Iraq War, phase 2
Apr. 9th, 2004 05:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
katsarisClick for funny flash movie: The Olympics
-----------
On a more serious issue, the shit have hit the fan in Iraq. And in Cyprus also ofcourse, to a lesser extent, and I have a lot to say about that one also and about Papadopoulos' speech -- but it'll have to wait for tomorrow.
As for Iraq, phase 2 of the Iraq War has begun in the last few days, that phase which everyone expected except possibly the Bush administration itself -- the Islamofascists' bid for power. (now whether "Islamofascist" is a truly accurate expression doesn't concern me that much -- it's a very useful shorthand for "group of religious Muslim fanatics who want to impose Sharia law on their nations or even the entire world by force")
Anyway, there was a rather nice discussion in a recent Rantburg thread, and especially polite given Rantburg standards, and there's probably no need to spend time rephrasing what I already said there, especially since it's 5:30 AM here in Greece, so, and hoping that it's not exceptionally wanky, allow me to just duplicate some of my own comments from there which synopsize what I feel the situation is.
---
I opposed the war on Iraq, not because of moral, but because of practical reasons. Sadr is the perfect example of why I opposed it.
Edit: Though now that I think of it, "because if you go in there, you'll make a mess that you are unlikely to be able to solve, leaving the lives of the people there no better than what you found them, and possibly worse" probably does qualify as a moral reason. But because of practical rather than ideological concerns.
Anyway, let us hope that I'm wrong, and that Sadr will prove but a minor temporary inconvenience for the people of Iraq. But I somehow doubt it.
-----------
On a more serious issue, the shit have hit the fan in Iraq. And in Cyprus also ofcourse, to a lesser extent, and I have a lot to say about that one also and about Papadopoulos' speech -- but it'll have to wait for tomorrow.
As for Iraq, phase 2 of the Iraq War has begun in the last few days, that phase which everyone expected except possibly the Bush administration itself -- the Islamofascists' bid for power. (now whether "Islamofascist" is a truly accurate expression doesn't concern me that much -- it's a very useful shorthand for "group of religious Muslim fanatics who want to impose Sharia law on their nations or even the entire world by force")
Anyway, there was a rather nice discussion in a recent Rantburg thread, and especially polite given Rantburg standards, and there's probably no need to spend time rephrasing what I already said there, especially since it's 5:30 AM here in Greece, so, and hoping that it's not exceptionally wanky, allow me to just duplicate some of my own comments from there which synopsize what I feel the situation is.
---
"Will I be proven as right about Iraq as I was proven right about Kosovo? I mentioned from the very start that the overthrow of Saddam, instead of being a blow against the Islamofascists, did nothing but pave the way for them to try and take control of it. If they were utterly crushed that'd be good ofcourse -- but it's now becoming obvious that the Coalition either doesn't have the forces or the will to do that.
In which case, the overthrow of Saddam did nothing but hand over Iraq to the Islamofascists on a platter.
The war against Sadr is as important and difficult -- possibly even more so -- as the war against Saddam. Saddam was a secular dictator that didn't belong to any kind of "Axis of Terror" with Iran and Syria. Proof of it is that the chief terrorist organization (if they were indeed so, I've not studied their actions and history) he supported were the MEK who *opposed* the mullahs of Iran.
Sadr on the other hand would be an Islamofascist dictator who has already publicly declared his allegiance to such an axis with Syria and Iran."
[...](replying to a comment that Saddam couldn't be counted on forever as a barrier to fundamentalism)
"The point isn't whether you should "rely" on Saddam as a barrier to fundamentalism, the same way that the point isn't to rely on Musharraf or Qaddafi.
The point is that Iraq under Saddam wasn't part of the global Islamofascist axis. Iraq under Sadr will be. It'd be the equivalent of the Allies invading Spain during WW2, wasting half their troops in an effort to occupy Spain, just because Spain had Nazi sympathies, despite the fact of it not being an actual member of the Nazi Axis.
If you had troops to spare, then by all means, overthrow every dictator in the world, install democracies -- I have no problems with it on a moral level.
But you don't have the troops to spare."
---
I opposed the war on Iraq, not because of moral, but because of practical reasons. Sadr is the perfect example of why I opposed it.
Edit: Though now that I think of it, "because if you go in there, you'll make a mess that you are unlikely to be able to solve, leaving the lives of the people there no better than what you found them, and possibly worse" probably does qualify as a moral reason. But because of practical rather than ideological concerns.
Anyway, let us hope that I'm wrong, and that Sadr will prove but a minor temporary inconvenience for the people of Iraq. But I somehow doubt it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-09 09:08 am (UTC)And, totally random, have you ever read "The Battle for God"? It's about the rise of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalists, and it's an incredibly informative read. I highly, highly recommend it.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-11 02:57 pm (UTC)No, I haven't read it... I'll keep it in mind. Thanks.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-11 06:48 pm (UTC)I really ought to send you some DeG next time we're both on line. They are one of those bands that, people find out I like them, and their eyes bug out, saying I don't look like the type.