Iraq inches closer to civil war

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think the problem is that we try to re-build countries, but we try to be nice about it, so we take half-assed measures.

 

Some people only understand force and pain. Sometimes the sword puts people in line a lot faster than negotiations and friendly platitudes.

[Jingus 0]

And I disagree that it was inevitable that part of the world would eventually brutalize another part of the world.

 

Well, why not? Humans are violent and territorial by nature. Are you saying that the world would forever have remained a collection of separate peoples with no colonies or invasions, or that a benevolent utopian society would somehow take over the world in a nonviolent manner?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And I disagree that it was inevitable that part of the world would eventually brutalize another part of the world.

Humans are violent and territorial by nature.

 

This is kinda why I didn't wanna get into it, because it gets to the core of human nature and I'm a shitty philosopher. I don't think it's set in stone that humans are violent and territorial. Males pretty much are. I think if humanity shifts toward a more female-dominated society (based on the current education system, it seems like this could eventually happen [way down the road] in the US) then there could be hope for a less violent human culture. My thinking has been influenced on this subject by this book.

 

Edit: Here's a link that explains a bit more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/demonicapeqa.shtml

[Jingus 0]

It's all chemical. Testosterone as a hormone tends to influence a person towards violent and aggressive behavior, and of course men have a lot more of that than women. But there are certainly violent women out there, lots of them. And it's just a cosmic coincedence that human females are generally smaller, physically weaker, and less aggressive than men. There are many species of life in which the females are larger, stronger, and more violent than the males; just look at black widow spiders for an excellent example.

 

And even if you're right and a matriarchal society would rule peacefully instead of using violence like all the male-dominated ones, for that to work then every culture on earth would have to be matriarchal. Otherwise you'd still have at least one opposing country in which ultraviolent dickswingers are still in control, and most likely they'd look at all those peace-n-love wimmenfolk as nothing more but easy prey.

[2GOLD 0]

It's all chemical. Testosterone as a hormone tends to influence a person towards violent and aggressive behavior, and of course men have a lot more of that than women. But there are certainly violent women out there, lots of them. And it's just a cosmic coincedence that human females are generally smaller, physically weaker, and less aggressive than men. There are many species of life in which the females are larger, stronger, and more violent than the males; just look at black widow spiders for an excellent example.

 

And even if you're right and a matriarchal society would rule peacefully instead of using violence like all the male-dominated ones, for that to work then every culture on earth would have to be matriarchal. Otherwise you'd still have at least one opposing country in which ultraviolent dickswingers are still in control, and most likely they'd look at all those peace-n-love wimmenfolk as nothing more but easy prey.

 

I'm pretty sure the UK did some damage with a Queen in charge. It's a territory thing and what you consider yours. Men and Women both will get in a fight with someone of the same sex over their man/woman and both sides will fight tooth and nail to keep what they feel they earned. Power ultimately corrupts all but we all still strive to achieve it. It's not the sex of the person, it's the person in general. And the odds of you finding people to run every country in the world who do not strive for more control and power is impossible. Especially if your country is a shithole and the country next door is so nice.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

That's bunk. A lot of female leaders have been quite territorial and aggressive. Queen Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great...you could even argue Margaret Thatcher in recent times (Falkland Islands War).

[EricMM 0]

It's not just chemicals down there, it's the mindset. Its the theology. When you get such radical isolationist thought in a few groups of people forced into one nation that they would NEVER have enacted on their own, you're going to get civil war, especially when you spring freedom on them before they're ready.

 

The truth is that they don't need to fight, but in some times it's easier to fight than to not fight. I think WE as a nation chose that route, as a response to 9/11.

[snuffbox 0]

Even old Newt Gingrich thinks its time to call it a day in Iraq. http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a.../604110311/1001

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

That's bunk. A lot of female leaders have been quite territorial and aggressive. Queen Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great...you could even argue Margaret Thatcher in recent times (Falkland Islands War).

 

Agh this is why I didn't wanna get into this crap. Elizabethan England or Tsarist Russia or even 80s Britain can hardly be considered matriarchal or female-dominated societies even though they had a female head of state.

