Comments on: How Neocons (and Neolibs) Dismissed the Prospect of Sunni-Shi’ite Conflict in Iraq

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I love bashing the neocons as much as the next guy but few people anticipated Sunni Shia civil war back in 2003. Robert Fisk of the Independent (no neocon he) said in 2004 that civil war in Iraq was impossible, mostly because of the huge amount of intermarriage between between the two sects. Indeed, if you talk to educated Iraqis of either sect, they will ussually tell you of a cousin or brother in law or even wife of the other sect.

It is the anarchy unleashed by the US invasion and incompetant occupation that has led us to this civil war that would indeed have been unthinkable five years ago.

The reason to despise the neocons, then, is not because of any specific prediction that went wrong but instead for their hubris. We had no reason to go to war in Iraq. They destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of optimism and lack of imagination. The tragedy is that they are not paying the price for their mistakes.

By: Harry Belinky

Harry Belinky — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Read SWAP by Sam Moffie

By: lester

lester — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

agree with Tom, there was alot of ideology and little factual analysis on both sides. at the same time, I doubt Robert Fisk was one of the ones pushing an invasion of iraq then. the post 9/11 PNAC letter said straight up if you don't invade Iraq the terrorists win.

pre-Iraq cloudy crystal ball-ism is always fun though, particualrly when the people are still around. David Horowitz's "everything the left said about the war was wrong" is my personal favorite.

and on the other side are pat Buchanan and ron Paul and others who got it right.

By: salvage the good

salvage the good — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Phil thinks that, in Iraq, trying to impose democratic unity on a fractured polity rife with old grievances and religious/ethnic divides (don't forget the Kurds) was clearly foolish. I agree. So why does Phil seriously consider Tony Judt's idea of a 1-state solution in Palestine/Israel? That would mean trying to impose unity on a polity that is even more fractured and rife with just as many old grievances and ethnic/religious divides.

By: Bill Pearlman

Bill Pearlman — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Its actually kind of fascinating to watch Phil and the rest of the crew pin intercine Arab barbarism on the JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
I'm going to take this up at the next meeting of the elders and see if we pulled the strings on this one. I'll report back later

By: Rowan Berkeley is an anti-semitic member of the British National Front

Rowan Berkeley is an anti-semitic member of the British National Front — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Noted Neo-Nazi, Rowan Berkeley, tells Mary Rizzo (peacepalestine.blogspot.com, that she is a mossad provocateur!

Those who can read German may find this copybook example of guilt-by-association, is-he-an-antisemite, by someone Shamir claims used to support him and is now a "traitor", typically fatuous:
http://www.freitag.de/2006/06/06...06/ 06061502.php

I mention this because it illustrates the pointlessness of the endless discussion about whether people are 'anti-Semites' or not.

The only effective opposition to zionism, america, or the general imperial charade, will come from now on from people who regard the accusation of 'anti-Semitism' with contempt.
Rowan Berkeley | 04.27.06 - 11:55 am | #