Goes to the Belgravia Dispatch, who has been a proud member of the coalition of the shrill for a long time.
Reader Interactions
35Comments
Comments are closed.
by John Cole| 35 Comments
This post is in: Excellent Links
Goes to the Belgravia Dispatch, who has been a proud member of the coalition of the shrill for a long time.
Comments are closed.
Rob
I read the link, I am not sure what you mean? I am assuming shrill is a bad thing, so where did they (Belgravia Dispatch) go over the top?
John Cole
Shrill = good.
Get with the program, Rob.
fwiffo
Making up for lost time today, John?
Love this:
I’d say they’re unfit to eat applesauce without a helmet.
The Other Steve
That’s a pretty insightful collection of quotes.
I may have to send that around to friends.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Brilliant line.
Kim
We are a church made up of individuals who Welcome Everyone. Doesn’t matter what you wear, look like, the color of your hear, your orientation or identification. What matters to us is that want to share in our community!
Paddy O'Shea
There is absolutely nothing coming out of the White House that in any way deals with the real problem facing us in Iraq.
That being: How do we keep Iran out of Iraq once we pull our troops out?
Anybody got any ideas?
Steve
Why should Iran want to go into Iraq? With a Shiite government they’re practically a client state.
stickler
I have two.
1) Don’t destabilize Iraq by invading and then fucking up the occupation.
2) Kill half of Iran’s population. If sane people were in charge of the United States right now, I’d probably note that this is simply not on. But they aren’t, so it just might be.
Other than that, I think we need to get used to the prospect of Iraq being a client state of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Remember that Ctesiphon was once the capital city of ancient Persia; they’ve been dominant in Mesopotamia for a few thousand years now, off and on.
Thanks to George W. Bush, we’re re-entering one of the “on” phases of Persian ascendancy. Mission Accomplished!
Jay C
Simple, Paddy: just let ’em look at it!
It seems most likely that a post-American-occupied Iraq will fall into one of two scenarios:
1) A failed state embroiled in a bloody civil war, or
2) Three semi-failed states, two of which will be involved in a bloody internecine war at any one time.
Oh, and in either situation populated mainly by folks who mostly HATE the Persians.
And this is an attractive situation for intervention, just HOW????
The Other Steve
We went into Iraq, because Iran wanted us to.
I think a lot of this anti-Iran posturing is the Bush administration finally realizing that they got punked.
Bob In Pacifica
huh?
Dave in LA
Funny that blogs like LGF and Instapundit would often link to Djerejian almost daily about 12 months ago. I guess Greg got the “Heathers” brush-off from the popular kids in school.
Dave in LA
Funny that blogs like LGF and Instapundit would often link to Djerejian almost daily about 12 months ago. I guess Greg got the “Heathers” brush-off from the popular kids in school.
BlogReeder
Stickler, I’m curious, you wrote in response to Paddy’s question
Now, how is that an answer? That’s not an answer. It’s a paradox. You have to think before you write because otherwise you just sound stupid. How does one not invade and then pull out? It doesn’t make sense. That’s why conservatives just laugh at you guys. You’re deranged. You hate Bush so much you say silly things.
Perry Como
BlogReeder Says:
You have to infer certain states:
if(INVADE_IRAQ) {
if(fuck_up)
youre_an_idiot = true;
else
youre_an_idiot = false;
} else {
youre_an_idiot = false;
}
INVADE_IRAQ was a constant for this administration. fuck_up is arguable.
BlogReeder
Stickler, there is something else I want to say. You guys sure are convinced that the ‘occupation’ is f* upped. What are the criteria needed for it to be not f* upped? I don’t think you have any idea, or at least any that don’t sound as stupid.
CaseyL
What does a non-fucked up occupation look like?
Gee, that’s a hard question.
Wait, wait; I know! How about:
* A utility infrastructure capable of delivering electricity at pre-war levels
* An oil extraction and refinery capability such that a country swimming in oil doesn’t have to import gasoline
* Cities that aren’t depopulated and razed on a regular basis
* Policemen that don’t get blown up by the dozens every week
* Safety and stability such that civilians and businesspeople can go about their daily routines without fear of being blown up, kidnapped, or shot
* A government that’s actually, y’know, governing
* And, oh yeah, no insurgency-cum-civil war
Those are criteria for a non-fucked up occupation. None of those criteria describe the current state of affairs in Iraq.
