Nerd Mentality

Xavius

I don't think McCain voted on this one. I wonder why?

Probably because McCain is a Senator. So far only the House has voted.

Xavius

Sorry about that, I heard he wasn't going to vote in the next step.

I heard a similar thing, which was why I was puzzled by your comment.

I also read that the Democrats don't have enough votes to gain cloture on the resolution. That means Sunday's headline will be "Republicans Block Vote on Iraq Resolution" (or something like that). I don't think that will matter much, though. The Republicans' fate is bound up with Iraq. Only success on the ground can save them.

KyuubiWarrior

So basically, Bush is their bitch.

YES!

No, it's just pandering to say what the people want to hear without actually doing anything about it.

All this is is a powerful reminder that Congress has no power to do anything meaningful. The Framers are rolling in their graves.
___________________

Crusader

I have a hard time buying the argument that withdrawing US forces from Iraq will encourage the Iraqi government to get its act together. It seems more likely to me that a withdrawal will isolate the Iraqi government and encourage sectarian fighting. It is true that the Sunni/Shia feud has lasted for centuries, and some even describe what is happening in Iraq as a civil war. However, the Shiites vastly outnumber the Sunnis; to the best of my knowledge, the Sunnis are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in Iraq, but what exactly do you think is keeping the Shiites from responding in greater numbers?

In short, I think our military presence in Iraq is what is keeping the country together and preventing a larger war from breaking out.

NOTHING you just said was right, at all, and you just went and said it like it's fact, take a seat dumbass.

There was no Sunni/Shiite feud until just now. There has been tension, but this sectarian warfare is taking place because of the instability America has caused in Iraq. More people have died since '03 than Saddam ever killed during his regime. And no, the Shiites don't "vastly outnumber" Sunnis at all, it's about 60% : 37% now (according to wiki).

The war between the sects is (mostly) taking place because America gave the Shiites all the governmental power and now they are taking revenge for what Saddam did to them. It's quite ironic actually, and the US has done nothing to really stop it, they just police some Shiite areas of Iraq (which only helps the image that Sunnis are aggressive). Weather or not it was intentional America has, after fighting a war and killing thousands, propelled Iraq into another war over power and land which may only end when the Middle-East has a common goal to unite with.
___________________

The Arabs are the best because they crossed the dessert.
Ya, the Jews got lost

KyuubiWarrior

NOTHING you just said was right, at all, and you just went and said it like it's fact, take a seat dumbass.

I think you need to calm down Kyuubi. I haven't insulted you, and I don't think it's asking too much to ask that you show the same civility. Thanks.

KyuubiWarrior

There was no Sunni/Shiite feud until just now.

Well the Shiites and the Sunnis haven't exactly had a great relationship in history. I was simply referring to that history. Take for example Saddam's Iraq. He was a Sunni Arab, and he favored them over the majority.

KyuubiWarrior

There has been tension, but this sectarian warfare is taking place because of the instability America has caused in Iraq.

That's true. Before there was no sectarian warfare. Instead there was repression and brutality on the part of Saddam's regime. Stability carries a high price it seems.

KyuubiWarrior

More people have died since '03 than Saddam ever killed during his regime.

I presume you are referring to the study that claimed that 655,000 Iraqis had died since the war began. Before debunking that claim, I'd like to note that American forces are not responsible for most civilian casualties in Iraq: the insurgency is.

I suggest you read this article on that study, by the way.

KyuubiWarrior

And no, the Shiites don't "vastly outnumber" Sunnis at all, it's about 60% : 37% now (according to wiki).

I was referring to Sunni Arabs, who make up about 15% of the population (source). The Kurds in Iraq are also Sunni. I apologize for the confusion.

KyuubiWarrior

The war between the sects is (mostly) taking place because America gave the Shiites all the governmental power and now they are taking revenge for what Saddam did to them.

Well, we didn't give them the power exactly. The Shiites, as the majority, naturally gained the majority in the new government (thats how democracy works). But you are right, though, that Shiite groups, like the Madhi Army, are taking revenge on the Sunnis because of Saddam.

KyuubiWarrior

It's quite ironic actually, and the US has done nothing to really stop it, they just police some Shiite areas of Iraq (which only helps the image that Sunnis are aggressive). Weather or not it was intentional America has, after fighting a war and killing thousands, propelled Iraq into another war over power and land which may only end when the Middle-East has a common goal to unite with.

You are correct that the US has not done enough to stop the Shiites from going after the Sunnis, and the Iraqi government for some time protected Shiite militias (like Sadr's). However, that policy has changed. Also, you have not provided any evidence to rebut my claim that the Sunnis are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in Iraq. You have also not offered any evidence to refute my central claim that the US military is holding Iraq together.

