Sunnis Hit After Shiite Shrine Blast

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im also not sure who you mean by paleocons. Any conservative who isnt a neocon? There are paleocons in the W admin by that definition.

A paleocon is a conservative like Pat Buchanan. They don't believe in American interventionism, and were as much against W's invasion of Iraq as they were against Clinton's intervention in Kosovo.

[Berzerker]

We were under the provisions of a cease fire, not a peace treaty.

But a cease fire on behalf of the UN which authorised the mission of expelling Saddam from Kuwait. This is why some people claim our invasion was illegal, cuz the UN didn't authorise it. I'd say our treaty with the UN is in conflict with our Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How so?

The only concern would be if the UN Security Council declared war on a country, but in such a case, Congress would have to vote if the US was going to participate in that war (a check, if you will).

[Berzerker]

this will settle down. The leadership knows they're being played if they get into a war over this.

[Berzerker]

how so? cuz congress cant declare war "legally" without asking permission from the UN and Charter. we have to abide by that treaty but it is clearly a restriction on the congressional power to declare war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker
how so? cuz congress cant declare war "legally" without asking permission from the UN and Charter. we have to abide by that treaty but it is clearly a restriction on the congressional power to declare war.

Congress, nor the President, nor the Supreme Court really consider the only means of legally conducting a war is through the UN. And anyways, the Congress agreed to limit its power this way. It'd be no different than Congress passing a law saying it can't vote to declare war unless they get certain information from the President, or something. It's a self-limitation. No one in the US is particularly going to stop Congress from declaring war if it wants to, even if the UN doesn't, as witnessed by the Iraq War.

[Berzerker]

true, we dont pay attention to the UN when it suits us, but that makes our war illegal if it violates the conditions allowed for war under the UN. So we signed onto a treaty that in theory limits Congress' power to declare war.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


If I were a Shi'ite or a Kurd, I'd probably say something *really* undiplomatic WRT to your post.

Nothing is stopping you from claiming to represent the views of them. Like you are their collective spokeperson in the first place.

That said, you do remember how Saddam Hussein ended up in the mess he was in during the 1990s, right? It involved that invasion of Kuwait, circa 1990, and Iraq's subsequent expulsion from its "19th province" in early 1991. All of his woes in the 1990s can be traced back to that disastrous decision.

Uh no, that never happened LOL duh omg I must have forgot. Of course Saddam was a dumbass for what he did that is a given.

But I also forgot about the part afterwards where we encouraged an uprising and then sold the place out.

I also forgot about the 10 years of devastating UNSMART sanctions that kept a destroyed infrastructure from ever being rebuilt.

I also forgot about the extremley poor mismanagement following the initial 2003 invasion that has been called by many GOP senators as "INCOMPETENT."

Oh and I also forgot about us arming the entire country of Iraq from 1983-1989.

But it was cool when they tried to invade Iran right?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Arrian


Actually, it's not quite like that, Ted.

The fact is that the various factions (other than the Kurds) are not playing nice. Given the end goal (relatively stable, at least quasi-democratic Iraq), we must discourage the sort of infighting that is now going on. The only real carrot we have to encourage the behavior we want is our money. Threatening to withhold that money is part of trying to get the Shia and Sunni political leaders to work out a deal.

Do you really want us to fund a Shia-dominated government that goes on a rampage of revenge against the Sunnis? Then you (and many others) will yell about how we're complicit in genocide or somesuch.

-Arrian

I totally agree with your post.

The point you missed is though is that the method itself (going on a soapbox and preaching to the general population) was ridiciulous.

Most Iraqis now see us as occupiers so for a high level representative of our government to start fingerwaving just carries absolutley no credibility whatsoever.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by BeBro
Corrected pic:

[Ted Striker]

Back to the original topic, the Sunni and Shiite leaders really need to step up and reach out to the masses.

Some of these rogue death squads are beyond anybody's control. But it can be done.

This was an obvious plot by Al Queda who has been losing alot of ground over the past year and is trying to injure their rivals.

The leaders will see through this obvious ploy but the masses will call for revenge.


You know, sorta like when the World Trade Center came down and certain people tried to *ahem* use it as an excuse to invade Iraq. It's a tired old con that always works.

[Dr Strangelove]

I think that if the leadership of the major Sunni insurgent groups was really worried about the effect of these attacks they'd do something about it. At the very minimum they could provide information pertaining to the whereabouts of the mosque bombers to their opposites in the Shiite insurgency. The problem is that the Sunni community is loath to live under majority Shiite rule. They have a problem even recognizing the fact that they are the minority.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Im also not sure who you mean by paleocons. Any conservative who isnt a neocon? There are paleocons in the W admin by that definition.

I'm calling Paleocons the old line and traditional conservatives which differ remarkablely from the Bush style conservative (which is now universally called a neo-con). The paleo-con actually believes in small government and cutting it, in low taxes, and limited government involvement. They're the people who got Reagan elected even if Reagan took a crap on them. People like Bush pretend to be old style conservatives but really they're all for massive pork spending if it helps his party and himself, they don't bother taking principled stands on issues like the old cons did, and basically they have all the downsides of old style conservatives (a government which doesn't bother looking after people) with none of the upside (a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility).