 

I think there's a lot to be said for liberal democracy, too. For instance, I would suggest that if a society like a modern Western Europe or Scandinavia or the United States encountered a less technologically advanced indigenous people that the response would not be so brutal.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Wanted to address some other things.

 

There are many species of life in which the females are larger, stronger, and more violent than the males; just look at black widow spiders for an excellent example.

 

Yeah, but humans aren't those animals. Human males are way more violent than human females. So are the males of all of our closest cousins (chimpanzees batter their females, gorillas commit infanticide, the majority of mating among orangutangs is rape) except bonobos (pygmy chimps).

 

And even if you're right and a matriarchal society would rule peacefully instead of using violence like all the male-dominated ones, for that to work then every culture on earth would have to be matriarchal. Otherwise you'd still have at least one opposing country in which ultraviolent dickswingers are still in control, and most likely they'd look at all those peace-n-love wimmenfolk as nothing more but easy prey.

 

That's not true. If the dominant society that emerged and developed complex institutions and technologies (like Western Europe did in actuality) had been more peaceful, then they wouldn't have necessarily been susceptible to other more violent societies because of their societal and technological superiority. Of course, I suppose you could argue that Western Europe may not have become the hegemon without its violent tendencies.

 

These are not easy questions to answer.

[Jingus 0]

But when has there ever been an empire that ruled through peace? When has there ever been a situation where a technologically superior culture shares all its secrets with an inferior one? Sooner or later, imperial colonialism was going to happen, people are historically just too damn violent for someone to NOT try to take over the world.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

More advanced civilizations inevitably push out or absorb weaker ones. It's just the way of the world.

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/21/...main/index.html

Hey, they finally gave up on al-Jaafri. Huzzah!

[SuperJerk 0]

Bush cheers Iraqi leaders on PM choice

 

TWENTYNINE PALMS, California (AP) -- President Bush on Sunday called Iraq's top leaders to congratulate them on breaking a political impasse and urge the quick formation of a coalition government.

 

Bush said he told President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister-designate Jawad al-Maliki and parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani that they have a duty to improve the lives of Iraqis, defeat the insurgency and unite the country.

 

"They have awesome responsibilities to their people," Bush told a few hundred Marines and their families after joining them for lunch in the mess hall at the Marine Corps Air Ground Center.

 

The Iraqi leaders "expressed their deep appreciation for the United States of America and our soldiers," Bush said, describing the three calls he made over about a half hour early Sunday.

 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that Bush encouraged the leaders, especially al-Maliki, to act quickly and pick a Cabinet.

 

The spokesman said Bush praised al-Maliki, a Shiite who was a consensus nominee for prime minister, for signaling he was prepared to crack down on Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias responsible for the increasing sectarian violence that has threatened to push Iraq into civil war.

 

Bush also told al-Maliki he was encouraged by the Iraqi's pledge to select capable representatives for his Cabinet.

 

The president stood in the cafeteria line with Marines and loaded up a plate with salad, green beans, mashed potatoes, meat and a roll. Speaking after the meal, he celebrated the political progress in Iraq. Al-Maliki was picked for the post on Saturday, ending months of political deadlock.

 

"Yesterday was an important day, but I recognize that we still have more work to do," Bush said. "Democracy in Iraq will be a major blow to the terrorists who want to do us harm."

 

Bush spent about three hours at this military base in the California desert. He was enthusiastically received in the mess hall and in the Protestant chapel, where he attended a contemporary morning church service complete with guitars, clapping and a slide show above the altar.

 

"Because of your service, we're defeating an enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home," Bush told the Marines, choking up as he heralded the sacrifices of them and their families. "These are historic times, and your service makes me incredibly proud."

 

The president started his day with an hourlong bike ride in the mountains near Palm Springs, California, where he was spending Saturday and Sunday nights. On Monday, Bush plans to attend an immigration event in Southern California and a fundraiser in Las Vegas, Nevada, before returning to Washington.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/23/bus...q.ap/index.html

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/29/war.protest.ap/index.html

 

Those "focus groups" are at it again.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

"...you're going to get civil war, especially when you spring freedom on them before they're ready."

