Political Crossfire Forums

[Refrozen Seabass]

mendosan wrote: My point is that particularly UK forces are drawing violence towards them in areas that are peaceful, do instead of being a stabilizing or policing force there basically the problem.

I won't argue with that. If the occupying forces leave, the resistance to the occupying forces won't engage in violence; there'd be no one to resist.

There are really two wars in Iraq right now: the war against the occupying forces, and the war between religious sects that the occupying forces failed to account for. In both cases, the occupying forces there are basically the problem.

[Heinz]

Quote: Me too. Sadly for them, the US invaded them and blew everything straight to hell.

No, they put it in jail.

Quote: Yes, it should. You invaded it, you occupied it, it's your baby now. But we weren't discussing who should remedy the situation, we were discussing the cause. The cause is the illegal invasion and occupation, and the decision to invade and occupy was the United States'. That makes it your fault.

So you think the US should act as pure conquerers and just declare that Iraq and her people no longer have sovereignty of their own country? You want us to take over everything for from them? The cause was getting rid of Saddam who used fear and murder to keep the Shia in check. How you can blame religious in-fighting on the US, fighting that has been going on for centuries, is beyond me.

Quote: Well I guess they should have thought of that before asking you to invade their country, disband their military, and allow the country to disintegrate into chaos out of sheer ineptitude.

What have they done since the start of the war to better themselves in a logistical standpoint? Jack f***ing s**t. And I don't blame them as I would look to use the largest entitlement program ever seen to my benefit as well. Why help ourselves when the Ameican tax payers will? If iraqis care about Iraq and think that the US is doing a shi**y job of helping them, maybe they should do it themselves.

Quote: But it would still be the fault of the US had the first option been the correct one and these sects had arisen because of the invasion.

But they didn't, so there was really no need to even consider it a reason.

Quote: There's no way around it. The United States caused the situation in Iraq. It is the United States' fault. Had you not invaded, there would be no civil war in Iraq. I don't know how else to express this.

Civil war in Iraq was inevitable. As soon as Saddam took his last breath the country would have been torn apart. You blaming the US for a civil war, something that was probably inevitable, is like me blaming you for getting old.

[Heinz]

Quote: There are really two wars in Iraq right now: the war against the occupying forces, and the war between religious sects that the occupying forces failed to account for. In both cases, the occupying forces there are basically the problem.

Ignorance is bliss I guess. I agree that violence targetted at the occupying force is caused by the presence of an occupying force because if there were none there, who would they fight? However, the fighting among the religious groups in Iraq has nothing to do with any western nation. Sunni vs Shia existed long before the US.

[Refrozen Seabass]

They weren't fighting in the streets of Iraq until you enabled them. This is your fault.

[Heinz]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: They weren't fighting in the streets of Iraq until you enabled them. This is your fault.

It was inevitable. If they are killing eachother it's not someone else's fault.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Quote: Civil war in Iraq was inevitable. As soon as Saddam took his last breath the country would have been torn apart. You blaming the US for a civil war, something that was probably inevitable, is like me blaming you for getting old.

No, it's really nothing like blaming you for my getting old. And your hypotheticals mean nothing. The situation as it stands is what matters, and it's the fault of the US.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Heinz wrote: Refrozen Seabass wrote: They weren't fighting in the streets of Iraq until you enabled them. This is your fault.

It was inevitable. If they are killing eachother it's not someone else's fault.

I told you why it is. These groups either existed before the invasion, or they did not. If they did not, then their existence is a reaction to the US invasion, and it's ultimately the US's fault: the situation is of their making.

If they did, then whatever mechanism existed to hold them in check was destroyed by the invasion and the dissolving of Iraq's sovereign government. The situation is still a result of the United States' failure to properly maintain civil order.

The United States is most certainly the cause of the situation in Iraq. None of this was happening before the United States invaded.

[Snake]

Anyone else think civil war was inevitable whether we invaded or not? The shi'ite, sunni, and kurds were killing each other long before we invaded that part of the desert

[Kilo Tango]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: Heinz wrote: Refrozen Seabass wrote: They weren't fighting in the streets of Iraq until you enabled them. This is your fault.

It was inevitable. If they are killing eachother it's not someone else's fault.

