Author Topic: Civil War in Iraq? (Read 1904 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2006, 01:42:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Like it or not, Iraq was more stable with Hussein than without.

I predict decades of this.

Many predicted this as a result when it was decided to take the bugger out. There will be a civil war there sooner or later and the occupation simply delayes that. The country needs to be settled from within. Staying in Iraq until one side or "govenrment" has the strength to deal with internal issues wont work either.

Saintaw · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2006, 03:51:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by tedrbr
Trying to invoke democratic rule in that secularly and triabally divided nation was a huge mistake. Firing 400,000 Iraqi military personnel after the Invasion was a second huge mistake. Those that did not become the core of the insurgency have turned to organized crime, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, and black market operations. U.S. State Department has been screwing up by the numbers pretty regularly for a while now.

How dare you say that !!! ??? I'm a send you a Cpt Virgil hiltz (how do i spell that?) and he's going to get all medieval on joo! Elitist scumm!!!111

deSelys · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2006, 04:13:42 AM »

Saw

Btw, Gunslinger, if you read Downding's post again, and with attention this time, you'll see that he never said that the bombing was part of a US tactic (or conspiracy). He just states that every time things go a bit more downhill over there, another great excuse comes up, most of times in total contradiction with previous excuses.

Excel1 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2006, 05:17:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by tedrbr
Don't kid yourself, I've been there and they have plenty of hate to go around. And it's not just Shia and Sunni, though they be the major players, you've also got the wildcard of the Kurds, which noone else in the region likes or trusts, and Turkomen, and a few Christians, and some other small groups in Iraq. Then there are tribal and clan disputes on top of that, some of which go back many generations. Some of these disputes often result in small wars themselves.

A major Shia uprising against the Sunni may set off all their neighbors to the south and west who are mostly Sunni. They may find an ally in the Iranian Shia, but they are Persian, not Arab, so that throws a wrench in the works.

Then there's the economic equation: a Civil War, or multi-faceted war in the Persian Gulf will tank the U.S. economy, and the economies of several other countries such as Japan, and a few in Europe.

Iraq may have been under dictatoral rule, but it was at least stable and contained at the time, as well as being the most secular arab nation...then....now it's well on its way to being a nation under strict Islamic law and very likely Civil War.

Trying to invoke democratic rule in that secularly and triabally divided nation was a huge mistake. Firing 400,000 Iraqi military personnel after the Invasion was a second huge mistake. Those that did not become the core of the insurgency have turned to organized crime, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, and black market operations. U.S. State Department has been screwing up by the numbers pretty regularly for a while now.

There's no substitute to eyeballing a situation fisrt hand to get a picture of it without all the clutter, as you have done. It reflects in your candid and informative post. As gloomy as they are, thanks for filling in some details.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:32:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
First Iraq was a WMD haven, threatening world peace with biological, chemical and nuclear armageddon via it's undisputed, unshakeable friendship with Al Queada.

Then it was a stable strategic base of operations for projecting power around the region.

Now it's a chaotic battle-ground designed to drag the whole of the middle east into a big quagmire?

Amazing how quickly excuses are dreamt up these days and how equally transitory they prove to be.

Yeah, we should have just let them sacrifice a few thousand citizens to brutal dictatorship each year in order to have stability.

You guys crack me up.

Nilsen · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:42:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, we should have just let them sacrifice a few thousand citizens to brutal dictatorship each year in order to have stability.

You guys crack me up.

Did I say that?

Mini D · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:47:06 AM »

Yes... you did erm... sandman did.

BTW... your summary was pretty much spot on. You could apply it to most tribal nations. Many in Africa, some in the Middle east and a few up in the Balklands.

deSelys · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:49:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, we should have just let them sacrifice a few thousand citizens to brutal dictatorship each year in order to have stability.

You guys crack me up.

It's funny how you are so emotional about those pooooooor moslems murdered and oppressed* by the evil SH while at the same time wanting to nuke the whole islamic world.

You guys baffle me.

* btw, this was the worst excuse evar. At least, the 'imminent WMD threat' could have done a decent James Bond movie: not realistic at all, but entertaining.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:50:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Did I say that?

Sorry I quoted the wrong person.

Nilsen · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:51:15 AM »

Nope, but keep spinning it

Nilsen · « **Reply #25 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:52:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sorry I quoted the wrong person.

That explains it.. now explain it to Mini

Mini D · « **Reply #26 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:56:17 AM »

I edited a little before your post nilsen. Sorry about that. Or... do I have to explain the edit to you?

Sixpence · « **Reply #27 on:** February 23, 2006, 08:01:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, we should have just let them sacrifice a few thousand citizens to brutal dictatorship each year in order to have stability.

Rip, I believe you could say that about our civil war, minus the dictator. The problem, imo, is that we are interfering with the process that settles a civil war. They have to settle it themselves, and alot of people are going to die.

Nilsen · « **Reply #28 on:** February 23, 2006, 08:02:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
I edited a little before your post nilsen. Sorry about that. Or... do I have to explain the edit to you?

No its good thx.

My record of 10547 flawless posts still stands

Gunthr · « **Reply #29 on:** February 23, 2006, 08:08:11 AM »

I'm still pulling for Iraq. This was almost certainly an Al Qaeda attack. The partisan politicos who are hopeful to see their dire predictions born out are secretely satisfied to see trouble in Iraq, but they underestimate Iraqis and they're oblivious to the fact that most Iraqis are capable of putting two and two together.

If the government and various religious leaders can hold together after this bombing of the holy shrine, Iraq will be able to weather anything Al Qaeda throws at them. Long live Iraq.