You tell us that we couldn't tell the diff between the sunni and the shi'a. You say this is relevant because they want to kill each other. You also say that they can have a civil war to do so. Then you tell us that the insurgents are only there because we are there. You don't see the utter stupidity in that remark? In case you don't, they are the EXACT OPPOSITE of each other. The minority sunnis held power by the point of a gun and now when the majority shia is elected, they can't stand for it. They want to blow everyone up rather than not be in power. Is that too much understanding for you? Now we come to the cruxt of the whole situation. The sunni inability to accept authority results in all the strife and attempts to kill off the majority party(shia), and the great humanitarians that you liberals are, you say "go ahead, let them all die". You've got much more pressing problems, like "oh, this global warming situation just frightens me so badly, we might die from it". In other words, as always, to you liberals, "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME". The whole world can just die as long as you don't get a sunburn. Utterly disgusting.
I've been around here long enough to know that there are two types of crackpot right wing nutbags. I've never seen your byline so I don't know which you are: the type who willfully twists the content of posts in order to attempt to defend an indefensible position or the type who just doesn't have the reading comprehension skills to parse meaning out of written English. I never said that the relevance of the Sunni/Shi'a distinction is that they want to kill each other - try re-reading my post when you're sober. You imputed this to me because you need to jump to conclusions that support your position. I said that it is impossible to impose our form of government/society on a people who have thousands of years of history, and that 99% of you right wing nutbags don't know the difference between Shi'a and Sunni. The people that are killing your young men and women are mostly the ideologically disenfranchised who resent the presence of the U.S. in their country. And what... are you telling me that your main concern is to help the poor downtrodden Sunni minority find their place in Iraqi society? Are you claiming that the killing of U.S. troops is a part of the overall struggle of the Sunnis vs. the Shi'a? Please, okay? You couldn't give a flying fuck if Sunnis and Shi'a killed each other until every one of them was dead. You argue as if the presence of the U.S. in Iraq is somehow going to make the difference between the adoption of a Western-style democracy and the return to a theocracy, of whatever type. The only thing that is clear now is that that is never going to happen. The insurgents killing your forces are doing so out of a hatred of the fact that a foreign power is occupying their land. You said You call this the "cruxt" of ths situation. I assume you meant "crux' and not "crust". Too bad the 't' is nowhere near the 'x'. You could claim a typo. Let us set aside for a moment the bad spelling, and grammar. (Is it the Sunni inability to accept authority that is attempting to kill off the majority party??). I am used to it out of you guys by now. So am I to understand that you think the reason all your young men and women are coming home with no legs and faces and arms is that the Sunnis are somehow not stepping up to the plate? If that is the case then what the hell are you doing there? You think that's going to change? Are you going to stay there and hold their hands for the next... what, 5 years? 10 years? Again, look at Afghanistan to see what happens when the occupiers leave - business as usual. And then what? Iran is clearly a more dangerous place for the US - they openly foment hatred against the West. So what if the minority Sunnis held power by the point of a gun. It's THEIR COUNTRY, moron. There are BILLIONS of people being governed right now by autocrats who hold their power at the point of a gun. The first and main point of my post (which you conveniently ignored) is this - what are you going to do - invade them all?? Next, I didn't say that I was sure there would be a civil war, I said that the argument being used by those who started this is that if they leave now, there will be a civil war. I then said that if they have one and kill each other, so be it. I personally do not believe that there would be a protracted civil war if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq completely tomorrow. Lastly... yes, the liberal welfare mentality, in which the resources of those who produce a lot can be tapped in order to help those who cannot produce enough for their wants represents an 'IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" mentality. Yes, I can see how that works... yes, that's clear....ummmm... uhhh (cough) (hack)... huh? You have to admit, that is a bizarre accusation, without the caveat that you are speaking of the equivalent of the right wing nutbag, that is, the left wing PC nutbag for whom everyone is a special interest group of one. btw... what's with the whole global warming thing?? I notice that you completely failed to address any of the other points in my post, aside from the ones that you misrepresented here. Probably because you are unable to do so. Woth regard to this I am sorry that you are having problems, man. This is just bizarre. I have said enough times on here that I abhor the kind of murderous, despotic thugs that come to power in these countries.
nik said: "Woth regard to this " Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistakes, nik. It's really the same with all of your various critisisms, namely hypocrisy. The point of my speaking of your remarks on sunni and shia is that you said: "they have thousands of years of history". Well, the thousands of years of history they have is hatred and fighting. Didn't you know that? So, when you say that "there wouldn't be any insurgents if we weren't there", it is pattently ridiculous. The reason I said your position is "let them all die, I don't want to get a sunburn", is because you said, "I say - Let them kill each other in a civil war if they want- let them fight until every one of their men is dead in a ditch". That, combined with the well known liberal screed that man's worst enemy is global warming, led me to combine the two into it's logical conclusion. You liberals are scared witless of death. You are not about to risk your lives to help others escape death, and you are deathly worried of the environment killing you. Make sense to you now, brainiac? As to answering any of your other slanderous accusations, since when do I have to.
I'll disregard all the nonsense that comes after this, the whole thing about correlating global warming with belief in the Iraq war and liberal fear of death... you're obviously having dosage problems this week. I'll just say that it is brutally dishonest to claim that the 'insurgency' that is responsible for killing U.S. troops is identical to any theoretical 'insurgency' that might have arisen on its own in Iraq. Of course, there was no insurgency pre-invasion, was there? Sure, they theoretically may have common members but it is absurdly simplistic to speak of 'the insurgency' as including those who are fighting the U.S. troops and those who may or may not like the change in government. But then absurd simplification is what people like you specialize in. The fact that they have been fighting for thousands of years is exactly my point. Bottom line - the U.S. is now talking withdrawal from the country; its generals have realized that they are in a no-win situation and are ready to cut their losses. The whole thing is a disaster. And all but the pathologically misguided understand that after the U.S. leaves, it is anyone's guess whether those who assume the reins of power will be better or worse than Saddam, or whether they will be better or worse for the U.S.
Then just what was the all the high minded talk about "thousands of years of history" about? It was an obvious reference to the fact that they have been fighting for that period of time. In case you don't know what the definition of insurgency is, I suggest you look it up, and perhaps you will cease from making inane distinctions which have no basis in fact. That, unfortunately, is the kind of thing you guys seem to specialize in. It kind of goes with the territory among liberals who think thery are the smartest person in the room. It is a very unattractive quality, indeed.
Well...sorry to say it, but this exchange has made it clear that I'm smarter than you, hasn't it? I mean, you would have to agree with that, wouldn't you? C'mon now, tell the truth... To be honest, you're right; the left often sees the hard right as uneducated bulletheads who love easy ways of thinking like '40% of blacks are idiots' or 'liberals are afraid of death and that's why they feel global warming is more important than the war on terrorism'. I will admit that this charge of stupidity is often levelled falsely, in fact, quite often. In this case, however...