Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Gloriano on August 12, 2004, 08:09:26 am
-
NAJAF, Iraq (CNN) -- Black smoke wafted through the skies over Najaf on Thursday as the U.S. military launched a major offensive to crush the resistance led by Iraqi militants loyal to renegade Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/12/iraq.main/index.html
Does killing never stop
-
Tends to be a universal constant...
-
Why the crap do they have to hide in a cemetery? I would think that hiding and fighting among the graves by al sadr's malitia would destroy his support, it only seems to strengthen though. I think they should clear the cemetery with chemical weapons dropped from the air (mustard gas, tear gas etc.) enough so that that it is no longer a pleasant place to hide.
-
[q]I think they should clear the cemetery with chemical weapons dropped[/q]
!IRONY ALERT!
(whisltes to Danger danger, high voltage!)
-
They hide in a cemetary because they know an opportunity when they see one. Rules of warfare are pretend.
-
It's about damned time.
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
Why the crap do they have to hide in a cemetery? I would think that hiding and fighting among the graves by al sadr's malitia would destroy his support, it only seems to strengthen though. I think they should clear the cemetery with chemical weapons dropped from the air (mustard gas, tear gas etc.) enough so that that it is no longer a pleasant place to hide.
Ho hum.
(http://img16.exs.cx/img16/2090/dg_najaf_27mar03_overview.jpg)
The outlines are not mine, but let's see:
- the blue line is roughly the Coalition siege line
- red lines are Mahdi's Army's positions
- that big house in the center is the Imam Ali Mosque - note, one of the holiest sites to Shiite muslims, which form majority in Iraq and Iran.
- outside this there are civilians, scores of them. Actually bout 2 million.
Now, all of the above + chemical weapons = bad things, you don't want to do it.
-
So, basically three choices.
1. Drop a couple of MOAB's in there (we know the consequences of that)
2. VX the whole site (again, same as above, not to mention blatantly sadistic)
3. Wait it out and get a whole bunch of huge speakers to blast Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" at full volume 24 hours a day into the complex.
I'm sticking with 3.
-
they only have so much food, I don't see why we couldn't just not alow anyone in, and only let people out into our custody. we have them sealed in there.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
So, basically three choices.
1. Drop a couple of MOAB's in there (we know the consequences of that)
2. VX the whole site (again, same as above, not to mention blatantly sadistic)
3. Wait it out and get a whole bunch of huge speakers to blast Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" at full volume 24 hours a day into the complex.
I'm sticking with 3.
This should sent them out pretty fast. (http://www.brainwashed.com/vvm/Mp3s/vvmtcd17_vvm_01_rank.mp3)
-
Hmmmmmmmmmm... Not sure 'Satan sings Pop' would be the best choice ;)
-
Yeah, using chemical weapons against the very people you invaded against because they supposedly had some... yeah i can see that makes sense and will really turn the people of Iraq over to your side.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Yeah, using chemical weapons against the very people you invaded against because they supposedly had some... yeah i can see that makes sense and will really turn the people of Iraq over to your side.
sar·casm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.]
-
Originally posted by Janos
This should sent them out pretty fast. (http://www.brainwashed.com/vvm/Mp3s/vvmtcd17_vvm_01_rank.mp3)
oh holy HELL!!!!
-
I was actually trying to see if anyone else was bothered by MatthewPapa's statement earlier in the thread. :p
-
Originally posted by vyper
I was actually trying to see if anyone else was bothered by MatthewPapa's statement earlier in the thread. :p
If the statement was serious, I ignore it. Common sense knows it wouldn't work. Gassing 400 insurgents would generate about a billion more. Even a total warmonger like myself knows that.
Keeping them under seige indefinately, that just might.
-
Well, here's an idea: leave Najaf the hell alone. We all know what happened in Fallujah, right?
Sure, its possible to retake the city, but there's gonna be
a) a hell of a lot of dead civilians
b) a hell of a lot of dead insurgents
c) a hell of a lot of property damage, religious and otherwise
d) as a consequence of a, b and c, a hell of a lot of angry Iraqis (and Muslims in general)
Isn't it obvious by now that the country can not be won by force. And that whole hearts and minds deal is about as likely as Elvis comeing back from the dead for another album. And Iraqis are very quickly wising up to the fact that Allawi might not really have their best intentions at heart (his office was recently torched).
Every dead Iraqi bring the US closer to defeat, not victory.
-
If they would just let us install one Starbucks, maybe they could see that democracy can work.
-
Situation now: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=NRS0DQYDRPVFOCRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&storyID=564139§ion=news
You need real firepower now Ford, Cola factories are the key.
-
you know, if they so much as lay a hand on Sadr, much less kill him, there's gonna be a ****storm that will make Fallujah look like cakewalk. The same goes for the Imam Ali mosque. There's no way to get them out, other than to force them out by cutting off supplies, and even then, if they die of starvation, it will be no less dramatic for Iraqis.
the US has already lost.
-
The US lost the day it had to resort to open force, I think that much is obvious. The trick now is if they can figure out how to get out of it.
