The Stone Face Of Zarqawi

[Lawman]

Wall Street Journal
March 21, 2006
Pg. 14

In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention ("to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "accelerate the emergence of the Messiah"), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq's largest confessional group that: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger."

Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. "Civil war" has replaced "the insurgency" as the proof that the war is "unwinnable." But in plain truth, the "civil war" is and always was the chief tactic of the "insurgency."

Since February 2004, there have been numberless attacks on Shiite religious processions and precincts. Somewhat more insulting to Islam (one might think) than a caricature in Copenhagen, these desecrations did not immediately produce the desired effect. Grand Ayatollah Sistani even stated that, if he himself fell victim, he forgave his murderers in advance and forbade retaliation in his name. This extraordinary forbearance meant that many Shiites -- and Sunnis, too -- refused to play Zarqawi's game. But the grim fact is, as we know from Cyprus and Bosnia and Lebanon and India, that a handful of determined psychopaths can erode in a year the sort of intercommunal fraternity that has taken centuries to evolve. If you keep pressing on the nerve of tribalism and sectarianism, you will eventually get a response. And then came the near-incredible barbarism in Samarra, and the laying waste of the golden dome.

It is not merely civil strife that is partly innate in the very make-up of Iraq. There could be an even worse war, of the sort that Thomas Hobbes pictured: a "war of all against all" in which localized gangs and mafias would become rulers of their own stretch of turf. This is what happened in Lebanon after the American withdrawal: The distinctions between Maronite and Druze and Palestinian and Shiite became blurred by a descent into minor warlordism. In Iraq, things are even more fissile. Even the "insurgents" are fighting among themselves, with local elements taking aim at imported riffraff and vice-versa. Saddam's vicious tactic, of emptying the jails on the eve of the intervention and freeing his natural constituency of thugs and bandits and rapists, was exactly designed to exacerbate an already unstable situation and make the implicit case for one-man "law and order." There is strong disagreement among and between the Shiites and the Sunnis, and between them and the Kurds, only the latter having taken steps to resolve their own internal party and regional quarrels.

America's mistake in Lebanon was first to intervene in a way that placed us on one minority side -- that of the Maronites and their Israeli patrons -- and then to scuttle and give Hobbes his mandate for the next 10 years. At least it can be said for the present mission in Iraq that it proposes the only alternative to civil war, dictatorship, partition or some toxic combination of all three. Absent federal democracy and power-sharing, there will not just be anarchy and fragmentation and thus a moral victory for jihadism, but opportunist interventions from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. (That vortex, by the way, is what was waiting to engulf Iraq if the coalition had not intervened, and would have necessitated an intervention later but under even worse conditions.) There are signs that many Iraqi factions do appreciate the danger of this, even if some of them have come to the realization somewhat late. The willingness of the Kurdish leadership in particular, to sacrifice for a country that was gassing its people until quite recently, is beyond praise.

Everybody now has their own scenario for the war that should have been fought three years ago. The important revelations in "Cobra II," by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor, about the underestimated reserve strength of the Fedayeen Saddam, give us an excellent picture of what the successor regime to the Baath Party was shaping up to be: an Islamized para-state militia ruling by means of vicious divide-and-rule as between the country's peoples. No responsible American government could possibly have allowed such a contingency to become more likely. We would then have had to intervene in a ruined rogue jihadist-hosting state that was already in a Beirut-like nightmare.

I could not help noticing, when the secret prisons of the Shiite-run "Interior Ministry" were exposed a few weeks ago, that all those wishing to complain ran straight to the nearest American base, from which help was available. For the moment, the coalition forces act as the militia for the majority of Iraqis -- the inked-fingered Iraqis -- who have no militia of their own. Honorable as this role may be, it is not enough in the long run. In Iraq we have made some good friends and some very, very bad enemies. (How can anyone, looking down the gun-barrel into the stone face of Zarqawi, say that fighting him is a "distraction" from fighting al Qaeda?) Over the medium term, if our apparent domestic demoralization continues, the options could come down to two. First, we might use our latent power and threaten to withdraw, implicitly asking Iraqis and their neighbors if that is really what they want, and concentrating their minds. This still runs the risk of allowing the diseased spokesmen of al Qaeda to claim victory.

