[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

I'm not arguing percentages, or even arguing that this movement will collapse without foriegn fighters, or aid .... that was your simpleton friend's assumptions.

Hey ABCD, quick English question: how long have "questions" and "assumptions" been synonyms?

You did not make a clear statement. Maybe you think brevity when stating opinions about things with which you have no direct experience (please correct me if you've personally polled the Iraqis or have a direct line to an omniscient observer) equates to substance, but I do not. I could point you to polls that say 2/3 of the Iraqi population say they oppose the US presence. It'd be nice to see some references or at least some numbers you could back up for a statement as ambiguous as the resistance "is largely foreign interest" but whatever, we're supposed to do our own research to back up your opinions, is that it?

So let's agree for the moment that the statement "the current resistance against the US or whatever it is we're seeing now does not represent Iraqi's" is wholly factual, which I would say you cannot possibly know for fact, but since you say it is so, only a simpleton would take issue with it. Fine, let's pretend for the moment you do, in fact, have the ability to look into the hearts of a nascent nation and know what they want, even when they don't agree about what they want. I am envious of your supernatural talents. Were you born with this power, or did you just huff a lot of solvents in your youth?


So what about my other question? How do you expect the United States Armed Forces to seal off 2281 miles of border in foreign lands? We haven't even been able to seal off 1951 miles of our own Southern border. Was that not a legitimate question? If that in not a legitimate question, then why do you think it was not done?

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

I am arguing that it's far more complex then "Iraqis aren't happy the US invaded, so this is how they're responding". This is not the response of the Iraqi people. It's Iran getting involved, it's Syria getting involved, it's rogue terror groups setting up shop and recruiting, it's Iraqis needing employment joining up, it's religious extremists fighting for comepletely unrelated reasons, it's the US government trying to fund opposition groups, it's the Iraqi government trying to fund their own opposition groups to keep a handle on things

I'd agree with this premise that the ever so ambigious "it" is far more complex, but assuming by "it" you mean to describe the insurgency in Iraq, I don't think you've really added anything new to the "conversation" there, except maybe the point that the US and Iraq governments are directly funding insurgents.... that's a fairly interesting thing you just said, and certainly new to the discussion here.

do you really think religious radicals, Al Qaeda, and Baathists represent the interests of the Iraqi people? You haven't been making a distinction

I could argue that the Iraqi people lack the unity to have their interests represented by anyone. But that's not helpful. Why is it necessary to state that a guy with a bomb strapped to him doesn't represent the interests of the market he's blowing up? Fucking hell, you ask for substance and then you complain about THAT?!