 

I can't let something so blatantly racist go unnoticed. I don't understand how anyone could write something like that.

[snuffbox 0]

Huh?

[SuperJerk 0]

Huh?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I can't let something so blatantly racist go unnoticed. I don't understand how anyone could write something like that.

[SuperJerk 0]

...

[cbacon 0]

How is it racist spicy? Seems like whoever said that was referring to the political framework and the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd tension that act as barriers towards a proper democracy.

[snuffbox 0]

Helluva explanation there.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I'll take back what I said for the moment, and give Eric the benefit of the doubt that by "freedom" he meant "independent control of their own government". Hopefully, I'm wrong and if so I apologize. But, if he meant that certain groups of people just aren't ready for freedom, then there will be a problem.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think that's the way the rest of us took it.

[EricMM 0]

I meant giving elective control to a "state" established by British colonials back in the day, with a majority which has been oppressed by a minority, and a third group who just wants to leave.

 

Sprinkle on radical Islam, Iran, keep the lights off, and you've got a problem.

 

Subtext!

[NoCalMike 0]

I meant giving elective control to a "state" established by British colonials back in the day, with a majority which has been oppressed by a minority, and a third group who just wants to leave.

 

Sprinkle on radical Islam, Iran, keep the lights off, and you've got a problem.

 

Subtext!

 

Problem you say?

 

Violence Uproots 100,000 Families in Iraq By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 25 minutes ago

 

 

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sectarian violence has forced about 100,000 families across Iraq to flee their homes, a top Iraqi official said. At least 17 people, including an American soldier, were killed Saturday in fighting.

 

Adil Abdul-Mahdi, one of the country's two vice presidents, estimated on Friday that 100,000 Iraqi families — 90 percent of them his fellow Shiites — had fled their homes to escape attacks by rival religious sects.

 

Abdul-Mahdi's estimate was higher than any offered so far by Iraqi officials.

 

Dr. Salah Abdul-Razzaq, spokesman of a government body that runs Shiite religious institutions, put the number of displaced Shiite families at 13,750 nationwide, or about 90,000 people.

 

That includes 25,000 Shiites who have fled since the bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra on Feb. 22 triggered a wave of attacks on Sunni mosques and clerics.

 

The hardline Sunni clerical Association of Muslim Scholars said about 980 Sunni families, or about 5,000 people, have left five mixed areas of Baghdad in recent weeks and moved in with relatives in Sunni-dominated communities outside the capital.

 

However, the U.S. military insists that even the lower estimates appear exaggerated.

 

U.S. command spokesman Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said this week that American troops investigate all reports of displaced people and have found no evidence of "widespread movement" away from religiously mixed areas.

 

Lynch said sectarian attacks in the Baghdad area had fallen by 60 percent last week and were approaching the levels before the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, which triggered a wave of reprisal attacks against Sunnis.

 

Accurate counts are difficult because many people simply move in with relatives. Despite U.S. claims, it is clear that substantial numbers of people have relocated to areas where their communities form the majority.

 

About 400 Shiite families are in a camp near Khanaqin, a largely Kurdish town near the Iranian border. Most fled Baghdad with only what they could carry.

 

The Human Relief Organization, an Iraqi NGO, has provided the refugees with tents from the regional government and is talking with officials to get more help.

 

"We get some every day," said Omar Mansour, an official with the relief group. "I'm afraid the numbers will increase greatly when the school year ends and people feel freer to flee. All these families have letters with death threats. So they came here fearing for their lives, only to live in these harsh conditions."

 

One letter was signed by "The Mujahedeen Brigades" and addressed to "The Rejectionists" in Beiji, using a Sunni extremist term for Shiites.

 

"Leave our city now, because we don't want to have to kill you as Sunnis in their regions have been killed. Go. You have been warned. The (Shiite) dogs won't stop barking until their mouths are shut," it said.