Second, we can demand to know, of the wider international community, if it could afford to view an imploded Iraq as a spectator. Three years ago, the smug answer to that, from most U.N. members, was "yes." This is not an irresponsibility that we can afford, either morally or practically, and even if our intervention was much too little and way too late, it has kindled in many Arab and Kurdish minds an idea of a different future. There is a war within the war, as there always is when a serious struggle is under way, but justice and necessity still combine to say that the task cannot be given up.
Mr. Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair, is the author of "A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq" (Penguin, 2003).

Sorry, I am not a subscriber; so I can not provide a link

[Guest bengalrick]

[i]America's mistake in Lebanon was first to intervene in a way that placed us on one minority side -- that of the Maronites and their Israeli patrons -- and then to scuttle and give Hobbes his mandate for the next 10 years. [b]At least it can be said for the present mission in Iraq that it proposes the only alternative to civil war, dictatorship, partition or some toxic combination of all three. Absent federal democracy and power-sharing, there will not just be anarchy and fragmentation and thus a moral victory for jihadism, but opportunist interventions from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.[/b] (That vortex, by the way, is what was waiting to engulf Iraq if the coalition had not intervened, and would have necessitated an intervention later but under even worse conditions.) There are signs that many Iraqi factions do appreciate the danger of this, even if some of them have come to the realization somewhat late. The willingness of the Kurdish leadership in particular, to sacrifice for a country that was gassing its people until quite recently, is beyond praise.[/i]

imo, we have done a decent job of dividing... now time will conquor those that oppose democracy...

[BengalSIS]

rick, give that cue card back to W. He lost it and needs it back.

[Guest bengalrick]

so you don't think the battle lines are drawn as followed: either there is democracy or there is a mixture of terror/tyrants/civil war?

if we leave now, what happens?

[BengalSIS]

It will take way more than time to fix this mess, and I don't consider a lot of what we have done a great accomplishment as if we've just set up the road to success and all we need to do is be patient and let time do the rest.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BengalSIS' post='236720' date='Mar 22 2006, 01:27 PM']It will take way more than time to fix this mess, and I don't consider a lot of what we have done a great accomplishment as if we've just set up the road to success and all we need to do is be patient and let time do the rest.[/quote]

yeah, i was also expecting this war to take about a week, and i also expected everything to go perfectly to our original plan..... i guess we had too high of hopes, huh

mistakes have been made... anyone w/ half a sense of objectivity can see that... but is there any reason to make fun of people that are still holding out hope and have confidence that we can make something good out of iraq? getting pot shots, b/c i am saying that we are properly drawing the battle lines... either you want saddam (or someone similar) in power or you want a democracy... i guess one other option is letting zarqawi run iraq too....

and now i'm a walking talking-point? whatever... i made my point... i said it was going to take time to conquer those that oppose democracy there... what, was i not gloomy enough for you or something?

[Lawman]

[quote]It will take way more than time to fix this mess, and I don't consider a lot of what we have done a great accomplishment[/quote]

bengalSIS,

I agree 100% on the first half of your statement, but I totally disagree with your assessment in the 2nd half.

Please enlighten me as to how you have come to this conclusion

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Lawman' post='236726' date='Mar 22 2006, 01:48 PM'][quote]It will take way more than time to fix this mess, and I don't consider a lot of what we have done a great accomplishment[/quote]

bengalSIS,

I agree 100% on the first half of your statement, but I totally disagree with your assessment in the 2nd half.

Please enlighten me as to how you have come to this conclusion
[/quote]

i feel the arguement of "saddam kept all those crazy fuckers in line... so actually saddam was a good thing for the middle east, and we would be better off w/ him running shit there still" coming on...

i hope i'm wrong and i get to hear a better arguement than that though...

[BengalSIS]

[quote name='Lawman' post='236726' date='Mar 22 2006, 01:48 PM'][quote]It will take way more than time to fix this mess, and I don't consider a lot of what we have done a great accomplishment[/quote]

bengalSIS,

I agree 100% on the first half of your statement, but I totally disagree with your assessment in the 2nd half.

