IMO, the Iraqis are aware that the great wealth in oil deposits are not distributed equally throughout the country; partition could lead to some very rich little countries and some very poor little countries. On the other hand, the minorities might feel better off independent.
The plan was for the partitions to be loosely affiliated and share in the oil revenues, I believe. I think it was a good idea and would have saved a lot of lives... which is why bush didn't do it.
Countries with large minorities that are melded under some totalitarian leader typically prefer to break up..the USSR, for example. If recent history holds, though, such breakups go through violent times.
Will: Iraq (essentially a Western creation anyway) has pretty much already been ethnically cleansed.
And nobody had any idea that would happen, right? Nor did they realize that it was happening while it was going it? Yea, I'm "deranged". I say it was their strategy... decrease violence and make it look like they succeeded... all they had to do was wait for the different factions to kill each other. And I'm not joking.
The Bush administration didn't have a post-war strategy, wd (Bush didn't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia). They thought that we would be greeted as liberators and everything would be hunky-dory.......And I agree with you that the success of the surge was oversold. Yeah, some of the checkpoints probably did damper things a little, but it was more so the deals with the bad guys and the fact that the groups were largely separated by this point.
Will, it appears as though we're pretty much in agreement on this... so it's no surprise there have been no further comments from dmarks. Because if he were to insult me then he'd also be saying something negative about his conservative buddy Will.
He'd never dare to suggest that Will is "joking" about his hero bush's post invasion bumbling. Hahahahahah! I'm laughing at dmarks and not at all the American soldiers who were killed due to the bush administration's extreme incompetence. I cry for them, unlike dmarks who foolishly believes it was all worth it.
I don't have any conservative buddy name Will in any blogs.
But there is a moderate named Will who tends to vote for left-wing Presidential candidates. And his criticism of Bush is worth listening to, because it is not couched in war-crimes jokes and bogus 2000 vote-count claims like yours is. He is reality-based. You could learn a lot from him.
Will may be less conservative than you, but he's still quite conservative. And only you think war crimes are funny. I take them extremely seriously... and election theft too. I also take that extremely seriously.
Also, Will may be more "reality-based" than you, but that's not saying a lot considering your fantasy-based beliefs.
I would never trust dmarks' assessment of what is "reality based" due to his belief that being "reality based" involves denying the reality that bush broke international law by invading Iraq and Gore won FL and the 2000 election.
Of course he is. He claims to be a moderate, and comes across as one. I claim to be a conservative, and come across as one.
"but he's still quite conservative."
That is a claim that is only true in your imagination, and is not true at all based on the record of Will's views, including his voting record.
"And only you think war crimes are funny."
I have yet to laugh at any war crimes.
"I take them extremely seriously..."
The evidence is to the contrary. Will has repeatedly discussed actual war crimes from Presidents such as Johnson and FDR and you shrug it off. You take actual war crimes rather lightly when they are discussed.
"election theft too."
Yes, I know. You think it is "theft" when the guy you dislike has more people vote for him than the person you support. That is why all your posts of alternate-history in the Florida election contain mention of voteless (dimpled, etc) ballots.
"Also, Will may be more "reality-based" than you"
I've never seen him not reality based. Since he is a moderate, and liberal on many issues, I disagree wiht him a lot. But it is always a difference of opinion. Unlike you, he is firmly rooted in the facts.
"but that's not saying a lot considering your fantasy-based beliefs."
You can't name even one.
"...the reality that bush broke international law by invading Iraq and"
I side with the UN and the ICC, which have rejected your silly ideas. I know, I know: You consider the UN and ICC's rejection of fake claims as proof of Bush's guilt.
"Gore won FL and the 2000 election."
The Florida voters were of another opinion. I side with them and how they voted, instead of an arrogant a**hole outsider who wants to disenfranchise them by ignoring how they actually voted.
dmarks: [Will] claims to be a moderate, and comes across as one. I claim to be a conservative, and come across as one.
Will comes across as conservative, you come across as rabidly conservative (and more than a little crazy).
dmarks: That is a claim that is only true in your imagination, and is not true at all based on the record of Will's views, including his voting record.
I base my claim based on Will's views expressed on this blog... where he FREQUENTLY quotes conservative and libertarian authors. And he recently said Gary Johnson has his vote.
dmarks: I have yet to laugh at any war crimes.
