will also surprise many people once they are free of the invader.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by techumseh
Maybe. But an alternative explanation is that media and politicians villify their enemies and use fear to keep their own side fighting. In these examples, the "forces of evil" have been more civilized in victory than our military and political leaders have predicted. I expect the Iraqi's will also surprise many people once they are free of the invader.

you mean these examples?

Originally posted by techumseh


I remember the same scary predictions before the North Vietnamese defeated the south and before the ANC defeated aparthied in South Africa. Still, it can't be discounted entirely.

In that case you only have one possible example of behavior by "the forces of Evil" following a victory since I think in the case of south africa there is near universal recognition that that the deposed apartheid government was the "forces of evil" in that conflict.

[techumseh]

Before the fall of apartheid, I remember many people (who were opposed to apartheid) believing the blacks would massacre the whites. Ditto for the Vietnamese.

It's typical of western people to believe that Africans, Asians and Arabs are somewhat less civilized and humane than they are. This is obvious from reading comments on some of the threads at OT.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO
Apparently that super pro US organization called the UN agrees with you.

U.N. calls Iraq vote Credible

Of course, I guess we should believe techumseh as opposed to the rest of the world.

I am confused, Plato. Are you for or against the UN?

It is not that long ago that the US lied to the UN, and then circumvented the international community to start an illegal war. IIRC, you were all for it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It is nothing like the exterminations that'll take place when civil war breaks out.

It's not like the US cares about genocideethnic cleansing.

[Az]

I am confused, Plato. Are you for or against the UN?

I think the point is quite obvious, and the question you're asking is quite fallacious.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am confused, Plato. Are you for or against the UN?

It is not that long ago that the US lied to the UN, and then circumvented the international community to start an illegal war. IIRC, you were all for it.

Fair question.

techumseh had stated that the Iraqi elections were not credible. I was simply providing a source that I believed he would find acceptable.

Now, am I for or against the UN? Well, actually I am for it...but not as a world soverign body. I am against the security council being gutless to deal with the worlds problems. I am against the "game" the world plays that allows one country to "interpret" a resolution one way and another to "interpret" it another. The countries should say unequivocally where they stand on world security issues.

The split in the security council over Iraq came from just such "interpretations". The US and UK "interpret" 1441 as authorizing force...Russia, PRC, and France "interpret" 1441 as needing further resolutions (and after 12 previous resolutions I might add!).

This is a ridiculous situation. So, to sum it up, the UN serves a purpose, but does not serve that purpose well. Such is the world of multi-nation diplomacy. While the UN sucks, I guess it is better than no UN.

[Fake Boris]

The split in the security council over Iraq came from just such "interpretations". The US and UK "interpret" 1441 as authorizing force...Russia, PRC, and France "interpret" 1441 as needing further resolutions (and after 12 previous resolutions I might add!).

That's the lies we always hear. UN diplo talk is clear. 'Serious consequences' does not mean invasion, because when the UN means invasion it says just that.
Funny how every conservative in America became an analyst of UN propositions, ignoring 50 years of tradition to dismiss the spirit of the letter.

[Odin]

Tecumseh's logic: the West is always evil and anyone who disagrees with him is an evil WASP imperialist.

[Az]

gnoring 50 years of tradition to dismiss the spirit of the letter.

The spirit of the letter? "It's ok to bomb stuff - as long as all the big dogs agree on it"?

[Arrian]

Just a thought, based on the thread title...

How is "insurgent groups confident of victory" any different that "Rumsfeld confident of victory?"

What are the "insurgents" gonna say? Do you expect them to say they're going to lose?

-Arrian