CCTAU 3,345 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Until Al Sadr is KILLED, there will only be more strife in Baghdad. If this happens, what will prevent a new leader just as ruthless to take his place. You mean like the one that was suppose to take Sadaam's place? As soon as Al Sadr dies, the people in Sadr city will be looking for a new daddy. That daddy will be the Iraqi government that moves in and sets up shop. These people live in the slums, the Iraqi government cannot even come in and help improve things. No IP exists in there. No IA exists in there. No local, autonomous governing body exists in there. All because Al Sadr has religious control over these people. It did not happen over night. So a new guy will not spring up over night. Until Al Sadr is dead, the new Iraqi government will be awaiting an internal rebellion. Right now, the new Iraqi govt. is waiting until they get full strength. It will take many soldiers to occupy Sadr city. And it will take many soldiers to kill all 7-8000 Mehdi Militia members. It will not be a civil war as the media will scream out. It will be the quelling of a rebellion. We, as a nation, had our own issues. The only thing these poeple know is fear and streangth. Until the Iraqi govt gets enough of both, there will always be some tribal leader bowing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 1776 to 1789 was 13 years actually and a very good point. The Dems of course will execute everything immediately and in flawless fashion... Don't forget about the Articles of Confederation...our "first" attempt at a constitution. That was such a great document that it could not even settle a fishing dispute on the Potomac between Virginia and Maryland. Washington had to call a meeting to "revise" the AOC, which became the secret meetings to get rid of the AOC and write our current Constitution. Just shows why sometimes the first attempt is not the best attempt, but it does set things in motion to make it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 All of these comparisons to the American birth are nice, but, if people weren't dying everyday in Iraq and it wasn't costing us billions and billions of $$$ and the process was moving along rather peacefully, I doubt the length of time would be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUman43 5 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 King George and his arrogant, power assured friends could probably have saved the Senate IF he had had the balls fire Rummy BEFORE the election. Absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY! Good riddance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,345 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 King George and his arrogant, power assured friends could probably have saved the Senate IF he had had the balls fire Rummy BEFORE the election. Absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY! Good riddance! I don't thinkit had anything to do with "balls." W has proved that if he believes in it, he will do it no matter what. So the "balls" thing is just not accurate. I think he is loyal to a fault at times. But like one miltary leader said abour Rummy, "He had to make tough choices. And he made them." Too many times, decisions are not made. maybe he made the wrong decisions, but he didn't check the wind first. He made the decisions he thought was correct. Had we had better intel and info, maybe we would not have made the same decisions. But I think the big picture would still be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.