JDG wrote: > Ritu, it seems that you, Nick, and even Dan missed the point here. > > The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the > deaths currently occurring in Iraq. While this was a reasonable > proposition when the deaths in Iraq were occurring largely as a result of > US military action, or else as a result of an anti-US insurgency in > Iraq, that no longer seems to be the case. As the events of the past > week have painfully demonstrated, the predominant form of violence in > Iraq is of an inter-sectarian kind as the various Iraqi factions jockey > for position in the post-Saddam order.
The sectarian violence now occurring in Iraq was sparked when the Al-Askari Mosque (the Golden Mosque) was destroyed last February by Al Qaida. Why did Al Qaida do it? To prolong the violence in Iraq. Why did they want to prolong the violence? Because of the presence of the U.S. in Iraq. Would the Sunni/Shi'a have occurred anyway? There's no way to know, but it's significant that before that bombing, violence between sects was minimal. > In my mind, if one is to blame the US for these deaths, then the > alternative would be to support the prolonged the perpetuation of Saddam > Hussein or similar ad infinitum as a means of holding the country > together. So since we aren't invading North Korea, we support the perpetuation of Jong? Come on John, what kind of whacked out logic is that? > Alternatively, I suppose you could explain why you think > that there would have been less sectarian violence in Iraq if the regime > of Saddam Hussein (or similar) had only collapsed *without* 150,000+ US > troops on the ground trying to help keep the peace... Yes, I believe that that is quite possible and even probable. -- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