Please enlighten me as to how you have come to this conclusion
[/quote]


You need to quote my entire statement. We have gotten rid of Saddam, a great accomplishment. BUT, we went in without a proper plan and we are only bungling our way through this and making things up as we go (which is no doubt what has to be done at times as nothing is perfectly planned).
Rick's statement was that we set it up to succeed. I disagree. I think we tore something apart (which in itself MIGHT be good) and are just praying it gets put back together properly. My point was that what we have done, while some of it may be good, did NOT pave the way to success.

[Lawman]

[quote name='BengalSIS' post='236733' date='Mar 22 2006, 01:56 PM'][quote name='Lawman' post='236726' date='Mar 22 2006, 01:48 PM']
[quote]It will take way more than time to fix this mess, and I don't consider a lot of what we have done a great accomplishment[/quote]

bengalSIS,

I agree 100% on the first half of your statement, but I totally disagree with your assessment in the 2nd half.

Please enlighten me as to how you have come to this conclusion
[/quote]


You need to quote my entire statement. We have gotten rid of Saddam, a great accomplishment. BUT, we went in without a proper plan and we are only bungling our way through this and making things up as we go (which is no doubt what has to be done at times as nothing is perfectly planned).
Rick's statement was that we set it up to succeed. I disagree. I think we tore something apart (which in itself MIGHT be good) and are just praying it gets put back together properly. My point was that what we have done, while some of it may be good, [u]did NOT pave the way to success[/u].
[/quote]

What is putting something back properly? Definition of success ?

[BengalSIS]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='236731' date='Mar 22 2006, 01:55 PM'][quote name='Lawman' post='236726' date='Mar 22 2006, 01:48 PM']
[quote]It will take way more than time to fix this mess, and I don't consider a lot of what we have done a great accomplishment[/quote]

bengalSIS,

I agree 100% on the first half of your statement, but I totally disagree with your assessment in the 2nd half.

Please enlighten me as to how you have come to this conclusion
[/quote]

i feel the arguement of "saddam kept all those crazy fuckers in line... so actually saddam was a good thing for the middle east, and we would be better off w/ him running shit there still" coming on...

i hope i'm wrong and i get to hear a better arguement than that though...
[/quote]


Rick, you are so confused as to what I believe that I can't straighten it out in one thread. You draw WAY too many conclusions from a disagreement with your statement.

I am not saying I don't have hope. Nor am I making fun of those who do. This is where you assume incorrectly. I'm saying your opinion as to our success so far and how democracy will be portrayed is different than mine. You say "either I want a Saddam-like ruler, or I want a democracy." You need to wake up. It's not that simple.

[BengalSIS]

[quote name='Lawman' post='236742' date='Mar 22 2006, 02:01 PM'][quote name='BengalSIS' post='236733' date='Mar 22 2006, 01:56 PM']
[quote name='Lawman' post='236726' date='Mar 22 2006, 01:48 PM']
[quote]It will take way more than time to fix this mess, and I don't consider a lot of what we have done a great accomplishment[/quote]

bengalSIS,

I agree 100% on the first half of your statement, but I totally disagree with your assessment in the 2nd half.

Please enlighten me as to how you have come to this conclusion
[/quote]


You need to quote my entire statement. We have gotten rid of Saddam, a great accomplishment. BUT, we went in without a proper plan and we are only bungling our way through this and making things up as we go (which is no doubt what has to be done at times as nothing is perfectly planned).
Rick's statement was that we set it up to succeed. I disagree. I think we tore something apart (which in itself MIGHT be good) and are just praying it gets put back together properly. My point was that what we have done, while some of it may be good, [u]did NOT pave the way to success[/u].
[/quote]

What is putting something back properly? Definition of success ?
[/quote]

Success is not having an all out civil war and getting all those leaders together at a table to work together. I'm not so sure it's possible right now. You can lead a horse to water...

I think that is a mistake we made from the very start. Expecting all these peeps to want a democracy, when I believe that secretly, a few of them wanted their own Saddam government, but just couldn't get enough power before.

