Matsui, don’t be such a pessimist, let there be some civil war. It’s been a while. Arabs havent had a civil war in ages.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Considering you let the Russian do whatever they want in Chechnya and the Indians in Kashmir, that wouldnt be a reciepe for death now would it?
[/QUOTE]
You are comparing what is happening in Kashmir with what is happening in Iraq? Get real.
I said it back thgen and i will say it again now
a military victory in toppling Saddam's regime was the easy part
now is the tough part
and this is a war isn't it? its rough business
the people who dealt with saddam's BS for decades were being suppressed by that group and now they are caught in a crossfire between US forces, Iraqi insurgents with varied political agendas, saddam loyalists and outside interests.
The tough part is to stay in there during this tough time, to develop a fair infratsructure for political leadership, bring law and order, contain special interest groups and leave the country in a stable position.
We left Afghanistan in chaos a while back, the sequence of events after that were not pretty.
From a global standpoint, If Us leaves today, woukd Iraq of today be less of a threat then Iraq under Saddam? I dont think so.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Arvind: *
You are comparing what is happening in Kashmir with what is happening in Iraq? Get real.
[/QUOTE]
Its not a comparision its an analogy. There is a difference.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
We can still fly the B-52's and drop reminders of who we are every now and then
[/QUOTE]
Cowards?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
The U.S. could easily befriend a thug like Saddam and put him in charge and give him the green light to use gunships to quell any violence without any reguard for innocent lives, but the past has presented a lesson and shown that is not the right action to take.
[/QUOTE]
what, just like they did in 91 right? like when 300 000 shias were killed? the only lesson shias learnt back then, never to trust americans again.
Dont worry about the civil war guys, if it was pak we were talking about then maybe you would have a point. This is Iraq, where theyve been living together for decades. You may call Saddam a sunni but most iraqi (sunnis) dont even consider him a muslim. He only looked out for his family and palaces, so to them its not really a sunni vs shia thing.
Well, the Bush regime never wanted to see the reality on the ground from day 1 and so it has now come to this large scale slaughter of the innocent. And the Bushman is on holiday - Easter eggs and all. So much for leading (LEADING???) from the front. Heart bleeds for the innocent Iraqis and the teenage american soldiers sent to kill and be killed. Any sons or daughters of politicians in the fray?
"Iraqis told them to go from day one
…
First it was Saddam and his two sons, Uday and Qusay, who were leading a rump of diehard loyalists to regain power; then it was Saddam’s deputy, Izzat al-Douri, leading the same rump; then it was a leaderless rump of diehards who had no place in the new free and democratic Iraq; then it was foreign terrorists “flooding” into the country; then it was a fiendish foreign al-Qaida terrorist named Zarqawi who killed Shia mourners to start a Sunni-Shia civil war; then it got a bit confusing, with a creeping number of insurgent operations in the Shia quadrangle; then it got even more confusing with the Shias changing tactics and staging increasingly militant protest marches; and today we have Moqtada al-Sadr - an “unrepresentative” Shia radical cleric leading a tiny army of extremists who happen to be active in most of Iraq’s 18 governorates and who want to destroy the new free and democratic Iraq.
The 160,000 occupation forces, backed up by mass destruction technology, are now deemed insufficient in the fight against the Sunni diehards and the Shia unrepresentative extremists. Furthermore, many thousands of foreign fighters have indeed come “flooding” into Iraq - not terrorists sent by Bin Laden but mercenaries hired by the occupation authorities. Their role is to carry out dangerous tasks, to help reduce US army casualties. This is in addition to the Pentagon’s Israeli-trained special assassination squads. Iraqis now believe that some of the recent assassinations of scientists and academics were perpetrated by these hit-squads. A similar campaign of assassinations in Vietnam claimed the lives of 41,000 people between 1968 and 1971.
The unleashing of F16 fighter bombers, Apache helicopter gunships and “precisely” targeted bombs and tank fire on heavily populated areas is making the streets of Baghdad, Falluja and the southern cities resemble those of occupied Palestine. Sharon-style tactics and brutality are now the favoured methods of the US-led occupation forces - including the torture of prisoners, who now number well over 10,000.
