Cody O'Connor

Saddam was found guilty? What a shocker. Hopefully people won't be fooled by this conveniently timed "November Surprise".

Democrats do NOT want to "cut and run". "Cut and run" is a stupid slogan made up by the Republicans. I think that if the Democrats retake the House (and hopefully the Senate) we should strongly advocate for the Galbraith plan. Partition the country and redeploy our troops to Kurdistan. I really don't think that ANY course of action will result in us "winning". However I do STRONGLY believe that "staying the course" will surely lead to a disastrous DEFEAT. Which is why it's important that everyone who DOESN'T want the terrorists to win vote Democratic in the upcoming election.
 

I don't think this story is going to sway any voters. Not to mention the Republicans had no direct control over when this happened.

"Democrats do NOT want to "cut and run". "Cut and run" is a stupid slogan made up by the Republicans."

And stay the course was a slogan made up by the Democrats. Sad thing is though, they're pretty much both true. Going to Kurdistan means leaving Iraq.

But I am curious as to why you think we should do that.
 

Cody O. Said... And stay the course was a slogan made up by the Democrats.

It most certainly is NOT. bush, bush administration officials, and other Republicans have used this phrase THOUSANDS of times. Not ONCE has any Democrat used the slogan "cut and run" to describe their strategy.

Cody O. Said... Going to Kurdistan means leaving Iraq.

No it does not. I was referring to the Kurdish region of Iraq.

From Wikipedia: Kurdistan is the name of a geographic and cultural region in the Middle East, inhabited predominantly by the Kurds.

As a traditional ethnographic region, Kurdistan is generally held to include the contiguous regions in northern and northeastern Mesopotamia with large Kurdish populations.

The Iraqi Kurdistan region and Kurdistan Province in Iran are officially acknowledged parts of Kurdistan. (end excerpt).

Cody O. Said... But I am curious as to why you think we should do that.

Because they don't hate us there. Because the rest of Iraq wants us to leave. Because our being there is fueling the insurgency. But if we redeploy to Kurdistan we will still be close enough to take care of any al Qaeda threat that may arise in the the other regions of Iraq.
 

interesting idea dervish. I would support moving troops to Kurdish territory, after and only after we split Iraq up into three parts though. That means three separate countries with three separate governments, all protecting their own borders so we can sit on the side in case something happens.
 

Hmm, know what's interesting? Goring, German head of propaganda in WWII also asked for the firing squad and was denied. Of course then he offed himself. Interesting though. Maybe Saddam liked him or something.

Anyway I'm usually against the death penelty, but it's neccesary here because so many Iraqis want Saddam dead. It's a relief thing for them. I think we need to do it for propaganda reasons.
 

Oh and Cody, splitting up countries does not make it any easier or resolve political differences. Not now nor has it ever. Then what? We just have more paperwork, more troop training, three countries isolated who would hate each other instead of being forced to work together. Why do you support this? I don't see the pros here.
 

Robert M. Said... I don't see the pros here.

Stopping the civil war isn't a "pro"? They aren't resolving their differneces (which are actually more religious than political). That's the whole reason behind splitting up the country.

In any case, this proposal wouldn't split up Iraq into three seperate countries. The proposal is to split Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions. It would still be one country though.

I don't understand why you wouldn't support it. Are you happy with the way things are currently (not) progressing?
 

After all the shenanigans during the trial, he's facing Justice. Your post title says it all.
 

Stopping the civil war isn't a "pro"? They aren't resolving their differneces (which are actually more religious than political). That's the whole reason behind splitting up the country.

That won't happen. It's never happened by splitting a country. Didn't work in 1861 and didn't work in 1945 either. I don't know how you can support a model that's never worked.
 

Oh so maybe the Israelies should take down the wall between them and Gaza and the West Bank. I'm sure that would fix all of the problems. You can't force people to get along, you can only separate them.

