> I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war.
It's currently an insurgent war - there is a big big difference.
> You can't know that.
Precedence - look at other historical examples.
> You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths.
It's a reasonable and logical assumption; the US has vastly superior weaponry and organisation to the insurgents. They abide by much stricter rules of war/engagement. It's an engagement weighted on the side of the US. If a more even balance was in effect the casualties would, logically, be much higher.
How can you reasonably assert that the US leaving would result in less deaths?
> Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit
Be serious; who suggested that (I certainly didn't)?
But your posting smacks of a massive anti-US bias so, I guess, it's pointless to continue arguing :)
In 2006, it was already declared to have devovled into civil war along sectarian lines. The insurgent activity is focused on the US forces being seen (rightly) as illegal occupiers.
So we're in agreement that the US is really there for the oil, which makes all these other arguments kind of moot, right?
I'm not anti-US. I'm anti-"1) illegally invading countries because they have what you want." And I'm anti-"2) scores of dead and mangled innocent men, women and children because of 1)." And I'm anti-"3) soldiers coming home fucked up physically and mentally from 1) and 2).
We can't continue arguing like this, but I respect you and wish you the best, Errant.
> I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war.
It's currently an insurgent war - there is a big big difference.
> You can't know that.
Precedence - look at other historical examples.
> You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths.
It's a reasonable and logical assumption; the US has vastly superior weaponry and organisation to the insurgents. They abide by much stricter rules of war/engagement. It's an engagement weighted on the side of the US. If a more even balance was in effect the casualties would, logically, be much higher.
How can you reasonably assert that the US leaving would result in less deaths?
> Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit
Be serious; who suggested that (I certainly didn't)?
But your posting smacks of a massive anti-US bias so, I guess, it's pointless to continue arguing :)