The dirty little secret of all this is, the leftwing Democrat base is perfectly fine with genocides as long as they’re far away.

Let’s not forget Bill Clinton, the UN, and various other lefties both here in the US and around the world turning a blind eye to 800,000+ Rwandans being slaughtered in 1994.

The oil is a problem, I admit. But Britain faced an energy crisis before with coal mines filling up with water. We’d have to develop alternative sources. We’ll never do that without the impetus. A Sunni/Shia war would go on for a long, long time.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 2:03 PM

We are developing altenative sources because of the pressure from enviromentalists. But that doesn’t happen overnight. Until then we need to ensure cheap plentiful oil for every american citizen because everyone of us are addicted to it.

We went into Iraq to win. The traitorous liberals want to withdrawl and in turn the middle east will descend into absolute unrest, and by default the worlds oil market will be adversely affected. That means upwards of six dollars a gallon that americans will have to shell out for their SUV’s. The increased cost for every product in this country will grow exponetially. And if the liberals think 3000 american deaths in Iraq is terrible, wait until they see how many elderly people will die in this country because they can’t afford heating oil.

No, if we are going to have a don’t give a $hit attitude, it needs to be in Darfur and not Iraq.

I’ll ask this again: when did Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs become two distinct ethnicities?

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:25 PM

I’m not sure it would be ethnic. It was used in this article by the reporters from the NYT article.

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY

It turns out this is just about the biggest historical inaccuracy of the 20th century and it seem nobody knows about it. Battles continued after we abandoned our allies to defeat which caused the death of millions.

I think the Democrats were right I see alot of similarities between Vietnam and Iraq.

Fresh meat for the grinder, ladies and gentlemen, as Hillary Clinton stepped in it, again when she said the following:(Hat-tip to Captain Ed and Bryan @ Hot Air)Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political missi…

I ordinarily refrain from calling Hillary Clinton “the Hilldebeast.”

Myself?..I’m jes’ not that inhibited.

I’m still looking for the word, that defines a female cuckold.

I would, but Coach Green beat me to it.

Well played, Kid. Well played.

and a certain decorum from our side might — I said might — help tone things down on the other side.

Wow, you’re right! The other side side is now being kinder and gentler! (Watch out for those flying pigs!)

And then, what do you do about the victor? Defeating the other side is only step 1 in the ideology.

Oh, and let’s not forget all of that oil they’re sitting on.

yo on March 15, 2007 at 1:35 PM

The oil is a problem, I admit. But Britain faced an energy crisis before with coal mines filling up with water. We’d have to develop alternative sources. We’ll never do that without the impetus. A Sunni/Shia war would go on for a long, long time.

If the Sunnis and Shia want to fight one another, let ‘em.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Philosophically, I’d agree. However, that type of violence will (or has, depending on how you look at it) spill over beyond the Iraq/Iran borders.

And then, what do you do about the victor? Defeating the other side is only step 1 in the ideology.

Oh, and let’s not forget all of that oil they’re sitting on.

Sorry.

Anyways, in this case, many Persians do travel to Iraq for pilgrimages, but the ethnic boundaries are very well defined in this case. Iran is on a plateau separated by mountain ranges from Iraq. If the Sunnis and Shia want to fight one another, let ‘em.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM

What I said:

The exact minute Mohammed (peanut butter and banana sam’ich) died.

What you said:

It started after his death

Why are you bustin’ my balls on this if we’re saying the same thing?

The Shia in Iraq are Arabs.

Not all of them. Keep in mind, I said a “goodly number.”

Also keep in mind that that current borders don’t always accurate denote ethnic/religious separations.

Yeah. That was the point. And yeah, both practice jihad against the infidels … and once that’s been accomplished, they’ll party like it’s 699 and start going after each other.

If you wanna get a little more into it, a goodly number of Shi’a are actually Persians, not Arabs.

yo on March 15, 2007 at 12:53 PM

I don’t think you quite have the point. You said that the division started at Mohammed. It did not. It started after his death. The Shia in Iran are Persians. The Shia in Iraq are Arabs. The Sunnis in Iraq are Arabs. Therefore no ethnic cleansing, only Sunni/Shia jihad. Good for infidels.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Yeah. That was the point. And yeah, both practice jihad against the infidels … and once that’s been accomplished, they’ll party like it’s 699 and start going after each other.

If you wanna get a little more into it, a goodly number of Shi’a are actually Persians, not Arabs.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013403.php

The Left always seems concerned and wants us to “do something”. They just never want to “do it right”….

The exact minute Mohammed (peanut butter and banana sam’ich) died.

yo on March 15, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Not quite right. Sunnis hold to the Sunnah and believe that only the four ‘rightly guided’ caliphs were valid. The Shia revere Ali. It’s an argument about succession that branched off into two separate religions that both practice jihad against infidels.

I’ll ask this again: when did Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs become two distinct ethnicities?

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:25 PM

The exact minute Mohammed (peanut butter and banana sam’ich) died.

PRCalDude,

I do, but what does that have to do with the fact that stopping genocide in Sudan, won’t stop genocide all throughout Africa?

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:25 PM

We share ideological and religous ties with the blacks in Darfur. We have a moral obligation to help them. We don’t have a moral obligation to help people that will kill us as soon as they’ve dealt with their internal squabbles.

I do, but what does that have to do with the fact that stopping genocide in Sudan, won’t stop genocide all throughout Africa?