I certainly hope they can get some peace, and even try to set up the weakest of democracies, but we never should have tried to go this alone. I don't know the right answer. But we didn't come in with a plan to help this process along.

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

Well, 30,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in 3 years. About a hundred thousand have been horribly injured. So in that sense, it's not a great accomplishment. Although Saddam racked up the body count, he didn't register numbers on that yearly average scale. Although the insurgents are responsible for most of that , most of the rest of the world, feels that a haphazard containment plan on part of the US, is to blame for allowing the insurgents to operate so freely. That's the thinking in the Arab world for sure.

[Lawman]

[quote]Success is not having an all out civil war and getting all those leaders together at a table to work together. I'm not so sure it's possible right now.[/quote]

The premise of this article:

[b]Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" [u]understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. [/u] And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. [u]"Civil war" has replaced "the insurgency" as the proof that the war is "unwinnable." But in plain truth, the "civil war" is and always was the chief tactic of the "insurgency."[/b][/u]

Democracy in Iraq will take time. In this day and age, patience is in short supply.

[quote]I think that is a mistake we made from the very start. Expecting all these peeps to want a democracy, when I believe that secretly, a few of them wanted their own Saddam government, but just couldn't get enough power before.[/quote]

I can respect your position, but I beg to differ that under Saddam they did not even have a choice.

Remember, he was getting 100% of the votes during elections.

[quote]I certainly hope they can get some peace, and even try to set up the weakest of democracies, [u]but we never should have tried to go this alone[/u]. I don't know the right answer. But we didn't come in with a plan to help this process along.[/quote]

I do to wish them the best, we actually had more coalition members during this war than the first Gulf War

(less in troop strength); I can go into deep detail on this subject but I have to run.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='236747' date='Mar 22 2006, 02:08 PM']Well, 30,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in 3 years. About a hundred thousand have been horribly injured. So in that sense, it's not a great accomplishment. Although Saddam racked up the body count, he didn't register numbers on that yearly average scale. Although the insurgents are responsible for most of that , most of the rest of the world, feels that a haphazard containment plan on part of the US, is to blame for allowing the insurgents to operate so freely. That's the thinking in the Arab world for sure.[/quote]

if you look at it this way, then WWII the biggest mistake america ever made... america alone lost 291,557 men, and 670,846 americans were injured... japan lost 1.2 million people ... germany lost 3.25 million people in battle... these numbers don't include the german and japanese civilian casualties, b/c i am going off the[url="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html"]battle deaths[/url] i guess the nuke on japan could be considered "battle deaths" so i could be wrong on that... either way, looking at casualty loses, WWII was a huge loss for america...

imo, this is why we can't base winning or losing on how many casualties there are... especially when this war would be considered a masterpeice so far, if we were simply looking at losses... the only war that lost less people were the spanish-american war and the first gulf war... and in the spanish/american war, that doesn't count the 5000 or so people that died b/c of disease... and the first gulf war took about a week to finish...

so in historical terms, this is a masterpiece... and i doubt i could convince many people that this is the case, b/c it simply isn't true...

no question that the iraqis are taking the biggest risk, but they also had the most to lose in the first place...

but lets quit using casualities as a measuring stick, b/c it just doesn't work well in historical comparisions...

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

Rick, you just answered your own question. The figures you quoted were wars. This is not a war. This on paper is the supposed liberation of Iraq which has resulted in CIVILIANs being killed.

This was not a case of people signing up for the army, this is Joe Blow going to the local grocery store and getting blown up by a car explosion. I think the difference is clear to see that it's a case of Apples to Oranges.

The world war comparison also involves a number of nations uniting against one common cause. This is not the case here, and I don't think the comparison can be made.

It's also innacurate to compare death counts considering the advances made in technology, communications and lets even say human attitudes in the last 50 years.

The case being made in the media that...well the deaths are unfortunate but it's for the greater good eventually is also bs'ish.

