> Paul Edwards wrote:
>> And you can read blogs from Iraqis themselves, e.g.
>
>
> How do the opinions of unknown individuals differ from the opinions of other
> unknown individuals? For example
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ and this one
> won an international award and is scheduled for hardback publication.
Yes, we live in an Orwellian world where the institutions
of the free world have all been taken over by left-wing
moonbats. That's why except for a brief segment on Fox
News, they didn't show the pro-liberation demonstrations
in Baghdad in December 2003. We had to read about it
on the Iraqi blogs instead. The first pro-US demonstration
in Middle East history, and the left-wing covered it up
(even though they filmed it).
>> Not true. The US Generals say they have enough troops, and
>> Bush has said if they ask for more, he will send more.
> BAGHDAD, Iraq - The commanding general of coalition forces in Iraq's Anbar
> province said Tuesday that he had enough troops for his mission - training
> and recruiting Iraqi forces - but not enough to defeat the insurgency.
And there you have it. He has enough troops.
>> The beauty of a war of liberation is that you don't need to
>> control territory. You just need to allow the freedom-loving
>> Iraqis a chance to make a difference. They will clear out
>> the insurgents in due course. The train can't be stopped.
>
> The fact is Anbar has been lost without the additional troops you say no one
> has asked for.
The insurgents in Anbar will be defeated in due course.
It is going according to plan.
> Where do you look for news from Iraq? The White House?
Mainly the blogs.
>>>By what authority did Americans impose this price upon Iraqis without their
>>>consent?
>
>> They had the consent of the Iraqi anti-subjugators, such
>> as Ali, Mohammed, Omar, Alaa, Sarmad. They're the
>> ones I support.
>
> Every Tom Dick and Harry is a groundless claim as you have no evidence of it.
> Please explain the US authority to impose this price on Iraqis without their
> consent.
What I said is correct. The anti-subjugators supported
being liberated. Iraqi opinion was divided, as you
should have expected.
>>>Looking at Iraq now we can clearly see if the Iraqis had a better alternative
>>>to Hussein they could have overthrown him.
>
>> No, it is technically impossible to overthrow a modern military.
>
> Never heard of Vietnam in '74?
The South Vietnamese government was not overthrown by
the people. In was invaded by the North Vietnamese, in '75.
> Iran in '79?
In Iran the Shah was unwilling to use helicopters to mow
down protestors. In '99 the Iranians gathered in far larger
numbers to overthrow the Mullahs, but the Mullahs mowed
them down with helicopters.
> Both had modern militaries backed
> to the hilt by the US. Both lost to the people. Iran can perhaps be explained by
> the Good Guy Shah having a more savage secret police than Hussein could imagine
> having.
>
> Far from technically impossible it has happened twice in modern times and to US
> puppet governments.
Your examples are incorrect. It is technically impossible, as
100,000 Iraqis found out in 1991.
> BTW: I heard Bush say dozens of times he was going to bring democracy to Iraq.
> Instead of a winner take all democracy he imposed a very weak constitutional
> parliamentary system. Do you not think people have a right to be disappointed?
> Not once did he say consitutionally limited democracy. People had a right to
> take him at his word did they not?
Different countries have different forms of democracy. The
Iraqis chose their own system of democracy.
>> The Iraqis tried in 1991 (at the urging of Bush I
>> who believed the myths of the American "revolution"),
>> and 100,000 people died without achieving a damn thing.
>
> It was only in the southern Shia provences where he encouraged a civil war.
Bush never said anything of the sort.
>>>They have made things worse for the
>>>US since September 2003. They could certainly have done so against Hussein if
>>>they had wanted to.
>
>> The insurgents have NO chance of defeating the US.
>
> Vietnam did not happen. I haven't heard the neo-con revision of Vietnam war
> history in a long time so why don't you repeat it in case others haven't heard.
You're the one who doesn't know the history of Vietnam.
Glorious guerillas did NOT win that war. NVA ***tanks***
did.
>> It is
>> a technical impossibility. So long as the US is willing to
>> stay engaged. This is a technical job for the military.
>> Don't worry about it. You just give them the task and they
>> do it.
>
> As above, Anbar is lost.
No, Anbar is on hold. More and more Iraqi troops are
coming online every day, and they will be the ones to
defeat the insurgency.
>>>But we all know the US did NOT go to Iraq for "freedom" in any sense. Bush
>>>conquered Iraq (but Iraq never surrendered so this is still the original war)
>>>because of lies about links to 9/11 and terrorism and WMDs and Nukes and a mess
>>>of other lies.
>
>> Freedom was part of the objective.
>
> He did not give that as either the primary or the secondary reason before the
> war. We can only go by what he said. What he did give as the reasons/lies were
> Hussein's connections to 9/11, terrorist connections, and his nuclear weapons
> program. All were his primary reasons and all were lies.
He also gave human rights as one of the objectives. You
just weren't listening to him. The war is even named after
that fact, Operation Iraqi FREEDOM.
>> And it should have been YOUR main reason for wanting this war.
>
> All of Iraq is not worth a single American life.
This is an extremely callous statement. What is your religion
that makes you not care about the Iraqi people? Didn't your
mother teach you to protect women? Did she say "except
Iraqi women"? At least you're honest. I bet you care more
about American dogs than Iraqi women. Disgusting. This
is exactly the problem with nationalism.
> You only say it is because it is not your life.
>> Why didn't you want to protect the Iraqi people from a holocaust?
>
> Not at the expense of a single American life. But if you volunteer I will
> consider it is worth one life.
And what of the US soldiers who volunteer? Is it worth
their lives? They're not asking you to keep them on a
leash. Don't do it on their behalf. They support the
mission.
BFN. Paul.
