Wow! Wingers are REEALLY naiiiive when they try to "think" about Iraq!

[BurtWorm]

Like this jerk:



Having Sistani on board for the constitution will certainly help influence the Shi'ites to come to the polls. Whether his efforts will help among moderate Sunnis is a tougher question. The mobilization of the millions of Shi'ites in Baghdad, however, will help ensure that the province will not reject the constitution by the two-thirds needed for overall failure, and could make the victory a lock.

Meanwhile, if the Sunnis who had to meet in Jordan for "security" purposes really intended on keeping the country together, they would put less effort into voting "no" on a constitution that has fairly obvious political support -- and one which can later be amended to repair any basic faults -- and put more effort into breaking the Zarqawi network of terrorists. These Ba'athist remnants want their privileged position in Iraq back again, and they have no problem fomenting a civil war to get it. This group will settle for nothing less than the rule of another Sunni strongman, and as long as they remain so inclined, we should do our best to ignore them and speak directly to their constituencies.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005498.php


The Baathists are not fomenting the civil war between the Sadr and Sistani contingents. Sistani can bless the constitution, but that sure as hell doesn't mean Sadr's loyalists are going to vote for it (let alone vote!). Hasn't this idiot heard about Basra? Hasn't he heard about the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad? The infiltration of police corps by militia members?

What an IDIOT!!

[Redstone]

1. Yeah, like the Iraqis actually think like that, or in that depth.

Easy for him to read minds from 4,000 miles away, isn't it?

Redstone

[underpants]

2. Does this idiot know that it was Sistani who forced the vote?

Bush ( WINK!) wanted the military to install regional leaders.

Sistani politely said no

Bush then claimed that he always wanted caucuses to ELECT regional leaders

Sistani said "Okay now you are pissing me off" and organized MASSIVE one man one vote marches

Bush then claimed he always wanted one man one vote.

You can look it up.

Sistani has a lot more pull than this guy thinks.

[BurtWorm]

5. He certainly won't have much pull over "moderate Sunnis"

:wtf:

(If there are any "moderate Sunnis" left when the constitution is voted on.)

[louis-t]

3. Living in a dream world

Doesn't matter what actually happens in Iraq, Repub history will say * is a hero, not a Nero, he was hard at work, we were right to invade Iraq, Dems hate America.

[Autonomy]

4. Another fundamental error is the assumption

that the Shiites would be beneficent with their power. They are far more likely to use it as a bludgeon, and when that fails, will turn to tactics similar to the old Baathist regime, this time with close alliances to Iran.

But then the Righties don't really care about what happens to Iraq anymore (if they ever did). They just want enough excuse to get out and call it a success.

[BurtWorm]

6. kick

[BurtWorm]

8. More boneheaded naivete, this from a neocon (David Ignatius)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/22/AR2005092202258.html

The potency of this anti-Americanism means, among other things, that we can't solve our problems in Iraq by sending in more troops. A bigger U.S. footprint would only increase Iraqi anger and fuel the insurgency. In contrast, fewer American troops may actually make it easier to stabilize the country, if the United States can help the Iraqis create a strong military and government of their own. America may be having trouble defeating Abu Musab Zarqawi, but the Iraqis won't. The moment they forge a real national government that draws together Sunnis and Shiites, Zarqawi is a dead man.


:spray:

[Akoto]

7. Ugh.

Do they not see that, by having Sistani issue a fatwa commanding all Shi'ites to favor the Constitution, democracy has been defeated before the vote has even taken place? So much for the "noble cause".