Posted on 10/27/2005 1:06:59 PM PDT by swarthyguy
If the Itaqis decide that's what they want to do down the road, I don't have a problem with it. As for the 22% being concentrated in one area, that's fine. If they keep this up the 78% that live in the other areas are going to kick their ass eventually.
The minority has been given a place at the table. They have the opportunity to form coalitions with others. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve a place at the table.
It's my take that most of this terrorism is being committed by foreign nationals.
"Even if we don't break it up now, I imagine the three parties will break it up later."
Well first off, WE arent going to break up anything, that is for Iraqis to decide.
"support were uniform across the country"
Are you speaking about population centers like Chicago or New York that vote so very different than the rest of their respective states?
We do it here and they can do it there. With ballots instead of carbombs.
Well said.
And even if not, we would ruin America's credibility, as we promised virtually every nation in the region that we would seek to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq. This is a deeply stupid idea, IMHO.
Very impressive. You aren't even original. Someone else used it already.
RIGHT ON!
I would ask those Cindy sheehan types HOW MANY AMERICAN CIVILIANS must die at the hands of terrorists, in addition how many English, Spanish, Aussie,Italian Etc Etc Etc...CIVILIANS must DIE at the hands of terrorists before they sign on to FIGHT BACK???????
>FIGHT BACK
Iraq attacked us? Okeydokee. It helps when fighting back to go after those who actually attacked you.
>this stupid thread.
And your presence on it signifies what, exactly?
yep.
Here's the deal. If we DON'T stay and fight it out and GET IT RIGHT, we WILL be back there in a few years regardless.
NUKES ARE NOT A FRIGGIN OPTION (just ask the military) AND I WISH PEOPLE WOULD REALIZE THIS ON THIS DAMNED FORUM!!
A desire to see some of the article's points discussed, which sadly, too few seem to care about, instead impugning one's motives and kindergartenish name calling, like you did.
Guess you don't get the point about discussion forums.
bringing up Osama?
Asking how many more troops have to die as if that justifies an action?
Gee that isn't straight out of the Sheehan book of war protesting or anything.
And the article has NO merit. It's tactically retarded and would also be a strategic DISASTER for the region.
But you don't care. You want to hur hur hur debate right?
Give me a break.
You arm chair generals are all the same.
But that isn't why we lost people. We did that to ensure that Saddam could not use state means to support a terror campaign in the United States. And we succeeded in that, and what remains in the way of a new government is what is most likely to succeed in keeping Iraq's state means out of the hands of terrorists. I honestly believe that democracy, with all its attendent risk of failure, is still more likely to succeed than any imposed solution.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I hear you suggesting is that we should break Iraq up and then leave. Is this solution, with its attendant and inevitable warring, more or less likely than democracy to result in countries that will support terror organizations? If less, then we should follow your recommended course of action. But I think it's more, much more. IMHO, of course.
Too bad you don't seem to be on the same side as the military is on this issue. They aren't begging to come home. They aren't begging to end the sacrifices.
Morale is high and they have a sense of purpose.
Too bad you don't support them.
>>>Are you speaking about population centers like Chicago or New York that vote so very different than the rest of their respective states? We do it here and they can do it there.
First, the difference in support for the President Bush in the 2004 election were not as distinct as those in the recent Iraqi election. In NYC, W received 25% of the vote. In the rest of the state he received 48%. In Shia areas of Iraq the Constitution received over 90% approval. In Sunni areas, it received less than 10% approval. That is a considerably larger difference.
Second, having lived in Upstate NY, I know that if given the option, they would probably choose separation from the NY metropolitan area. But the constitution and the Congress prevent that from happening.
Third, I'm not advocating breaking Iraq up. I'm just not hopeful that it will remain a unified country once we leave.
The only people that would gain from that are the Iranians and the Syrians.
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.