Imagine yourself as an Iraqi middle class guy. You come home to learn your wife, daugher and son were killed in a suicide bombing. Are you really going to sit back and say, "hmmm, well that is unfortunate, but on the plus side, I can vote and Saddam is gone, also compared to other wars, the death count is not that high"

No man, you are going to want to fucking kill someone. Your life was just destroyed. You will be pissed at the insurgents, but more than likely you will look at the US soldiers patrolling your neighbour hood and think "These are the guys who were meant to liberate me and protect me and they did shit. My family is gone, my life is dogshit and there is no light on the horizon, this has all happened since they arrived. fuck them too"

Would you go up to a family member of someone who died in 9/11 in NYC and say, "I'm sorry your relative died, but in a way it was a good reminder to beef up our security, and in the long run we will be better for it"

No way man. These are real people getting killed, their surviving relatives who are getting pissed, who are losing hope. They think this way, their relatives think this way. This is then passed onto further generations. Grudges are born for a long time man, Pakistan and India for example underwent a very painful separation / civil war almost 60 years ago. Look at the hatred that still exists there.


That is why it isn't an accomplishment at all. It's fostered hatred which in the long run will be a real sore.

And I think it could have been avoided with better planning.

[BengalSIS]

[quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='236777' date='Mar 22 2006, 03:12 PM']Rick, you just answered your own question. The figures you quoted were wars. This is not a war. This on paper is the supposed liberation of Iraq which has resulted in CIVILIANs being killed.

This was not a case of people signing up for the army, this is Joe Blow going to the local grocery store and getting blown up by a car explosion. I think the difference is clear to see that it's a case of Apples to Oranges.

The world war comparison also involves a number of nations uniting against one common cause. This is not the case here, and I don't think the comparison can be made.

It's also innacurate to compare death counts considering the advances made in technology, communications and lets even say human attitudes in the last 50 years.

The case being made in the media that...well the deaths are unfortunate but it's for the greater good eventually is also bs'ish.

Imagine yourself as an Iraqi middle class guy. You come home to learn your wife, daugher and son were killed in a suicide bombing. Are you really going to sit back and say, "hmmm, well that is unfortunate, but on the plus side, I can vote and Saddam is gone, also compared to other wars, the death count is not that high"

No man, you are going to want to fucking kill someone. Your life was just destroyed. You will be pissed at the insurgents, but more than likely you will look at the US soldiers patrolling your neighbour hood and think "These are the guys who were meant to liberate me and protect me and they did shit. My family is gone, my life is dogshit and there is no light on the horizon, this has all happened since they arrived. fuck them too"

Would you go up to a family member of someone who died in 9/11 in NYC and say, "I'm sorry your relative died, but in a way it was a good reminder to beef up our security, and in the long run we will be better for it"

No way man. These are real people getting killed, their surviving relatives who are getting pissed, who are losing hope. They think this way, their relatives think this way. This is then passed onto further generations. Grudges are born for a long time man, Pakistan and India for example underwent a very painful separation / civil war almost 60 years ago. Look at the hatred that still exists there.


That is why it isn't an accomplishment at all. It's fostered hatred which in the long run will be a real sore.

And I think it could have been avoided with better planning.[/quote]

[Guest bengalrick]

sis, sorry but we are in war... bush went before the congress and asked for the authority to go to war... it was passed...

now is it like WWII where our factories are making missiles and guns instead of food or whatever they were doing, no?

but we are at war... no wonder there is such a disconnect between you and i (and others) on this matter... we may not be at war w/ a country, but we certainly are at war w/ terrorism...

as far as comparing WWII to current battles, my point was to discredit casualties as a measuring stick... i'm not sure where you were going w/ your post, b/c you furthered that arguement...

[i]Imagine yourself as an Iraqi middle class guy. You come home to learn your wife, daugher and son were killed in a suicide bombing. Are you really going to sit back and say, "hmmm, well that is unfortunate, but on the plus side, I can vote and Saddam is gone, also compared to other wars, the death count is not that high"[/i]

first of all, entering emotions into any situation doesn't give us any help... but to answer your question, no i wouldn't be all warm inside b/c "at least saddam is gone"... but is that all that is going through this mans mind? i mean, you seem to forget that a majority of people in iraq have been terrorized for decades by saddam... why not use the example of a man that had his wife killed by saddam b/c of some random reason?? i'm sure he would have a different take, if his children were also killed later by american forces...

emotions are hard to overcome... if i had a kid, and someone raped him/her... i would kill them... but if a friend was telling me that they were going to kill this dude b/c they raped his son/daughter, i would attempt to talk them out of it, b/c i know its wrong... but if it were me, right and wrong would not matter, b/c i would be ensensed... i appreciate bring emotions into a debate b/c it can make situations clearer, but in your example, we are assuming that saddam was a good dude and didn't cause heartache into most all iraqis...

