Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (119366)	6/10/2005 11:34:29 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

Nadine, re: How about noticing that the unit in question was a problem precisely because it was a Sunni unit picked from the worst Sunni areas, and is the most vulnerable to infiltration and dual loyalties. The US & the Iraqi government is responding to this by sending in Shia and Kurdish units, with the clear message to Al Anbar that they can make a deal or some of the Shia militias will knock heads together in the future. Ok, but how about noticing that if the US and Iraqi government have to send in Shia and Kurdish units to control the Sunni then we have civil war. Of course its got a lid on it now since the Sunni don't have the resources to take on the Americans, and the Shia, and the Kurds, but isn't that what terrorism is all about? If there is to be civil war in Iraq, why are we taking sides? Do we even know that a Shia dominated Iraq would be a better Iraq than a divided Iraq, or a Sunni dominated one? Why is it that our men and women are dying, we're being viewed as out of control bullies by the world, the Muslims fear and hate us, and that we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars. Is it so we can be the targets in that civil war? It would have been nice if we could have had the French or the British die in our own war but we ended up settling it ourselves. Evey nation must find its own livable solutions. We stuck our nose in their business but that doesn't mean we have to keep it there. By the way, who is the author of the "We're teaching them a lesson" article? Anyone who can write; "You fight the Americans, you die." must be on some kind of trip. The evidence seems to be that in Iraq when you fight the Americans a lot of people die. Some of them are innocents, some of them are Iraqi military or police, some are Americans and some are insurgents. And how many are insurgents.We do, of course, err on the side of labeling those killed as "insurgents." I recall last year that a family hauling chickens were killed and were labeled insurgents until there was an investigation that determined they had no arms, there was one man and his children in the vehicle and they found the lone survivor badly injured in an army hospital; a small boy who asked where his dad and brother were. Even then the army spokesman stuck to the "official" story that several insurgents had been killed after attacking our soldiers. And of course we had the insurgent gathering, or was it a wedding party? It's an "you mess with us and you die" game where promotions are handed out to those who are prepared to paper themselves with success and dead careers are the the fate of those who admit mistakes or who lose more soldiers than they kill based on some kind of acceptable kill ratio. It makes for big numbers and big liars. Ed