Now: your turn, boyo. Tell us what your criteria for success are.
BlogReeder
CaseyL, Are you really saying an occupying force will have no ‘resistance’? Isn’t that a bit unrealistic? You’re the one that’s reality-based, I don’t understand. Your other criteria are deranged too. Electricity and oil? What, are we an occupying utilities force?
To me, we’re doing a good job. We don’t intend to stay. We’ve told the country what we expect them to accomplish before we leave. We’re dealing with the resistance. You must have missed the terrorist operations done on a regular basis. The ‘insurgency-cum-civil war’ isn’t happening, is it? In order to have a civil war, you have to have an opposing force willing to govern. They’re just interested in blowing up fellow Muslims during prayer services.
fwiffo
If the situation in Iraq doesn’t qualify as a civil war, I’d like to hear justifications why. Even if we accept your dubious assertion that there is no “opposing force willing to govern”, I don’t see how that somehow makes it not a civil war.
I don’t know how anyone can operated under the delusion that this administration has any intention of leaving Iraq. Bush himself has said that whether or not we leave Iraq is a “decision for future presidents”.
Caseyl
Hah, that’s what I get for posting after midnight because I can’t sleep. Blogreeder’s obviously a spoof.
Barry
fwiffo, it doesn’t qualify as a civil war, for at least *four* very good reasons:
No sharp-looking blue/gray uniforms with striking gold trim.
No neat formations.
Extremely poor re-enactment potential.
No Ken Burns documentary.
Paddy O'Shea
After U.S. troops are pulled out the Shi’ite dominated govt in Iraq will feel the need to call upon their Islamist brethren in Tehran to help them deal with what they will term the Sunni terrorists.
Tehran will gladly oblige.
After all, Ali al Sistani, the supreme Shi’ite leader in Baghdad, is from Iran. He has some pretty good connections there.
BlogReeder
Fwiffo, I don’t think its a civil war because of the targets. Blowing up a mosque? It’s done to incite the people not target the government or ‘occupying’ force. The goal is civil unrest sure, but I don’t think the masses are taking the bait, do you? Over reporting of casualties notwithstanding.
JoeTx
What fantasy land are you living in? The state department spent 10 YEARS creating a plan to occupy Iraq if it came to a point were we needed to invade and take Saddaam out. The “adults” in BushCo threw those plans in the trashcan.
The generals told them how many troops would be needed to occupy Iraq, and Rumy/Cheney nixed those recommendations to and trashed the reputations of those that spoke up.
All the officials in the CPA had NO foreign experience and were put in charge because of their party affliation, not their knowledge.
After the fall of Bagdad, we let them run wild and pillage and loot many historical museums, to which Rumy said, “stuff happens”. We did not have enough forces to fill the power vaccuum, which was further made worse since we relieved the Iraqi Army and Guard and de-Baathified the entire government infrastructure.
BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars have basically disappeared into the pockets of corrupt CPA officials, much of the rest was squandered on projects which received little to no oversite.
BILLIONS and BILLIONS more was squandered on no-bid contracts to KBR, etc on equipment and services that were either not delivered or performed poorly.
At home in the USA, its not much better. I can’t wait till the next set of elections, so we can have grown-ups in office again, instead of little boys who wanna play war!
fwiffo
BlogReeder, you’re not making any sense. Are you suggesting that since the divisions between the factions in Iraq are largely sectarian that it somehow doesn’t qualify as civil war when they’re blowing each other up on a daily basis? Are you suggesting it has nothing to do with the prospetive balance of power in the government? Certainly, the death rate is well on par with other modern civil wars elsewhere, even if you take conservative numbers.
As during most wars, the public at large does continue to live their lives. It’s not as if during the American civil war, the great bulk of the public was engaged in armed conflict.
