Pretty pathetic turnout

[belgiumcdn]

Never said that the US armie was in Iraq, but can you honestly say that they would have sat back and let a Iranian led revolt against Sadam take place.
Or any other group to go against him, they where probably as confused as Sadam as he thought he had a US go ahead to take over Kuwait

 

[langeweile]

Anything intelligent to say, Langeweile?
More sheep-like toeing of the party line?
No?
Heck, with posts like slowandeasy's, you two are a perfect fit.
LOL

I thought you left.

Here's another - Buh-bye.

Thanks for contributing, though.

Hey SLOWandEASY....case in point...

 

[Ranger68]

"Have you paid any attention to what's happened in the last 20 years"

"give your head a shake"

"Unfortunately, there are too many fools who only have vague theories of how things should be without living in the real world."

"you are wrong on so many levels it frightens me"

*I* like talking down to people?! LOL This was this douchebag's FIRST post on the subject. And there wasn't much more to it! LOL

Hey, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.


Quitcher bitchin', bitch.

 

[belgiumcdn]

I love to argue points and I will be the first to say that I may not always be right (there was this time in 1995) but lets keep the mud slinging for others

 

[Ranger68]

Never said that the US armie was in Iraq, but can you honestly say that they would have sat back and let a Iranian led revolt against Sadam take place.
Or any other group to go against him, they where probably as confused as Sadam as he thought he had a US go ahead to take over Kuwait

Who said it had to be the Iranians? Why not Turkish Kurds?

But, we're talking about a civil-war, not a foreign invasion. There were plenty of people in Iraq who would have liked to see Saddam's head on a stake. That doesn't mean they were willing to incite a civil war to make it happen. And all those same factions are still there.

The US *would* have sat by if there was a mass popular uprising against Saddam, you bet your boots.

 

[Ranger68]

I love to argue points and I will be the first to say that I may not always be right (there was this time in 1995) but lets keep the mud slinging for others

I'll only sling mud back when it's slung at me, but I will never fail to do so.

I hope you can appreciate that our conversation has been relatively free of the nonsense engendered by the likes of slowandeasy's post and langeweile's continuous vomit.

 

[antaeus]

Third, don't equate violence, even severe acts of violence, as a civil war. Violence exists in LOTS of countries - this is not the same as all-out civil war, which would almost certainly not take place in Iraq.

But, don't take my word for it. Here's Gwynn Dyer's:
...
(edited)

What's in a name? Civil war, revolution, freedom fighters, guerillas. It amounts to the same: bullets, shells and death from no clear sender for no obvious reason. Lebanon had no army but a "civil" war for 20 years. It was the militias that perpetrated it, for personal gain, mostly drugs and a conduit for other hard and soft contraband, hidden under a religious cloak.

Actually, situation in Iraq is ripe for civil war, it always has been since 1901 Sykes-Picot arbitrarily divided Mesopotamia into geopolitical boundaries to be shared by Britain and France. It's always had a despotic, central character to stymy regional - ethnic - religious factions.

And this is also my opinion of talking heads like GD. Yep, he's sure done his homework, but the essay is mostly restatement of existing geopolitical theory. Sometimes the little picture is all there is, big conclusions not required.

 

[langeweile]

I'll only sling mud back when it's slung at me, but I will never fail to do so.

I hope you can appreciate that our conversation has been relatively free of the nonsense engendered by the likes of slowandeasy's post and langeweile's continuous vomit.

You are soo full of yourself.
I will watch and wait before you loose it again, and start jumping down his throat.
The last three days you have done nothing else

 

[Ranger68]

Nothing else but jump down the throats of those who do nothing but post shit, you're right.
And I'll continue to do so.
You keep watching.

 

[Ranger68]

What's in a name? Civil war, revolution, freedom fighters, guerillas. It amounts to the same: bullets, shells and death from no clear sender for no obvious reason. Lebanon had no army but a "civil" war for 20 years. It was the militias that perpetrated it, for personal gain, mostly drugs and a conduit for other hard and soft contraband, hidden under a religious cloak.

Actually, situation in Iraq is ripe for civil war, it always has been since 1901 Sykes-Picot arbitrarily divided Mesopotamia into geopolitical boundaries to be shared by Britain and France. It's always had a despotic, central character to stymy regional - ethnic - religious factions.

And this is also my opinion of talking heads like GD. Yep, he's sure done his homework, but the essay is mostly restatement of existing geopolitical theory. Sometimes the little picture is all there is, big conclusions not required.

What's in a name? Without understanding the causes of and goals of violence, we'll never understand it.

If Iraq has been "ripe" for a civil war for *a hundred years* why hasn't it happened? This defies belief and credulity.

Iraq has not always had strong, central, stable government - I pointed out an example from the last decade or so.

Why is restatement of "existing geopolitical theory" not useful? As if all of the things in Dyer's book were so patently obvious to everyone. Uh - not so much, evidently. I think Dyer's analyses are far more insightful than simple regurgitation of past rhetoric. You should read some.

 

[slowandeasy]

Perfect

"Have you paid any attention to what's happened in the last 20 years"

"give your head a shake"

"Unfortunately, there are too many fools who only have vague theories of how things should be without living in the real world."

"you are wrong on so many levels it frightens me"

*I* like talking down to people?! LOL This was this douchebag's FIRST post on the subject. And there wasn't much more to it! LOL

Hey, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.


Quitcher bitchin', bitch.

um...umm... hmmm... where do I start??

give your head a shake? Is that a terrible insult on your planet?

Lesson # 1. Sensitivity:
Most of what I initially posted was quite tame, if you took it personally that's up to you to discuss with your psychiatrist.