…
The US-led invasion is daily being unmasked for what it is: a colonialist adventure being met by a resistance that will eventually turn into a an unstoppable war of liberation.
What went so wrong that the US-led war to “liberate” the Iraqi people turned into the daily slaughter of the victims of Saddam’s tyranny? The answer is simple: nothing has gone wrong. Despite the mythology, most Iraqis were strongly against the invasion from the start, though it has taken 12 months for the world’s media to report that.
…
What has changed is that many Iraqis have decided that the peaceful road to evict the occupiers is not leading anywhere. They didn’t need Sadr to tell them this.
…
Nor did they fail to notice article 59 of the new US-engineered constitution, which puts the new US-founded Iraqi armed forces under the command of the occupation forces, which will, in turn, be “invited” to stay in Iraq by the new sovereign government after the “handover of power” in June. This occupation force will be backed up by 14 large US military bases and the biggest US embassy in the world, tellingly based at Saddam’s republican palace in Baghdad.
And lest anyone is still confused by the glib propaganda that it is all the fault of Sadr, it is important to remember the greatest mass demonstration in Iraq’s history, only days after the fall of Baghdad, when 4 million people converged on Karbala to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussain. Their rallying cries then were “No to America, no to Saddam” and “No to the occupation” - a chant that has been repeated at many mass rallies since. Opposing Saddam’s tyranny was never the same thing as welcoming invasion and the tyranny of occupation.
…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1188857,00.html
I haven't yet bothered to read the replies in this thread, only Storch's initial post so if I miss jump over something I'll get back to it later...
But what I get from Storch's half-sarcastic post is a disgruntled sentiment that the Iraqis were unwilling to fight against Saddam though they are now eager to fight us when they should be instead realizing the waters have parted and salvation is at hand, that is realizing that they can form a democracy.
This gets a lot of things wrong and i think is the shared base of our problems in Iraq.
First, the Iraqis were willing to fight against Saddam's overwhelming force--they did and were defeated repeatedly.
The frustration many have in America that the Iraqis are refusing opportunity and choosing or allowing chaos instead of individually striving to create a free government reveals the core problem with the war from the outset: people just don't get it, they can't comprehend how life is not always dictated by a universal logic.
Iraq now has the opportunity to pursue whatever lofty goals it so chooses for itself now that Saddam is no longer able to control actions. In theory, that is. Y'see, people have differing views, they need to work them out but not everyone is working from the position of being an educated political critic. Some people are stupid, if you want to call them that, and their first instinct isn't to hold a town-hall meeting to discuss their views and come to a consensus or any such politically savvy move. Their instict is immediate expression. We have it in America too, all of this. But Iraq is working on a different scale. ......
Y'know, I fall into the same problem you guys have.. you can't comprehend why people would not act in an ordered fashion.. I can't comprehend how people could expect otherwise. It's really hard to write about this stuff because explaining the direct issue in context involves so many diverse points, but the overriding principle that ties it all together is just common sense.
I just don't get it.
I think one needs to stop putting noble aims to an invasion that had none, it was in the end done ONLY to remove Saddam Hussein, not out of anything as grand as unocovering concentration camps and WMD's and people weeping while shouting "never again" this war was a US war for US consumption done in order to remove a regime which actually deluded itself into thinking it could take on the US. It was as much about making an example out of Saddam Hussein more then anything else. That is in essence the problem, it became personal for the US, similar to Israel in Lebanon they removed one largely ineffectual threat (Yasser Arafat) only to end up with another Hezbullah. What Yasser Arafat couldn't do (inflict a military defeat on Israel) Hezbullah did.. as always Hubris in International politics is generally reserved for Empires, with disastrous results.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
I think one needs to stop putting noble aims to an invasion that had none, it was in the end done ONLY to remove Saddam Hussein, not out of anything as grand as unocovering concentration camps and WMD's and people weeping while shouting "never again" this war was a US war for US consumption done in order to remove a regime which actually deluded itself into thinking it could take on the US. It was as much about making an example out of Saddam Hussein more then anything else. That is in essence the problem, it became personal for the US, similar to Israel in Lebanon they removed one largely ineffectual threat (Yasser Arafat) only to end up with another Hezbullah. What Yasser Arafat couldn't do (inflict a military defeat on Israel) Hezbullah did.. as always Hubris in International politics is generally reserved for Empires, with disastrous results.
