US Military Action in Iraq - Poll

[Ian]

I apologise, I got your illogical, off-topic opinions mixed up with JimC's illogical, off-topic opinions. Oh how easy it is to lump reactionaries into one.

The tedium continues.

You have failed to demonstrate that Sunni/Shia sectarianism was a problem in Iraq in the modern period before the 2003 US invasion. The US invasion saw to it that it became a problem, for the reasons I've stated: occupation, limited resources and desperation. If you can show this analysis to be wrong in any way, I would be interested in your evidence. So far, you've not produced any.

Do you have any evidence that the US deliberately encouraged sectarianism?

I would definitely argue that the Bush administration definitely should've seen it coming and didn't adequately prepare for the problems that came up, but those problems weren't remotely in the best interests of the US. If you're implying deliberate intent, then show your own evidence instead of a theory.

[Exi5tentialist]

Do you have any evidence that the US deliberately encouraged sectarianism?

Huh? I'd only need such evidence if I'd made such a claim.

The US policy was plainly to enter Iraq and be greeted by a grateful and subservient population willing to have democracy imposed on them. Why would they need to encourage sectarianism if that was their policy?

[Ian]

Do you have any evidence that the US deliberately encouraged sectarianism?

Huh? I'd only need such evidence if I'd made such a claim.

The US policy was plainly to enter Iraq and be greeted by a grateful and subservient population willing to have democracy imposed on them. Why would they need to encourage sectarianism if that was their policy?

Perhaps I misunderstood the line "saw to it that it became a problem". Sounds like you're talking about a policy somewhere.

[Exi5tentialist]

Perhaps I misunderstood the line "saw to it that it became a problem". Sounds like you're talking about a policy somewhere.

Perhaps that's why I went for that choice of words. Of course, there will never be a policy document saying that such a policy was being deliberately pursued. But to my mind, either it was a deliberate policy or the Americans were very, very stupid in not realising that is what would happen. That's the sort of thing we can only have opinions about.

[Gawd]

Yo Ian, George Bush had a lot of "off the record" policies. You have got to be imbecilic to think he wrote everything down and made them kosher for you to read. Heck, you even refuse to read the Wikileaks.

[Robert_S]

Yo Ian, George Bush had a lot of "off the record" policies. You have got to be imbecilic to think he wrote everything down and made them kosher for you to read. Heck, you even refuse to read the Wikileaks.

IIRC, Ian also opposed the invasion of Iraq.

I find it more plausible that GW and most of his cabinet were completely unaware of the Sunni-Shia tensions. They also seem to have been believing the neo-con bullshit too much to conceive that the Iraqi people would object to the occupation, resent the decade of sanctions, or remember the US support for both sides in the Iran-Iraq war.

[Gawd]

Yo Ian, George Bush had a lot of "off the record" policies. You have got to be imbecilic to think he wrote everything down and made them kosher for you to read. Heck, you even refuse to read the Wikileaks.

IIRC, Ian also opposed the invasion of Iraq.

I find it more plausible that GW and most of his cabinet were completely unaware of the Sunni-Shia tensions. They also seem to have been believing the neo-con bullshit too much to conceive that the Iraqi people would object to the occupation, resent the decade of sanctions, or remember the US support for both sides in the Iran-Iraq war.

I find it much more plausible that America was just there to loot Iraq given all the evidence.