People like Bruce Bartlett are the old style conservatives who actually want a smaller government, a balanced budget, and respect for traditional checks and balances on government power along with limited government involvement in social issues. People like Bush love government involvement in social issues they just want the government to forced everyone to follow their views (in abortion, in euthinasia, in spying on citizens without warrents, etc...), they love to spend more if it gets the party reelected, and they're anti-science when ever doing so helps people who give them lots of money.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Nothing is stopping you from claiming to represent the views of them. Like you are their collective spokeperson in the first place.

**shrug** You're the one who broached the subject — "Saddam wasn't a cool guy but Iraqi living standards were alot better until we got involved" — in the first place, not me. Using that standard, Ted, I'm sure you can tolerate what Bush does, right? After all, U.S. living standards are pretty good, too, despite the mayhem our illustrious president is sowing in the Middle East.

Uh no, that never happened LOL duh omg I must have forgot. Of course Saddam was a dumbass for what he did that is a given.

Sarcasm doesn't become you.

But I also forgot about the part afterwards where we encouraged an uprising and then sold the place out.

I always found it odd why we were able to defend the Kurds from Saddam, but not the Shiites in the southern part of Iraq. The no-fly zones, IIRC, did cover both regions, but I don't think we did much to keep Saddam's ground forces out of the south.

I also forgot about the 10 years of devastating UNSMART sanctions that kept a destroyed infrastructure from ever being rebuilt.

People have written books about this. Suffice to say, it looks like hindsight is 20/20, and that not only was Saddam profiting from the sanctions via kickbacks, but so were a number of foreign officials and companies — some from the U.S. Of course, none of this came out until after the 2003 invasion.

I also forgot about the extremley poor mismanagement following the initial 2003 invasion that has been called by many GOP senators as "INCOMPETENT."

Others have said worse, including me from time to time.

Oh and I also forgot about us arming the entire country of Iraq from 1983-1989.

Oh, and, hey, how about them Brits before that? Or, hell, the Ottomans?! *whistles* Wow. Seems like a whole lotta groups have done their fair share of mucking up the place, huh? I bet that, if we wanted to, we could quite literally trace Iraq's troubles all the way back to the days of the Persian and Roman empires.

But it was cool when they tried to invade Iran right?

OK, two can play this game: **skips around, burbling happily** Oh, yeah, it was, like, so COOL! Wow, Teddy! Did you see those human waves the Iranians used to cross Iraqi minefields?! Like, BOOM! WOW! SPLAT! And then those chemical weapon attacks? Like, GAWD! I'd never seen anything like it before, Teddy!

I don't know about you, Ted, but I have Issues with the right-wingers and the left-wingers, especially the social engineering types. Mainly because both groups seem to their only they have the good ideas and that it's their way or the highway. Right now, the right-wingers are running the show, and it's aggravating as hell sometimes, with Iraq and various social issues being the primary examples. So, in that sense, I agree with you a quite a few things, Ted. But the realist in me prevents me from toeing *anyone's* ideological line because ... because, well, damnit, because it's too simplistic. Both groups have good ideas and bad ideas. What they need to do is combine their good ideas.

If they'd done that from the get-go, maybe we would've had a better outcome in Iraq, indeed, if we'd even gone in in the first place.

Gatekeeper

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


**shrug** You're the one who broached the subject — "Saddam wasn't a cool guy but Iraqi living standards were alot better until we got involved" — in the first place, not me. Using that standard, Ted, I'm sure you can tolerate what Bush does, right? After all, U.S. living standards are pretty good, too, despite the mayhem our illustrious president is sowing in the Middle East.

The difference is Bush is MY leader, not SOMEONE ELSE's of a soverign nation. The people of this nation are the best ones to decide the fate of our nation not someone elses. Yay let's invade Iraq it will turn out like Germany in 2 years easy they will love us!

Oh, and, hey, how about them Brits before that? Or, hell, the Ottomans?! *whistles* Wow. Seems like a whole lotta groups have done their fair share of mucking up the place, huh? I bet that, if we wanted to, we could quite literally trace Iraq's troubles all the way back to the days of the Persian and Roman empires.

No disagreement there. I have harped about foreign intervention from day 1 on these forums. You will often hear me denounce the carving up of Africa and the Middle East and yes these stupid partitions are a direct cause of the strife today. When outsiders attempt to take -- to force -- leadership upon a soverign nation, yeah usually it is worse off.

But the fact remains regarding this particular issue we can't claim any high ground with this Realpolitik BS when we are arming the guy one day and then fighting him the next for doing stuff he was already doing in the first place and we were indirectly supporting the wholet time.

OK, two can play this game: **skips around, burbling happily** Oh, yeah, it was, like, so COOL! Wow, Teddy! Did you see those human waves the Iranians used to cross Iraqi minefields?! Like, BOOM! WOW! SPLAT! And then those chemical weapon attacks? Like, GAWD! I'd never seen anything like it before, Teddy!

ZOMG that was so tight they got pwn3d!!!

I don't know about you, Ted, but I have Issues with the right-wingers and the left-wingers, especially the social engineering types. Mainly because both groups seem to their only they have the good ideas and that it's their way or the highway. Right now, the right-wingers are running the show, and it's aggravating as hell sometimes, with Iraq and various social issues being the primary examples. So, in that sense, I agree with you a quite a few things, Ted. But the realist in me prevents me from toeing *anyone's* ideological line because ... because, well, damnit, because it's too simplistic. Both groups have good ideas and bad ideas. What they need to do is combine their good ideas.

Well yeah. But you're not the first one to come up with that idea.