Why Does George React Now?

"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08...
> "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message
> news:2a8zh.21$8b1.2@trndny03...
>> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:O%2zh.1057$Yn4.770@trnddc03...
>>> "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message
>>> news:xBOyh.13901$fT1.80@trndny02...
>>>> I think my response addresses your questions pretty directly, in case
>>>> you are interested in actually discussing the issue.
>>> What EXACTLY can Syria do or say?
>> EXACTLY? I don't know enough about diplomacy to precisely describe a
>> scenario.
>
> But my pinning you down made you think about it.

Good on you.

>> For some reason there seems to be a convention that a third party has to
>> intercede in order for opposed sides to have an excuse to discuss the
>> possibility of ending a conflict, rather than just wait for one's side to
>> win, surrender, or be defeated.
>
> Without a thrid party one side or the other might just shoot the other
> across the table!

How does the third party prevent this?

> Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian government.
> The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's ONE side. The
> legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone else falls into ONE
> of these categories:
>
> 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens.
> 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals.
> 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals.

The categories overlap. For example, Sadr sits in Parliament and commands
death squads. I don't think it's entirely clear how much the government and
the criminals are intertwined.

> Explain to me why ANYBODY would negotiate with CRIMINALS?
>
>> Not that I entirely trust Syria's intentions, but I don't know how they
>> would be likely to make things worse by getting Iraqis talking to each
>> other.
>
> You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual
> legal entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE?

The key issue is a practical one. Will it do more harm to continue the
fighting or to compromise? It depends on what the fighters want. It is
somewhat unrealistic to consider the fighters primarily criminals when the
country is in a state of near-anarchy, and the criminals are sitting in the
government.

_invertebrate_
 
"pallet" <georgek@aol.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-26EB46.13351010022007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad
> doesn't cut it. as the following article points out. the U.S. is not
> wanted in these discussions. so there!

I like where I am in life for a number of reasons, here's one. My children
have grown way past being teenagers and my grandchildren have a long way to
go before they are teenagers - which means I don't have any teenagers in my
life.

And you aren't going to be the next one.

> Let's see. we kill (execute) people to demonstrate , killing is wrong.

We kill the enemy because its fun.
 
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message
news:M6Azh.2313$H77.196@trndny08...
> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08...
>>> For some reason there seems to be a convention that a third party has to
>>> intercede in order for opposed sides to have an excuse to discuss the
>>> possibility of ending a conflict, rather than just wait for one's side
>>> to win, surrender, or be defeated.
>> Without a thrid party one side or the other might just shoot the other
>> across the table!
> How does the third party prevent this?

Sorry, that should have been funnier...

>> Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian government.
>> The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's ONE side. The
>> legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone else falls into
>> ONE of these categories:
>> 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens.
>> 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals.
>> 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals.
> The categories overlap. For example, Sadr sits in Parliament and commands
> death squads. I don't think it's entirely clear how much the government
> and the criminals are intertwined.

I don't disagree. So, who EXACTLY is this OTHER SIDE we're suppossed to
negotiate with?

Sadr has already said he has stood down.

>> You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual
>> legal entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE?
> The key issue is a practical one. Will it do more harm to continue the
> fighting or to compromise?

Exactly WHO do we compromise WITH? Who's in charge of the OTHER SIDE? Do
you have their telephone number? Maybe Mickey-ears there in Syria can give
them a call and find out EXACTLY what they want.

Do they have an address? We could get Condi to write up a perfumy letter
asking for their list of demands. That would be nice to have to start
negotiations, eh?

> It depends on what the fighters want. It is somewhat unrealistic to
> consider the fighters primarily criminals when the country is in a state
> of near-anarchy, and the criminals are sitting in the government.

Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not
participating in this alleged anarchy...

I'm not saying its wonderful over there but maybe you could start seeing the
big picture.

Isn't it just a wee bit UNUSUAL when a THIRD PARTY (two in this case) arrive
on the scene of the hostages-taken bank robbery and OFFER to mediate a
negotiation WHEN WE DON"T EVEN KNOW WHO THE BANK ROBBERS ARE YET?

If you don't smell something fishy get your nose checked....
 
Patriot Games wrote:

> "pallet" <georgek@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:georgek-26EB46.13351010022007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad
>> doesn't cut it. as the following article points out. the U.S. is not
>> wanted in these discussions. so there!
>
> I like where I am in life for a number of reasons, here's one. My children
> have grown way past being teenagers and my grandchildren have a long way to
> go before they are teenagers - which means I don't have any teenagers in my
> life.
>
> And you aren't going to be the next one.
>
>> Let's see. we kill (execute) people to demonstrate , killing is wrong.
>
> We kill the enemy because its fun.

You don't kill amy enemy because you're a chickenhawk.

--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
 
On Feb 10, 4:35 pm, pallet <geor...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08>,
> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual legal
> > entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE?
>
> the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad
> doesn't cut it.

The majority of the Iraqi people voted for this "puppet".
They aren't interested in being ruled by a minority
who think that the best contribution to the
future of Iraq is to wrap yourself in explosives
and blow up a crowd of civilians in a marketplace
for Allah.

--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
 
"GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" <gw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kk5Ah.273678$aJ.202275@attbi_s21...
> Patriot Games wrote:
>>> Let's see. we kill (execute) people to demonstrate , killing is wrong.
>> We kill the enemy because its fun.
> You don't kill amy enemy because you're a chickenhawk.