-
Well, I was joking about the chemical weapons btw in case you were wondering. Its just my way of saying there has got to be a better way to clear out a cemetery than shooting it up. HMM, lemme think of a real option... ok, green berets helecopter in, kill the guards and arrest sadre. Surgical strike. Of course i dont know how well that would go over with the Iraqi government or people, but it might be a genuine option for us.
-
Too many insurgets, surgical strikes only operate on standard military units - this is a mass urban warfare grouping of men.
-
Well, if they can pinpoint his location for sure...
-
And get raped the minute a gun goes off.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, here's an idea: leave Najaf the hell alone. We all know what happened in Fallujah, right?
Sure, its possible to retake the city, but there's gonna be
a) a hell of a lot of dead civilians
b) a hell of a lot of dead insurgents
c) a hell of a lot of property damage, religious and otherwise
d) as a consequence of a, b and c, a hell of a lot of angry Iraqis (and Muslims in general)
Isn't it obvious by now that the country can not be won by force. And that whole hearts and minds deal is about as likely as Elvis comeing back from the dead for another album. And Iraqis are very quickly wising up to the fact that Allawi might not really have their best intentions at heart (his office was recently torched).
Every dead Iraqi bring the US closer to defeat, not victory.
If that's the case then the only solution is, well, genocide. If you aren't laying on the ground waving a white flag, you get shot, as we can't tell the difference until we're being shot at.
*shrug*
Don't piss and cry if you shoot at armed forces, and they shoot back. Obviously yonder 'insurgents' don't give a flying crap about the non-combatant population.
-
It's a two way street.
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
Well, I was joking about the chemical weapons btw in case you were wondering. Its just my way of saying there has got to be a better way to clear out a cemetery than shooting it up. HMM, lemme think of a real option... ok, green berets helecopter in, kill the guards and arrest sadre. Surgical strike. Of course i dont know how well that would go over with the Iraqi government or people, but it might be a genuine option for us.
Yeah, that worked real well in Mogadishu..........
-
"surgical strikes" or "tactical assults" are never as precise or as effective as you think. Certain people seem to think that Special Forces could take on the Red Army in 10 minutes. In a place like the Imam Ali mosque, that is crawling with insurgents, a SF team would get mown down in about 10 second flat, or they would have done it already. Besides, damaging the mosque is not something they can afford to do, and I think they know it.
ionia: you're right, anyone who mounts an effective resistance, in their own country no less, is godless scum and you just have to get a big enough gun to show them who's boss. Resistance will not be tolerated; not in Iraq, not anywhere.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Isn't it obvious by now that the country can not be won by force. And that whole hearts and minds deal is about as likely as Elvis comeing back from the dead for another album. And Iraqis are very quickly wising up to the fact that Allawi might not really have their best intentions at heart (his office was recently torched).
Every dead Iraqi bring the US closer to defeat, not victory.
Wait, wasnt part of the idea of liberating iraq to install a fair, democratic goverment and bring freedom to the people? There's always going to be some sadam loyalists and your usual phsyco muslim extremists, and the only way to win their hearts and minds is to give them control of iraq - and thats not going to be any better than when sadam was in power.
-
as long as you have suicide bombings, roadside bombs, ambushes, armed fanatics, and foreign soldiers to fight them, you will never BE free.
-
As long as your government sponsors state terrorism and takes away your civil rights every day, you will never be free.
Out with the commie, in with the sand n.....
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Wait, wasnt part of the idea of liberating iraq to install a fair, democratic goverment and bring freedom to the people? There's always going to be some sadam loyalists and your usual phsyco muslim extremists, and the only way to win their hearts and minds is to give them control of iraq - and thats not going to be any better than when sadam was in power.
except that the "Saddam loyalist" thing is not really all its cracked up to be. I mean, most high ranking ex-Ba'athists just need to ask for their job back and Bremer (now Allawi) will be happy to accomodate them.
As for the Islamic extremists, sure, there are several groups operating inside Iraq, who see the conflict in the MIddle East in an international light. So, wherever the Yanks are, there they will go to fight them. But I also think that the US is playing up the size and importance of this group, for obvious reasons.
Who you are not taking into account here is a sizeable and important group on ordinary Iraqis who have had too much and join the resistance. A homegrown insurgency. You talk of "terrorists" and "Saddam loyalists" because it suits your purposes to make it seem as if only fanatics and madmen are fighting the Americans, thus not even ackowledging a legitimate right to resists.
If the US really went in to give the Iraqis power, they would have done so already. Its been what, 16 months or so? And even if its taking a while, which it is, how do the permanent bases, CIA advisors within each Iraqi ministry and unalterable legal code fit it to the plan for democracy? If you were there to liberate them, why do you think you have to kill so many of 'em?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
"surgical strikes" or "tactical assults" are never as precise or as effective as you think. Certain people seem to think that Special Forces could take on the Red Army in 10 minutes. In a place like the Imam Ali mosque, that is crawling with insurgents, a SF team would get mown down in about 10 second flat, or they would have done it already. Besides, damaging the mosque is not something they can afford to do, and I think they know it.
ionia: you're right, anyone who mounts an effective resistance, in their own country no less, is godless scum and you just have to get a big enough gun to show them who's boss. Resistance will not be tolerated; not in Iraq, not anywhere.
