Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mosgood on April 07, 2004, 01:48:28 PM
-
Pay special attention to the l2nd to last paragraph. We get rid of Saddam for them and we still get called "The Great Satan" amazing....
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Muqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand anti-U.S. Shiite Muslim cleric, warned the United States on Wednesday that Iraq (news - web sites) would become another Vietnam-like conflict if Washington did not transfer power to "honest Iraqis."
The cleric — whose militia followers have battled coalition and Iraqi security forces across the country for days — accused members of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council of being "collaborators" and said "they do not represent the Iraqi people."
"I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army, to help them in the transfer of power to honest Iraqis," al-Sadr said in a statement issued by his office in the southern city of Najaf.
"Otherwise, Iraq will be another Vietnam for America and the occupiers," the statement said.
The United States plans to transfer political sovereignty on June 30 to an Iraqi government, however its makeup is yet to be determined. Members of the Governing Council are expected to have prominent roles in it. National elections are scheduled to be held before Jan. 31.
In a separate statement issued earlier Wednesday, al-Sadr also called on Iraq's neighbor Kuwait to close U.S. military bases there so that the region is freed of "the great Satan."
"I call on our brothers of the Kuwaiti people to put pressure on their government to expel these terrorists bases," it said.
-
And I suppose that Muqtada al-Sadr thinks that the 'honest' Iraqis are the ones he wants in power.
'twas ever thus.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
And I suppose that Muqtada al-Sadr thinks that the 'honest' Iraqis are the ones he wants in power.
'twas ever thus.
Ravs
{3-stooges "Curly" voice} "Why Naturally!"
-
Yeah right LOL.
-
We didn't get rid of Sadam for the Shiites. They wanted him in power because it was to their advantage. Now they're PO'd because they've lost their power.
Genocide in Iraq is inevitable.
-
Genocide in Iraq is inevitable
Better they kill each other....
-
Originally posted by gofaster
We didn't get rid of Sadam for the Shiites. They wanted him in power because it was to their advantage. Now they're PO'd because they've lost their power.
Genocide in Iraq is inevitable.
Hugh?
Don't you mean Sunni's?
The Shiites were heavily handled under Sadam...which makes this whole Shiite uprising weird in my opinion. There's something behind the surface of this uprising.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
We didn't get rid of Sadam for the Shiites. They wanted him in power because it was to their advantage. Now they're PO'd because they've lost their power.
Genocide in Iraq is inevitable.
Hold off on that genocide trigger until you figure out who the players are..lol
-
Originally posted by mosgood
..."I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army, to help them in the transfer of power to honest Iraqis," ...
A mindset flaw. The point of a democracy is to not have "rulers".
Officials, yes. Leaders maybe. Rulers, no.
-
I wish someone had told that to Maggie Thatcher ... and for that matter Tony Blair :(
Ravs
-
Originally posted by rogwar
The Shiites were heavily handled under Sadam...which makes this whole Shiite uprising weird in my opinion. There's something behind the surface of this uprising.
Not really:
the Shi'a want to be able to dominate Iraq once the occupation is ended so they are flexing their muscles. There is also internal Shi'a politics involved: Sadr and his faction stand to lose out to the more established and older clerics (who are recognized by the US) such as Sistani if the hand-over goes ahead as planned so he wants to make sure he grabs some power first. The elder Shi'a clerics cannot afford to be seen supporting the US but they don't want to lose out to Sadr. They will also be happy to take any extra power Sadr's revolt will give them. So they will sit on the fence and hope that the US removes Sadr but not before he has had chance to force some more concessions from the US for the Shi'a majority.
The Shi'a were more than happy to get rid of Saddam but that doesn't mean they like the US: like many other Muslims they see the US as an imperialist power that supports Israel against the Palestinians.
-
oh what a wicked web we weave...
Ravs
-
The middle east is what happens when a religion runs the government. It's starting to happen to us despite the fact our constitution forbids it.
-
Originally posted by Pei
like many other Muslims they see the US as an imperialist power that supports Israel against the Palestinians.
Yeppers and we do thank God
-
Pei has excellently stated why this "uprising" is occurring.
It is actually a small minority of Shias who are murdering American soldier.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Pei has excellently stated why this "uprising" is occurring.
It is actually a small minority of Shias who are murdering American soldier.
Unfortunately it will snowball if it they continue to defy the CPA. Despite the bad headlines it is much better to put the uprising down quickly rather than let it gain momentum and bring in more mand mor eof the population. Currently Basra and the south have been mostly non-violent. If that changes the CPA is s real trouble. Ultimately the CPA may have to make more concessions to the older Shi'a clerics to maintain thier goodwill. This has it's own risks as it will upset the other major Iraqi factions (not that the CPA could get any lower int he eyes of the Sunni Arabs but pissing off the Kurds would be very bad right now). Sadr's apparent control of Najaf is a huge problem. The Tomb of Imam Ali is the most important site in Shi'a Islam and he will gain huge prestige if he can control it. Because of it's importance the CPA cannot be seen to eb attacking it without creating a general war with the Iraqi Shi'a (and possibly bringin in the Iranians as well). On the more positive sign I'm sure al-Sistani and the other senior SHi'as don't want an upstart like Sadr in control of Najaf. Related to this the CPA should be making damn sure right now that Karbala is secure as this is the second most important site for the Shi'a (the shrine of Imam al-Hussein). If Sadr can hold both he will be a very strong position indeed.
-
Al-Sadr was just a minor fringe cleric who has only come to the forefront because the occupying forces shut down his newspaper for it's anti-american views and then arrested a close aid. These actions only increased his support base amongst the young shia's with his ultra Iraqi nationalist/anti-american/anti-saddam views striking a cord amongst them.
I personally believe the senior cleric's will alow him to continue because the eventual heavy handed dealing of this problem will only strengthen their cause, and perhaps they will bring him in once they feel his usefulness has waned.
Tronsky
-
That sadr guy is buying his ticket to hell by means of a hellfire up his robe wearing ass.