Tuesday, October 11, 2005

The Flame War on Iraq Continues

We have to delve back into the flames again. Its to much fun to miss, but gets tiresome at some point. This banter is quite lengthy, but worthy of inclusion into the realm of thought. Its point counterpoint with our favorite con-lib duo, starting with the original message:

The flawed constitution will fail,
The militias control Baghdad,
The country is in civil war,
The Kurds want their own state, as well as the Shiites….
Socially and economically the country is in far worse condition than under the former dictator..
No oil flows…
Dozens and dozens die everyday...
And foreigners do battle in the streets….
Ah, the blessings of democracy.
Maybe the Amerikans should have stayed home.

V: So…

M-So? So your a socialist who can't see past his left pinkie. Lets look at your lies:

V: I am a clear-eyed realist whose vision is not clouded by ideological cataracts.

M-What? Every single statement you make is doom and destruction! It has been since pre 9/11. I'd say you are a blind Bush hater, who hates totally based on ideology.

V: The flawed constitution will fail,

M-What constitution isn't flawed? You leftist think ours is an outdated archaic quaint piece of toilet paper, unless it can be misconstrued to fit your wishes. And if you mean the referendum fails, well then have another one. Do it until you get it.

V: The constitution is vague or speechless on vital issues because there is NO agreement on them. This is Wiemar written in Arabic! Is Iraq a federal union or a centralized state? Can't tell from the constitution! How much independence do each of the three regions have? Undefined in constitution! Is the supreme law of the land the secular law of the legislature as interpreted by the secular courts, or is it Shia law interpreted by clerical courts? Constitution does not say. Document is flawed to the point of collapse....means nothing. Will be defeated in vote coming up, meaning yet another election to get yet another government and months and months more of no result because there CAN BE NO result that all parties agree on...hence, no country called Iraq.

M-Again, you only see doom and destruction, even in the midst of a democratic process to self organize. Notice how your argument is solely based on opinion?

V: The militias control Baghdad,

M-What militias? If you mean we made peace with the radicals in Sadr city, fine, but I think they are officially recognized. And who controls Baghdad? Stores are open, you can buy gas, groceries, go to school. It may be violent in terms of insurgent attacks, but they certainly don't control anything but fear.

V: There are at least two dozen militias doing battle for control of the country. Mostly in the capitol, but in every major city. Politicians, religious leaders, teachers, administrators, police and soldiers are killed by the dozens daily. The government, such as it is, is held prisoner in the green zone and has no control or authority in the country. It controls no army, does not direct the economy, and will disappear in a blink as soon as the Americans put their tail between their legs and run away. The militias each control sections of the country, but the situation is very fluid and dynamic. In short, there is no Iraqi government "in being" that has the support of the Iraqi people.

M-More doom and gloom and opinion. This is really repetitive.... Or are you trying to legitimize a few terrorists by calling them militias now? Can't even stay with the more generic 'Insurgent' label. You should work for the BBC.

V: The country is in civil war,

M-Civil War? What? You people live in some far away imaginary sinkhole.

V: Ya, like the delegates from the Arab league who said the same thing just yesterday. Even American generals call it a civil war. In fact, everybody calls it a civil war except Scrub and Fox news. Geez, wake up! The best solution IS a three nation one....but, of course, that means trouble for Turkey, with a Kurdish state on it's borders, and a big win for Iran, with a Shiite state in the south. The big losers are the Sunni, who would get next to nothing, and the American government, who would be made to look like the fools they are. There was a reason George Senior didn't go into Baghdad, and now u know what it was!

M-Apparently you can't read your own leftist forwards correctly. The biggest "threat" is civil war quoth the general, not "we are seeing a civil war". And everybody does not call it a civil war. Just repeating something enough times in a leftist news media outlet doesn't make it true. And I would contend that President Bush the first listened to much to a certain peacenic general and lost a golden opportunity. We might have been able to avoid the whole increase in terrorism in the 90's had we really destroyed Saddam. But thats just the warmonger in me.

V: The Kurds want their own state, as well as the Shiites….

M-After being oppressed for so long you would want your own state to. And we have more than one state in our union. So what. Work it out.

V: Not state as in Oregon, state as in nation. And the Kurds won't settle for anything less in reality. It could end up being called an autonomous region, at least for awhile, but they want a real country of their own. We have a federal system, which is EXACTLY what the Sunni will never allow because it means they loose control/power. Hence, they will never agree to a constitution that defines a Federal system while the Kurds and Shiite will never agree to a constitution that DOES NOT define a Federal system.....therefore, no constitution.

M-More doom. You do not want them to work it out apparently. And amazingly, you got the state sarcasm! So when did we federalize? (more sarc.) And this double negative thing based on opinion does not qualify as logic.