You laugh off bush's war crimes by denying he committed any. Then you claim that *I'm* joking!
dmarks: The evidence is to the contrary. Will has repeatedly discussed actual war crimes from Presidents such as Johnson and FDR and you shrug it off. You take actual war crimes rather lightly when they are discussed.
Johnson and FDR were never charged with war crimes. According to your own logic this makes them completely innocent. The ICC and UN laughed when anyone suggested FDR or Johnson were guilty.
dmarks: Yes, I know. You think it is "theft" when the guy you dislike has more people vote for him than the person you support.
I don't. I only think it's theft if that is what the evidence suggests. And in the case of Al Gore winning FL, the evidence was irrefutable.
dmarks: I've never seen him not reality based.
Then you're not paying attention.
dmarks: Unlike you, he is firmly rooted in the facts.
Will if firmly rooted in Conservative/Libertarian ideology.
dmarks: You can't name even one.
I can name many. Like your belief that when bush ordered the invasion of Iraq he wasn't starting a war... because the war was "already on". Or your belief that WMD was found in Iraq. Or your belief that 30 percent is a "majority".
dmarks: I side with the UN and the ICC, which have rejected your silly ideas. I know, I know: You consider the UN and ICC's rejection of fake claims as proof of Bush's guilt.
The UN and ICC rejected no claims, therefore it is completely impossible for you to "side" with them.
The Florida voters were of another opinion. I side with them and how they voted, instead of an arrogant a**hole outsider who wants to disenfranchise them by ignoring how they actually voted.
You side against the FL voters as the facts show they wanted Gore to be president. You're the one who says "disenfranchisement yes", as you support bush's annoiting by the Conservative SCOTUS instead of the recount that would have proven Gore the winner.
19 comments:
I am for it if the people who want to secede (Kurdistan, Shi'ah south) are for it.
IMO, the Iraqis are aware that the
great wealth in oil deposits are not distributed equally throughout the country; partition could lead
to some very rich little countries and some very poor little countries. On the other hand, the minorities might feel better off
independent.
I say' let the Iraqis work it out.
I guess that the Kurds are already pretty much independent.
The plan was for the partitions to be loosely affiliated and share in the oil revenues, I believe. I think it was a good idea and would have saved a lot of lives... which is why bush didn't do it.
Countries with large minorities that are melded under some totalitarian leader typically prefer to break up..the USSR, for example. If recent history holds, though, such breakups go through
violent times.
wd, once again proving your BDS (Bush derangement syndrome).
I am starting to find WD's Bush jokes kind of funny.
Iraq (essentially a Western creation anyway) has pretty much already been ethnically cleansed. The question is, will they ever make it official?
Will: Iraq (essentially a Western creation anyway) has pretty much already been ethnically cleansed.
And nobody had any idea that would happen, right? Nor did they realize that it was happening while it was going it? Yea, I'm "deranged". I say it was their strategy... decrease violence and make it look like they succeeded... all they had to do was wait for the different factions to kill each other. And I'm not joking.
The Bush administration didn't have a post-war strategy, wd (Bush didn't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia). They thought that we would be greeted as liberators and everything would be hunky-dory.......And I agree with you that the success of the surge was oversold. Yeah, some of the checkpoints probably did damper things a little, but it was more so the deals with the bad guys and the fact that the groups were largely separated by this point.
Of course they didn't have a post war strategy. And the "success" of the surge wasn't oversold, because the surge failed.
I don't know if it failed. Superfluous would probably be a better term (for the reasons that we both enumerated).
Will, it appears as though we're pretty much in agreement on this... so it's no surprise there have been no further comments from dmarks. Because if he were to insult me then he'd also be saying something negative about his conservative buddy Will.
He'd never dare to suggest that Will is "joking" about his hero bush's post invasion bumbling. Hahahahahah! I'm laughing at dmarks and not at all the American soldiers who were killed due to the bush administration's extreme incompetence. I cry for them, unlike dmarks who foolishly believes it was all worth it.
I don't have any conservative buddy name Will in any blogs.
But there is a moderate named Will who tends to vote for left-wing Presidential candidates. And his criticism of Bush is worth listening to, because it is not couched in war-crimes jokes and bogus 2000 vote-count claims like yours is. He is reality-based. You could learn a lot from him.
