Iraq at civil war!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HOZ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4821618.stm


He said Iraq had not got to the point of no return, but if it fell apart sectarianism would spread abroad. The UK and US have repeatedly denied Iraq is facing a civil war, but Mr Allawi suggested there was no other way to describe the sectarian violence.

[FireFly]

You say that like you're shocked... There are those who support the Americans, and those who support Hussein. There are different kinds of Muslims. When these things are so important to you, you're willing to kill yourself over them, of course you're willing to kill your neighbour who disagrees with you.

[Zarathustra]

Your signature is fitting for this thread....
"No matter what, I am sure someone somewhere will blame the US for it. "

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by FireFly

You say that like you're shocked... There are those who support the Americans, and those who support Hussein.

It's even more complicated than that. There are factions that don't support either.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's even more complicated than that. There are factions that don't support either.

Granted, I am un-complicating things, but those are the sides fighting the most right now, and they're doing it with bombs. If you don't support either side you generally stay out of it.

[Sparks]

Your signature is fitting for this thread....
"No matter what, I am sure someone somewhere will blame the US for it. "

Er, yeah. It wasn't Jamaica who attacked Iraq.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

If you don't support either side you generally stay out of it.

The religious wackos don't support either Saddam or the US, and they are the ones doing the suicide bombings and blowing up mosques.

[Azure]

Surprise, anyone? I mean, its like the major news story of the day, right?

Sheesh.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Granted, I am un-complicating things, but those are the sides fighting the most right now, and they're doing it with bombs. If you don't support either side you generally stay out of it.

Actually, from most of the articles I've read, Saddam loyalists are pretty rare these days.

There are 4 or 5 factions that fall into 2 categories. There are the secularists who consist mainly of Kurds, #####es, and Sunnis. But other than their support for a secular government, the opinions vary among them about the role the U.S. should have. Some of the Sunnis in this group are Saddam Loyalists, but they are not a majority. Most of the Kurds, and a portion of the Shi'ites support the U.S. in this group.

Then there are the religous fundamentalists who want to form an Islamist government. They are mainly Shi'ites (supporters of Sadr and Ayatollah Sistani) and Sunnis (supporters of Al Qaeda and Al Zarqawi). None of these insurgent groups support Saddam Hussein, and in fact, many people who support this ideology would have ended up in mass graves under Hussein - Saddam himself being a secularist.

[CalgaryCowboy]

Once again we see it happening like in the former Yoguslavia (sp). The one thing that totalitarian states have going for them is that they are able to keep countries of different factions together. As long as it is felt that one group is being dominated by another there will those that believe violence is the answer. Hopefully there is a way to make the factions feel they have a voice in the Democracy and or not being "oppressed". If not we will see it play out like in Bosnia, Ireland, Basqes in Spain, FLQ in Quebec, Russia, Afganistan, historic Scotland, American Revolution. There are no easy solution or fast solutions and those looking for one are doomed to fail.

[FireFly]

Did nobody read my first post? The whole part about the different Muslims? Oh, I see, I missed the part where you pulled that out of your critique of what I said. And then went on to explain it in further detail when I explained I was trying to uncomplicate it.

Fine then, let me explain in more detail. There are those that support the US view of Iraq, and those that support 'Saddam's' view of Iraq; an Iraq by the people for the people, who just really don't want the US involved at all. Most of these people however would be religious, as their Iraq for Iraq is a Muslim one, vs. the US vision of a secular democratic state. So they may not support Saddam per se, they just don't want the US imposing their will upon them either. Better?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Did nobody read my first post? The whole part about the different Muslims? Oh, I see, I missed the part where you pulled that out of your critique of what I said. And then went on to explain it in further detail when I explained I was trying to uncomplicate it.

Fine then, let me explain in more detail. There are those that support the US view of Iraq, and those that support 'Saddam's' view of Iraq; an Iraq by the people for the people, who just really don't want the US involved at all. Most of these people however would be religious, as their Iraq for Iraq is a Muslim one, vs. the US vision of a secular democratic state. So they may not support Saddam per se, they just don't want the US imposing their will upon them either. Better?

I know you are trying to "uncomplicate" this but really, I don't think it's possible.

I don't know how big the faction is that wants to return to a military dictatorship led by Saddam Hussein (which is, after all, Saddam's view of Iraq), but I would guess it's pretty small and quiet, if they aren't already buried in the desert.

[FlamesAddiction]

By trying to uncomplicate things, you are making them more complicated because you are lumping people together who do not share a lot of ideologic common ground, nor do they all work together. Some of the groups that are against the U.S. are also fighting each other.

Classifying all those who don't want the U.S. in Iraq as people who share Saddam Hussein's view of Iraq, is pretty misleading. Especially considering that Saddam Hussein considered many of these same people his enemies when he was leader of Iraq.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by Sparks

Er, yeah. It wasn't Jamaica who attacked Iraq.

[oldschoolcalgary]

I don't think anyone ought to be surprised about the outcome really - these fractures have existed in Iraq for a long time and it was simply held together through Saddam's iron fist.

the entire manifesto by wolfowitz and the "hawks" was flawed from the beginning - their idealism made them believe that democracy would flourish, but that totally ignored the history of Iraq, and the middle east in general, of the past century (or two).

As mentioned by FlamesAddiction (which was a very concise post and spot on IMO), the irony is that Saddam, in spite of being a dictator, was a secular dictator. The problems that are arising are a result of those religious extremists who are interpreting the Koran so it supports their ideology...

Extremism, in any area, is a dangerous thing, as it blinds you to seeing other viewpoints, other perspectives...

[CalgaryCowboy]

This is an interesting discussion. I believe if the US does leave now there will be a civil war at least even more violence. It is ironic that the US now must take on the role of Sadam (with different tactics) of trying to keep the country together and put down extremists.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by CalgaryCowboy

This is an interesting discussion. I believe if the US does leave now there will be a civil war at least even more violence. It is ironic that the US now must take on the role of Sadam (with different tactics) of trying to keep the country together and put down extremists.

As per George Bush Sr.

Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq".

In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, he said, "whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

[Lanny_MacDonald]

So let me get this straight. You mean democracy cannot be created at the end of a gun? No, say it isn't so!

Seriously, the Bush Administration had no idea what they were doing going into Iraq. You cannot develop a democracy without first educating the people of the region to the issues which they are to vote for. By not investing the energy into an educational directive they have left the guidance during elections to the non-secular leaders in the tribes. By not educating the people on the benefits of the ideas presented, and appealing to their secular interests they have insured that the religious tribal leaders will attempt to grab power and turn the country into a theocracy. Because the country is so divided by its tribal beliefs a theocratic leadership will never work and will most definitely lead to civil war. The Bush Amdinistration failed to understand that America has 200 years of education and experience (and brainwashing) behind it, which makes the American form of democracy work. Iraq has none of that. The incursion that the Bush Administartion has dreamed up will only destabilize the region, not create the fledgling democracy they hoped for. Forcing a foreign concept on the people of Iraq will only foster an illiberal democracy, which is not functional in any regard.

[Vulcan]

Not to mention Lanny that this war has been based on lies and propoganda or brainwashing. We all know that Saddam was no peach, but it's hard, if not impossible to build anything good from a lousy foundation.

[HOZ]

For the Cheat'n, lying and deisel group

http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Still hanging in there1

Good thing people didn't give up on the brainwashed Americans after year 1-3 either!