A few things...
Quote from mahram:
Pabst you would blame the russians right. They were the ones who took over the country. They were responsible for law and order. If your going to take over a country, and be the law, then you should act like the law.
Says who? This sort of reasoning is faulty. An invading country isn't responsible for anything other than to secure their interests in invading and to minimize civilian harm as a direct result of military action. I don't know where you get this idea from. Or maybe there's some confusion given Bush's "policy" goals in Iraq currently versus his original reasoning. Even so, you state it as if this so called responsibility is codified in the Geneva Convention. Article 51 of the Geneva convention cannot be interpreted as law and order being the responsibility of the victorious adversary. Their only obligation is to make certain that adverse effects of direct hostilities are minimized where civilians are concerned. Sectarian violence, which for Iraq IS a "muslim thing" is outside the scope of the Geneva Convention and the obligations it carries. As is the terrorism inflicted by the insurgent Islamic forces.
and pabst, you have to remember another important thing, imagine then that russia dismantled the police force, military, and any institution connected to capitalist system. Just like the american military did in iraq. Dismantle the military, police force and any institution connected to the basth party. You would have complete chaos right. And if you think this is only a islamic thing. Just look what happened after Katrina. when you get ride of the police force, military, instutions, law, and even electricity. You get complete chaos. So to answer your question, its not a islamic thing, its a human thing. Its only when the american people are willing to send in the right amount of men power and money to secure the country, then iraq will start to stabilize. Pabst, do you think new orleans will still be in choas if Bush decided to send in 100 men to secure new orleans?
This amounts to deflection.
While there are many errors in your analogy (not worth getting into here) there is one salient point. That being, it's a human thing that chaos has a high probablity of ensueing when law and order breaks down. But here's the thing; Enemy forces are doing everything they can to prevent the establishment of law and order. Why? Because in their view, the establishment of this law and order is in ideological conflict with the one they'd like. Namely, Sharia law. So in this instance, in Iraq, what is going on is uniquely Islamic.
Islamic insurgents targeted Iraqi military and police recruits, politicians, day labourers. That's not mere chaos my friend. That's a guerilla war. Then sectarian violence ensued after a venerated mosque was destroyed. Again, not mere chaos but a civil war.
Looked at properly, ordinary civilian Iraqis are facing a four front struggle in their daily lives. They have to deal with the reprecussions of:
1. The Insurgent's war against "infidels."
2. The sectarian war of the Sunni and Shiite sects.
3. The coalition's war against Insurgents and terrorists which has lead to many civil rights violations, civilian deaths as well as collateral damage.
4. The sharp increase in violent crime and due to the inability of coalition and Iraqi security forces to be everywhere at once.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending America's actions or presence there. But some of the logic I've read or heard concerning this conflict is silly. Such logic as:
1. If America didn't invade, the insurgents wouldn't be killing civilians.
2. If America didn't invade, there'd be no sectarian violence.
No need, I hope, to break down why such logic is faulty.
