What the people of Anbar are saying

[Michael Tee]

Nothing personal Ami, you seem like a good guy.  Let's just agree to disagree on Austria.  It is what it is and neither one of us can change history.

[sirs]

Yo Js, smart ass is this complaining how it must not be democracy  ofwe want in Iraq, since we're not going after any other Suuni or Saudi led Government.  This is that shell game the left plays that really is beneath folks like yourself, but unfortunately I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  You see that tactic every frellin time you read a comment about "There's the 143rd reason that the Administration said we went into Iraq for).  The reason we don't go after any of these other Governments is THAT'S NOT WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ.  

We went in because of the WMD threat and terrorist connections following 911.  Everything that has happened since is as a result of that reason we went into Iraq. Your "complaint" would imply we went into Iraq solely to bring democracy to the Iraqis.  Your "complaint" then obligates a massive military intervention to help bring about Democracy to all the other locales you mention.  so, the smart-as response is the shell game of picking which reason the left thinks we went into Iraq, in any given thread, when the reason, we went in HAVE NEVER CHANGED

Sirs, you seem to misinterpret things here very badly. Whatever reasons we went into Iraq are in the past. I don't give a damn about those in this context. Nor do I give a damn about your incessant whining about "the left" and whatever bizarre political games you think need to be played. I honestly, do not care.

I do care, when distortions are being applied by "those who dislike our being in Iraq" (if that's better than leftists, for you), trying to play games by claiming "if were in there to provide democracy, why aren't we doing it anywhere else?", as if that's why we're there.  Yes, we're there now, but you're also the one that responded to Tee in your concerns about the sincerity of our trying to bring Democracy to iraq, since we're not trying to do so anywhere else.  Your "problem", is that's not why we went into Iraq, so why WOULD we be trying to bring democracy to other middle east locales??   

[Henny]

JS,

My thought on this topic is that in what has deteriorated into a civil war, our government might be choosing the "lesser of two evils."

To support the Shi'ites is to support Iran.

[_JS]

I do care, when distortions are being applied by "those who dislike our being in Iraq" (if that's better than leftists, for you), trying to play games by claiming "if were in there to provide democracy, why aren't we doing it anywhere else?", as if that's why we're there.  Yes, we're there now, but you're also the one that responded to Tee in your concerns about the sincerity of our trying to bring Democracy to iraq, since we're not trying to do so anywhere else.  Your "problem", is that's not why we went into Iraq, so why WOULD we be trying to bring democracy to other middle east locales??   

I applied no such "distortions."

if were in there to provide democracy, why aren't we doing it anywhere else?

Not once have I made this argument. Not once! Every reply I have made here is in context to Iraq and Iraq only.

In other words, I have no idea what you are rambling on about.

[_JS]

JS,

My thought on this topic is that in what has deteriorated into a civil war, our government might be choosing the "lesser of two evils."

To support the Shi'ites is to support Iran.

My problem with that Ms. Henny, is that I don't see that as a necessary choice. More than that, I'm not sure that is the lesser of two evils.

Most Iraqis are Shi'ites. We knew that going into this war. If we wanted Sunni minority control, we could have left Saddam in power.

[Henny]

My problem with that Ms. Henny, is that I don't see that as a necessary choice. More than that, I'm not sure that is the lesser of two evils.

Most Iraqis are Shi'ites. We knew that going into this war. If we wanted Sunni minority control, we could have left Saddam in power.

Perhaps you're not sure that this is the lesser of two evils, but the government might - and I would suggest that they probably do.

With Saddam in power, Sunnis were favored, but it was a secular Baathist control. Moreover, I don't think that civil war was anticipated when the mission to overthrow Saddam was undertaken.

[_JS]

Perhaps you're not sure that this is the lesser of two evils, but the government might - and I would suggest that they probably do.

With Saddam in power, Sunnis were favored, but it was a secular Baathist control. Moreover, I don't think that civil war was anticipated when the mission to overthrow Saddam was undertaken.

If a civil war was not anticipated, or at least strongly considered as a possible scenario, then I might suggest a high degree of incompetence in forward planning.

[sirs]

I do care, when distortions are being applied by "those who dislike our being in Iraq" (if that's better than leftists, for you), trying to play games by claiming "if were in there to provide democracy, why aren't we doing it anywhere else?", as if that's why we're there.  Yes, we're there now, but you're also the one that responded to Tee in your concerns about the sincerity of our trying to bring Democracy to iraq, since we're not trying to do so anywhere else.  Your "problem", is that's not why we went into Iraq, so why WOULD we be trying to bring democracy to other middle east locales??   