It's not just insurgency / resistence, though. It's a paramilitary organisation, a private army of a man who is effectively a warlord. If you want Iraq to be democratic - and specifically free elections - then you can;t have that.
Not that I'm saying this (the US) approach is the best way to handle this. But at the same time, I can understand the reasons.
I know that you seem to want this whole Iraq situation in a bloody civil war so as to embarress the merkins, but at the same time I'm sure you must recognise not all insurgents are 'good' - some will be terrorists who have come from other countries or within for the purposes of purely attacking the Americans, and some will be Ba'ath loyalists with no interest beyond re-establishing their power base.
So it's just as hypocritical to say all insurgents are freedom fighters for the good or Iraq, yaddayaddayadda, as it is to say they are all godless scum.
-
The US is in a difficult situation. The more of these people that die in combat, the stronger the cause will become, it not only adds to Americas reputation, it also adds to the whole 'romantic' element which appeals so much to teenagers, 'fighting in a Holy War against the Ultimate Evil'. I wonder how many of these 'insurgents' are just kids who have foolish ideas of their own mortality? After all, it's only happened to other people so far.... After all, you are in the 'Right', just as the US is.
I remember a video posted of some 16-17 year old kid with an RPG. His arm was shot off and then he was shot in the head. Fine, he was pointing an RPG at something, so he got shot, that's war. However, one thing sticks in my mind, it's the look of complete disbelief on the boy's face as he stares at his arm, like he never believed he was going to get shot at, I think I will remember that expression for a long time.
There is just as much Villifying of America going on in Iraq as their is vice versa in the US. No-one wants middle ground. America cannot pull out because what they leave behind would be a bloodbath. So they are trapped, and chasing sects of militia is like herding cats anyway.
What is needed is an honourable disentanglement, for both America and the Iraqi people. The best choice for this is to hold a truly open election. Though I don't see that ever happening.
-
Peace but with honour Flip?
I've heard that before.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Who you are not taking into account here is a sizeable and important group on ordinary Iraqis who have had too much and join the resistance.
Well thats just stupid. Re-building a country doesnt happen overnight. I can't imagine its a very easy time for ordinary Iraqis, but joining an insurgence is doing even more damage. The coalition needs to show that an uprising isn't a path to stability and prosperity - and that if you join it you will be defeated/killed.
On a side note, I was reading in the newspaper today a bit about Najaf. In an interview with one of the rebel fighters, a man bearing a machine gun said "I just fire my machine gun, and Ali [some sort of prophet] brings the bullets to the US Helicopter - he does the aiming for me" (or words to that effect)
Yep, good luck.
Where's the tard smilie?
-
Religious nuts are still dangerous, even if they aren't aiming by themselves.
Both sides show that.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Peace but with honour Flip?
I've heard that before.
I know, and it's never honestly been applied. Nor will it I expect. Maybe there is honour in simply being able to walk away, but Pride is a big thing, and National pride is even bigger. Religious pride is big enough to engulf the entire planet. :(
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Well thats just stupid. Re-building a country doesnt happen overnight. I can't imagine its a very easy time for ordinary Iraqis, but joining an insurgence is doing even more damage. The coalition needs to show that an uprising isn't a path to stability and prosperity - and that if you join it you will be defeated/killed.
What the coalition needs to do is **** off home like 90% of Iraqis want them to do. What the Iraqis need to do is make it clear to the coalition that they arent welcome anymore, preferably with large truck bombs.
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/12/iraq.main/index.html
Does killing never stop
Better question: Why is the killing stopping? The Iraqis need to kill this guy once and for all. Negotiations only made things worse the first time around and will do so this time.
-
Originally posted by Gank
What the coalition needs to do is **** off home like 90% of Iraqis want them to do. What the Iraqis need to do is make it clear to the coalition that they arent welcome anymore, preferably with large truck bombs.
Um... do actually have any statistics to back up that 90% figure?
I'd imagine most Iraqis are realistic to realise they have no security forces at present aside from the coalition, and thus will need to rely on them or risk the same scenes of anarchy as after Saddam fell.
(Note 'rely', not 'welcome')
In order to return (return?) to stability, Iraq needs some form of security. At the moment - botch job as it may be - the Coalition troops are all they have.
-
Actually, the figure is probably between 95% and 100%. The most recent poll that I know off indicated 98%, though naturally, polls can err a few digits up or down. But still, if that doesn't constitute a vast majority, I don't know what does.
And Iraq has police forces now, who also act as soldiers when needed. I'de say they have plenty of security, and necessitiy would spawn more.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Actually, the figure is probably between 95% and 100%. The most recent poll that I know off indicated 98%, though naturally, polls can err a few digits up or down. But still, if that doesn't constitute a vast majority, I don't know what does.
And Iraq has police forces now, who also act as soldiers when needed. I'de say they have plenty of security, and necessitiy would spawn more.
