Posted on 02/21/2006 7:46:06 AM PST by rajuchor
Ungrateful little F#$%S.
I'm agreeing with you. This whole thing is a waste of time, money and most importantly, lives. I'm all for fighting when fighting is required, but I'm against banging my head against a brick wall just because it seems like the right thing to do. These people are so far removed from our way of thinking that we might as well be talking to the sand.
We might be doing good things over there, which is nice. How about the troops coming home and helping to rebuild OUR under-funded schools, OUR churches that are not able to collect enough money to keep the doors open, OUR dambs and irrigation problems. We have illegals running over our southern border in uncontrolable numbers and we're wasting our resourses and worrying about the welfare of a country that would turn around and strangle us if given the chance? It's time to stop this insanity. [Flame suite on]
I support the Iraqi PM, and we are the idiots. The Sunnis have carbombed and killed Shiite civilians. Let the Shiites exact retribution on the Sunnis who are only 20 percent of the population and force them to remember their place in the new Iraq. If the Sunnis refuse to kowtow, then let the Shiites do what they always do in that part of the world, ethnic cleansing. Why should we infuriate 60 percent of Iraq by defending the Sunnis who by the way killed over 1000 of our troops with IED's and still dragging their feet politically. If an ethnic minority in the US carbombed and killed our women and children, would we be talking about restraint??
Fall back poistion: Lean toward the Kurds. That will make all parties take notice, including the Turks.
Based on your logic, then why the heck are we there?
Pull out, and let the civil war begin.
There was a reason why Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator...
Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but someday we will pull our troops home (or take them to some other hellhole) and Iraq will descend into civil war at that time.
What's to stop them?
For this we went to war, sacrificing so many brave American lives?
Spin spin spin it baby!
But you still look like a yahoo yahoo.
Reminds me of a story a pilot told me. Years ago a German air traffic controller (at Tempelhoff?) was complaining bitterly about having to give directions in English.
"Isn't this a German airport? German planes? In Germany?"
And one of our fly-boys responded: "WWII-we won, you lost."
Nothing except their own self interest.
What sane person would want a bloody civil war?
However, in human affairs, sanity often has little to do with political decisions.
LOL. Sanity, in that part of the world, as well as recognition of self interest, seems in short supply.
It is not a Civil War, it is to finish the war. Baathist, Sunni and Saudi Arabia are all connected. If a government forms, the Sunnis (with their Saudi backers) will always be lurking in the background trying to undermind it and bring back Baathist rule. If we want a stable and pro US Iraq, the Sunnis problem must be rooted out. If you study the political culture of the Middle East and Empire building you will understand that destroying the opposition is absolutely necessary. In 1991 we did not finish the war, and in 2001 we are back fighting the same enemy. If we let the Sunnis survive, we will be back fighting in Iraq again. Let us finish them off when we have our boots on their throats.
See post 33.
Enough is enough!
What ever made us think any of them had half a brain to make a Democracy work!
What exactly are you proposing?
It sounds like a genocide.
Besides, you are completely overlooking the Shia ties with Iran.
I propose victory. Some of us freepers approach this issue like they have not been reading what has been happening in the last three years. Look, the Shiites of Iraq could have massacred the Sunnis shortly after Saddam fell. They had plenty of reason to do it, but they did not. During the interim government, Sunni and AQ bombers attacked their communities, killing many innocent civilians, yet the Shiite leader Histani demonstrated his preference for a multi ethnic Iraq by urging restraint amongst the Shiites. How does the Sunnis react to Shiite restraint, they boycott the first election and increase their attacks. By the second election, many Sunnis realize that they have to participate, but they do it in a two face fashion. Today they have a political wing that talks with the other Iraqi groups, but to enforce their bargaining position, they use their military wing to continue attacks and bombings. As far as I am concern, the Shiites have shown restraint and preference for a multi ethnic Iraq, and the Sunnis are still harbor feelings to create chaos and regain power. Given these circumstances, I say let the Shiites teach the Sunnis a lesson big time. They will save us the trouble and costs down the road. I know this sounds cruel, but sometimes if you are merciful to the cruel, you are being cruel to the merciful.
Thanks, but I'm NOT blaming myself.
My refrigerator is clean with NO
severed heads lurking. I make sure
my wife keeps it that way! <>g<>
The Shias in Iraq are not monolithic. There are fractions that have ties to Iran, but the division between Arabs and Perians is deep. (Note: there is two sets of holy sites/cities in the Shia Muslim world, one set in Iran and the other in Arab nations). In south eastern Iran there is a province that is composed of Shiite Arabs who are rebelling against the Persian rule. Majority of Shia Iraqis want Iraq for Iraqis. If the US keeps interferring with the Shiites attempts to put down the Sunni insurgency after we failed to do it because we are too constrained by PC and our MSM, we may drive the Shiites into Iranian influence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.