 

U.S. officials are hoping a new national unity government can calm sectarian tensions as well as lure disaffected Sunni Arabs away from the insurgency. Prime Minister-designate Nouri al-Maliki has three more weeks to finalize his Cabinet — the final step in forming the unity government.

 

That is necessary before Washington can consider a substantial drawdown in the 130,000-strong U.S. military presence.

 

Two former Cabinet members have emerged as contenders to head the key defense and interior ministries, officials said Saturday.

 

Qassim Dawoud, an independent Shiite politician, was under consideration to head the Interior Ministry while Hajim al-Hassani, a Sunni Arab, was being discussed for the Defense Ministry post.

 

Both jobs are currently held by members of the same religious groups.

 

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations, said the names of both candidates were raised with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit to Baghdad this week.

 

Rice raised no objections because both Iraqis are not affiliated with political parties that maintained armed militias, the Iraqi officials said. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has insisted that the heads of those ministries have no ties to militias.

 

U.S. officials believe the key to a stable Iraq is to abolish sectarian militias and rid the army and police of their influence. Militiamen, including some who have infiltrated security forces, are believed responsible for the wave of tit-for tat killings by Shiite and Sunni militants that have raised sectarian tensions and threaten civil war.

 

The Iraqi officials emphasized that no decision had been made on the two key security posts and that other names were under discussion.

 

Dawoud served as minister of state for national security during the administration of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Al-Hassani, who lived for several years in Los Angeles, was industry minister under Allawi and speaker of the previous parliament.

 

Neither Dawoud nor al-Hassani has been tainted by accusations of corruption, but each carries considerable political baggage within his own religious community.

 

Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr have not forgiven Dawoud for his role in Allawi's government during fighting between U.S. troops and the radical Shiite cleric's Mahdi militia in 2004. Dawoud became the first Shiite figure to call publicly for replacing Ibrahim al-Jaafari as nominee for prime minister, which angered some Shiite politicians.

 

Al-Hassani broke with his own Iraqi Islamic Party in 2004 when he refused to resign from Allawi's government to protest the American assault on the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

 

The 17 people killed Saturday included six men found dead in the Dora section of southwest Baghdad, police said. All were handcuffed, blindfolded and appeared to have been tortured, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.

 

The soldier's death in a bombing southwest of Baghdad brought the U.S. death toll for April to at least 70 — the highest monthly figure since November, when 84 Americans died.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060430/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

As we celebrate the 3rd anniversary of the end of major combat operations in Iraq (that war seems a distant memory), I think it's important to look back at how the liberal media tried to make the President's great victory seem somehow less meaningful than it really was.

 

Bastards.

 

Some highlights:

 

Chris Matthews:

What's the importance of the president's amazing display of leadership tonight?

He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.

Boy do those critics look stupid now!

He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West.

Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president.

 

NYTimes:

His decision to sleep aboard the ship this evening in the captain's quarters conjured images of the presidency at sea not seen since Franklin D. Roosevelt used to sail to summit meetings.

 

"Liberal" columnist Joe Klein:

Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. That was the first thing that came to mind for me. And it just shows you how high a mountain these Democrats are going to have to climb.

 

And the coup de grace, yep, Brit Hume:

But this was risky business. You know, there's grease and oil on the decks of those aircraft carriers. The wind's blowing. All kinds of stuff could have gone wrong. It didn't, he carried it off.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yikes, I remember being appalled at how everyone was acting, but it looks absolutely horrible now.

[SuperJerk 0]

All I remember is watching it on TV and wondering just what the point was.

 

Here's a funny quote:

 

COULTER: It's stunning. It's amazing. I think it's huge. I mean, he's landing on a boat at 150 miles per hour. It's tremendous. It's hard to imagine any Democrat being able to do that. And it doesn't matter if Democrats try to ridicule it. It's stunning, and it speaks for itself.

 

Someone forgot to tell Coulter that he wasn't actually flying the plane.

 

And what was up with G. Gordon Liddy complimenting the size of Bush's dick?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]