(first source i could find)
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040704/news_mz1b4iraqi.html
n the past year, with the Pentagon outsourcing many of its functions, SAIC has played a major role in training the Iraqi army and the police force. But the number of police officers and soldiers trained has been far below expectations.
One year after the first training contracts were issued, the Iraqi army has only 6,700 troops – slightly more than half the size of the Los Angeles police force – and fewer than half of them have received training.
I'm trying to find the police force numbers.... but i'm willing to bet it's nowhere near enough. Especially, considering the 100-odd thousand coalition troops have been so ineffective.
EDIT; possibly more reliable;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3873359.stm
Multinational Brigade North (also known as Task Force Olympia):
About 20,000 soldiers, of whom 11,500 are Iraqi security forces (national guard, border patrol and army).
Also, the size of the police force is probably pretty irrellevant. Most police forces are neither trained nor expected to fight guerilla warfare. Also, there's possible issues over who the new police / army are loyal to - especially the leftovers from Saddams days, if they were sufficiently indoctrinated.
EDIT2; probably the best I can find. No date, though.
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040209-08.html
According to the U.S. Defense Department, Iraq's police force now numbers 70,000, just shy of the projected total force of 71,000, and the ICDC forces stand at 21,000, just over half of the desired force size of 40,000.
Captain Romley said that other branches of the Iraqi security forces include 21,000 border police, a force that is expected to grow to 26,000, and approximately 92,000 in the facilities protection services, whose task it is to guard important infrastructure and government buildings.
In addition, he said that a cadre of 1,700 officers and NCOs have been trained to serve as a core for the country's army. These officers will in turn train enlisted soldiers, with the goal of establishing an army of approximately 40,000 troops.
Romley said that the army is designed strictly to protect the territorial integrity of the country and will not serve any internal, domestic function.
In all, Iraq's security forces now stand in excess of 200,000 men, outnumbering the coalition presence of 140,000 troops.
It's hard,admittedly, for me to judge if this is 'enough'. The UK has about 150,000 police, IIRC - but we're not a warzone last I checked, and also they're not 'new' to the job. Or, indeed, subject to organized terrorist attacks. Well trained police won't make good soldiers, anyway - police aren't trained to kill, after all - they're trained to investigate and arrest.
Based on the current situation, I'd say they don't have enough numbers or training.
-
Last I heard, there were security forces actually shooting at US troops.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Um... do actually have any statistics to back up that 90% figure?
I'd imagine most Iraqis are realistic to realise they have no security forces at present aside from the coalition, and thus will need to rely on them or risk the same scenes of anarchy as after Saddam fell.
(Note 'rely', not 'welcome')
In order to return (return?) to stability, Iraq needs some form of security. At the moment - botch job as it may be - the Coalition troops are all they have.
What planet are you on mate, do you honestly think after the last year that US forces are going to restore stability to Iraq? The coalition troops may be all they have, but peace and security arent going to come about until long after they leave. As for most Iraqis relying on them, iirc the same poll said most Iraqis had no confidence in them in that role. Google it if you want to know the exact figures, it was a cpa poll taken june iirc, one taken before the april uprising gave dissaproval ratings at 80% iirc.
-
Originally posted by Gank
What planet are you on mate, do you honestly think after the last year that US forces are going to restore stability to Iraq? The coalition troops may be all they have, but peace and security arent going to come about until long after they leave. As for most Iraqis relying on them, iirc the same poll said most Iraqis had no confidence in them in that role. Google it if you want to know the exact figures, it was a cpa poll taken june iirc, one taken before the april uprising gave dissaproval ratings at 80% iirc.
EDIT;
Right. Simple question
What do you think would happen in Iraq if the Coalition pulled out now?
-
Civil war up the butt. The coalition is getting theirselves out of there as soon as possible. Chances are that country will be in anarchy for a great many years.
-
We probably ought to keep in mind that even the United States had a rocky, violent start with democratic government. I think that violence and civil war may be an unavoidable fact in Iraq. You can't suppress violence with force; you have to defuse the driving force behind it.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Besides, damaging the mosque is not something they can afford to do, and I think they know it.
Bing bing bing! I was sitting in my DC hotel room with an Arab-Israeli friend and a Egyptian friend of mine when I saw this on CNN. They both said the same thing. "Oh ****. The Ali Mosque? That place had better not get hurt..."
These friends of mine are pretty liberal guys, too.
-
I think that the US has a very clear motive for trying to convince everyone that it there would be civil war if they pulled out. Now, I'm not dismissing the possibility, but its rather clear that the civil war scenario stinks of politics opportunism.
What do I think would happen if the US (please don't refer to it as a coalition aldo, since you know damn well that its not) pulled out?
I honestly couldn't say. Civil war is one possibility, I'm not denying that, but I don't pretend to know enough about the complex internal politics of Iraq, especially after the past 16 months, which have been particularly unusual, to say for sure.
But what I can say with some certainty is that, at least as far as I can see, the US troops are *causing* the instabilty, not guarding against it. Right now, 100% (or very close to it) of the fighting is between the US plus Iraqi police (collaborators let call them) and various insurgent groups. Now, if the US left, would these groups break their alliance and turn on each other? Maybe, maybe not. The US is a unifying force, in that it unites groups with, I would guess, rather different views and policies, against the occupation. It could very well be that when you take this unifying force away, it would be an all out battle for who will rule, but I don't think thats certain.
But this is all working under the assumption that the US will stay only so long as it takes "to do the job", which is until elections, which clearly is not the case.
-
Come to think of it, on a side-note, didn't didn't most democratic countries have to have a civil war to gain their version of freedom? Certainly the UK, France and the US did?
-
I think thats its safer to say that most democratic nations have gone through a civil war at some point which, more often than not, decided the power structure which is in place to this day.
Hell, all of Eastern Europe falls into that category, Spain, Greece, Germany (sort of), Switzerland I think...
No pain no gain. If a civil war is the only way people are going to get that **** out of their system and settle down, so be it.
-
I just hope the last one, was our last one.
Britain has gentlemanly coups actually, you see sudden shifts in government or policy, public pressure (or press) forcing out governments, etc.
Just an interesting point.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I think that the US has a very clear motive for trying to convince everyone that it there would be civil war if they pulled out. Now, I'm not dismissing the possibility, but its rather clear that the civil war scenario stinks of politics opportunism.
What do I think would happen if the US (please don't refer to it as a coalition aldo, since you know damn well that its not) pulled out?
I honestly couldn't say. Civil war is one possibility, I'm not denying that, but I don't pretend to know enough about the complex internal politics of Iraq, especially after the past 16 months, which have been particularly unusual, to say for sure.
But what I can say with some certainty is that, at least as far as I can see, the US troops are *causing* the instabilty, not guarding against it. Right now, 100% (or very close to it) of the fighting is between the US plus Iraqi police (collaborators let call them) and various insurgent groups. Now, if the US left, would these groups break their alliance and turn on each other? Maybe, maybe not. The US is a unifying force, in that it unites groups with, I would guess, rather different views and policies, against the occupation. It could very well be that when you take this unifying force away, it would be an all out battle for who will rule, but I don't think thats certain.
But this is all working under the assumption that the US will stay only so long as it takes "to do the job", which is until elections, which clearly is not the case.
Technically, it is a coalition. AS UK and Polish troops have also been involved in fighting, I don't think you can argue it isn't, It's just dominated by the US. But seeing as a complete withdrawal would involve removing all foreign troops, then coalition is clearly the appropriate term.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=define%3Acoalition&btnG=Search
I belive that, if the coalition pulls out, it will leave a power vacuum which will likely lead to an all out civil war, probably on racial grounds (Sunni vs Shia vs Kurdish). In the event of Kurdish involvement and later independence, that could draw in the Turkish army, and possibly lead to a wider isntability.
I think that the best solution is to bring in a properly neutral peacekeeping force, preferably drawn from Arab countries (i.e. a muslim force), and possibly even a UN one. The withdraw the coalition troops.
But at the moment, I fear withdrawal will only lead to a long civil war ala Afghanistan (i.e. up to and including the Taliban). And i don't think a civil war is by any means a good thing.
And if you look at Afghanistan, which has seemingly had minimal support in terms of coalition troops, it's an example of how not to rebuild a country.
NB: I don;t think man/most european civil wars have taken place on racial / religious lines, as is most likely to happen in Iraq. IIRC they've been ideological (except Yugoslavia). Haven't really looked it up, though. Albeit Spain is a very bad example - Franco had a lot of outside help there, and it ended up a totalitatrian dictatorship.
-
The best solution is clearly to build a time machine, go back to the post-WWI Middle East, and prevent the nation of Iraq from being formed.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The best solution is clearly to build a time machine, go back to the post-WWI Middle East, and prevent the nation of Iraq from being formed.
If only it were that easy.....
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Right. Simple question
What do you think would happen in Iraq if the Coalition pulled out now?
Simple answer, same thing thats going to happen whenever they do leave. The US has no credibility in the country now and neither they or any of their appointed puppet rulers are going to bring peace and stability to the place, their continued presence is the main reason for the lack of it. As for a civil war, its probably inevitable, given the rise in power of Sunni and Shia extremists like Al Sadr.
-
I just learned something very interesting. Apparently, of the four main religious leaders in Najaf, not counting Sadr, all four were out of the city when the siege started, and obviously, they can't return now. The attack was, quite coincidentally of course, timed so that no religious authority would be present.
I don't know what to make of that exactly.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Actually, the figure is probably between 95% and 100%. The most recent poll that I know off indicated 98%, though naturally, polls can err a few digits up or down. But still, if that doesn't constitute a vast majority, I don't know what does.
Somehow I doubt the internet/phone possessing Iraqi's would be the majority of the population.
Or did some poor fool do door to door asking for each person's vote?
I think alot of ppl tend to forget things like this when they see "The All Mighty Poll Results" because for us,..in our home countries respectively,...having access to the internet or at least a phoneline is a very common thing.
