Post by Kurt NicklasFour so far,
Nonsense.
and four or five more which could still come true.
Since most of your "predictions" have a life span of however
long it takes your poli sci students to graduate, maybe you'd
like to put an 'expiration date' on this set for those of
us with longer memories? Keep in mind that your predictions
were actually made in the Fall of 02 in response to a question
asking about the war and the immediate consequences.
But wait, maybe we should just consider them as we would predictions
of Nostradamus - open to interpretation, nonspecific and without
time limit. Someday Syria may expand into Iraq, a revolution may
rock Saudi Arabia and the leader of Pakistan may be overthrown. In
which
case, your great-grandchildren can claim vindication!
So, in your mind, the consequences of this little invasion began in
March 2003 and ended on that glorious day when Herr Bush declared
"Mission Accomplished"?
Below, you use the word "disingenuous." What "disingenuous" is you
pretending that things that are happening now -- you know, like the
civil war, the ethnic cleansing, the alignment of Shia-led countries
geographically and politically, the destabilization of the Middle East
to a degree that hasn't been seen since the fall of the Ottomans, the
invasions of de facto Kurdistan by Turkish forces, etc., as well as
things that will probably happen within the next few years, are not an
outgrowth of this stupid, ill-conceived invasion and subsequent
occupation.
The effect of war is often felt for decades, if not centuries.
Especially when that war is not the result of a legitimate concern for
self-defense. Much of Europe is still feeling the after-effect of
World War II, despite the fact that it's been over for 63 years.
The repercussions of this boneheaded exercise in Iraq will reverberate
throughout the entire Middle East, and most of Scott's predictions are
happening before your eyes, if you'd bother to open them and look.
Post by Kurt NicklasNot
bad, given that this was a list where I thought if any one or two
would happen it wouldn't be worth the war.
No, you didn't say that at the time, I'm afraid.
It doesn't matter. He's not claiming to be a psychic. Are you trying
to smear him by claiming his psychic powers aren't 100%? What ARE you
trying to say here?
Oh, wait... I forgot... a Usenet right winger can't deal with the
truth of a situation; they have to attack "libb'rulls" in order to
"weaken" us. The only problem with that is, of course, the only people
you convince are other wingnuts. Those of us who deal in facts are not
impressed.
Post by Kurt NicklasNote this was a list of
possible results, not a set of predictions!
Yes, I understand your desire to hedge here. If you're right then
you can claim credit, if you're wrong then you're off the hook, huh?
He's not claiming psychic powers, you clown.
OTOH, YOU are claiming that none of the predictions have come true.
Those of us here in the fact-based community know that about half of
them have already come true -- there is a civil war raging in Iraq,
there is ethnic cleansing going on, Turkey has invaded Kurdistan/
Northern Iraq, Saudi Arabia has had to crack down on certain groups to
prevent uprising, etc. Seriously, just read your newspaper -- one
other than the Washington Times, that is, and you'll see that the
result of the Iraq occupation (the war was over five years ago, btw)
has been the disintegration of Iraq, as many as 5 million Iraqi
refugees (20% of the population), at least 1 million Iraqi civilians
dead, the creation of a "Shia Crescent" across the Middle East, that
threatens the relative stability of the entire region... to quote a
certain fictional King of Siam, "Et Cetera, et cetera, et cetera..."
All of this has been in the news. Instead, you have the need to sing
the praises of the worst fucking president in the history of a
formerly great country, so you pretend none of this shit's going on.
But here's the funny part. When President Obama takes office, I'll bet
anything all you wingnuts will cite everything that's going on over
there and blame Obama for it, as if it all just started January 20,
2009.
Post by Kurt NicklasAnd, the further we get in history from the actual event of the US
overthrowing Saddam Hussein the less the occurances of any of your
"predictions" can be directly traced back to our decision to invade.
Wrong. That's what you'd like to believe. We had Saddam under lock and
key from 1991 on. In fact, it's likely Saddam would have been
overthrown within 4-5 years, had we not invaded, and would have
aligned Iraq with the West, in order to avoid the sanctions, and get
the Iraqi people back on track. You do realize that, before the Gulf
War, Iraq was the most westernized country in the Middle East, and had
the strongest economy and infrastructure, right?
Instead, we destroyed Iraq.
Post by Kurt NicklasThat doesn't concern you, apparently, in your desire to claim credit
for being correct.
He's not claiming "credit." YOU are the one who brought it up, you
schmuck. He didn't bring it up.
Post by Kurt NicklasAlas, many of the things
that happened were worse than I had my list, and I didn't realize this
would also give the Taliban and al qaeda time to regroup and become as
strong as pre-2001. Overall, things have gone far worse than I
expected.
Given your dire predictions versus the current situation, I think
you're
being disingenous.
Have a lovely day!
See above.
Iraq is a complete and utter failure. The Bushies have effectively
done the unthinkable; they have put us into a war that was dumber and
more poorly-conceived than even Vietnam. They have effectively lost
two wars and broken the military, as well as destabilized an entire
region.
And you want to defend that.