If that makes you feel warm and fuzzy then feel free to believe it.
 
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 10, 4:35 pm, pallet <geor...@aol.com> wrote:
>> In article <%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08>,
>> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual legal
>>> entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE?
>> the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad
>> doesn't cut it.
>
> The majority of the Iraqi people voted for this "puppet".
> They aren't interested in being ruled by a minority
> who think that the best contribution to the
> future of Iraq is to wrap yourself in explosives
> and blow up a crowd of civilians in a marketplace
> for Allah.
>

A majority voted for Hitler. A majority voted for Stalin.

"The people don
 
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:U55Ah.10340$Yn4.334@trnddc03...
> "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message
> news:M6Azh.2313$H77.196@trndny08...
>> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08...
>>>> For some reason there seems to be a convention that a third party has
>>>> to intercede in order for opposed sides to have an excuse to discuss
>>>> the possibility of ending a conflict, rather than just wait for one's
>>>> side to win, surrender, or be defeated.
>>> Without a thrid party one side or the other might just shoot the other
>>> across the table!
>> How does the third party prevent this?
>
> Sorry, that should have been funnier...

It was kind of funny.

>>> Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian
>>> government. The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's
>>> ONE side. The legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone
>>> else falls into ONE of these categories:
>>> 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens.
>>> 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals.
>>> 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals.
>> The categories overlap. For example, Sadr sits in Parliament and
>> commands death squads. I don't think it's entirely clear how much the
>> government and the criminals are intertwined.
>
> I don't disagree. So, who EXACTLY is this OTHER SIDE we're suppossed to
> negotiate with?

The IRAQIS negotiate. The US could only be an interested outside party. As
far as who exactly the people are,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency probably does a fairly
accurate job of naming the major insurgent groups. So whichever groups are
willing to come to the table are the ones that negotiate.

> Sadr has already said he has stood down.

I haven't heard that. I heard that in January he and some cohorts had
decided to end their boycott of Parliament. I believe other members have
ties to violent groups, and I can try to find reporting on such ties if you
are interested.

Actually, I overlooked a point that might be more important. Iraq's
Parliament is hardly functioning because so few members are showing up, out
of fear or out of a sense of futility. The government barely exists,
practically abdicating the legitimacy conferred upon it by the elections.
The vacuum gets filled partly by death squads, and partly by fairly
legitimate local governments just making do without a central authority. I
suppose these local authorities would also have to be involved in any
negotiations.

>>> You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual
>>> legal entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE?
>> The key issue is a practical one. Will it do more harm to continue the
>> fighting or to compromise?
>
> Exactly WHO do we compromise WITH? Who's in charge of the OTHER SIDE? Do
> you have their telephone number? Maybe Mickey-ears there in Syria can
> give them a call and find out EXACTLY what they want.
>
> Do they have an address? We could get Condi to write up a perfumy letter
> asking for their list of demands. That would be nice to have to start
> negotiations, eh?

I'll reiterate that the US wouldn't really be a central party in the
negotiations.

You rightly point out that groups and their leaders aren't necessarily
recognizable and easy to communicate with, and they may not wish to identify
themselves. This is a problem that is not necessarily insurmountable. If
the call goes out for negotiations to begin, the groups can make it known
whether they wish to participate. Not all groups have to participate, that
just means they won't have any say in the negotiations. The negotiations
will be conducted by whomever shows up, and if too many groups abstain than
the negotiations would be irrelevant. If the negotiations are productive,
there will be some new understandings between the groups that could lessen
the bloodshed. The negotiations might not be productive, but it seems like
a worthwhile gamble.

>> It depends on what the fighters want. It is somewhat unrealistic to
>> consider the fighters primarily criminals when the country is in a state
>> of near-anarchy, and the criminals are sitting in the government.
>
> Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not
> participating in this alleged anarchy...

A silly way to frame things. Iraq doesn't need Ahmed to act anarchic in
order to be in anarchy. Iraq is more anarchic the less power a legitimate
government has to fight threats to law and order in Ahmed's neighborhood, no
matter how few villains there are.

> I'm not saying its wonderful over there but maybe you could start seeing
> the big picture.
>
> Isn't it just a wee bit UNUSUAL when a THIRD PARTY (two in this case)
> arrive on the scene of the hostages-taken bank robbery and OFFER to
> mediate a negotiation WHEN WE DON"T EVEN KNOW WHO THE BANK ROBBERS ARE
> YET?
>
> If you don't smell something fishy get your nose checked....

Assuming there is something fishy, what do you think Syria's intentions
might be, and how would they do any harm?

_invertebrate_
 
On Feb 13, 6:24 pm, strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
> firelock...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 4:35 pm, pallet <geor...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> In article <%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08>,
> >> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual legal
> >>> entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE?
> >> the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad
> >> doesn't cut it.
>
> > The majority of the Iraqi people voted for this "puppet".
> > They aren't interested in being ruled by a minority
> > who think that the best contribution to the
> > future of Iraq is to wrap yourself in explosives
> > and blow up a crowd of civilians in a marketplace
> > for Allah.
>
> A majority voted for Hitler. A majority voted for Stalin.

A majority voted for John F. Kennedy, Carter and Clinton.
By your argument, they're as bad as Hitler and Stalin.
Isn't that nice?