Will may be less conservative than you, but he's still quite conservative. And only you think war crimes are funny. I take them extremely seriously... and election theft too. I also take that extremely seriously.
Also, Will may be more "reality-based" than you, but that's not saying a lot considering your fantasy-based beliefs.
I would never trust dmarks' assessment of what is "reality based" due to his belief that being "reality based" involves denying the reality that bush broke international law by invading Iraq and Gore won FL and the 2000 election.
WD said "Will may be less conservative than you"
Of course he is. He claims to be a moderate, and comes across as one. I claim to be a conservative, and come across as one.
"but he's still quite conservative."
That is a claim that is only true in your imagination, and is not true at all based on the record of Will's views, including his voting record.
"And only you think war crimes are funny."
I have yet to laugh at any war crimes.
"I take them extremely seriously..."
The evidence is to the contrary. Will has repeatedly discussed actual war crimes from Presidents such as Johnson and FDR and you shrug it off. You take actual war crimes rather lightly when they are discussed.
"election theft too."
Yes, I know. You think it is "theft" when the guy you dislike has more people vote for him than the person you support. That is why all your posts of alternate-history in the Florida election contain mention of voteless (dimpled, etc) ballots.
"Also, Will may be more "reality-based" than you"
I've never seen him not reality based. Since he is a moderate, and liberal on many issues, I disagree wiht him a lot. But it is always a difference of opinion. Unlike you, he is firmly rooted in the facts.
"but that's not saying a lot considering your fantasy-based beliefs."
You can't name even one.
"...the reality that bush broke international law by invading Iraq and"
I side with the UN and the ICC, which have rejected your silly ideas. I know, I know: You consider the UN and ICC's rejection of fake claims as proof of Bush's guilt.
"Gore won FL and the 2000 election."
The Florida voters were of another opinion. I side with them and how they voted, instead of an arrogant a**hole outsider who wants to disenfranchise them by ignoring how they actually voted.
dmarks: [Will] claims to be a moderate, and comes across as one. I claim to be a conservative, and come across as one.
Will comes across as conservative, you come across as rabidly conservative (and more than a little crazy).
dmarks: That is a claim that is only true in your imagination, and is not true at all based on the record of Will's views, including his voting record.
I base my claim based on Will's views expressed on this blog... where he FREQUENTLY quotes conservative and libertarian authors. And he recently said Gary Johnson has his vote.
dmarks: I have yet to laugh at any war crimes.
You laugh off bush's war crimes by denying he committed any. Then you claim that *I'm* joking!
dmarks: The evidence is to the contrary. Will has repeatedly discussed actual war crimes from Presidents such as Johnson and FDR and you shrug it off. You take actual war crimes rather lightly when they are discussed.
Johnson and FDR were never charged with war crimes. According to your own logic this makes them completely innocent. The ICC and UN laughed when anyone suggested FDR or Johnson were guilty.
dmarks: Yes, I know. You think it is "theft" when the guy you dislike has more people vote for him than the person you support.
I don't. I only think it's theft if that is what the evidence suggests. And in the case of Al Gore winning FL, the evidence was irrefutable.
dmarks: I've never seen him not reality based.
Then you're not paying attention.
dmarks: Unlike you, he is firmly rooted in the facts.
Will if firmly rooted in Conservative/Libertarian ideology.
dmarks: You can't name even one.
I can name many. Like your belief that when bush ordered the invasion of Iraq he wasn't starting a war... because the war was "already on". Or your belief that WMD was found in Iraq. Or your belief that 30 percent is a "majority".
dmarks: I side with the UN and the ICC, which have rejected your silly ideas. I know, I know: You consider the UN and ICC's rejection of fake claims as proof of Bush's guilt.
The UN and ICC rejected no claims, therefore it is completely impossible for you to "side" with them.
The Florida voters were of another opinion. I side with them and how they voted, instead of an arrogant a**hole outsider who wants to disenfranchise them by ignoring how they actually voted.
You side against the FL voters as the facts show they wanted Gore to be president. You're the one who says "disenfranchisement yes", as you support bush's annoiting by the Conservative SCOTUS instead of the recount that would have proven Gore the winner.
Post a Comment