I know America is a melting pot and all, but religious zealots in that area just can't grasp the idea of agreeing to disagree. There's nothing we can do to change that. Only them. But until they can get along, they must be separated.
 

That won't happen. It's never happened by splitting a country. Didn't work in 1861 and didn't work in 1945 either. I don't know how you can support a model that's never worked.

What do the south seceding from the union and the breakup of Nazi Germany have to do with Iraq? They're completely different situations!

In neither situation was the conflict caused by religious differences. The South was PREVENTED from seceding -- so I don't know how you can say it didn't work when it wasn't tried.

Nazi Germany wasn't broken up due to an internal conflict.

Your examples prove nothing. BTW what the heck is up with you attempting to prove a point by giving two years? If I hadn't been able to guess what events you were referring to your superior intelligence would be proven? Why don't you give up on that already? It's quite sad.

Also, to answer your allegations that this plan is unsupported by any Democratic leaders -- Joe Biden. I called you on this lie over on your blog -- and you deleted my comment. Then you repeated your other lie about terrorist leaders quoting Democrats to inspire their followers -- and that if I didn't believe your (nonexistant) examples that was my problem. Wrong. The burden of proof is on the accuser -- so actually the problem is yours.
 

What do the south seceding from the union and the breakup of Nazi Germany have to do with Iraq? They're completely different situations!

It's never worked in history. At all. What more is there to be said?

In neither situation was the conflict caused by religious differences. The South was PREVENTED from seceding -- so I don't know how you can say it didn't work when it wasn't tried.

Yeah and it wouldn't have. The south was totally economically shot without the northern factories.

Your examples prove nothing. BTW what the heck is up with you attempting to prove a point by giving two years? If I hadn't been able to guess what events you were referring to your superior intelligence would be proven? Why don't you give up on that already? It's quite sad.

I merely thought I would supply the years. It didn't mean anything else. I guess you COULD take it as an insult to your intellegence... if you're completly paranoid and maybe a little insecure about your mental facilities...

I called you on this lie over on your blog -- and you deleted my comment.

Yeah because it was about five pages long. I'm not going to read all that crap.
 

Robert M. Said... It's never worked in history. At all. What more is there to be said?

How about responding with an answer to my question instead of a dodge? Why don't you tell me what historical precedent there is for a Muslim country being invaded and forced to set aside religious differences to form a democracy?

I don't recall that it ever worked in history. Ever. What more is there to be said?

Yeah and it wouldn't have. The south was totally economically shot without the northern factories.

The plan for dividing Iraq wouldn't fail for economic reasons. The plan includes a provision for dividing the oil revenues fairly. BTW what does your example of the South seceding have to do with Iraq??

Robert M. Said... I guess you COULD take it as an insult to your intellegence...

I didn't. It's obvious that you keep trying to prove you're more intelligent due to YOUR insecurities.

Robert M. Said... Yeah because it was about five pages long. I'm not going to read all that crap.

The reason you deleted my comment was because you weren't able to refute my argument. This "five pages of crap" lie is pretty pathetic.

Still no response to my request that you provide examples of terrorist leaders quoting Democrats to inspire their followers. Why? Because they don't exist. Do you really think when someone asks you to prove your ridiculous accusations that lying and saying you already did will fool anybody?
 

"It's never worked in history. At all. What more is there to be said?"

Robby, I don't believe it has ever been tried in history. Not like this.
 

How about responding with an answer to my question instead of a dodge? Why don't you tell me what historical precedent there is for a Muslim country being invaded and forced to set aside religious differences to form a democracy?

Muslim country no. Several other countries, such as Germany, South Korea, etc. have had this happen. Japan as well, and look at them now. However no country has ever benefited from splitting itself. If you remember Germany only prospered after it was reunited.

The plan for dividing Iraq wouldn't fail for economic reasons. The plan includes a provision for dividing the oil revenues fairly. BTW what does your example of the South seceding have to do with Iraq??