> "The people don't need to know the results of the election;
> it's enough for them to know that there WAS an election."
> - Josef Stalin
>
> "Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
> Those who count the votes decide everything."
> - Josef Stalin

So for Stalin it doesn't matter who votes for who...are
you claiming there's a parallel in Iraq? You have
evidence for vote fraud there, or you're just assuming
it because it fits your mythology?

> That's the beauty of democracies. One can always blame the voters.

Interesting that you keep harping on "Stalin" while
pretending that you're talking about "democracies".
It would tend to make one wonder if you have any
clue what you are talking about.

--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
 
"strabo" <strabo@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:1171409173_79@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 4:35 pm, pallet <geor...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> In article <%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08>,
>>> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual
>>>> legal
>>>> entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE?
>>> the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad
>>> doesn't cut it.
>> The majority of the Iraqi people voted for this "puppet".
>> They aren't interested in being ruled by a minority
>> who think that the best contribution to the
>> future of Iraq is to wrap yourself in explosives
>> and blow up a crowd of civilians in a marketplace
>> for Allah.
> A majority voted for Hitler. A majority voted for Stalin.
> That's the beauty of democracies. One can always blame the voters.

Anybody could have put up candidates....
 
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message
news:IFDAh.3360$5M1.952@trndny01...
> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:U55Ah.10340$Yn4.334@trnddc03...
>>>> Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian
>>>> government. The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's
>>>> ONE side. The legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone
>>>> else falls into ONE of these categories:
>>>> 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens.
>>>> 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals.
>>>> 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals.
>>> The categories overlap. For example, Sadr sits in Parliament and
>>> commands death squads. I don't think it's entirely clear how much the
>>> government and the criminals are intertwined.
>> I don't disagree. So, who EXACTLY is this OTHER SIDE we're suppossed to
>> negotiate with?
> The IRAQIS negotiate. The US could only be an interested outside party.
> As far as who exactly the people are,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency probably does a fairly
> accurate job of naming the major insurgent groups. So whichever groups
> are willing to come to the table are the ones that negotiate.

And everybody else will magically become law-abiding Iraqis?

But I like your idea. Its an excellent sting. We put up a big sign that
says Insurgent Negotiations Here and we arrest everybody who shows up...

>> Sadr has already said he has stood down.
> I haven't heard that. I heard that in January he and some cohorts had
> decided to end their boycott of Parliament. I believe other members have
> ties to violent groups, and I can try to find reporting on such ties if
> you are interested.

Apparently Sadr went home - TO IRAN.

> Actually, I overlooked a point that might be more important. Iraq's
> Parliament is hardly functioning because so few members are showing up,
> out of fear or out of a sense of futility. The government barely exists,
> practically abdicating the legitimacy conferred upon it by the elections.
> The vacuum gets filled partly by death squads, and partly by fairly
> legitimate local governments just making do without a central authority.
> I suppose these local authorities would also have to be involved in any
> negotiations.

They're gonna need a really big table...

> I'll reiterate that the US wouldn't really be a central party in the
> negotiations.

I still like your idea. Everybody agrees to be nice for a while, we leave,
they're on their own! If our job is really done, because they're gonna
negotiate then we don't need to be there?

> You rightly point out that groups and their leaders aren't necessarily
> recognizable and easy to communicate with, and they may not wish to
> identify themselves. This is a problem that is not necessarily
> insurmountable. If the call goes out for negotiations to begin, the
> groups can make it known whether they wish to participate. Not all groups
> have to participate, that just means they won't have any say in the
> negotiations. The negotiations will be conducted by whomever shows up,
> and if too many groups abstain than the negotiations would be irrelevant.
> If the negotiations are productive, there will be some new understandings
> between the groups that could lessen the bloodshed. The negotiations
> might not be productive, but it seems like a worthwhile gamble.

Doesn't that sound suspiciously like an election? The call goes out for an
election, political parties are formed, candidates are named, the population
votes, and the winner wins? So, didn't the Iraqis already do this?

>> Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not
>> participating in this alleged anarchy...
> A silly way to frame things. Iraq doesn't need Ahmed to act anarchic in
> order to be in anarchy. Iraq is more anarchic the less power a legitimate
> government has to fight threats to law and order in Ahmed's neighborhood,
> no matter how few villains there are.

Silly or inaccurate?

>> Isn't it just a wee bit UNUSUAL when a THIRD PARTY (two in this case)
>> arrive on the scene of the hostages-taken bank robbery and OFFER to
>> mediate a negotiation WHEN WE DON"T EVEN KNOW WHO THE BANK ROBBERS ARE
>> YET?
>> If you don't smell something fishy get your nose checked....
> Assuming there is something fishy, what do you think Syria's intentions
> might be...?

A loud, violent, criminal minority is attempting to overthrow the
legitimately elected civilian gov't. Syria supports the side of the
criminal minority (as does Iran). Their intentions are to usurp the will of
the people who voted and create unearned influence over Iraq.

> ...and how would they do any harm?

I think thwarting the will of the people and the democratic process is
plenty of harm.
 
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:B9IAh.6043$4_5.5178@trnddc05...
> "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message
> news:IFDAh.3360$5M1.952@trndny01...
>> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:U55Ah.10340$Yn4.334@trnddc03...
>>>>> Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian
>>>>> government. The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's
>>>>> ONE side. The legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone
>>>>> else falls into ONE of these categories:
>>>>> 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens.
>>>>> 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals.
>>>>> 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals.
>>>> The categories overlap. For example, Sadr sits in Parliament and
>>>> commands death squads. I don't think it's entirely clear how much the
>>>> government and the criminals are intertwined.
>>> I don't disagree. So, who EXACTLY is this OTHER SIDE we're suppossed to
>>> negotiate with?
>> The IRAQIS negotiate. The US could only be an interested outside party.
>> As far as who exactly the people are,
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency probably does a fairly
>> accurate job of naming the major insurgent groups. So whichever groups
>> are willing to come to the table are the ones that negotiate.
>
> And everybody else will magically become law-abiding Iraqis?

Away with your strawman. Those who come to the table become the supporters
of Iraq's new society, those who don't become its enemies. It will be up to
those at the table to decide how to deal with those who aren't there.

This is of course assuming those at the table can reach some consensus,
which I do not actually think likely. I'm only saying it's worth a gamble.

> But I like your idea. Its an excellent sting. We put up a big sign that
> says Insurgent Negotiations Here and we arrest everybody who shows up...

Actually, that wasn't quite what I had in mind. The fighting would probably
continue if we did that.

>>> Sadr has already said he has stood down.
>> I haven't heard that. I heard that in January he and some cohorts had
>> decided to end their boycott of Parliament. I believe other members have
>> ties to violent groups, and I can try to find reporting on such ties if
>> you are interested.
>
> Apparently Sadr went home - TO IRAN.

It does look that way. Okay, so Sadr's gone.

>> Actually, I overlooked a point that might be more important. Iraq's
>> Parliament is hardly functioning because so few members are showing up,
>> out of fear or out of a sense of futility. The government barely exists,
>> practically abdicating the legitimacy conferred upon it by the elections.
>> The vacuum gets filled partly by death squads, and partly by fairly
>> legitimate local governments just making do without a central authority.
>> I suppose these local authorities would also have to be involved in any
>> negotiations.
>
> They're gonna need a really big table...

How big a table does the Iraqi Parliament have?

The table might be smaller if groups were willing to team up together,
putting their collective clout behind shared representatives.

>> I'll reiterate that the US wouldn't really be a central party in the
>> negotiations.
>
> I still like your idea. Everybody agrees to be nice for a while, we
> leave, they're on their own! If our job is really done, because they're
> gonna negotiate then we don't need to be there?

I'd sure like to get out. At least we could know that we weren't directly
causing any ongoing fighting. Again, I'm not actually optimistic that this
big meeting in Syria would work, but maybe enough groups to matter could be
coaxed into making a go of it. And if Iraq continues to fall apart, the
question is how much we should care. I hate watching people fight, but that
might be preferable to having our troops there.

That last comment of yours actually seemed tinged with optimism. Was that
sincere, or was I failing to pick up on your sarcasm?

>> You rightly point out that groups and their leaders aren't necessarily
>> recognizable and easy to communicate with, and they may not wish to
>> identify themselves. This is a problem that is not necessarily
>> insurmountable. If the call goes out for negotiations to begin, the
>> groups can make it known whether they wish to participate. Not all
>> groups have to participate, that just means they won't have any say in
>> the negotiations. The negotiations will be conducted by whomever shows
>> up, and if too many groups abstain than the negotiations would be
>> irrelevant. If the negotiations are productive, there will be some new
>> understandings between the groups that could lessen the bloodshed. The
>> negotiations might not be productive, but it seems like a worthwhile
>> gamble.
>
> Doesn't that sound suspiciously like an election? The call goes out for
> an election, political parties are formed, candidates are named, the
> population votes, and the winner wins? So, didn't the Iraqis already do
> this?

Well, in this case, there wouldn't be accountability to voters. Some of
what the Iraqis elected would be at the table, but also the insurgents would
be there, not because they've been democratically legitimized, but because
they have military power, and have proven themselves strong enough threats
to civil society that they need to be negotiated with. The insurgents fight
because they don't think they have a stake in the framework offered to the
Iraqi public by the elections. These hypothetical negotiations would be to
see if any compromises could be reached with the various insurgent groups.

>>> Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not
>>> participating in this alleged anarchy...
>> A silly way to frame things. Iraq doesn't need Ahmed to act anarchic in
>> order to be in anarchy. Iraq is more anarchic the less power a
>> legitimate government has to fight threats to law and order in Ahmed's
>> neighborhood, no matter how few villains there are.
>
> Silly or inaccurate?

Not sure what you're getting at. Were you trying to make a point about
Iraq's anarchy being the fault of a few? I wouldn't call the "silly" point
"inaccurate," I'd just say it seems to miss the point. Or maybe you meant
"accurate" instead of "inaccurate." Regardless, as long as a tiny minority
wants anarchy and is not successfully put down, anarchy happens.

>>> Isn't it just a wee bit UNUSUAL when a THIRD PARTY (two in this case)
>>> arrive on the scene of the hostages-taken bank robbery and OFFER to
>>> mediate a negotiation WHEN WE DON"T EVEN KNOW WHO THE BANK ROBBERS ARE
>>> YET?
>>> If you don't smell something fishy get your nose checked....
>> Assuming there is something fishy, what do you think Syria's intentions
>> might be...?
>
> A loud, violent, criminal minority is attempting to overthrow the
> legitimately elected civilian gov't.

There are many loud, violent. minority groups ("criminal" has limited
meaning in a country with a limited government) (not that I'm against
limited government, I'm just against a government that can't keep insurgents
from taking over a city).

> Syria supports the side of the criminal minority (as does Iran).

I don't know how many of the groups have the support of Syria or Iran. All
I'm reasonably sure of is that Iran supports Sadr's Mahdi Army. But
according to the chart in the Wikipedia article, some guy named Abu Deraa
formed his own offshoot Mahdi Army. Maybe Iran supports them too, I dunno.
It's a mess.

> Their intentions are to usurp the will of the people who voted and create
> unearned influence over Iraq.

The will of the people has already been usurped by circumstance, by the
weakness of the elected government and the strength of the insurgency.

>> ...and how would they do any harm?
>
> I think thwarting the will of the people and the democratic process is
> plenty of harm.

I mean, what methods would Syria use to pursue its goals?

If Syria is that much of an enemy to Iraq, I would think Iraqis by and large
would not show up, in which case little harm is done. It would be nice if
the US could play arbiter, but Iraqis don't much trust us. I have no idea
if they trust Syria. Ideally some country would come forward that a
meaningful number of Iraqi groups would accept as a host for negotiations.

If we haven't already, I think we're about to run up against my basic
ignorance of history and politics. I don't know enough about multi-party
negotiations to know whether anything like Syria's suggestion has ever come
close to working. On the other hand, I don't know of any precedent to make
us think that Syria could use this opportunity to dominate Iraq. If anyone
could suggest some relevant historical info, I'd love to see it.

_invertebrate_
 
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message
news:tHsBh.74$tQ.47@trndny07...
> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:B9IAh.6043$4_5.5178@trnddc05...
>>> The IRAQIS negotiate. The US could only be an interested outside party.
>>> As far as who exactly the people are,
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency probably does a fairly
>>> accurate job of naming the major insurgent groups. So whichever groups
>>> are willing to come to the table are the ones that negotiate.
>> And everybody else will magically become law-abiding Iraqis?
> Away with your strawman. Those who come to the table become the
> supporters of Iraq's new society, those who don't become its enemies. It
> will be up to those at the table to decide how to deal with those who
> aren't there.

So, best outcome is fewer insurgents? That's not so bad...

> This is of course assuming those at the table can reach some consensus,
> which I do not actually think likely. I'm only saying it's worth a
> gamble.

I doubt it too.

>> But I like your idea. Its an excellent sting. We put up a big sign that
>> says Insurgent Negotiations Here and we arrest everybody who shows up...
> Actually, that wasn't quite what I had in mind. The fighting would
> probably continue if we did that.

Geez... I was just joking....

>> Apparently Sadr went home - TO IRAN.
> It does look that way. Okay, so Sadr's gone.

It would be an excellent time to storm his Mosque, kill as many of his
followers as possible and see how that affects the overall Insurgency....

Sorry, that's just my old-fashioned way wanting to win...

>> They're gonna need a really big table...
> How big a table does the Iraqi Parliament have?

Beats the **** out of me!

> The table might be smaller if groups were willing to team up together,
> putting their collective clout behind shared representatives.

Didn't they have that chance during elections?

>>> I'll reiterate that the US wouldn't really be a central party in the
>>> negotiations.
>> I still like your idea. Everybody agrees to be nice for a while, we
>> leave, they're on their own! If our job is really done, because they're
>> gonna negotiate then we don't need to be there?
> I'd sure like to get out. At least we could know that we weren't directly
> causing any ongoing fighting. Again, I'm not actually optimistic that
> this big meeting in Syria would work, but maybe enough groups to matter
> could be coaxed into making a go of it. And if Iraq continues to fall
> apart, the question is how much we should care. I hate watching people
> fight, but that might be preferable to having our troops there.

I think sometime around May-June is when we look at The Surge and we either
declare we did good and begin to pull back - OR - declare you're on your own
and begin to pull back...

> That last comment of yours actually seemed tinged with optimism. Was that
> sincere, or was I failing to pick up on your sarcasm?

I'm the littlest bit optimistic. Just a little bit. My personal #1 concern
is that we leave with honor having done a damned good thing for them.
Having said that I hope we can do that AND they are working out their
differences within the boundaries of their legal system and with political
weapons.

Its important for us to not be visibly there. We didn't cause the
Insurgency but we are the magnet for the foreigners (Al Qaeda) which can't
be good fo the Iraqis.

>> Doesn't that sound suspiciously like an election? The call goes out for
>> an election, political parties are formed, candidates are named, the
>> population votes, and the winner wins? So, didn't the Iraqis already do
>> this?
> Well, in this case, there wouldn't be accountability to voters. Some of
> what the Iraqis elected would be at the table, but also the insurgents
> would be there, not because they've been democratically legitimized, but
> because they have military power, and have proven themselves strong enough
> threats to civil society that they need to be negotiated with.

I hate the sound of that....

> The insurgents fight because they don't think they have a stake in the
> framework offered to the Iraqi public by the elections.

But isn't that what happens when your side fails to get enough votes?

Did we forget to teach them that when we were helping them with a
Constitution and elections and such?

> These hypothetical negotiations would be to see if any compromises could
> be reached with the various insurgent groups.

I got that part. I'm having trouble with why we don't kill the criminals...

>>>> Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not
>>>> participating in this alleged anarchy...
>>> A silly way to frame things. Iraq doesn't need Ahmed to act anarchic in
>>> order to be in anarchy. Iraq is more anarchic the less power a
>>> legitimate government has to fight threats to law and order in Ahmed's
>>> neighborhood, no matter how few villains there are.
>> Silly or inaccurate?
> Not sure what you're getting at. Were you trying to make a point about
> Iraq's anarchy being the fault of a few? I wouldn't call the "silly"
> point "inaccurate," I'd just say it seems to miss the point. Or maybe you
> meant "accurate" instead of "inaccurate." Regardless, as long as a tiny
> minority wants anarchy and is not successfully put down, anarchy happens.

So what is the difference between basic anti-gov't criminal behavior and
anarchy? What/where is the line and when did we cross it?

>> A loud, violent, criminal minority is attempting to overthrow the
>> legitimately elected civilian gov't.
> There are many loud, violent. minority groups ("criminal" has limited
> meaning in a country with a limited government) (not that I'm against
> limited government, I'm just against a government that can't keep
> insurgents from taking over a city).

So, is the Insurgency that strong or is the gov't (with our help) that weak?

>> Syria supports the side of the criminal minority (as does Iran).
> I don't know how many of the groups have the support of Syria or Iran.
> All I'm reasonably sure of is that Iran supports Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Agreed.

>> Their intentions are to usurp the will of the people who voted and create
>> unearned influence over Iraq.
> The will of the people has already been usurped by circumstance, by the
> weakness of the elected government and the strength of the insurgency.

We'll see... If you're correct then what really needs to happen is a truce
and new Elections.

>>> ...and how would they do any harm?
>> I think thwarting the will of the people and the democratic process is
>> plenty of harm.
> I mean, what methods would Syria use to pursue its goals?

Funding one or more insurgent groups.

Alternatively, they could fund one or more candidates. That would suck but
still be better than civil war in the streets.
 
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rMmCh.832$CG5.722@trnddc03...
> "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message
> news:tHsBh.74$tQ.47@trndny07...
>> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:B9IAh.6043$4_5.5178@trnddc05...
>>>> I'll reiterate that the US wouldn't really be a central party in the
>>>> negotiations.
>>> I still like your idea. Everybody agrees to be nice for a while, we
>>> leave, they're on their own! If our job is really done, because they're
>>> gonna negotiate then we don't need to be there?
>> I'd sure like to get out. At least we could know that we weren't
>> directly causing any ongoing fighting. Again, I'm not actually
>> optimistic that this big meeting in Syria would work, but maybe enough
>> groups to matter could be coaxed into making a go of it. And if Iraq
>> continues to fall apart, the question is how much we should care. I hate
>> watching people fight, but that might be preferable to having our troops
>> there.
>
> I think sometime around May-June is when we look at The Surge and we
> either declare we did good and begin to pull back - OR - declare you're on
> your own and begin to pull back...

I fault supporters of the war for feeling justified in saying "just give it
this one last chance." The war has gone for almost four years and pretty
steadily gotten worse. It's not exactly VietNam, but it's kind of a small
one. Maybe it wouldn't even be as bad as it is under different leadership,
but I think the best time to make a difference was at the beginning. For
about three years now the insurgency just seems to get stronger. If our
military were able to defeat the insurgency, it should have done so by now.
We had Operation Forward Together in the summer, which was a smaller troop
increase than the new one, but why didn't that one work?

There will always be something else Bush can try. Maybe a different
leadership could implement a very different counter-insurgency strategy, but
that's not even on the table. I hope the surge works, but I don't think it
will.

>>> Doesn't that sound suspiciously like an election? The call goes out for
>>> an election, political parties are formed, candidates are named, the
>>> population votes, and the winner wins? So, didn't the Iraqis already do
>>> this?
>> Well, in this case, there wouldn't be accountability to voters. Some of
>> what the Iraqis elected would be at the table, but also the insurgents
>> would be there, not because they've been democratically legitimized, but
>> because they have military power, and have proven themselves strong
>> enough threats to civil society that they need to be negotiated with.
>
> I hate the sound of that....

It's hard to refuse to negotiate with someone you can't beat. Whether the
insurgents have any real legitimacy is irrelevant. Mere survival imparts
something like legitimacy. Iraq's national government has a legitimacy
partly based in America's military might.

If negotiations don't offer any acceptable compromises, then you can keep
fighting. The risk then is that the compromises might start to look better.

>> The insurgents fight because they don't think they have a stake in the
>> framework offered to the Iraqi public by the elections.
>
> But isn't that what happens when your side fails to get enough votes?

I don't think the insurgents are all simply sore losers.

> Did we forget to teach them that when we were helping them with a
> Constitution and elections and such?

Our attempt to set up a government has been a partial failure. Some reject
it as an American creation, or as an institution at odds with their
respective ethnic groups or their ideologies. And these opinions would be
irrelevant but for the fact that the insurgency survives. Many of the
insurgents probably have visions for Iraq that are totalitarian, but maybe
they can accept compromises. Maybe they would accept democracy if they
could be guaranteed less influence by foreign interests, or more autonomy
for provinces or ethnic groups.

>> These hypothetical negotiations would be to see if any compromises could
>> be reached with the various insurgent groups.
>
> I got that part. I'm having trouble with why we don't kill the
> criminals...

