This is the type of superficial, circular reasoning I'm talking about - it's based on assertions that aren't or can't be backed up The Kingmaker in Iraqi politics right now is Radical shiite mullah Muqtada Al-Sadr. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/international/middleeast/16sadr.html You may remember him from such insurgencies as the one in Carbala and Najaf a few years ago in which he openly declared war on US forces and led a few-weeks long campaign against us along with an army of thugs. MOst recently he had a bunch of his thugs murder some British in Basra. This is the force that we're 'protecting' - A secular strongman would be a picnic compared to him. Second - I don't know why you assume the US is the most powerful faction. Militarily - sure, man for man, of course but politically, we are lower than whale sh-t. The fact that a guy like Sadr is not only still around but being treated as a dignitary by us is indicative of how low we are on the totem pole there. We are kryptonite to the average Iraqi. Finally - this sidesteps the heart of the argument - that US forces presence are the fuel that empowers the insurgency and forces like Sadr. If we leave, these guys are severely weakened.
Most of you post was about the politics of Iraq, which is not really what I was addressing. This part does go to what I was talking about though. The US is the driving force behind the local insurgency, because that is what an insurgency is, local resistance to an occupying power. Without an occupation, of course there will be no insurgency. That does not translate to an end to violence though. Instead of insurgents fighting the US military, there will be warlords fighting the new government and each other. Right now, we are taking the brunt of the attacks in the country. Since we started this thing, that is probably for the best. When we leave, all of the attacks will be against Iraqis. If the government is not strong enough to stand against the warlords that will rise up, then Iraqis will suffer much more than they are now, and it will culminate in the people living under a dictatorship laid by the most powerful and brutal warlord that comes around, much as they were living under Saddam. On the other hand, we could stay. If we remain the biggest and baddest kid on the block (and yes, I am speaking militarily) then there is no power in Iraq that can take us down. Over time, we can eventually make sure that the Iraqi national army is the second most powerful military force in theater. At that point we can leave and the democratically elected leaders of Iraq will be governing the people, whether it is someone we want in power or not. To me, this seems like a far better outcome, even if the government is some loose coalition of radical Islamists and secular Kurds.
Things are in the the toilet for sure. From the New York Times: February 24, 2006 U.S. Envoy in Baghdad Says Iraq Is on Brink of Civil War By EDWARD WONG BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 25 - The American ambassador to Iraq said Friday that the country was on the precipice of full-scale civil war, and that Iraqi leaders would have to come together and compromise if they wanted to save their homeland. The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, made his remarks as sectarian fury in the streets appeared to ebb after two days of reprisals over the bombing of a major Shiite mosque. The violence prompted the most powerful Sunni Arab political group to suspend talks with Shiite and Kurdish politicians on forming a new government. "What we've seen in the past two days, the attack has had a major impact here, getting everyone's attention that Iraq is in danger," Mr. Khalilzad said in a conference call with reporters. The country's leaders, he added, "must come together, they must compromise with each other to bring the people of Iraq together and save this country." Mr. Khalilzad's comments are the most explicit acknowledgment so far by an American official of the instability of the situation, and the fragility of the entire American enterprise here. The killings and assaults across Iraq that began Wednesday have amounted to the worst sectarian violence since the American invasion. The violence has provoked questions about the proper role of the American military, its ability to control powerful Shiite militias, whom many Iraqis blamed for the attacks on Sunnis, and the Bush administration's plans for drawing down troops. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/i...&en=119b44a89b20a6a6&ei=5094&partner=homepage Keep D&D Civil.
I take a heart this morning that it's been relatively quiet because of the curfew. On the news last night the talking heads were saying that it would be an indication of how things were going to go with Friday prayers and what the imams were saying. Apparently they are all calling for calm and not revenge. That’s good news
funny thing is though, no one lives in iraq. it's a giant hole in the ground filled with nuclear waste. do the ten people in Iraq know this?
Liberal Media indeed--- Deckard! You need to check your link. The Lede now from the Times from Deck's own link----- As Violence Ebbs, U.S. Envoy Warns of Danger to Iraq's Future By EDWARD WONG Published: February 24, 2006 BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 24 — The American ambassador to Iraq said today that sectarian violence this week was a threat to the future of Iraq, and that Iraqi leaders would have to come together and compromise if they wanted to save their homeland. The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, made his remarks as sectarian fury in the streets appeared to ebb after two days of reprisals over the bombing of a major Shiite mosque. Across Iraq today, people walked through quiet streets to attend weekly prayer service at neighborhood mosques. Traffic was light because of a rare daytime curfew that the government had put in place to try to prevent worshippers from attending Friday Prayers, out of fear that imams would incite more violence. The groups that did gather appeared to do so in a largely peaceful manner, though. Mr. Khalilzad, in a conference call with reporters, said: "What we've seen in the past two days, the attack has had a major impact here, getting everyone's attention that Iraq is in danger." The country's leaders, he added, "must come together, they must compromise with each other to bring the people of Iraq together and save this country." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/i...&en=119b44a89b20a6a6&ei=5094&partner=homepage From Rawstory— New York Times, with same facts, changes Iraq conflict from 'civil war' to having 'endangered future' RAW STORY Published: February 24, 2006 The New York Times declared on its website early Friday in a headline that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had warned to U.S. was on the "precipice of full-scale civil war." Their headline? "U.S. Envoy in Baghdad Says Iraq Is on Brink of Civil War." Within an hour and without explanation, the Times yanked the headline in favor of "U.S. Envoy Says Sectarian Violence Threatens Iraq's Future." Originally, their lead paragraph had read: "The American ambassador to Iraq said Friday that the country was on the precipice of full-scale civil war, and that Iraqi leaders would have to come together and compromise if they wanted to save their homeland." An hour later: "The American ambassador to Iraq said Friday that sectarian violence this week had endangered the future of Iraq, and that Iraqi leaders would have to come together and compromise if they wanted to save their homeland." Catherine Mathis, the New York Times Company's Vice President for Corporate Communications, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Later in the morning, the Times changed the story again to reflect the relative calm that cloaked Baghdad in the day after a rash of bombings: "As Violence Ebbs, U.S. Envoy Warns of Danger to Iraq's Future." They still, however, offered no accounting for how Iraq went from the "precipice of civil war" to "endangered" based on the same remarks by a U.S. ambassador. DEVELOPING... http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_backtracks_after_declaring_0224.html
Should I stay or should I go now? Should I stay or should I go now? If I go there will be trouble An’ if I stay it will be double So come on and let me know Should I stay or should I go?