It proves that splitting along political lines (1861 Democrats and Republicans, today would be Shia and Sunnis) doesn't work.

I didn't. It's obvious that you keep trying to prove you're more intelligent due to YOUR insecurities.

That's an interesting theory. You can believe it if you want, it's not really something I care about that much.

The reason you deleted my comment was because you weren't able to refute my argument. This "five pages of crap" lie is pretty pathetic.

Don't get angry because you broke the rules. You know what happens when you post a comment that long on my blog. You'd been warned. You can take responsibility or you can lie and say that I'm lying. I don't really care. Bottom line is, you want to post on my blog you keep it short enough to read. End of story.

Still no response to my request that you provide examples of terrorist leaders quoting Democrats to inspire their followers. Why? Because they don't exist. Do you really think when someone asks you to prove your ridiculous accusations that lying and saying you already did will fool anybody?

I don't believe this particular forum is for that discussion. I seem to remember that being on my blog, not here.

Robby, I don't believe it has ever been tried in history. Not like this.

Sure it has. In the late '40s we split Germany into four sections. Eventually the US, UK and France merged theirs into West Germany and the Soviets formed East Germany. The people were divided over political differences, as you would do to Iraq. As we saw that didn't work. I shouldn't have to tell you all this, you should know the story.
 

Robert M. said... Muslim country no. Several other countries, such as Germany, South Korea, etc. have had this happen. Japan as well, and look at them now. However no country has ever benefited from splitting itself. If you remember Germany only prospered after it was reunited.

Unlike all of your examples Iraq is an artificial country, created by the British Colonial Office after World War I by combining three provinces of the defeated Ottoman (Turkish) Empire containing antipathetic ethnic groups. (Breaking up Iraq by Robert D. Novak). Conclusion? Your examples aren't applicable.

BTW you didn't answer the question I asked. I DIDN'T ask you when the division thing had worked, I asked you what historical precident is there for invading a country and forcing the muslim population to put aside their religious differences to form a democracy. Do you want to take another shot at it?

Robert M. Said... It proves that splitting along political lines (1861 Democrats and Republicans, today would be Shia and Sunnis) doesn't work.

What the heck are you talking about? Political parties change and evolve over time. The Democratic and Repubilcan parties of today did not exist in 1861. Also the differences between Sunni and Shea are religious, not political (not political in the sense of Red vs Blue, that is for certain). There aren't any Republican or Democratic death squads in the US, are there?

Robert M. Said... That's an interesting theory. You can believe it if you want, it's not really something I care about that much.

Sure it isn't. That's why you try to prove you're smarter every chance you get. Because you don't care.

Robert M. Said... Don't get angry because you broke the rules. You know what happens when you post a comment that long on my blog. You'd been warned. You can take responsibility or you can lie and say that I'm lying.

It's completely arbitrary. You've responded to longer posts. I try to be through when I debunk your nonsense -- you know, provide facts to back up my claims. Unlike you, someone who seems to think that his opinion is good enough. Someone who, instead of providing evidence to back up his claims, will lie and say he provided the evidence earlier. Even though you didn't.

Robert M. Said... I don't believe this particular forum is for that discussion. I seem to remember that being on my blog, not here.

No, I don't expect I shall ever get an answer. You were wrong, and this is as close to an admission of it I'll ever get.

Robert M. Said... Sure it has. In the late '40s we split Germany into four sections. Eventually the US, UK and France merged theirs into West Germany and the Soviets formed East Germany. The people were divided over political differences, as you would do to Iraq. As we saw that didn't work. I shouldn't have to tell you all this, you should know the story.

Nazi Germany was not divided over THEIR political differences -- they were divided over political differences between the Soviet Union and the allies! Why don't you at least TRY to get your facts straight before making these inane comparrisons?

I thought you were open to taking a different tact. Yet, in this discussion all we get from you is "stay the course". Hopefully things will change now that Rumsfeld is gone. But I doubt it, since Tony Snow recently referred to the possibility of dividing the country as a "non starter".
 