[BengalSIS]

Helloooooo rick. That wasn't my post. (Although I agree with a lot of it.)

[BengalSIS]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='236795' date='Mar 22 2006, 03:36 PM']but in your example, we are assuming that saddam was a good dude and didn't cause heartache into most all iraqis...[/quote]

Seriously rick, are you reading what you post? No one said that. Stop with the assumptions of what people are saying. You aren't getting it right.

[Jamie_B]

I tend to wonder how much of the "planning" was the problem and how much of it was a decision made in hubris/arrogance. I tend to wonder if there were mulipule plans discussed, one in which we had more troops and it took longer, (presented by someone like say a Colin Powel), and one that we have now (presented by a someone like say a Rumsfield), and how much of the Rumsfield/Cheney relationship played into the influence of what was finally decided upon. And perhaps why Powell left.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BengalSIS' post='236796' date='Mar 22 2006, 03:39 PM']Helloooooo rick. That wasn't my post. (Although I agree with a lot of it.)[/quote]

oh,...

my bad....

[BengalSIS]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='236798' date='Mar 22 2006, 03:48 PM']I tend to wonder how much of the "planning" was the problem and how much of it was a decision made in hubris/arrogance. I tend to wonder if there were mulipule plans discussed, one in which we had more troops and it took longer, (presented by someone like say a Colin Powel), and one that we have now (presented by a someone like say a Rumsfield), and how much of the Rumsfield/Cheney relationship played into the influence of what was finally decided upon. And perhaps why Powell left.[/quote]


I would bet the farm Powell had a better plan and was rejected because that plan wouldn't have been the sell the admin wanted to give to the public. I definitely think arrogance played a role.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalSIS' post='236802' date='Mar 22 2006, 03:54 PM'][quote name='Jamie_B' post='236798' date='Mar 22 2006, 03:48 PM']
I tend to wonder how much of the "planning" was the problem and how much of it was a decision made in hubris/arrogance. I tend to wonder if there were mulipule plans discussed, one in which we had more troops and it took longer, (presented by someone like say a Colin Powel), and one that we have now (presented by a someone like say a Rumsfield), and how much of the Rumsfield/Cheney relationship played into the influence of what was finally decided upon. And perhaps why Powell left.[/quote]


I would bet the farm Powell had a better plan and was rejected because that plan wouldn't have been the sell the admin wanted to give to the public. I definitely think arrogance played a role.
[/quote]


Which is why at least Rummy and if not Chenny need to go. Unfortnualy Bush is too loyal, and while you want that in a friendship you dont want that in your President. Loyality sure, but not to this point.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BengalSIS' post='236797' date='Mar 22 2006, 03:41 PM'][quote name='bengalrick' post='236795' date='Mar 22 2006, 03:36 PM']
but in your example, we are assuming that saddam was a good dude and didn't cause heartache into most all iraqis...[/quote]

Seriously rick, are you reading what you post? No one said that. Stop with the assumptions of what people are saying. You aren't getting it right.
[/quote]

he was saying that iraqis that lost loved ones are not very happy, even knowing that saddam is gone... my point is that those same people that are pissed about losing a child or spouse very well could have lost love ones b/c of saddam... and that would also affect their thinking also... its hard to use emotions here, b/c for one, the iraqis are much more hardened than we are, after going through what they have had to... they know what it feels like to not have freedom.. i'm sure there are many differing views from iraqis, but the key to this all is, if they want us to leave, we have to... otherwise, we are going against the iraqi people... we may have came originally uninvited, but now, we are there by their invitation...

nobody wants war, or at least noone sane wants war...