So perhaps it's better said "The figure is probably between 95% and 100% 'of those able to vote in the poll'. Which for all we know is 3 ppl and a hampster, albeit it a wealthy successful hampster ;)
-
Originally posted by Gank
Simple answer, same thing thats going to happen whenever they do leave. The US has no credibility in the country now and neither they or any of their appointed puppet rulers are going to bring peace and stability to the place, their continued presence is the main reason for the lack of it. As for a civil war, its probably inevitable, given the rise in power of Sunni and Shia extremists like Al Sadr.
Well, maybe it is invitable - I hope it's not, and I don't think it's an excuse to just run away from a problem when you know it's not going to solve it.
But I'd support an attempt to repair the damage the war has done, rather than run away and allow Iraq to collapse, any day. It's just unfortunate that the US response to insurgency has been so badly botched.... but given the choice between allowing Iraq to slide into civil war, or trying to hold it together to allow democratic elections to take place, I prefer the latter.
(and if you're going to throw in 'not-democratic', 'puppet leader', etc etc etc with regards to elections, it's my hope that the international pressure being exerted will prevent this occuring)
That's my position. I didn't want the war, i didn't think it war right, but I think that the 'coalition', especially the US, now has a duty to repair the damage they caused.
Originally posted by Warlock
Somehow I doubt the internet/phone possessing Iraqi's would be the majority of the population.
Or did some poor fool do door to door asking for each person's vote?
I think alot of ppl tend to forget things like this when they see "The All Mighty Poll Results" because for us,..in our home countries respectively,...having access to the internet or at least a phoneline is a very common thing.
So perhaps it's better said "The figure is probably between 95% and 100% 'of those able to vote in the poll'. Which for all we know is 3 ppl and a hampster, albeit it a wealthy successful hampster ;)
which would be between 95% & 100% of the best-off Iraqis, if they have working power or a telephone line.
-
(http://img5.exs.cx/img5/4593/map12.jpg)
See, it's really easy, the different Sunni/Shia clans will live in peace and harmony FOREVER.
-
uh, I'm not buying that, no way are there that many distinct clans.
-
Depends if it's along familial lines. Not sure what would define a Sunni / Shia clan, but IIRC Scotland had 20+ clans (pre Culloden) and a much smaller land area.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
uh, I'm not buying that, no way are there that many distinct clans.
edit: Well, here's the legend: http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/legend.JPG
-
But what is implied by Janos is that all these clans will somehow have a go at each other at the drop of a hat. I don't know exacty how the clan system works, having never lived in a country that has one, but am I right in thinking that there isn't a whole lot of animosity between the clans anymore, and even if there s, that people don't identify themselves primarily as members of such and such a clan?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But what is implied by Janos is that all these clans will somehow have a go at each other at the drop of a hat. I don't know exacty how the clan system works, having never lived in a country that has one, but am I right in thinking that there isn't a whole lot of animosity between the clans anymore, and even if there s, that people don't identify themselves primarily as members of such and such a clan?
No, no, most likely not they won't go at each other, but in society like Iraq the chance is not theoretical. The clans are not just family-based, but also religion/ethnicity-based.
Pretty universally, every country with strong clan-based societies or many different ethnic groups living among each needs a strong central government to prevent the clans from trying to dictate the policies in and near their respective areas [no ****, sherlock!]. In a case of civil unrest and power vacuum, these checks and balances naturally fail.
It does not mean that the clans will immediately and automatically go after each other crying for blood, but more that the means to prevent such thing from happening do not exist.
Unless one of the different groups and alliances gains superiority in such situation and can simply override the other groups in one way or another [having more political influence, direct involvement and so on..], the possibility of impending catastrophe in diversed enviroment usually causes the different groups to try to make sure that they will survive/maintain status quo/get stronger.
In the case of power collapse and possible civil war, it would get really messy. Since different powerhouses support different factions and vice versa, even small conflicts have possibility to escalte quickly if there's no way to punish these semi-sovereign entities from even thinking that [read: central governmen, occupying force or any other suprior authority in said situation).
There are pretty much examples of such situations. Say, Afghanistan - there was a strong central government before Soviet invasion. After Soviets left, there was pretty much no one to get the upper hand at once, so the country kinda collapsed. Later, Talibans were able to drive the other groups into corner (they, naturally, had an uneasy peace treaty with each other because Talibans were much greater threat). As soon as Taliban regime fell, the different powerhouses began to gain more power. Now, there's the international group to try to prevent yet another bloodshed, but it seems a pretty tough task. Actually, this also applies to much of Caucasian Asia.
Somalia is yet another example, though the traditional rules gave the clans much greater power than in Afghanistan.
I know this was a long and incoherent post, but I think you'll get my point.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But what is implied by Janos is that all these clans will somehow have a go at each other at the drop of a hat. I don't know exacty how the clan system works, having never lived in a country that has one, but am I right in thinking that there isn't a whole lot of animosity between the clans anymore, and even if there s, that people don't identify themselves primarily as members of such and such a clan?
I would imagine there will be a sort of informal alliance / enemy situation which would cause any conflict to escalate. However, certain clans will have been heaily oppressed by Saddam, and thus are likely to be aching for revenge. Throw in a possible bid for Kurdish independence, foreign fighters & terrorists who have arrived to fight the merkins, possible interference from outside parties wishing to destabilse Iraq (Iran being a prime candidate, although this is wild speculation on my part) and I'd imagine you have an explosive combination (literally).