I applied no such "distortions."

YES, you did, when you complained about the sincerity of our wanting to help bring Democracy to iraq, since we're not helping to bring it anywhere else.  That directly implies that we went into Iraq to bring them Democracy.  THAT's a distortion since it isn't the reason, simply why we're sthere now.  At least it's not a bald faced lie that Tee perpetuates with his "oil theory" garbage, but it's still a distortion, and a frequent game that's played by those who dislike Bush and the war.

if were in there to provide democracy, why aren't we doing it anywhere else?

Not once have I made this argument. Not once! Every reply I have made here is in context to Iraq and Iraq only.  In other words, I have no idea what you are rambling on about.

I'm rambling about your original statement "I have a question about this.  If we want a democracy in Iraq, why aren't we doing something about the Saudi's funding of the Sunni insurgents, who are still causing the most violence to the people of Iraq and to our own soldiers in that country?"

The answer is because we're not in the business of wanting to bring Democracy wherever we feel like, INCLUDING IRAQ   

[_JS]

Sirs, whether you like it or not, this administration and other Republicans regard bringing democracy to Iraq as a vital benchmark and possibly the most important aspect of the entire war. In other words, the top measure of success.

Once again, I never claimed that we need to bring democracy to any nation, especially those outside of Iraq. I never claimed that we need to use military force on Saudi Arabia. Those were your strawmen, not mine.

And yes, we ARE in that business. You're president said so. "Spreading freedom," remember?

So my question is very valid, whether you play semantics with the answer is up to you and only goes to demonstrate your willingness to address the actual issues in Iraq or peripheral nonsense.

[Michael Tee]

<<If a civil war was not anticipated, or at least strongly considered as a possible scenario, then I might suggest a high degree of incompetence in forward planning.>>

They seriously underestimated the fierceness of the resistance to their invasion and occupation and they all too typically overestimated their own strength.  They keep forgetting that their opponents aren't afraid to die and they'll fight for their land.  This is going to add up to the most serious ass-whipping I've seen them take since 1975.  What's more, one that starts after their downward slide as a world power has already begun.  Here's where you really have to start watching carefully for the creeping fascism to go into overdrive.

[sirs]

Sirs, whether you like it or not, this administration and other Republicans regard bringing democracy to Iraq as a vital benchmark and possibly the most important aspect of the entire war. In other words, the top measure of success.

Absolutely.....NOW, AFTER we dealt with the primary reason we went in.  PRIOR to our going in however, it was the threat of WMD and the connections Iraq had with terrorists that could use them on us, following the vents of 911.

Once again, I never claimed that we need to bring democracy to any nation, especially those outside of Iraq. I never claimed that we need to use military force on Saudi Arabia. Those were your strawmen, not mine.

"I have a question about this.  If we want a democracy in Iraq, why aren't we doing something about the Saudi's funding of the Sunni insurgents, who are still causing the most violence to the people of Iraq and to our own soldiers in that country?"

YOUR words, not mine

And yes, we ARE in that business. You're president said so. "Spreading freedom," remember?

Spreading freedom, of course.  Encouraging it and advocating it where-ever possible, of course.  Invading other countries to bring it about??  What are you smoking?

So my question is very valid,

No, it's NOT.  It's a distortion, that you yourself just validated in trying to claim that Bush wants to spread freedom.  Let's apply an opposite question.  Given our reasons for going into Iraq, were to deal with the WMD threat Iraq had, in the potential for they being sold to terrorists who just took out 3000+ U.S. civilians, why would we go into Saudi Arabia, and any other Suuni led countries, to try and "bring Democracy to them"??  Or perhaps more accurately, why aren't we doing more?

[Amianthus]

Nothing personal Ami, you seem like a good guy.  Let's just agree to disagree on Austria.  It is what it is and neither one of us can change history.

That's right. The Austrian Resistance existed whether or not you acknowledge it.

[_JS]

Absolutely.....NOW, AFTER we dealt with the primary reason we went in.  PRIOR to our going in however, it was the threat of WMD and the connections Iraq had with terrorists that could use them on us, following the vents of 911.

Irrelevant to the present.

YOUR words, not mine

Yes, my question. No where in it will you find advocation for invading another nation or pushing democracy on other nations. A question, seeking an answer.

Spreading freedom, of course.  Encouraging it and advocating it where-ever possible, of course.  Invading other countries to bring it about??  What are you smoking?

Never claimed that was the reason for the invasion. Again, I'm talking about the present. I don't smoke, thanks.

No, it's NOT.  It's a distortion, that you yourself just validated in trying to claim that Bush wants to spread freedom.  Let's apply an opposite question.  Given our reasons for going into Iraq, were to deal with the WMD threat Iraq had, in the potential for they being sold to terrorists who just took out 3000+ U.S. civilians, why would we go into Saudi Arabia, and any other Suuni led countries, to try and "bring Democracy to them"??  Or perhaps more accurately, why aren't we doing more?

There is no "distortion." It is a straightforward question. If you do not want to answer, then don't. Quit making an ass of yourself in the process. The majority of US soldiers who have died in combat in Iraq, have died from Sunni insurgents. End of. This has little to do with your "distortions" and whatever other bizarre games you're playing here.

Toddle off now.

[sirs]

Absolutely.....NOW, AFTER we dealt with the primary reason we went in.  PRIOR to our going in however, it was the threat of WMD and the connections Iraq had with terrorists that could use them on us, following the vents of 911.

Irrelevant to the present.

COMPLETELY RELEVENT, in dealing with this distortion effort on the timeline.  WHY we went in originally, is NOT why we're still there now.  So trying to reference complaints/concerns to issues of why we're there now, is answered by the fact that's not the original reason we went in.

YOUR words, not mine

Yes, my question. No where in it will you find advocation for invading another nation or pushing democracy on other nations. A question, seeking an answer.

The point at which you presented your question, was directly related to Tee's implied false guise of bringing democracy to Iraq, because of course, it's just all for the oil

Spreading freedom, of course.  Encouraging it and advocating it where-ever possible, of course.  Invading other countries to bring it about??  What are you smoking?

Never claimed that was the reason for the invasion. Again, I'm talking about the present. I don't smoke, thanks.

Well, glad you don't smoke, that's a good thing.  So, what DO YOU suggest in helping to bring about democracy to Saudi Arabia, and other Suuni led countries??

There is no "distortion." It is a straightforward question. If you do not want to answer, then don't. Quit making an ass of yourself in the process.

I'm not the one with the distortion problem

The majority of US soldiers who have died in combat in Iraq, have died from Sunni insurgents. End of.

And............................?  You advocating we go after anyone who's Suuni?  and you haven't answered my question.  Given our reasons for going into Iraq was to deal with the WMD threat, why would we go into any other country to bring about Democracy?

Toddle off now.

Kitchen too hot apparently

[_JS]

COMPLETELY RELEVENT, in dealing with this distortion effort on the timeline.  WHY we went in originally, is NOT why we're still there now.  So trying to reference complaints/concerns to issues of why we're there now, is answered by the fact that's not the original reason we went in.

My question has to do with the here and now. It has nothing to do with the invasion or "the timeline." I'm talking about today, the present, right now.

The point at which you presented your question, was directly related to Tee's implied false guise of bringing democracy to Iraq, because of course, it's just all for the oil

Believe it or not, I did not collude with Tee to reinforce any of his arguments. This was my question and I've voiced this concern before.

Well, glad you don't smoke, that's a good thing.  So, what DO YOU suggest in helping to bring about democracy to Saudi Arabia, and other Suuni led countries??

At this time, quite frankly, I don't suggest anything because it has nothing to do with our current situation in Iraq and Saudi funding and arms shipments to Sunni Insurgents in Iraq.

I'm not the one with the distortion problem

Well, there's a problem alright. Somehow you've read much more into this than was rational.

And............................?  You advocating we go after anyone who's Suuni?  and you haven't answered my question.  Given our reasons for going into Iraq was to deal with the WMD threat, why would we go into any other country to bring about Democracy?

Let me try, very simply:

1. The Sunni insurgents ARE IN IRAQ. They are not in another country. I don't know why you keep suggesting that.

2. No one is suggesting going into another country and forcing democracy upon them. At least, I certainly am not.

3. GIven #1 and #2, why are we sitting by and allowing the Sunni Insurgents (IN IRAQ) to readily re-arm and find funding, while we go gung-ho at the Shi'ite militias and the Iranians. Basically the Iranians and Saudis are guilty of the same crime (if either is proven true), why is Saudi Arabia given a free pass? Why are Sunni Insurgents given leniency over Shi'a insurgents?

4. I don't know how to make it more clear. Your ranting and raving about reasons for invasion are not relevant to this discussion. This is now, not 2003.

Kitchen too hot apparently

No. Just frustrating trying to get points across to a thick, iron skillet that keeps repeating the same, compeltely irrelevant mantra over and over again.