What say you war supporters? Civil war a good thing? Fox seems to think so. Summary: Fox News featured two onscreen captions during a segment on escalating violence in Iraq that read: " 'Upside' To Civil War?" and "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"
Pretty funny! ^ Not so funny. \!/ The lengths Fox "News" will go to in order to spin for the Administration is mind-boggling. "ALL-OUT CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ: COULD IT BE A GOOD THING?" Give me a break. (insert "roll-eyes" here) Keep D&D Civil.
I don't think you can fix what you had started. After you left the vietnam, the war was stopped. Whether or not you think the vietnamese were better off after your withdraw, the war was stopped.
i dont think this analogy applies. who in iraq is the dominant overwhelming hero that organized an overwhelming popular front against the US? south vietnam was artificially created and agreements broken by the US which would have held elections in 56 giving ho an 80% vote. who in iraq will get that vote? iraq is a mess without a clear solution. vietnam was the US supporting an artificial country it created which would fall in months (as we saw) without US support.
Jr says that the US will not take sides if civil war breaks out in Iraq. ------------------ Bush: U.S. Won't Get Into Iraq Civil War President Bush Grants Elizabeth Vargas Exclusive, Wide-Ranging Interview http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1671087&page=1
great.... Spy Chief: Iraq May Spark Regional Battle By KATHERINE SHRADER, WASHINGTON - A civil war in Iraq could lead to a broader conflict in the Middle East, pitting the region's rival Islamic sects against each other, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said in an unusually frank assessment Tuesday. "If chaos were to descend upon Iraq or the forces of democracy were to be defeated in that country ... this would have implications for the rest of the Middle East region and, indeed, the world," Negroponte said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on global threats. Negroponte served as U.S. ambassador to Baghdad before taking over as the nation's top intelligence official last April. Iraqis have faced a chain of attacks and reprisals since bombs destroyed the gold dome of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra last week. Hundreds, if not thousands, have died, including more than 65 who were killed Tuesday by suicide attackers, car bombers and insurgents firing mortars. President Bush condemned the surge in violence and said Iraqis must make a choice between "a free society or a society dictated ... by evil people who will kill innocents." Later, in an interview with ABC News' "World News Tonight," he said he did not believe the escalation of civil unrest would lead to a general civil war. Negroponte tried to focus on progress in Iraq, but he acknowledged a civil war would be a "serious setback" to the global war on terror. "The consequences for the people of Iraq would be catastrophic," he said. "Clearly, it would seriously jeopardize the democratic political process on which they are presently embarked. And one can only begin to imagine what the political outcomes would be." Saudi Arabia and Jordan could support Iraq's Sunnis, Negroponte said. And Iran, run by a Shiite Islamic theocracy, "has already got quite close ties with some of the extremist elements" inside Iraq, he added. While Iraq's neighbors "initially might be reluctant" to get involved in a broader Sunni-Shiite conflict, "that might well be a temptation," Negroponte said. Still, he told senators he is seeing progress in the overall political and security situation in Iraq. "And if we continue to make that kind of progress, yes, we can win in Iraq," he said. Democrats noted that Negroponte wouldn't go quite as far as Bush did in his January State of the Union address. "We are winning," Bush said then. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/intellig...5p5cvqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
"If chaos were to descend upon Iraq or the forces of democracy were to be defeated in that country ... this would have implications for the rest of the Middle East region and, indeed, the world," Negroponte said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on global threats. Nothing new. The fate of Western Civ is at stake. We must complete the noble mission, which now has gone from wmd to just keep our fukup from getting worse.
Fox News: Iraq Civil War “Made Up By The Media?” Fox News continues it’s crackerjack analysis of sectarian strife in Iraq. Previously, it explored whether “an all-out civil war in Iraq” could be “a good thing.” Now they have an new theory. Moments ago on Fox: Maybe they should ask the families of the roughly 1500 Iraqis who have died. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/01/fox-media-civil-war/
And this crap isn't photo-shopped?? No one could have made up something this absurd and pathetic. Amazing... Fox News truly is a bad joke. Keep D&D Civil.