V: Socially and economically the country is in far worse condition than under the form dictator..

M-If you can honestly say this about Saddam's reign of terror, you are a imbecile. No comment necessary.

V: In terms of gas availability, oil production, electricity, basic infrastructure, water, sewer, schools, housing units, GDP, jobs, income etc etc, Iraq IS worse off that under the Bathists....fact of life. Oh, include women's rights, medical treatment, and public safety in that too. To say nothing of the terrorist attacks of which there were NONE in Iraq until the US invaded and bought thousands of them in.

M-Do you people really convince yourself of this stuff? You have no problem with mass graves, rape rooms, no freedoms, no representation? Oh yeah, your a socialist. Its like being group dictator.

V: No oil flows…

M-Uh... Oil production? Its already at close to the U.N. "oil-for-food" "grease for my pocket" level of 2.5 mil. What planet are you on?

V: Ya? Well, BS. How about the level of oil production BEFORE the US started bombing and imposing sanctions (that killed millions in Iraq....ie the infant mortality rate for example? Take a look at how much oil was produced in the 1980's and how much now.... Iraq would be a rich country except for us. Remember that we ENCOURAGED Saddam to attack Iran, and that OUR Ambassador hinted that we would turn a blind eye to the invasion of Kuwait. We armed Saddam, anthrax, gas, the whole thing, because we were in a snit about Iran. US foreign policy in the Middle East has been blindly stupid since 1945.

M-Again, standard stupid argument. Its our fault. And again, repeating something enough times does not make it true. Always blame the U.S. foreign policy. So stupid. But it is convenient and comfortable for those who hate this country. I don't even want to debunk the above, as its part of your leftist religion now.

V: Dozens and dozens die everyday... And foreigners do battle in the streets….

M-Yes, this is the first true statement. Those terrorist are really evil aren't they? Maybe the U.N. should go get them.

V: Ya, and WE are the foreigners. 150,000 yanks versus at most 5,000 foreigners. What the CCCRW's can't get thru their heads is that the insurgents are less than 10% foreign (while making up 90% of the suicide bombers, for reasons I trust are clear enough.) The militias represent the infighting between religious groups...they work with/cooperate with, to some degree or another, the foreign terrorists who are targeting US troops....everybody agrees they want to push the US and Brits out, THEN they will settle their own hash in a great bloodbath...they way they always have.

M-Ah, this is what you leftists are looking forward to. And working hard to make happen. You want a bloodbath. Actively undermining the support of our efforts may even bring it about.

V: Ah, the blessings of democracy. Maybe the Amerikans should have stayed home.

M-Ah the idiocy of isolationist socialism. Maybe they should all shoot themselves. And the real blessing of democracy, we voted, you lost.

V: I don't think u understand politics here. Socialism is an internationalist movement. It is not now nor has ever been isolationist (which is not to say it hasn't been nationalist in some cases). Marx, Lenin, Tito, Mao, the African and south American (Castro etc) socialists/communists have always looked to the worldwide movement for support. That's why the song is called the Internationale! Workers of the world unite! And all that.

The election(s): The D's lost for a combination of reasons. Not the least of which was that the country was lied to about the nature of the war in Iraq. But the D's have moved further and further away from working people. They have lost their purpose by being co-opted into a corrupt political system. They are as much the party of the rich and comfortable as the R's. Then, of course, they put up a candidate that was a pantywaist, and flawed. You cant vote for the war and then oppose it. The party of the spineless, as I've said before. Time to form a party based on fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, national responsibility, and international responsibility. Cut spending! Stop exporting jobs! Build America rather than sell it.

M-First, I think I have a pretty good grasp of politics here. Socialism, as peddled today, does not want our free and democratic republic to engage foreign threats, hence its 'traditionally' isolationist. As far as your worldwide movement, yes, much like the plague, it is worldwide. But strangely enough, they have never coexisted very nicely together. You really would need one world government to redistribute everything, and those in power in a socialist state tend to not want to relinquish their stranglehold on the population.

As far as being lied to about the nature of the war, who lied? J. Efn. K. sounded more hawkish than Bush before he voted for the war. And multiple committees in congress saw, and reviewed the same information that the administration had. Hell, everyone believed there were WMD's stockpiled away, even your leftist mainstream media.

Now, about your new party. You apparently stress responsibility. I'm all for it. We have a responsibility to uphold the goals of freedom internationally. We should cut spending, especially in areas where competitive market systems would be more efficient. And as for the exporting of jobs, you are confused. We have actually been importing more jobs than exporting, its just in different sectors. But another one of our international opportunities could be in exporting security. Charge for keeping the world safe!

No comments: