Iraq's low-level civil war kicks it up a notch - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-23-2006, 07:33 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 08:32 PM
It's so sad to see stuff like that happening. So the only solution to the sunnis problem is the complete destruction of Israel and the west. Does this go with all the middle east nations population.

I can see WW3 in the future because of this and Russia helping them especially now with Oil and Arms Deals. Including China.
__________________

__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 07:43 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en
hmm are we now reaping the rewards of superfluous national borders that remain from our glorious history of colonization? and i thought africa was a good time...this could be even better!!!

These borders don't mean a damn thing to the Arabs. They do to the Kurds and the Turks.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 08:00 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:32 PM
come on now, EVERYONE is better off with Saddam out of power. and it had to happen in March of 2003 or else the world would have ended.

at any cost.

in any manner.

so long as he is gone, that's all that matters.

come hell or exploding mosques or sectarian strife.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-23-2006, 08:03 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
come on now, EVERYONE is better off with Saddam out of power.

at any cost.

in any manner.

so long as he is gone, that's all that matters.

come hell or exploding mosques or sectarian strife.
Just as a commentary, it seems as if liberals and conservatives have flip-flopped when it comes to this. Up to the end of the Cold War, reliable dictatorships were preferred to unreliable democracies.

So I have to wonder if Americans now prefer reliable dictatorships again.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 08:24 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
come on now, EVERYONE is better off with Saddam out of power. and it had to happen in March of 2003 or else the world would have ended.

at any cost.

in any manner.

so long as he is gone, that's all that matters.

come hell or exploding mosques or sectarian strife.
Everybody is not better off, the majority however are better off and a lot of people are alive today because Saddam is gone and sanctions have been lifted.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 08:39 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 10:32 PM
what a mess. I don't know what it's going to take but I hope this can turn around...nothing disgusts me more than seeing certain Democrats who apparently couldn't be happier as Iraq seems to spiral downward.

anyway...I was talking to my dad last year and he half sarcastically said that when that they pulled over that statue of Saddam we ought to have erected our own of Dubya right there, and marched him out on a balcony with a bigass gun, some tanks on the streets, etc...to send the message that "we're in charge now." he was being sarcastic but sometimes I don't know.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 08:48 PM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Everybody is not better off, the majority however are better off and a lot of people are alive today because Saddam is gone and sanctions have been lifted.


is the prospect of an Iraqi Civil War fought among religious lines with Iranian intervention on behalf of the Shiites really better? is 30,000+ and counting dead Iraqis on the news every night *better* than the sanctions (we can agree that both are horrible, but can we say one is preferable)?

is the removal of Hussein an accomplishment independent of whatever follows? isn't that horribly blinkered thinking? or should the judicious removal of Hussein have been the goal?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-23-2006, 08:49 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
anyway...I was talking to my dad last year and he half sarcastically said that when that they pulled over that statue of Saddam we ought to have erected our own of Dubya right there, and marched him out on a balcony with a bigass gun, some tanks on the streets, etc...to send the message that "we're in charge now." he was being sarcastic but sometimes I don't know.


i think a good point is that we never, ever had enough troups to give the country any stability. 150,000 isn't enough.

but Rumsfeld had a point to make ... and a big dick to swing around ...
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-23-2006, 08:52 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 10:32 PM
who was it again that gave a figure of 500,000 deaths of children under 5 years old under sanctions? because when you put it that way it would seem to be a better situation in terms of human suffering.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 09:04 PM   #25
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Well no point going round in circles at this stage about whether they were better or worse off under Saddam--that's over and done with. I'm skeptical about a major role for the UN being in the offing, as most of the countries in a position to supply troops for the effort would probably balk at doing so, breakup or no breakup.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 09:07 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:32 PM
The polls conducted post war do show that Iraqi's are not happy with security, infrastructure or the presence of foreign troops but they consistently show majority approval for the removal of Saddam and the way it was done.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 10:21 AM   #27
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:32 AM
The papers today are awash with allegations from both Shiite and Sunni figures that US Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad set the stage for the ferocity of the Shiia response by publicly stating Monday that the US will not continue to support the Iraqi Interior and Defense Ministries (which would be the people in charge of security) if they continue to be dominated by Shiite politicians with ties to Shiite militias. Sunni clerical association spokesman al-Kubaisi accused Khalizad of "further enflaming the situation," while Shiite coalition leader al-Hakim said Khalizad's comments "mobilized all the Shiites and made them ready to go down the street at any moment...this gave a green light to terrorist groups." Meanwhile the normally cool-headed Shiite Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, while condemning all reprisal attacks on Sunni mosques, pointedly declared that if the state cannot protect Shiias, "the believers are able to do so themselves with the help of God."

I had to scratch my head about this one at first, because it seems eminently reasonable on the face of it to assert that sectarian militia ties have no place in a national unity government. Few has worked harder than Khalizad to build a Sunni-inclusive parliament through peaceful means, which would seem to be in everyone's best interest. But after reading several reports that many Shiite communities are now awash with rhetoric of a "second US betrayal" (a reference to Saddam's vicious response to the 1991 joint Shiite-Kurd uprising, which the US openly encouraged, then declined to intervene when it failed), these reactions make a little more sense.

Apparently, many Shiias heard Khalizad's remarks as "Don't count on us any longer to protect you from the insurgents," while many Sunnis heard them as an emboldening provocation of Shiite militias to go on the offensive. Of course the bombing of the mosque just 48 hours later only worsened matters. I suppose this all further argues for the hopelessness of trying to convince either side that the other is not out to get them.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 10:27 AM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The polls conducted post war do show that Iraqi's are not happy with security, infrastructure or the presence of foreign troops but they consistently show majority approval for the removal of Saddam and the way it was done.


how does one quantify "the way it was done"?

what this tells me is that the Iraqis feel screwed either way, no one wants to live under a dictatorship but no one wants bombs dropped on them either.

i would imagine, however, a sectarian Civil War will be another thing they Iraqis won't like all that much either.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-24-2006, 02:21 PM   #29
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 03:32 AM
I wonder who Al Qaeda in Iraq will side with. They'd want to keep targeting the Americans, but if there's a civil war, they'll probably need to join with the Sunnis and the ex-Baathist insurgents. Not sure if Al Qaeda would want an all-out war with the Shiites. In the end, the Americans will either be targeted by most everyone (except the official Iraqi army) or, in the least, caught in the crossfire. Given the diverse nature of many Iraqi cities, this has the potential of becoming many Beiruts (when you had the Chrisian Druze and the various Muslim groups and the PLO and Syrian army and, eventually, the Israelis and Americans).

Send the UN into this clusterf***? Yeah, i don't think so.
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 02:38 PM   #30
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 06:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




how does one quantify "the way it was done"?

what this tells me is that the Iraqis feel screwed either way, no one wants to live under a dictatorship but no one wants bombs dropped on them either.

i would imagine, however, a sectarian Civil War will be another thing they Iraqis won't like all that much either.
well, then nothing good came out of all this?
__________________

__________________
all_i_want is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com