Infighting

[tenguzero]

While the situation at large is obviously nothing to make light of, I find this to be entertaining

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...nsurgents_dc_1

We've known for a while that this is happening, but I felt a posting was appropriate in respect to the article.

It just goes to show that these animals are so absolutely ignorant and wrong, that they can't even come to a consensus amongst themselves over what their stupid fight, fueled by utter perversion of a religion and fear of change, is all about. These idiots are so hot to blow their sorry asses up for their "ideals" that whatever "message" they were trying to get across is just completely lost to others within even their own camp.

I wonder if any of them understand that their little "crusades" are really just BS. At the heart of it all, they're no more relevant than gang wars (for instance the ones that plague so many large cities in the U.S.) It just so happens that they're part of a massive issue that's currently in the global headlines. Unfortunately, we're all well aware of the track record on combatting even homegrown gang activity...

[Muscletang]

Well the question now is this...

Does America stay until the violence ends (which could be a long, long time)?

or...

Does America pull out of Iraq right away and risk the country blowing itself up and breaking out into a possible civil war?


Judging by the latest comments on blogs, the news, ect I'd say most Americans want our troops out of there right now so...civil war FTW.

[thrasher]

Iraq is already in civil war...to call it anything else is an insult to the 500,000-750,000 civilians that have died due to sectarian violence since the US invasion. No surprise, considering our invasion led to a political overturn, pitting the now minority Sunnis against the Shiites. There was far less sectarian violence before the US invasion, and this will continue whether we maintain a presence there or not.

The suicide bombers are fucking dumbasses with their religious crusades bullshit. Then again, GW has said multiple times that he believes he is charged by god to spread democracy around the world. Common theme perhaps? Just goes back to the old saying, religion and politics don't mix. And it still holds true today.

[mellowboy]

Originally Posted by thrasher

There was far less sectarian violence before the US invasion, and this will continue whether we maintain a presence there or not.

It was actually unheard of. Except in the north where Chaldeans/Assyrians have been a target by the PUK and Pershmergas militants.


If the US leaves Iraq, there's a lot better chance for Iraq to become under control. Of course Maliki and his cabinet doesn't want the US to leave because they will not survive without the US. Iraqis should handle Iraq. No one else should get involved.

[Shpyder]

Originally Posted by mellowboy

If the US leaves Iraq, there's a lot better chance for Iraq to become under control.

I don't agree with that statement. And here's why.

To put it rather tastelessly, Iraq has been f_cked, and we've given birth to a demon that we know is out of control. It's that plain and simple to me. You can can sugercoat your stale muffins all you want, they're still going to taste bad.

We don't have just 2 or 3 sides battling it out. This civil war has dozens and dozens of independant and individual militias, armed to the teeth, fighting for their own piece of the pie. The pieces of the pie include, but are not limited to: the country, the religion, material gain, ideologies, vengeance, vandettas, etc. To make matters worse, the gates for foreign influence from Iran, Turkey and others, have been swung wide open.

The only reason why the complete implosion of the region has not resulted yet, is because the US presence there has softened the gradient of decline. Not changed it's direction. But merely postponed the inevitible. You yank out the U.S., you'll desecrate the only barrier that's shielding the region from a total meltdown.

I am not suggesting a solution to the problem. I am not suggesting that the US should go, or stay. I am merely presenting the possibility of an unpleasant aftermath once the US withdraws in the near future.

Originally Posted by mellowboy

Of course Maliki and his cabinet doesn't want the US to leave because they will not survive without the US.

I believe the stakes are much higher than Maliki's personal ambitions for power, and he knows it. The Iraqi cabinet and chain of command is a joke. What do they control? How much influence do they have? They mean nothing. They are certainly not calling the shots, from what I can see on the news every day. Everyone seems to be at the mercy of these damn street-gangs and militias. A hornet's nest has been disturbed, and now we're wondering what the best plan is to contain the buzz...

Originally Posted by mellowboy

Iraqis should handle Iraq. No one else should get involved.

What are you talking about? The Iraqi's control nothing! Is that not evident from people being blown to bits every single day, on their way to work, school, or to buy bread from the market? To suggest that Iraqi's should "rise up" and take matter into their own hands, and to fix the utter distaster that we created in the first place, is one exit strategy of text-book utopian convenience, that is perhaps better to be associated with the romance reminscent of Hollywood movies and classic readings. It will never happen. The sheer number of individual groups tearing the country apart, with backing from local foreign powers, makes anything less than 1) a massive military opposition, and/or 2) sincere diplomacy and negotiating with all groups involved, useless.

Iraq does not belong to the Iraqi's anymore. It is now littered with opportunistic killers who owe their allegiences least of all to the state of Iraq. The only way I believe this mess can ever hope to see resolution, is for the superpowers to remain sincerely interested in the region's stablility, and for local powers surrounding Iraq to be brought to the table.

[RSX-S777]

It's what happens when a culture used to being ruled with an iron fist is given the freedom to rule itself. Democracy requires a certain level of tolerance and sophistication they do not appear to possess. The U.S. is naive to have believed they could have made that horse drink so easily...