[/QUOTE]
Salaam Zakk
Well said! Pax Americana will not stand. Unfortunately this "game of chess" for the Pentagon planners and the neo-cons involves disasterous effects not only on the lives of the "liberated" Iraqis but also on the families of the dead US Soldiers.
Zakk, as we all have learned that "might makes right" atleast in the US playbook, it is imperative that Muslim nations including Pakistan, to be distinctly aware that the US inspired vengence for 9-11 is NOT just directed towards a select group of Muslim Terrorsts but rather entire societies and city states. The question remains for the collective Muslim resolve to understand and counter this threat. Many have capitulated like Iran, Libya, others are willing stooges like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia..those who oppose whether its the Sunnis of Fallujah, Shias of Sadrs Mahdi Army, or the Taliban remanants are quickly branded as "terrorists." But terrorists to whom? You the occupying power? Well of course that is expected..Perhaps one day Pontecorvo's Battle of Algiers will be played out on the streets and districts of Iraq.
Yes, absolutely. Everything in American foreign policy tends to have a very personal element. After he became President, and even directly after the 9/11 attacks it is now clear that GW Bush was more interested in attacking Iraq, than anything else - maybe to finish off the job daddy had not been able to finish?
Once again in Iraq, they have managed to boost the following of a leader, who previously had limited support, but now has ever increasing followers.
Al-Sadr Seen Gaining Popularity Among Shiites In Iraq](http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004041006420000&Take=1)
Where only last week the American occupiers were saying how they would never talk to “terrorists and criminals”, now suddenly it’s ceasefire, ceasefire!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
But what I get from Storch's half-sarcastic post is a disgruntled sentiment that the Iraqis were unwilling to fight against Saddam though they are now eager to fight us when they should be instead realizing the waters have parted and salvation is at hand, that is realizing that they can form a democracy.
[/QUOTE]
You're wrong. It was only a scant 34% sarcastic.
Yeah, I just don't get it either. I think the stupidest thing that this administration has done is underestimated the unanimity of America hatred (no, not just the discerning "policy hatred" as many would frame it-that arrogance is getting real old.)
The self-perpetuating prophesy of America-hatred. In the so much of the Muslim world (and frankly amongst plenty right here at home) this myopic distaste for America's every thought, deed, misdeed, whatever...trumps all other considerations in the formation of opinion. Crap. You can't even send polio vaccine to parts of Nigeria. So f••k Nigerian Muslims suffering from polio, screw representative government for loser Iraqis and low-life Afghans. Sucky countries probably got that way 'cause they are populated by sucky folks. Fallujah scum picked a fight, now everybody cries foul when they retreat behind the walls of thier mosques, or girlfriends or kids and somebody gets hurt.
I want MAD back. Terrorists want to kill thousands of innocents? Make the consequences for them unthinkable by creating catastrophic horror in their midst among the things they care about. That's their goal. It may be the only philosophy that works.
Good night, All.
Well said storch. Kill 500 of the terrorists for every American killed. Only way they will learn.
Well my post about sending Canadian seal-killers to create havoc amongst the terrorists did not apparently have "the legs" to remain as the subject of a thread. However this would be one example of a useful tool to be employed with a MAD doctrine.
with comments like these and americans still wonder why are they the most hated bunch on the planet?
and about the canadian seal hunters comment, that was really great of you to mention that, we were not aware that this was a war on islam, but now we are certain. thanks.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ThandyMazaq: *
with comments like these and americans still wonder why are they the most hated bunch on the planet?
and about the canadian seal hunters comment, that was really great of you to mention that, we were not aware that this was a war on islam, but now we are certain. thanks.
[/QUOTE]
So, you are blaming the americans for responding to the disgusting comments of your pro saddam friends?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ThandyMazaq: *
with comments like these and americans still wonder why are they the most hated bunch on the planet?
and about the canadian seal hunters comment, that was really great of you to mention that, we were not aware that this was a war on islam, but now we are certain. thanks.
[/QUOTE]
How does the suggestion that crazed, Newfie baby seal killers would be a great addition to the War on Terrorists, confirm that it is indeed a war on Islam?
I think it merely shows a grudging admiration for the potential of abject savagery that lives within each and every Canuck. And that's the kind of moxie you need to defeat terrorism. Capiche? I, however, would never club a seal to death. I would use a J-DAM.
If this is liberation, then i want nothing to do with it:
The administration of President George W Bush is busy selling the concept of a June 30 handover of “sovereignty” to an Iraqi administration. Even before the current Operation Bloodshed, Iraqis - avid consumers of political intrigue - knew full well what’s behind it. They know the CPA has confirmed that after June 30, the $18.4 billion of reconstruction funds will be administered by the US Embassy in Iraq - the largest in the world, capable of housing 3,000 people. These funds - supposed to last for five years - will be spent on Iraq’s crucial infrastructure: oil, water, electricity, communications, police and the judiciary. **What Bremer’s CPA is in fact saying is that any Iraqi government simply won’t be able to decide how the country will be rebuilt. **
Iraqis also know that **14 US military bases are already under construction, enough to accommodate the (for the moment) 110,000 American soldiers who will stay in Iraq until at least 2007. No sovereign Iraqi government has approved the construction of these bases. **Kimmitt - the No 2 Pentagon man in Iraq, and the one who launched total war on Fallujah - said the bases are “a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East”. **A ring of US military bases throughout what the Pentagon calls the Greater Middle East is a key element of the neo-conservative-driven strategy to control world energy resources as the way to control the destiny of America’s economic rivals - the European Union and Northeast Asia. **
Iraqis also know about another Bremer executive order - according to which even with an interim Iraqi government the Iraqi army will be controlled by top US commander Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez. And they know they will also have to live with an Iraqi version of Condoleezza Rice - a Bremer-appointed national security adviser with a five-year mandate.
Muqtada may be an Islamic fundamentalist. But his intifada is popular because the base consists of legions of Iraq’s urban poor and unemployed - roughly 70 percent of the total working-age population. And the motive is plain and simple: this is part of a national resistance against a colonial enterprise. **No institution created by the US invasion - especially the CPA - has any political legitimacy, any moral legitimacy, or any kind of popular support. ** Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan and one of the leading American experts on Iraq, is adamant: “The United States has managed to create a failed state, similar to Somalia and Haiti, in Iraq.”
So this is the Bush administration-sponsored “free Iraq” people identify not only in the Sunni triangle but in the Shi’ite south: an occupying power maybe not formally occupying the country any more, but installed in 14 military bases and able to exercise full control on security, the economy and the whole infrastructure. In plain English: a US colony. This is the reason the mob in Fallujah rejoiced in the burning of those American bodies. This is the reason Sunnis and Shi’ites have for now united in anger. And this is the reason the “liberation” has finally turned into a jihad.
Aww poor storchy, gave a candy now wants it back?
Don't cry, it was your utter ignorance that got you into this, now you have to pay the price. Somethings are better left alone. You can't change people, the people have to want to change and that wasn't the picture. Note: American Iraqis don't count!
You're right. It was utter ignorance to think that Iraqis could be better off w/out Sadaam. And yes, I want the candy back. We have paid the price in American blood to get rid of the dictator. Definitely a bad call on our part. So, dear Sultan, I'm not crying, just facing the facts. Democracy in the region seemed like a nice idea, especially for those living under Sadaam's rule. But if stifling autocratic religious rule is what these people want, I say let 'em have it-there's no accounting for good sense.
Very poor judgement on the U.S.'s part to think the people of this region, Europe and half of the U.S. population would see this "nation building" project as a potential positive. The U.S. needs simply to protect U.S. citizens from terrorists. They should keep it very simple: kill the terrorists were you find them and threaten destruction to the societies and countries that support them, just as they have threatened to destroy America. No apologies, no nation building.