I've touched on why they aren't necessarily criminals, so I'll assume you
are aware of that perspective. Regardless, we haven't killed the criminals
because we can't. At least, not comprehensively enough to end the
insurgency. Don't bother arguing the rightness of something you're
incapable of. Choose from the results you can actually achieve.

Killing the criminals might be easier if we want to sacrifice a lot of
non-criminals, but that would be bad.

>>>>> Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not
>>>>> participating in this alleged anarchy...
>>>> A silly way to frame things. Iraq doesn't need Ahmed to act anarchic
>>>> in order to be in anarchy. Iraq is more anarchic the less power a
>>>> legitimate government has to fight threats to law and order in Ahmed's
>>>> neighborhood, no matter how few villains there are.
>>> Silly or inaccurate?
>> Not sure what you're getting at. Were you trying to make a point about
>> Iraq's anarchy being the fault of a few? I wouldn't call the "silly"
>> point "inaccurate," I'd just say it seems to miss the point. Or maybe
>> you meant "accurate" instead of "inaccurate." Regardless, as long as a
>> tiny minority wants anarchy and is not successfully put down, anarchy
>> happens.
>
> So what is the difference between basic anti-gov't criminal behavior and
> anarchy? What/where is the line and when did we cross it?

That's a pretty important question, and I am not positive it has an answer.
But I think the distinction lies not in the behavior but in the nature of
the society. Terrorism and slaughter are met with different responses by a
strong government than by a weak one. I think an insurgency can only really
survive when the current order doesn't have enough to offer to the people.
That means the society is either brutal tyrany or anarchy.

>>> A loud, violent, criminal minority is attempting to overthrow the
>>> legitimately elected civilian gov't.
>> There are many loud, violent. minority groups ("criminal" has limited
>> meaning in a country with a limited government) (not that I'm against
>> limited government, I'm just against a government that can't keep
>> insurgents from taking over a city).
>
> So, is the Insurgency that strong or is the gov't (with our help) that
> weak?

I'd say both. The government might not have to be as strong if it weren't
for the dissatisfaction with security and infrastructure following the
invasion, but the frustration has contributed to insurgent groups that the
government can't put down.

>>> Their intentions are to usurp the will of the people who voted and
>>> create unearned influence over Iraq.
>> The will of the people has already been usurped by circumstance, by the
>> weakness of the elected government and the strength of the insurgency.
>
> We'll see... If you're correct then what really needs to happen is a
> truce and new Elections.

I fear that Iraqis might accept a less democratic framework at this point.
But negotiations seem so unlikely that it is irrelevant.

However, I don't know what I actually predict happening. We will leave at
some point in the next few years, and Iraq then will look like it does now.
I don't know what happens to Iraq then.

>>>> ...and how would they do any harm?
>>> I think thwarting the will of the people and the democratic process is
>>> plenty of harm.
>> I mean, what methods would Syria use to pursue its goals?
>
> Funding one or more insurgent groups.

I guess they may already be doing that.

> Alternatively, they could fund one or more candidates. That would suck
> but still be better than civil war in the streets.

They probably would do that.

You didn't really address my original question, or what I attempted to ask,
which was how Syria implements some nasty plan under the pretext of hosting
negotiations between Iraqi groups.

_invertebrate_
 
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message
news:mGPCh.10012$SR.5252@trndny06...
> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rMmCh.832$CG5.722@trnddc03...
>> I think sometime around May-June is when we look at The Surge and we
>> either declare we did good and begin to pull back - OR - declare you're
>> on your own and begin to pull back...
> I fault supporters of the war for feeling justified in saying "just give
> it this one last chance." The war has gone for almost four years and
> pretty steadily gotten worse.

Not really. Everything was going very well until the Insurgency started.

> If our military were able to defeat the insurgency, it should have done so
> by now. We had Operation Forward Together in the summer, which was a
> smaller troop increase than the new one, but why didn't that one work?

Beats me.

> There will always be something else Bush can try.

I don't think so. I think this is it.

> I hope the surge works, but I don't think it will.

We'll see.

>> I hate the sound of that....
> It's hard to refuse to negotiate with someone you can't beat. Whether the
> insurgents have any real legitimacy is irrelevant. Mere survival imparts
> something like legitimacy. Iraq's national government has a legitimacy
> partly based in America's military might.

That's true.

> If negotiations don't offer any acceptable compromises, then you can keep
> fighting. The risk then is that the compromises might start to look
> better.

Why not just hold a new series of elections?

>>> The insurgents fight because they don't think they have a stake in the
>>> framework offered to the Iraqi public by the elections.
>> But isn't that what happens when your side fails to get enough votes?
> I don't think the insurgents are all simply sore losers.

Of course they are more than that. They were the former's dictator's pet
and they LIKED IT THAT WAY.

>> Did we forget to teach them that when we were helping them with a
>> Constitution and elections and such?
> Our attempt to set up a government has been a partial failure. Some
> reject it as an American creation, or as an institution at odds with their
> respective ethnic groups or their ideologies. And these opinions would be
> irrelevant but for the fact that the insurgency survives. Many of the
> insurgents probably have visions for Iraq that are totalitarian, but maybe
> they can accept compromises. Maybe they would accept democracy if they
> could be guaranteed less influence by foreign interests, or more autonomy
> for provinces or ethnic groups.

