Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MRT144
highly unlikely based on your flawed analysis. self asserting sunni power doesnt mean jack.

also it wont be a weak iraqi government, itll be iran backed shiite malitias that arent afraid to kill civilians.

Nice, those militias cannot beat the Iraqi Army which is not anywhere near as good as the US military which cannot subdue the Triangle. But it is you who assumes that the Shi'ite militias can beat the Sunnis?

[SlowwHand]

Let me remind you, and this isn't the sole example.




Did they teach you about this in school?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned

For the purposes of supporting al Qaeda, all that is required is that the Sunnis win the Triangle and perhaps Baghdad.

AQ already has an even better safe haven set up in Pakistan. That concerns me more, given that it already exists and apparently nobody has the means or will to deal with it.

However, a "failed state" in the Sunni triangle that becomes like Taleban-ruled Afganistan pre-2001 is a possibility, and obviously one we would want to avoid.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
The "feeble" Shiites are, I suspect, not as feeble as you think, and furthermore are less concerned about protecting civilians. If the Sunnis actually attempt to take over Iraq, they will be opposed by both the Shiites (internal and external) and Kurds. If the Sunnis merely control the "Sunni triangle" they don't have much besides the old capital. The oil, the only really useful commodity available, lies outside the triangle.

-Arrian

I will agree that the Shi'ites and Kurds might be able, with support, to hold off the Sunnis. But oil? I think the Sunnis would take care of that with a few pounds of C4. Without Americans of any stripe to repair things, the first blast would be sufficient to disrupt oil supplies for years.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MRT144
the feeble shiities kill more sunnis than we do right now. youre years behind ned.

No doubt. But can they control the Sunni triangle? We can't.

And you ignore that Sunnis receive support from the 80% of the Muslim world that are Sunnis. The actually have a lot more resources than to the Shi'ites.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian


Terrorism happens. So do car crashes. Yet I drive to work every morning, and I don't spend much time scaring myself by thinking about crashing.

I'm not saying the gummint should take the same approach to both dangers, but I think mrt's got it right: you can't worry about such things all the time. It's unhealthy.

Don't you live in Iowa? Your town is prolly about 53,057th on the target list.

-Arrian

I have no daily personal fear of a terrorist attack where I LIVE, but I still sometimes think about a future terrorist attack somewhere in our nation.

[Arrian]

Ned, we're clearly talking about two different things.

Sunni control of the country =! inability of Shiites/Kurds to subue the Sunnis inside the triangle. That's not the same thing.

Yes, the Sunnis could disrupt oil production, but that doesn't mean they control said production and reap the benifits themselves.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


AQ already has an even better safe haven set up in Pakistan. That concerns me more, given that it already exists and apparently nobody has the means or will to deal with it.

However, a "failed state" in the Sunni triangle that becomes like Taleban-ruled Afganistan pre-2001 is a possibility, and obviously one we would want to avoid.

-Arrian

Which is why the Dems are not advocating a pullout now. They know where that would lead.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ned, we're clearly talking about two different things.

Sunni control of the country =! inability of Shiites/Kurds to subue the Sunnis inside the triangle. That's not the same thing.

Yes, the Sunnis could disrupt oil production, but that doesn't mean they control said production and reap the benifits themselves.

-Arrian

Did I said they would? It's not necessary for the Sunnis to have funding, as the whole of the Sunni world supports them.

[MRT144]

arrrian has it right. im not going to let the human ability to react emotionally to single events cloud my ability to look at foriegn policy objectively. what are we really gaining from this whole war? taking the fight to the terrorists?

well 9/11 was a fluke. oklahoma was a fluke. so on and so forth.

im not in fear of anything that is beyond my control. terrorism fits this. i am in fear of my country going to hell. that is in my control. perhaps when we live like israeli then i wil elevate it. but i dont react by going on quagmire jackalope/snipe hunts cause of flukes

[Ned]

I have no personsal fear of AQ here in Santa Cruz as well.

But what happens to this country if we lose Washington?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MRT144
arrrian has it right. im not going to let the human ability to react emotionally to single events cloud my ability to look at foriegn policy objectively. what are we really gaining from this whole war? taking the fight to the terrorists?

well 9/11 was a fluke. oklahoma was a fluke. so on and so forth.

im not in fear of anything that is beyond my control. terrorism fits this. i am in fear of my country going to hell. that is in my control. perhaps when we live like israeli then i wil elevate it. but i dont react by going on quagmire jackalope/snipe hunts cause of flukes

And, you will deliberately undermine the War on Terror so that an attack is more likely, an attack that could fundamentally damage the US economy for years.

[MRT144]

smaller government?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MRT144
smaller government?

MRT, you are right, for once!

[Arrian]

what happens to this country if we lose Washington?

Oh come on now, you didn't actually ask that did you?

[obligatory]cheering from the rest of the country[/obligatory]

Personally not worrying about AQ attacks doesn't mean one doesn't care at all. It hopefully means you're not favoring one policy over another based on irrational fear, though.

-Arrian