I told you why it is. These groups either existed before the invasion, or they did not. If they did not, then their existence is a reaction to the US invasion, and it's ultimately the US's fault: the situation is of their making.

If they did, then whatever mechanism existed to hold them in check was destroyed by the invasion and the dissolving of Iraq's sovereign government. The situation is still a result of the United States' failure to properly maintain civil order.

The United States is most certainly the cause of the situation in Iraq. None of this was happening before the United States invaded. Of course it was happening before we were there. Before it was the sunni baathists slaughtering shiites and kurds via the authority of the state.

[Flake]

Anyone else think civil war was inevitable whether we invaded or not? The shi'ite, sunni, and kurds were killing each other long before we invaded that part of the desert

Geez......have you seen the death counts lately? 1000s a month being killed. Show me where they were killing each other in anything close to these numbers since the gruesome Iran - Iraq war. We opened the gates of hell out there, and there's nothing we can do about it. Nice work.

It may have been inevitable, but the fact remains that our invasion was the catalyst for the current catastrophe. Like it or not, we will take the blame.

[Kilo Tango]

Flake wrote: Anyone else think civil war was inevitable whether we invaded or not? The shi'ite, sunni, and kurds were killing each other long before we invaded that part of the desert

Geez......have you seen the death counts lately? 1000s a month being killed. Show me where they were killing each other in anything close to these numbers since the gruesome Iran - Iraq war. We opened the gates of hell out there, and there's nothing we can do about it. Nice work.

It may have been inevitable, but the fact remains that our invasion was the catalyst for the current catastrophe. Like it or not, we will take the blame. I thought that many people at least were dying in Iraq just from the sanctions alone - not to mention the untold masses that were slaughtered by Saddam. Now there's no more sanctions or Saddam.

[Alizard]

Kim Jong Ill wrote: Anyone else think civil war was inevitable whether we invaded or not? The shi'ite, sunni, and kurds were killing each other long before we invaded that part of the desert

Maybe it would have led to conflict, but the main problem is we are training, arming, and defending one side. And it is clear members of that side are exploiting their stronger position to carry out genocide against the others.

Maybe there would have been war, but the body count probably would not have been as high.

[Heinz]

Quote: No, it's really nothing like blaming you for my getting old. And your hypotheticals mean nothing. The situation as it stands is what matters, and it's the fault of the US.

My analogy is fine. I was pointing out that it is worthless of me to blame you for something that was going to happen regardless of what anyone did. Don't blame me if it goes over your head.

Quote: I told you why it is. These groups either existed before the invasion, or they did not. If they did not, then their existence is a reaction to the US invasion, and it's ultimately the US's fault: the situation is of their making.

You already said that they did exist before the invasion. If they did, and we know that to be undeniable fact, that means that the conclusion that they didn't exist shouldn't even be considered. If it's fact, it's fact. Yuo're just spinning this in anyway you can to blame anyone but the actual perpetrators.

Quote: If they did, then whatever mechanism existed to hold them in check was destroyed by the invasion and the dissolving of Iraq's sovereign government. The situation is still a result of the United States' failure to properly maintain civil order.

The United States is most certainly the cause of the situation in Iraq. None of this was happening before the United States invaded.

I already told you that Saddam is what kept them in check by the use of fear and murder. Sure, by removing him the US took the cap off, but how we're they to know that the Iraqis would want to kill one another in the name of Allah rather than working to form a new government? The Iraqis had a chance to take initiative and take a hold of their own future, but failed. They should bare some of the blame as well.

Quote: Of course it was happening before we were there. Before it was the sunni baathists slaughtering shiites and kurds via the authority of the state.

Spot on.....sectarian violence existed under Saddam, the only difference being that the Shia couldn't fight back. Now they can, and they do.

Quote: Maybe it would have led to conflict, but the main problem is we are training, arming, and defending one side. And it is clear members of that side are exploiting their stronger position to carry out genocide against the others.

I think the training of one side comes from mere circumstance. Iraq is a heavily Sunni majority, so it woudl almost seem natural that that majority would be reflected in government positions across the board. I don't think the US is going out of their way to only back the Shia, the demographics just turn it that way.

[Heinz]

Quote: Maybe there would have been war, but the body count probably would not have been as high.

Why do you think that? I mean, these people really hate eachother.