[mellowboy]

Sphyder- Have you read the history on Iraq? Look back at what happened when the British occupied Iraq, Iraqis alone gained independence. Before then, it was ruled by empires and the only ones who conquered it was the British defeating the Ottoman and the Mongolians defeated the Abbassid Empire. History repeats itself. And that tells me Iraqis will handle the situation alone again.The largest resistance groups are the Islamic Army of Iraq, more and more people are siding with them and they're more well organized. Much more organized than any other resistance groups and government! If anyone can bring stability into Iraq, it will be them. God Willing. The US have no interest in stability in the region, if it does not benefit them.

[Right_LiRrr]

Originally Posted by mellowboy

The US have no interest in stability in the region, if it does not benefit them.

I don't think anyone has an interest in anything if it doesn't benefit them. Stability in the region will benefit everyone. The USA in particular? Yes. But the benefits will eventually echo throughout the world.

Stability in Middle East imo is an absolute necessity for human advancement. It will take a long time to achieve it in Iraq, but a stable country in that region will eventually benefit everyone.

Is it up to the USA to perform this task? It's hard to say. However, since they started the job, they are definitely the favourites for finishing it.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Is it up to the USA to perform this task? It's hard to say. However, since they started the job, they are definitely the favourites for finishing it.

On the contrary. Iraq was far more stable under Saddam Hussein than it is under the combination of a rigged government and an occupying army. Stability in the Middle East usually occurs under the heel of a heavily armed dictator.Since nobody in Iraq elected Bush to be their leader, he has effectively replaced a brutal but effective dictator with an incompetent and chaotic one.

[Right_LiRrr]

Originally Posted by taranaki

On the contrary. Iraq was far more stable under Saddam Hussein than it is under the combination of a rigged government and an occupying army. Stability in the Middle East usually occurs under the heel of a heavily armed dictator.Since nobody in Iraq elected Bush to be their leader, he has effectively replaced a brutal but effective dictator with an incompetent and chaotic one.

Given my opinions on the matter, I agree totally with what you say.

However, this line of argument is becoming increasingly obsolete. Living in the past, to me, becomes increasingly frustrating when talking about Iraq. Yes, it was more stable under Saddam; yes, Saddam ruled Iraq in what now looks like the only feasible way to rule.

However, the fact of the matter is, the USA and its allies went into Iraq and upset that stability. Should they have gone in for the reasons they gave at the time? Probably not. But now that they've done it, should they stay and help stabilise Iraq? I would say yes.

It's only fair to the Iraqi people and the rest of the world that what was started is completed. How it is to be done is a questions for someone who's a lot smarter than all of us.

And I can't say I agree with "Stability in the Middle East usually occurs under the heel of a heavily armed dictator". History would suggest this is true - and perhaps it is the simplest solution. I'm no expert in the history of that region of the world, but from my simple understanding, it appears that the people there are used to some kind of dictatorial government. But I definitely don't think history should dictate the future of that region. All I know is that it's a long and bumpy road.

To tie this in with the original post, it's quite easy for us living in "developed" nations to look at what's happening in Iraq and think they're a bunch of extremists for letting an extreme religious interpretation dictate their actions in relation to how their country should be ruled and what they should be fighting/killing for, but it's only easy for us to do so because we live in countries that have gone through the bullshit of civil wars and religious crusades and for the most part eventually seen the light. We value peace and economic prosperity more than any kind of religious dogma.

These people aren't stupid or "terrorists", they're just a few centuries behind the rest of us.

my

[Shpyder]

The cultures of the Old World are vastly different from anything this side of the hemisphere. The Anglo-Saxons, etc, shed their tribal territorial skins and ideology centuries ago, in order to move forward in the world. Unfortunately, an overwhelming majority of this system of society still exists in more than half the world today. You simply cannot land in an area divided by hundreds of tribal loyalties and allegiances, and say "hey guys, you are all a country now, good luck." The socio-economic evolution has been forcibly shoved forward, and the reciprocal affects of this unnatural and coerced act can never be submerged in the illusion and pretence of control and stability parodied by the respective puppet-masters. After WWW1 and the fall of the Ottomans, that is precisely how Iraq, Syria, Jordan and "Saudi" Arabia were formed. "**Poof, you're now a country, welcome to the club".

Let me draw upon personal experience, somewhat. Pakistan (where I was brought up) was created in a similar fashion, and not a single "Pakistani" owes allegience to to the "republic" of Pakistan. Loyalties lie, first and foremost, with the tribal clans that have existed since hundreds of years before even the British knew India existed. The only people who would disagree with me, are ignorant of the fact that 95% of the country is composed of rural villages, a great majority of where basic amenities such as electricity and gas have yet to be supplied...such folks take false refuge and hope in the "cities" of Pakistan, where you have night clubs, Ferraris, freeways and buildings, and surrounded by such glitter, they are blind to swarm of Islamic fundamentalism flooding through the border of Afghanistan that will dessimate the region very, very soon. The government recently assasinated a revered tribal leader that virtually controlled 1/4th of the country. They're in for it now... Patriotism for the country is virtually non-existant. Segregated into provinces that have never ever been united, that country is set to implode within the next 10 years. These tribal loyalties are the reason why Bin Laden has not been caught, and why Pakistan will become the next Afhanistan, and maybe decades later, the next Iraq. So, when Right_LiRrr says

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

" These people aren't stupid or "terrorists", they're just a few centuries behind the rest of us.

, I couldnt agree more.