I think a 'clan' has different meanings based upon the nation, anyways.
The Scottish definition of a clan was essentially akin to a lord (clan chief) and a serfdom. The clan members were able to work upon the land, but had to (amongst other things) fight for the clan when required (signalled by the burning cross, IIRC). The clans would sometimes unify to fight a common enemy (i.e. the English, albeit some clans took the English side to preserve power or whatnot), but also each other (I'd need to check this). The clans were destroyed after the defeat at Culloden, though - the English destroyed the clan system, suppressing the culture behind it. (Which has kind of led to an artificial view of the 'romance' of the clans)
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Somehow I doubt the internet/phone possessing Iraqi's would be the majority of the population.
Or did some poor fool do door to door asking for each person's vote?
I think alot of ppl tend to forget things like this when they see "The All Mighty Poll Results" because for us,..in our home countries respectively,...having access to the internet or at least a phoneline is a very common thing.
Eh, I think some people seem to forget that the internet or phonelines are not the usual way of taking polls. Both polls refered too were CPA polls taken door to door in all the major cities.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, maybe it is invitable - I hope it's not, and I don't think it's an excuse to just run away from a problem when you know it's not going to solve it.
The US is the problem Aldo, running away is exactly the way to stop it
Originally posted by aldo_14
But I'd support an attempt to repair the damage the war has done, rather than run away and allow Iraq to collapse, any day. It's just unfortunate that the US response to insurgency has been so badly botched.... but given the choice between allowing Iraq to slide into civil war, or trying to hold it together to allow democratic elections to take place, I prefer the latter.
Proper democratic elections wont take place under US guidance anyways, as they've banned a few people and yet more refuse to work with them.
Btw, this Sunni-Shia civil war, its ****e, there hasnt been a civil war between Shias and Sunnis since Mohammeds death and its very unlikely there will be one now, despite the efforts of some groups.
-
Sure, if you don't count the Shia uprising in '91 (during which the US shamefully sat idle while they were slaughtered). The Shia were treated as 2nd class throughout Saddams (Sunni dominated) reign.
The US leaving Iraq no would result in, at best, another dictator; at worst, an Iranian puppet or mid-east Somilia. I'd be the first to say we shouldn't have gone in but, whats done is done and now we're stuck with the clean up.
-
Originally posted by tEAbAG
Sure, if you don't count the Shia uprising in '91 (during which the US shamefully sat idle while they were slaughtered). The Shia were treated as 2nd class throughout Saddams (Sunni dominated) reign.
Kurds.
-
No, teabag's right, it was the Sh'ia. You may be thinking of the gasing of the Kurds Janos, which was back in '88 if I recall.
-
They're ending up with a puppet government anyway.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
No, teabag's right, it was the Sh'ia. You may be thinking of the gasing of the Kurds Janos, which was back in '88 if I recall.
I think he's suggesting the Kurds as well
-
Originally posted by Rictor
No, teabag's right, it was the Sh'ia. You may be thinking of the gasing of the Kurds Janos, which was back in '88 if I recall.
Um, the entire 1980s, actually.
And during the first Gulf War US suggested the Shias AND kurds to rise in revolt and then backed off. Results were happy and glorious, people danced in the streets, children played in the meadows, you know, usual stuff.
Edit: Goddamnit aldo :mad:
-
right, gotcha.
As you said, the Kurds have been at odds with Saddam throught the 80s and in fact were right to the invasion. I think that there is a distinct possibility that they will break off from Iraq. They fought so hard to get here, years of resisiting Saddam (not to mention Turkey) and I think the only reason they helped the Yanks invade was because they saw this as a golden opportnity to accomplish what they're been after for decades - independence.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
right, gotcha.
As you said, the Kurds have been at odds with Saddam throught the 80s and in fact were right to the invasion. I think that there is a distinct possibility that they will break off from Iraq. They fought so hard to get here, years of resisiting Saddam (not to mention Turkey) and I think the only reason they helped the Yanks invade was because they saw this as a golden opportnity to accomplish what they're been after for decades - independence.
I'm sad. I really think Kurds should have their own nation, but I know Turkey does not support the idea (nor Iraq, or Iran, or Russia, or Germany, and definately not USA, nor any country with any importance) and it's unlikely to happen.
Small nations and people are just small dogs - as soon as a bigger dog comes from behind the corner and growls, what does the little dog do?
-
The other problem is that 'splitting up' countries can potentially destabilise other countries, by encouraging seperatist nationalists, which is largely what Turkey fears (with regard to their own Turkish population).... it's a tricky situation.
I think maybe there's always some concern that splitting a country along nationalist lines can cause long time problems in terms of previous rivalry...i.e. the nation against the nation they were once part of (or another nation formed out of its ashes).
But, of course, the Kurds have had to fight bloody hard just to survive as a people in Iraq, and IIRC they're not exactly treated like kings in Turkey.