None of your arguments so far have been enough to prove that the US should leave. At most you have provided some evidence for changes in the general policy, but not a dramatic change of the central policy (namely the presence of the US in Iraq).

Crusader

Well the Shiites and the Sunnis haven't exactly had a great relationship in history. I was simply referring to that history. Take for example Saddam's Iraq. He was a Sunni Arab, and he favored them over the majority.

Saddam is a secularist, he can hardly be called Sunni, that's just the name he chose to give himself.

I presume you are referring to the study that claimed that 655,000 Iraqis had died since the war began. Before debunking that claim, I'd like to note that American forces are not responsible for most civilian casualties in Iraq: the insurgency is.

I suggest you read this article on that study, by the way.

First of all, I was talking about all deaths in Iraq, after America did it's business, people are dying a lot more than they used to. End of story there. Second, do you even know what the insurgency is? Who the hell leads them and why?

And I'm not even going to click that link, it's a "opinionjournal" no offense, but I'll take the study over that.

Well, we didn't give them the power exactly. The Shiites, as the majority, naturally gained the majority in the new government (thats how democracy works). But you are right, though, that Shiite groups, like the Madhi Army, are taking revenge on the Sunnis because of Saddam.

But there is no representation at all, this is a problem.

You are correct that the US has not done enough to stop the Shiites from going after the Sunnis, and the Iraqi government for some time protected Shiite militias (like Sadr's). However, that policy has changed. Also, you have not provided any evidence to rebut my claim that the Sunnis are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in Iraq. You have also not offered any evidence to refute my central claim that the US military is holding Iraq together.

None of your arguments so far have been enough to prove that the US should leave. At most you have provided some evidence for changes in the general policy, but not a dramatic change of the central policy (namely the presence of the US in Iraq).

And when did I ever say I wanted the US out? They started this problem, any "terrorism" from either sect can have it's roots traced to this war, America better not pull out, but I don't think more troops will help either.

And my evidence for the Sunni issue is that, as you agreed, US troops tend to police only the Shiite neighborhoods, this means that when a side attacks America will help the Shiites out and this will in turn make the Sunnis seem like terrorists to you, who can only see the world from your one sided point of view.
___________________

The Arabs are the best because they crossed the dessert.
Ya, the Jews got lost

KyuubiWarrior

Saddam is a secularist, he can hardly be called Sunni, that's just the name he chose to give himself.

However, he favored the Sunni Arabs, did he not?

KyuubiWarrior

First of all, I was talking about all deaths in Iraq, after America did it's business, people are dying a lot more than they used to.

That is arguable. And America is not responsible for all the deaths following the toppling of Saddam's regime; those who are resisting the new Iraqi government have their own free will after all.

KyuubiWarrior

Second, do you even know what the insurgency is? Who the hell leads them and why?

The insurgency is not monolithic. It consists primarily of former Baathists, foreign fighters, fundamentalist terror groups (like Al Qaeda), and anti-government militias. The insurgency has no leadership since it is not monolithic. Sunni groups are the primary

KyuubiWarrior

And I'm not even going to click that link, it's a "opinionjournal" no offense, but I'll take the study over that.

Oh, why not? The "opinionjournal" is the online editorial section of the Wall Street Journal, a well respected newspaper. What's the pain in reading it?

KyuubiWarrior

But there is no representation at all, this is a problem.

The Sunni Arabs do have representation, however, they and the Kurds simply do not have the numbers in the Iraqi parliament to overcome the Shiites.

KyuubiWarrior

And when did I ever say I wanted the US out? They started this problem, any "terrorism" from either sect can have it's roots traced to this war, America better not pull out, but I don't think more troops will help either.

Ah, well, you see I was arguing in favor of keeping American troops there, so I simply assumed that you were opposed to that since you were so strong in your opposition to my argument. It seems that you are arguing that America has a moral responsibility to stay- and I agree. However, surely America has done some good by starting this war. After all, Saddam led a terrible regime. And also, the American military is stretched thin on the ground in Iraq; to fight the insurgents they need more troops.

KyuubiWarrior

And my evidence for the Sunni issue is that, as you agreed, US troops tend to police only the Shiite neighborhoods, this means that when a side attacks America will help the Shiites out and this will in turn make the Sunnis seem like terrorists to you, who can only see the world from your one sided point of view.

Hmm. I have indeed read many reports and stories about the Shiites basically using the Americans to battle the Sunnis for them; and I understand the Sunni militias exist to protect the Sunni population from their perceived destroyers. That is why our recent changes in policy are important-- the protection on Al-Sadr has been lifted, and we are going through Shiite as well as Sunni neighborhoods in our sweep through Baghdad.

We need to win the trust of the Sunnis and restrain the Shiites.