Unlike all of your examples Iraq is an artificial country, created by the British Colonial Office after World War I by combining three provinces of the defeated Ottoman (Turkish) Empire containing antipathetic ethnic groups. (Breaking up Iraq by Robert D. Novak). Conclusion? Your examples aren't applicable.

I know Iraq's history dervish, but I fail to see why it makes any difference in my argument. After all wasn't America a group of colonies that were created by the British too? Do you think we shouldn't have formed the US? Do you think we should split up into fifty different countries?

BTW you didn't answer the question I asked. I DIDN'T ask you when the division thing had worked, I asked you what historical precident is there for invading a country and forcing the muslim population to put aside their religious differences to form a democracy. Do you want to take another shot at it?

I didn't answer because I fail to see how the fact that they're Muslim makes a difference. We've created republics in other countries before. What because they weren't Muslim it's different? Are you saying that Muslims are incapable of doing this? Sounds kind of racist to me...

What the heck are you talking about? Political parties change and evolve over time. The Democratic and Repubilcan parties of today did not exist in 1861.

Yeah? And? I know that. I didn't insinuate that they were the same back then as they are now at all. I don't understand what you're objecting to...

Also the differences between Sunni and Shea are religious, not political (not political in the sense of Red vs Blue, that is for certain). There aren't any Republican or Democratic death squads in the US, are there?

Republican and Democratic death squads? No just Republican and Democratic armies. They were called the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia respectively. And it was in part quite religious. In fact the CSA believed that they were taking care of blacks by enslaving them. Obviously the north didn't. It really was a hot political AND theological issue at the time, just like power between the political and religious parties in Iraq.

Sure it isn't. That's why you try to prove you're smarter every chance you get. Because you don't care.

I still don't understand where I tried to prove I was smarter. I really don't. But agian, you can invent motives for me if you want. That's just fine with me. I personally think it's a waste of time but hey, it's your choice.

Your next two points were irrelevant to this argument. And entirely untrue besides.

Nazi Germany was not divided over THEIR political differences -- they were divided over political differences between the Soviet Union and the allies! Why don't you at least TRY to get your facts straight before making these inane comparrisons?

I know that. So what? They were still political issues weren't they? Are you refuting that? I don't care whose political issues they are, splitting a country for them doesn't work.

I thought you were open to taking a different tact. Yet, in this discussion all we get from you is "stay the course". Hopefully things will change now that Rumsfeld is gone. But I doubt it, since Tony Snow recently referred to the possibility of dividing the country as a "non starter".

I am open to a different tact. A tougher one. Force the Iraqis to form a republic modeled after our own. Like we did in Japan. You know, the Macarthur approach.
 

Robby said...
"After all wasn't America a group of colonies that were created by the British too? Do you think we shouldn't have formed the US? Do you think we should split up into fifty different countries?"

But America wasn't a place with 13 fundamentalist religions at odds with eachother. And as PC as it is to say, even in the 1700's, we were more sophisticated than present day Iraqi's.

But back to what Dervish said, Iraq was three different territories in the first place, and for a reason.
 

I think you'd be pretty surprised at how partisan early US politics were actually. In 1790 on the floor of Congress one man was beaten nearly to death with a can over a political disagreement. States were essentially threatening to secede from the confederacy (that's what it was back then, a confederacy, not even a country) left and right. States kept militia on hand for fear of interstate invasion. Trust me, it wasn't as rosy as most people think. And we survived. The thing is that's were the Iraqis are now. We cannot give up and take the easy way out. Breaking up the country is the same as cut-and-run. Take the easy way out for only a short term result. If we're going to fix this we need Macarthur techniques, not simple separation. Besides, I still don’t see how this helps. Are you saying they wouldn’t kill each other just because there were new borders? You and dervish keep insisting it’s about religion right? Well if so, how would giving them their own land stop religious fighting? They aren’t fighting for land by your own admission.