« Globalization's impact on the first world | Main | Accelerating history »

December 17, 2006


Larry Dunbar

Well, if we start to embed more troops into the Iraqi Army, as per the ISG report, we will have to choose sides, so to speak. While genocide is ugly, so would be the decision to make our troops make that decision on their own. As I said in my last post, the army moves by volume not force. If we carry out this occupation on, any longer, it would be criminal for our leaders to put this burden on our troops shoulders. Cheney is just making the possibility for some of the principles of the ISG report doable. In other words, Napoleon didn’t carryout brute force in the end of his campaign, he carried out total displacement.

Account Deleted

Good to see the Administration is finally thinking about embracing the allies that its neoconservatives wanted to unite with in the beginning.


Let me get this straight: are they going to support the strongest party into committing an ethnical cleansing campaign that will make Milosevic and his guys look like a bunch of boy scouts?
I see a couple of problems (actually far more than just a couple) with that. From a purely cynical point of view if I remember correctly back in the colonial days it was preferable to support the weaker party. Being dependant on external support to hold its position they were by necessity loyal to the foreign power. Once the Shiite militas will have carried out the final solution to the Sunni problem I doubt that they will spend their time throwing candies at the US troops.
More generally such policy is batshit insane and criminal, to boot. The ramifications of such thing are too awful to contemplate.



Would you consider allowing a civil war (and consequent Shia victory) to proceed unchecked and without bias criminal as well?


Last year, our whole rationale for staying in Iraq was to prevent ethnic cleansing. Now our rationle for staying is supposed to be to aid it?

Sunnis and Shi'ites are consolidating their own areas already via violence and migration. If we decide ethnic cleansing is inevitable, we should seek to do it via population transfer (which will still be bloody and a bad idea) rather than openly aiding Shi'ite militais to kill Sunnis.


"we should seek to do it via population transfer"

Given that both Jordan and Syria have threatened to close their borders in light of the exodus of nearly 2 million from Iraq I'd say this population transfer may well be under way.


"Would you consider allowing a civil war (and consequent Shia victory) to proceed unchecked and without bias criminal as well?"

1) "Unchecked" as opposed to what? Compassionate genocide? Are the US troops going to tell the shia militiamen to just kill people without torturing them first?

2) So far foreign involvment has made things worse, not better. Is there any reason to expect this to change?

I say, let them have their civil war if they really want it that badly. Let's get out of town till we can.







The current occupants of the whitehouse are rapturists. The believe that they're going to get whisked up to heaven without that pesky "death and resurrection" stuff that the bible talks about. But that Rapture isn't coming fast enough, so they're going to have to hurry it up. There is no limit on the number of middle easterners that they will sacrifice on the altar of their heresy (except perhaps the practical upper limit of "all of them"). No, the middle east isn't bloody enough. And if invading Babylon wasn't enough to start it, well, there is still Iran and Syria left to invade.

Yogi Berra once quipped "it ain't over till the fat lady sings." With this administration "it ain't over till the rapture comes."

There is a reason that LeHaye's snuff fantasies sell very well in the US.

The comments to this entry are closed.