gbaji wrote:
We've "progressed" from a state in which there was no real Iraqi government, the US held provisional control over the state, and insurgent groups attacked primarily US targets to attempt to prevent the US from aiding in the formation of an Iraqi government. When the violence shifted from attacking US soldiers to attacking other militant factions, that showed that most of the "insurgents" aren't trying to prevent the formation of a government, but are trying to gain the most power within that government structure as possible.
At least you progress in "". I guess that's a start.
As for the rest, you have an incredibly twised view of events, and one which is factually wrong.
The "insurgents" are still attacking governemnt targets. The only reason they are not attaking them more, is because the "government" is bunkered in the Green Zone. The few times they come out, they come under attack. So the insurgents have to make do with the next best thing: policemen, the army, US troops, and of course, civilians.
If you hid all the ministers inside an underground bunker, you can be sure they'd NEVER be attacked. Woot? Progress?
Quote:
While there are certainly some who'd like to see the whole thing collapse, I believe that most of the violence we're seeing right now is essentially an extention of democracy itself. Each faction is the armed portion of a political faction/party within the government.
Let me get this straight. Groups that use suicide-bombs, kidnapping, torture, mass executions, and do so every day, on a horribly regular basis, with no hope of political gains and no intent on compromise, that's not a civil war?
You're so full of sh*t, seriously.
It has nothing to do with "democracy". Trying to kick out "occupiers" by violent means is not "an extension of democracy". Trying to impose Sharia Law and an Islamic State through terror, mass-murders, and suicide-bombs is not an "extension of democracy". The constant, premeditated, daily, and carefully planned mass murder of local people that simply belong to a different branch of a religion is not an "extension of democracy". These people do not give a sh*t about "democracy". Most of those that cause the violence do not even want it. Or certainly not on the US's terms.
Quote:
When they aren't happy with a decision (or on something broad like power sharing and oil revenues), they turn their militias loose to attack the power base of the opposition faction. This manifests as "civil war", but isn't quite that.
Another lie. They aren't "turned" loose. They ARE loose. They are there, every single day.
Quote:
It actually takes awhile for those involved in the political process to be comfortable enough with it to realize that votes and parlimentary proceedures can completely replace faction militias and violence.
Right. So let's just wait until they are "comfortable" with democracy. How long, you reckon? 1 year? 10? Until the country breaks-up?
Quote:
Obviously, the violence in Iraq is worse because of the degree of foreign influence (on all sides), but that's not something that can really be avoided at this point.
Isn't? has the US lost Iran's and Syria's phone number? Or are they worried about the price of calls abroad?
Oh wait, that's right, the US is "not talking to them anymore".
Clever.
"Strategic", even.
Quote:
I think the major point I'm making is that this is still "progress". It shows a shift from fighting to prevent a government from being formed, to fighting for a bigger share within the government that has been formed.
Sure. You can also call it "peace", if you put in brackets. Or even "love". You can pretty much say it's "anything". Iraq today is "on the path to peace and prosperity". Obviously. Who isn't?
The only shift is from fighting to rpevent a government being formed, to fighting so that the government is completely weak and impotent, to fighting for it to be irrelvant. Which, unfortunately, they are achieving quite quickly.
Or, do you mean that the "insurgents" have inlfitrated the police and the army and slaughter them on a regular basis so that they would gain more power? More power in a governemnt that has no power? Sure. Makes sense.
Quote:
At the most basic, it means that most of those involved in the fighting have accepted that the government structure in place is the government of Iraq, and that any path to power lies through that structure.
Hehehehehe.
Sure, they've "accepted" that. That's why they're "campaigning". And "getting the vote out". And "galvanising the grassroots supporters".
You can close your eyes and your ears all you like, and then come out here and tell us what your dreams revelead. It's funny, but somewhat irrelevant.
"Any path to power lies through that structure. Hilarious. Any idea how much power the government has in comparaison to the "insurgents"?
Roughly, 0.
Quote:
And that's "progress". You may not like that the violence level has increased, but it's violence for a totally different reason then it was 2 years ago. Progress does not always equate to lower violence...
It's "progress" as much as its "love".
Though, you are right. The reason for the violence has changed.
Before, most of the violence was to kick the US troops out.
Now that they know they are leaving soon, the violence has multiple reasons and purposes. Some want an Islamic State and Sharia Law. Some are paid by Iran and Syria. Some want to break the country-up. Some want to avenge the deaths of their relatives, the bombing of their Mosque.
But sure, keep calling it "progress".
Edited, Oct 26th 2006 at 2:30am PDT by RedPhoenixxxxxx