So I can understand the reasons for both sides.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Small nations and people are just small dogs - as soon as a bigger dog comes from behind the corner and growls, what does the little dog do?
Same thing all little dogs do: pee all over the place.
-
Growl and prepare to fight. I've seen scottish terriers ready to take on pitbulls.
You can only push anyone so far before they start pushing back.
-
Originally posted by tEAbAG
Sure, if you don't count the Shia uprising in '91 (during which the US shamefully sat idle while they were slaughtered). The Shia were treated as 2nd class throughout Saddams (Sunni dominated) reign.
.
Wrong, the Shia uprising was aimed at the ba'athist regime, which was not limited to Sunnis, it also had its share of Christians like Tarik Aziz and Shias like the new president Allawi. It wasnt a Sunni-Shia conflict, As for staying for the clean-up, do you honestly think the US is going to pull an about turn and start doing things right for once? Have you been paying attention for the last year?
About the big and little dog thing, some people seem to forget that the biggest guy doesnt always win, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia etc all come to mind.
-
venezuela recently, though that was more political.
But Vietnam, Afghanistan (I assume you're reffering to the Soviets) all took a few years. Attrition is the name of the game. Its been, what, a year and a half in Iraq? Yeah, give it a few years, maybe they (insurgents) will actually pull it off and make it too costly to stay.
-
"do you honestly think the US is going to pull an about turn and start doing things right for once?"
no...
oh look, Sadr is getting another last chance. well the seige of Najaf is off for the moment, ehh, sort of...
-
It's a game of red light, green light.
-
More like 'Damned if you do, Damned if you don't'.:sigh:
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Same thing all little dogs do: pee all over the place.
This is indeed the right answer.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"do you honestly think the US is going to pull an about turn and start doing things right for once?"
no...
oh look, Sadr is getting another last chance. well the seige of Najaf is off for the moment, ehh, sort of...
not no more :(. Mr. Sadr blew it. If he wants martyrdom (well, death anyway), looks like he's going to get it.
And a whole hell of a lot of other people who just want to go to the grocery store, or school, or coffee.
-
I think it's better to have a dead martyr than a living terrorist mastermind. Say your prayers, al-Sadr.:drevil:
As for the civilians, I think the Iraqi and American forces have been telling people to stay the hell away from that mosque for weeks.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
not no more :(. Mr. Sadr blew it. If he wants martyrdom (well, death anyway), looks like he's going to get it.
Wrong, looks like Sadr wins again:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040820/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_12
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I think it's better to have a dead martyr than a living terrorist mastermind. Say your prayers, al-Sadr.:drevil:
Hehe, hes not a terrorist anymore woolie, at least according to Allawi, he now has a place in Iraqi politics. :D
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
As for the civilians, I think the Iraqi and American forces have been telling people to stay the hell away from that mosque for weeks.
I think the average Shia isnt going to pass a bit of heed to US warnings to stay away from the mosque, because they know that even the US isnt stupid enough to even put a dent in it given that the majority of middle eastern oil lies in Shia dominated areas.
-
[q]I think it's better to have a dead martyr than a living terrorist mastermind. Say your prayers, al-Sadr.[/q]
Since you're not in the minority, that explains how the **** the entire situation we're now in happened. (everything from USS Cole, 9/11, and anything else that I can't remember because it's been double plus unexisted).
-
also, AFAIK Sadr and the Mahdi have not really killed all that many civilians. They are more or less restricted to fighting US soldiers and Iraqi polce, which means you can't label them terrorists. However, to the average Joe who watched CNN, anyone who opposes America is a terrorist, regardless of what the word actually means. This term has been so overused and misused, thats its lost all its weight.
Europol has recently stated that anarchist groups and terrorists or "pre terrorists" and ought to be watched with extra vigilance.
...seriously, pre-terrorists, they actually used that term. I guess we've got about 6 billion pre-terrorists running around right now, I'de say thats a pretty big security crisis, wouldn't you?
-
We're meant to be live in a free country, that's a threat enough to the powers that be.
-
Well colour me surprised ("http://www.antiwar.com/ips/logan.php?articleid=3420")
MONTREAL - Sarah Bardwell did not get the names of the four FBI agents and two police officers who questioned her and her roommates late on the afternoon of July 22 on the front porch of their house in Denver. "We asked them for their names and they said they wouldn't give us their names because we wouldn't give them ours."
"They told us they were doing preemptive investigations into possible – I think their exact words were 'terrorists, anarchists and murderers.' Then they specified [it was about people] that may be planning actions for the RNC or the DNC," she says in a telephone interview from her house.
edit:
And some more
http://www.iht.com/articles/535088.html
dirty filthy anarchists, they're downright unAmerican.
-
Wow! If they are looking for the source of the Terror problem, why didn't they just go stand in front of a mirror, would have saved them the petrol at least :/
You know, this really shows the difference between 'Big Country Politics' like the US and 'Small country politics' like the UK. If something like this made the papers in the UK, I'm pretty sure there would be a countrywide condemnation of it. Not because of what happened as such, but because it's obvious what doors could be opened for the Secret Service if this sort of thing is taken silently.
-
My orange sig seems appropriate again...