Talking of Desecration ... 3175

Name one single human rights reform measure that was implemented in Saudi Arabia prior to Bush putting pressure on the Saudis. Name one single human rights reform that came about in Saudi Arabia as a result of any pressure put on the Saudis by any human rights organization.

Well, guess what? If confronting religious oppression is considered an attack on the beliefs of every citizen of Saudi Arabia, then they should consider themselves to be at war with the rest of the world. No doubt, many Saudis do feel that way. Make no mistake, this religious oppression insbreastutionalized by the Saudis will not stand for much longer. One way or the other, it will end. How it ends may not be up to them.

Non-sequitur, since there is nothing futile about taking a stand against religious oppression wherever it occurs.

In your opinion. And you are enbreastled to it, however misguided it is.

Care to elucidate this strategy as it relates to Saudi Oppression?

You're waffling, Rifty. The fact is that direct confrontation is what brought the Nazis to their knees, and ended that horrible tryanny in Europe. Direct confrotnation is what stopped the Japanese from taking over Australia, and eventually defeated them.

You apparently haven't been paying attention to the news.

If that is what you have drawn from this conversation, you need to go back and re-read what I said. Nowhere did I say that I wanted to go to Saudi Arabia and "wave bibles at unsuspecting Muslims". And nowhere did I suggest that anyone else should do so. I won't repeat what I've said because I am not in a habit of repeating myself.

What makes you so smug that you think you can re-word what I've said and believe that you can get away with it?

That's for sure. Thanks for the words of encouragement.

I do not recall asking you to provide a list of people opposed to coalition intervention in Iraq (recall that we aren't the only ones in Iraq). I do recall asking someone to provide the names of all those Iraqis who are alleged to have been end by American forces "on a daily basis". I'm still waiting for that list. If we are going to be accused of such things, we have a right to know the names of the "innocent people" we are accused of killing. I recognize that innocent people have been end as a result of our intervention there. That is the nature of warfare, even in these times of "smart plants". The fact is that we don't intentionally target innocent people. The Insurgency certainly does, and Al-Zaqawi has made no bones about it. He has stated that it is justified, and has encouraged it.

Think about this, Rifty. Iraq and Iran fought each other for ten years. And during those ten years, some 2 million people died, many of whom were innocent civilians, and no one won that war. We took control of Iraq in less than 2 months, and according to Iraq Body count, "Reported civilian rests resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq" has a maximum of 25,560. That doesn't distinguish between civilians end by coalition forces and those end by the insurgency. Anyone who looks atr their database cannot come away with any conclusion other than that the vast majority of civilians end in Iraq have died at the hands of the insurgents. You can quote the Lancet article all you care to, but it will never hold water with me as having any validity at all, and was politically motivated.

Based on what? The current wave of plantings began in earnest after the results of the election came in, when it became apparent that the Sunnis, who refused to participate alongside Shiites and Kurds in governing Iraq, had lost their arses in the election. If we pulled out tomorrow, what the f*** makes you think that the Sunnis wouldn't ratchet the liquidate and mayhem up ten notches in order to once again gain complete control of Iraq? What makes you so sure that the Sunnis wouldn't then release their hathetmen on the entire Shia population? What makes you so sure that they wouldn't repeat this on the Kurds?

See above.

Oh really? Most of these "fanatics" are holdovers from Saddam's former Baathist party who ran amok in Iraq for 30 years! WTF evidence do you have that they are simply going to lay down their arms and embrace their Shia and Kurdish brothers once we pull out?

It is not our war to win. That is for the Iraqi government to solve. And they can't win it or otherwise resolve the problem until they can defend themselves. Until they can, we are going to be in Iraq.

Hmmm. Hundreds of thousands of foreign fanatics? If you've got specific information on that, please forward it to the CIA. I'm sure that they could find such information useful.

Hmmm. There are only 6 billion people on the planet, Rifty. That by itself implies a limit. There are ony about 1 billion Muslims in the world. Even if 1% were fanatical enough to take up arms in Iraq, that would mean that only 10,000,000 would or could do so. That certainly does look like there is a limit to me, even if the number is large. Now, it is costing us 200 + billion to field 147,000 troops in Iraq. Where are these fanatics going to get the money to field 10,000,000 people in Iraq? And if all of these 10,000,000 fanatics go to fight in Iraq, then that would leave huge parts of the world devoid of fanatics (i.e., The Phillipines, Thailand, Indonesia, Africa,, etc.). This is a bad thing?

The fact is that most of the foreign fighters in Iraq, who by all accounts make up a very fanatical minority of the insurgents, are Saudis, Syrians, and Jordanians, with a handful of Palestinians, Yemenis, and Pakistanis thrown in for good measure. Since this is the case, then even if 1% of the Muslims population of these countries were fanatical enough to go to Iraq to fight, you are looking at a very small base with which to choose those who can actually fight (perhaps no more than a few thousand, which is about the number I've heard quoted by the U.S. military.

The Iraqi people are under no delusions as to who is setting off these car plants every day. If the Iraqis won't forgive us, why are they signing up for the police force and the military by the thousands every week instead of joining up with the insurgents? Why do you think the insurgents are targeting these lines of people who are signing up to be policemen and soldiers? Because they are trying to discourage people from doing so. It has failed miserably.

During the Falklands war, the British lost just over 3 soldiers-day to combat. To date, the Coalition has lost 2 soliders-day to combat. Why then, do people like you think this effort is such a lost cause?

Care to rephrase this last statement in something other than squigglese?

Your farcical attempt to equate Iraq with Vietnam notwithstanding, you are ignoring all but the negative consequences of this military action. Considering your ultraleftist leanings, I'm not surprised.