I think it would be a betrayal of the Iraqi people who voted to make
concessions and compromises on their behalf.

>> I got that part. I'm having trouble with why we don't kill the
>> criminals...
> I've touched on why they aren't necessarily criminals, so I'll assume you
> are aware of that perspective.

I'm aware of that perspective but I consider it invalid.

> Regardless, we haven't killed the criminals because we can't. At least,
> not comprehensively enough to end the insurgency. Don't bother arguing
> the rightness of something you're incapable of. Choose from the results
> you can actually achieve.
> Killing the criminals might be easier if we want to sacrifice a lot of
> non-criminals, but that would be bad.

Elections are better than concessions.

>> So what is the difference between basic anti-gov't criminal behavior and
>> anarchy? What/where is the line and when did we cross it?
> That's a pretty important question, and I am not positive it has an
> answer. But I think the distinction lies not in the behavior but in the
> nature of the society. Terrorism and slaughter are met with different
> responses by a strong government than by a weak one. I think an
> insurgency can only really survive when the current order doesn't have
> enough to offer to the people. That means the society is either brutal
> tyrany or anarchy.

I think an insurgency is a small violent criminal anti-gov't group activity.

And anarchy is a large violent criminal anti-gov't national movement.

However, if a gov't is so utterly weak it can make an insurgency look like
anarchy.

>> We'll see... If you're correct then what really needs to happen is a
>> truce and new Elections.
> I fear that Iraqis might accept a less democratic framework at this point.

Which is why I don't concessions.

> But negotiations seem so unlikely that it is irrelevant.
> However, I don't know what I actually predict happening. We will leave at
> some point in the next few years, and Iraq then will look like it does
> now. I don't know what happens to Iraq then.
>> Alternatively, they could fund one or more candidates. That would suck
>> but still be better than civil war in the streets.
> They probably would do that.
> You didn't really address my original question, or what I attempted to
> ask, which was how Syria implements some nasty plan under the pretext of
> hosting negotiations between Iraqi groups.

Anything anybody puts on the table that is acceptable to the insurgents is
going to be popularized and pretty much must then be accepted by the gov't.

Syrians could advance almost any proposal... They could offer to put 10,000
troops in Baghdad if the US leaves, the Insurgents could agree, we'd leave,
violence is greatly reduced - and Syria now controls the Iraqi gov't....
 
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZB1Dh.1761$h8.543@trnddc05...
> "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message
> news:mGPCh.10012$SR.5252@trndny06...
>> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:rMmCh.832$CG5.722@trnddc03...
>>> I think sometime around May-June is when we look at The Surge and we
>>> either declare we did good and begin to pull back - OR - declare you're
>>> on your own and begin to pull back...
>> I fault supporters of the war for feeling justified in saying "just give
>> it this one last chance." The war has gone for almost four years and
>> pretty steadily gotten worse.
>
> Not really. Everything was going very well until the Insurgency started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_insurgency#Rate_of_attacks_and_casualties
Look at that chart. It gives the numbers of attacks per month against "the
Coalition and its Iraqi Partners" beginning in May 2003, the second complete
month after the March 20 invasion. When would you say the Insurgency
started?

The attacks drop around January each year. We need more Januaries in Iraq.

>>>> The insurgents fight because they don't think they have a stake in the
>>>> framework offered to the Iraqi public by the elections.
>>> But isn't that what happens when your side fails to get enough votes?
>> I don't think the insurgents are all simply sore losers.
>
> Of course they are more than that. They were the former's dictator's pet
> and they LIKED IT THAT WAY.

The people you describe are, of course, only a part of the insurgency.

_invertebrate_
 
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message
news:eZpDh.5839$lG6.2922@trndny08...
> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ZB1Dh.1761$h8.543@trnddc05...
>> Not really. Everything was going very well until the Insurgency started.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_insurgency#Rate_of_attacks_and_casualties
> Look at that chart. It gives the numbers of attacks per month against
> "the Coalition and its Iraqi Partners" beginning in May 2003, the second
> complete month after the March 20 invasion. When would you say the
> Insurgency started?

Look at the difference between attacks on the coalition and attacks on Iraqi
civilians, when that upsurge of attacks on Iraqi civilians begins to show,
right after the January election, is when the real Insurgency began. (My
opinion.)

> The attacks drop around January each year. We need more Januaries in
> Iraq.

Can't argue with that.

>>>>> The insurgents fight because they don't think they have a stake in the
>>>>> framework offered to the Iraqi public by the elections.
>>>> But isn't that what happens when your side fails to get enough votes?
>>> I don't think the insurgents are all simply sore losers.
>> Of course they are more than that. They were the former's dictator's pet
>> and they LIKED IT THAT WAY.
> The people you describe are, of course, only a part of the insurgency.

I know, everybody has an excuse....

Basra is the test.
 

Similar threads

WorldNews
Parts of U.S. South under tornado watch as storms pound coastal states
Replies
0
Views
24
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Pre-dawn tornado kills four in Mississippi, traps others
Replies
0
Views
21
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Twenty percent chance of cyclone over the northeastern Gulf of Mexico : NHC
Replies
0
Views
21
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Gaston weakens to post tropical storm: NHC
Replies
0
Views
25
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Deadly storms kill 16, trigger tornado threat across U.S. South
Replies
0
Views
25
WorldNews
WorldNews
Back
Top