<p>“One could say that the US govenrment is structured along racial lines (special districts set up to assure black representation in Congress). This doesn’t mean that violence is the expected result.”</p>
<p>You’re kidding, right? You think a few black congressmen/women (not all of whom are Democrats, by the way) represents a government “structured along racial lines”? But not literacy tests and poll taxes, or decades of gerrymandering to ensure no black representation at all. Right? Am I understanding you correctly?</p>
<p>Poetsheart, apparently you are not understanding me correctly. My reference was to ID’s comment assuming that because the Iraqi elections were designed to provide for proportional representation that the genie was out of the bottle with respect to achieving peace in Iraq - that sectarian violence was now a forgone conclusion.</p>
<p>My reference to the US parallel was that the effort to create proportional representations for blacks by means of redistricting with an objective of providing more representation for blacks doesn’t (and didn’t) result in the feeling for a need to resort to violence between the races. </p>
<p>People have used the rift between the Sunnis and Shias as a rationale for just letting them fight it out as if by nature (or history) that’s what they are bound to do anyway. This is not the case. Iraqis have lived together peacefully for years even though there has always been an underlying distrust between the two sects. </p>
<p>To some extent there can be a parallel drawn with US race relations that you mention. There have been inequities between the races for the history of the country. However, this doesn’t automatically mean that the two races will resort to violence to resolve these differences. Likewise, the Iraqis, which are actually a lot more integrated between Sunni and Shia than African Americans and whites in the US, are not “destined” to kill each other off if we can help eliminate the catalyst that is causing the current sectarian violence. To take the view that this is bound to happen anyway so we may as well just let it happen shows a colossal disregard for human life - at least a disregard for life other than American lives.</p>
<p>It’s very difficult to predict because the military has not been allowed to address a post-occupation Iraq and because we don’t know what the conditions on the ground will be in January 2009.</p>
<p>For example, if Iraq has even the pretence of a government (like today), then you would assume the US would continue to maintain an embassy (and, therefore, the fortified Green Zone, and the base at the airport). However, if the government has disintegrated, that may not be a viable option. Once we stop trying to tamp down sectarian violence, we may not have many options except to pull out completely. Also, assuming no draw down of the current troop levels until January 2009, the political will of the US voters may not allow any significant presence. By January 2009, the US people are going to be beyond fed up.</p>
<p>The most thorough white paper is the Brookings Institute plan for containment of an Iraqi civil war – a plan that suggests pulling all US forces back to the borders, and the establishment of refugee camps/buffers along the Kuwait, Saudi, Jordanian, and Syrian borders.</p>
<p>I do think you’ll see an immediate regional diplomacy effort, probably with Bill Clinton visiting all of the capitals, including Tehran. We have got to make a major push to reestablish US foreign policy as a positive instrument in the region. But, again, we don’t know if Bush will have attacked Iran by January 2009.</p>
<p>It’s not religious, per se. It’s purely political. There is no incentive for either group to forge a viable coalition government. Both groups believe they can have the whole enchilada.</p>
<p>FF thanks for clarifying your meaning. I believe I better understand the analogy you were attempting to draw. However, I believe the analogy is faulty (re: Interesteddad’s above post) and still maintain that The government of The United States is far from “structured along racial lines”. I guess my statement was in response to an attitude which, from what I’ve observed, seems far too prevalent among conservatives: That being that actions which work to ensure minimal minority representation in Congress are as reprehensible as the ones instituted with impunity for centuries which sought to do the opposite. Sort of like the argument that AA is as evil as forced segregation…rolleyes: I didn’t intend to derail the thread, however, so I’d be happy to just drop it and get back to the original topic:).</p>
<p>All you have to do is take one look at the Republican field in the Presidential race to understand their views on diversity. Ten old white guys in charcoal gray suits. The closest they come to diversity is that a few of them wear blue ties instead of red.</p>
<p>Of the 50 lawyers in the criminal division of the Bush Civil Rights Office in the Justice Department, 2 are African-American. No African-Americans have been hired since 2003. Two is the same number as in 1978, despite the fact that the department has doubled in size.</p>
<p>Nice attempt at stirring up the old racial card, ID. I know this is a common ploy of the Democrats, but all you have to do is look at Bush’s cabinet to put your attempt at divisiveness to rest. </p>
<p>Had, Colin Powell decided to run for president when he was first considering it, he would have beaten the the Dems to having a serious black presidential candidate by 16 years. Had Condi Rice decided to run in 2008 as many Republicans were urging her to do, she would have been the second serious AA candidate for the party. Meanwhile the Dems, finally in 2008 have their first serious AA candidate - just ask Joe Biden. So, save your condescending remarks for where they probably play quite well - the Democratic Party boiler room.</p>
<p>She will go down in history as the worst NSA, presiding over a disasterous policy. There’s a reason that none of the Bush administration toadies have escaped with a reputation intact.</p>
<p>You are confusing cause an effect. Rice’s numbers as a potential presidential candidate fell as it became apparent that she was serious about not running.</p>
<p>Or, maybe the party found out she believes in evolution.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, her job performance as NSA was abyssmal. This is her war in Iraq. This is her torture. This is her warrantless wiretapping. The White House can’t even pawn off the blame on Monica Goodling of this one.</p>
<p>The dads on this board really are unbelievable. Why does it always have to come down to the smarmy, sniping comments like “this is her torture. This is her warrantless wiretapping”. Do you ever wonder why there is so little give and take discussion here? It’s always the same thing…torture…warrantless wiretapping…my God, man give it up.</p>
<p>Maybe you aren’t aware of the authorizations for torture in violation of the Geneva agreements and the repeated lies from the administration to Congress.</p>
<p>I am far more upset about those issues than the war in Iraq. I view them as criminal acts, and from a pragmatic standpoint, acts that have set our foreign policy in the Middle East back immensely. We’ve given up any pretense for the moral high ground. It’s the legacy of George W. Bush and those around him can’t hide from the blame.</p>
<p>BTW, I see that 11 GOP Congressman went to the White House yesterday and told Bush that he no longer has any credbility on the war. Rove was at the meeting; I expect to see the smearing of these 11 Congresssmen begin sooner rather than later.</p>
<p>“Maybe you aren’t aware of the authorizations for torture in violation of the Geneva agreements and the repeated lies from the administration to Congress.”</p>
<p>Obviously you are and I’m sure that you have credible documentation to prove this. It would be great if you would share this with us. Otherwise this is no more than making statements like, “obviously the Clintons were behind the death of Vince Foster”.</p>
<p>“Do you ever wonder why there is so little give and take discussion here? It’s always the same thing…torture…warrantless wiretapping…my God, man give it up.”</p>
<p>What labels would you prefer that we use to describe those phenomena? Or do you believe that discussion of those issues is off-limits in general?</p>
<p>I’ve already cited and quoted the specific 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide that Clinton violated, so no need to do it again. I think his case is slightly less equivocal than GWB’s, but who’s measuring?</p>