Lesson # 2 Sentence Structure:
"fools in the sentence refers to people "who have vague theories of how things........"
The only way that this could be an insult to you is if you consider yourself to be one of those fools. Had I said something eloquent like " ASSWIPE" or "douchebag" then that would be a direct insult to you.

Lesson # 3. You focused on one term in my reply and penned a response based on that one term....ignoring all the other aspects of my post.


Having said that, my point was not necessarily that there would be civil war, but that a US pull out would result in a huge power struggle that could put Iraq and Iraqis' in an even more desperate position under a worse despot.

Lesson # 4. Please provide some intelligence in your posting before replying otherwise..... never mind, I will not be drawn into a name calling match... i got divorced over such stupidity, and she used to give good BBBJ's....

Ranger, I am not interested in your BBBJs.


Langeweile, thanks for the support.

 

[slowandeasy]

George Bush is that you

Nothing else but jump down the throats of those who do nothing but post shit, you're right.
And I'll continue to do so.
You keep watching.

I believe that's what your buddy GWB is doing in Iraq. Jumping down the throats of those who oppose freedom and the peaceful existence of America.

Your attitude is fighteningly similar to GWB don't you think...

 

[oldjones]

Well, since I am believer in democracy, if the wishes of the majority is to welcome GWB, rather than protest, then so be it. 5000 or 15,000 is hardly a showing. Very sad and pathetic.

How big was the welcoming crowd? You know, the spontaneous outpouring of enthusiastic affection. I musta dozed off, missed it entirely.

 

[Ranger68]

slowandeasy, one can only hope you mean it, and unlike langeweile, will not continue to bother us with your useless rhetoric.

oldjones, at least he got five fingers. Or was that five people giving him one apiece?

 

[Asterix]

Ranger,

I'm wondering why you are so dismissive of the possibility of civil war in Iraq. The Sunnis have formed the elite of the political and military structure since Ottoman rule. With this election the majority Shias see a real chance at displacing them, and are pushing to keep the election on track. The Sunnis are demanding delays by as much as six months. Don't you think there would be a very real risk of civil war, if the minority Sunnis were forced to give up the power they have enjoyed for centuries?

 

[Ranger68]

I think it's not likely, for all the reasons I've stated.
I think there's a grave danger of all kinds of violence. A civil war? Two (or more) sides fighting, essentially, to the ultimate defeat of one of them? Not likely.
I think people in the west aren't giving the people of Iraq enough credit.
Why haven't other middle eastern states suffered through these traumas? (Excepting Lebanon.) All, including Iraq, have had periods of rule where the power structures have significantly and visibly weakened.
I'm *not* "dismissive". I just think it not likely, and think that people who just *assume* there's going to be one haven't really studied the situation and the history properly. (I know. That begs the question. But there are lots of people who have just automatically assume that the people of Iraq aren't like the rest of us and will descend to the basest levels of violence, given the chance. It's *somewhat* racist.)

 

[Drunken Master]

I don't like a civil war is impossible - far from it - but should the US pull out tomorrow it would not be, I think, the likeliest scenario. There would either be the quick establishment of another more-or-less authoriatrian government or - and I think this an unlikely scenario - the partition of the country. The Sunni and Shiite populations are too densely inter-populated and there are too many interests - Turkey being an important one - committed to disuading an independent Kurdish state.

While I'll certainly agree, Ranger, that there is a level of - let's be nice and call it racial snobbery rather than racism - implicit in the idea that 3rd world nations are continually on the verge of total choas, the simple fact of the matter is that civil war is a frequent aftershock of authoritarian or colonial rule. You mentioned Lebannon - one might also note Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion and the conflict between the muhajadeen and the Taliban, the ongoing conflict in Yemen and the civil war in Algeria after the French were (quite justly) shown the door.

How big was the welcoming crowd? You know, the spontaneous outpouring of enthusiastic affection. I musta dozed off, missed it entirely.

There were all those people at the airport giving W the five-figure salute........

 

[slowandeasy]

Very big of you

slowandeasy, one can only hope you mean it, and unlike langeweile, will not continue to bother us with your useless rhetoric.

)

Nice...thanks for the well wishes. I had hoped not to descend calling names, but Ranger you are a complete moron.

 

[papasmerf]

Re: Very big of you

Nice...thanks for the well wishes. I had hoped not to descend calling names, but Ranger you are a complete moron.

Come on
no one is complete. I am sure ranger can become an even more moronic and pathetic person.

 

[Ranger68]

I don't like a civil war is impossible - far from it - but should the US pull out tomorrow it would not be, I think, the likeliest scenario. There would either be the quick establishment of another more-or-less authoriatrian government or - and I think this an unlikely scenario - the partition of the country. The Sunni and Shiite populations are too densely inter-populated and there are too many interests - Turkey being an important one - committed to disuading an independent Kurdish state.

While I'll certainly agree, Ranger, that there is a level of - let's be nice and call it racial snobbery rather than racism - implicit in the idea that 3rd world nations are continually on the verge of total choas, the simple fact of the matter is that civil war is a frequent aftershock of authoritarian or colonial rule. You mentioned Lebannon - one might also note Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion and the conflict between the muhajadeen and the Taliban, the ongoing conflict in Yemen and the civil war in Algeria after the French were (quite justly) shown the door.



There were all those people at the airport giving W the five-figure salute........

You see, I'm not sure I'd call what happened in Afghanistan "civil war". Was the level of violence that much worse than before or during the Soviet rule?
I agree with the notion, but I just think that Arab society is, for the most part, averse to this sort of totally destructive behaviour.
And, just so we're clear on language - what happened in the *US* - THAT was a civil war. What happened in France (and what's going to happen in Iraq) - that's a revolution. Not NEARLY as much violence - orders of magnitude less.