BlogReeder
fwiffo, The ‘sectarian violence’ is a construct of Al-Qaeda. The balance of power in the government was started by election and will end with a formation of a coalition government. Death rate has nothing to do with it. We know that foreign terrorists are coming in the country and trying to incite the masses. That doesn’t count as civil war.
fwiffo
Both sides of the American civil war were elected, does that make it any less a civil war? Most civil wars involve some outside interference by other countries or groups on behalf of one side or the other (or both). Even if we accept the spin that you seem to about foreign terrorists, etc., how on earth does that disqualify it from being a civil war?
BlogReeder
From the earlier definition of civil war, factions within a country don’t comprise entirely of foreign fighters. Using your American Civil war analogy, it would be like Britain and France coming over doing all the fighting.
fwiffo
So, it’s your contention that all or the vast majority of the violence in Iraq is between two different outside factions? You truly believe this?
fwiffo
Hold on, my mistake. You said “comprise entirely of foreign fighters.” So you believe ALL the people involved in “whatever is going on there” are non-Iraqis?
BlogReeder
fwiffo, I think the people that are bombing mosques are the foreign fighters, yea. Keeping with your American Civil War analogy, it would be like the British firing on Fort Sumter to start the Civil War. Remember you can’t use any of the other causes like slavery. Why? Because you’re not using any other reason but the mosque bombings to plead your case in Iraq. Just firing on Fort Sumter would cause the civil war in your analogy. It doesn’t work. I think there is sectarian tension in Iraq but no civil war.
fwiffo
We seem to be talking past eachother, I think because you seem to be operating with a very strange set of facts. From your posts, I gather you believe the following:
1) Virtually all the people committing violence are foreigners.
2) They mostly bomb mosques, but don’t do much else.
3) I’ve been arguing that mosque bombings by foreigners constitute civil war.
4) Mosque bombings in Iraq are somehow analagous to slavery during the American civil war.
Of course, that’s all complete and utter nonsense. There are Iraqis killing Iraqis. The mosque bombings are highly visible and get a lot of press, but they’re only a small part of the violence going on, and we don’t have reason to believe that even those are being perpetrated exclusively by foreign fighters as you claim. Nevermind the fact that I never even brought them up – you did. I never once used them specifically as justification for my argument. I’ve been talking collectively about the various kinds of violence going on in Iraq (car bombings, shootings, beheadings, kidnappings, etc.)
As for #4, well, I’ve got no idea what the hell you’re talking about.
Now, if your apparent assumptions were true, yes I can see that it would be weird to call that a civil war. But your assumptions are both wrong and bizzare.
So, there a couple of completely uncontroversial facts I would like you to grasp before we can actually have any sort of real discussion:
1) There is violence being committed against Iraqis by Iraqis. This makes up a not insubstantial portion of the Iraqi death toll right now.
2) The violence takes more forms than mosque bombings.
3) The fact that there are foreign elements in Iraq making things worse doesn’t invalidate #1.
Now, if you can absorb those facts and you still believe that it is not a civil war, I’d really like to know what would qualify. If you don’t accept those facts, I can’t have any further discussion with you, because you are completely and utterly divorced from reality.
BlogReeder
fwiffo,
I thought my slavery comment would be misconstrued. I gave it a try anyway. I’m using the mosque bombings as a marker. I know there is other violence too but I think the mosque bombings really demonstrates the intentions of the foreign element. Going over your list:
1. Could it be the Iraqi on Iraqi violence is a result of organized crime? Similar to the mafia. (oh Lord, no I’m not implying that the mafia is over in Iraq) The thugs want to retain control.
2. I think Mosque bombings are a way it get you guys to say “Look, there IS a civil war going on.”. Merely PR.
3. Yes, the foreign element can invalidate #1 because if the Iraqis wanted to start a civil war, they don’t need the foreign fighters help. Look at al-Sadr. Now if he continued on with his fight for control, I would have considered that the makings of a civil war.
We have different views of the same violence. You’re reading civil war and I’m reading it differently. It’s been an interesting discussion.
fwiffo
1) No, it doesn’t fit the pattern of organized crime. The motives for the violence are completely different.
2) Well, yeah, it’s quite normal for different factions in wars to have PR. But people are still being killed.
3) Many civil wars are aided by outside forces, or even started by outside forces. That doesn’t mean they’re somehow not civil wars.