Civil War in Iraq?

[kennythebomb]

Important mosque damaged by militants posing as cops

This really stood out to me:

In predominantly Shiite Basra, police said militiamen broke into a prison, hauled out 12 inmates, including two Egyptians, two Tunisians, a Libyan, a Saudi and a Turk, and shot them dead in reprisal for the shrine attack.

F'ing animals!

If Iraq erupts into a civil war, our soldiers will not be coming home for a LOOOONG time.

Now if anything, Muslims certainly have a right to be angered over a mosque being bombed. If they can put up such a fuss over stupid cartoons, just imagine how the extremist Iraqis will continue to retaliate.

 

[h0ss]

Except you're talking about muslim-vs-muslim violence here. Which group gets to be angry? Those who are shiites? The sunnis?

This was predicted long ago. Civil war was inevitable unless the US truly secured Iraq, and we were nowhere near doing that.

 

[kennythebomb]

Except you're talking about muslim-vs-muslim violence here. Which group gets to be angry? Those who are shiites? The sunnis?

This was predicted long ago. Civil war was inevitable unless the US truly secured Iraq, and we were nowhere near doing that.

They both get to be angry, but hopefully these people could exercise some restraint and some responsibility. You would hope that they would be more forgiving in order to reach the hopefully common goal of a peaceful country. Maybe they don't want a peaceful united country...

 

[Appie]

it makes me sad that thinga like that happen

 

[niky]

It's history. You can't just take a strongman out and expect things to change overnight. There's still that underlying tension that having a strong dictator suppresses. Once he's gone, that's when these people see their chance to take power.

Damn this sucks. I've got a cousin over there, and with the government indecisive on whether to send more support or actually scale back the American presence there (there's talk that keeping so many soldiers on the ground is wearing the Army out), it doesn't look like things are going to get any better, or that he'll have a chance of coming home soon.

 

[kennythebomb]

It's history. You can't just take a strongman out and expect things to change overnight. There's still that underlying tension that having a strong dictator suppresses. Once he's gone, that's when these people see their chance to take power.

Damn this sucks. I've got a cousin over there, and with the government indecisive on whether to send more support or actually scale back the American presence there (there's talk that keeping so many soldiers on the ground is wearing the Army out), it doesn't look like things are going to get any better, or that he'll have a chance of coming home soon.

Oh sure they're getting weary... I certainly would be if I was a soldier out there. Constantly gotta be on your guard.

That's true what you say about having a dictator... there's pros and cons to everything.

 

[a6m5]

What a mess. Now people will start demanding the U.S. to pull out, because bunch of Iraqi's gonna get killed with or without the U.S. presence there.

 

[Omnis]

People will only know what they grow up with. A dictatorship always breeds more dictatorships because the people don't know another way to live. Democratic exposure is good for them, but there are always insurgents...always will be. It's like taking over a small honeycomb with the mothernest right next door.

Hopefully there can be better organization and communication. Theoretically, the Muslims should get along just fine if they act as Muslims...peaceful and stuff. People just need to calm down for a minute or two.

Seriously, Iraq and all Islamic groups within, take a chill pill amongst yourselves and then act against insurgency and chaos together.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I believe Iraq would be better off if they put Saddam back in power. Though, he tortured his people, he kept their asses in line. He basically said, "If there's going to be killing in Iraq, I'll be the one doing it."

What Iraq needs is another vicious, unpredictable bastard in charge of things. With a horrible civil war looming, the people lost to the clutches of an evil dictator will not compare to the amount lost in a civil war that will most likely last more than a few years. Peace with the threat of destruction. It worked before...

 

[Zardoz]

I believe Iraq would be better off if they put Saddam back in power. Though, he tortured his people, he kept their asses in line. He basically said, "If there's going to be killing in Iraq, I'll be the one doing it."

What Iraq needs is another vicious, unpredictable bastard in charge of things. With a horrible civil war looming, the people lost to the clutches of an evil dictator will not compare to the amount lost in a civil war that will most likely last more than a few years. Peace with the threat of destruction. It worked before...

It seems unthinkably unlikey, but it is actually starting to look like American interests would have been better served by leaving Saddam in power and just keeping an eye on him. The damage the invasion of Iraq will do to America is just beginning. Pat Buchanan, the near-Fascist arch-conservative, said when we started it that moving on Iraq could turn out to be the worst mistake we've ever made. He may be proved right.

We lost seven more soldiers today and it barely even made the news. Losses like that are hardly even notable anymore. There's no telling how bad this will get. God help the Iraqi people. God help us...

 

[a6m5]

There's no telling how bad this will get. God help the Iraqi people. God help us...

Amen to that!

 

[niky]

Having another dictator in place isn't the answer. Once you've shown that one regime can be removed by force, it just makes all the comers line up for their chance at taking the seat of power. It's happened in a lot of African, Latin/South American and Asian nations.

I should know. Twenty years on from the removal of Ferdinand Marcos, and we've been through seven or eight coup d'etats and we've had another President removed by civil unrest, and another teetering on the edge.

You need a strong leader in power with an effective standing army of unquestionable loyalty and bravery. At the moment, that's the one thing they lack from their army and security forces. They're scared, and it's understandable with insurgents around every corner.

A transition to a stable democracy isn't easy. Especially with different ethnicities all asking for a slice of the pie. In Eastern Europe, it took almost a decade, and there are still problems there. In some cases, it takes much longer.

 

[Touring Mars]

There is a depressing air of inevitability about this situation - to take Saddam Hussein to task for his lack of cooperation over nuclear inspections was the right thing to do, but the execution of it has, in my view, been horribly botched.

What was it about the warnings about not having a clear strategy (including an exit strategy) that the US administration saw fit to patently ignore? With no precedent for 'democratising' an entire country, esp. one with such a complex social, political and religious make-up, is it any wonder that Iraq is descending into chaos?

What Iraq needs is another vicious, unpredictable bastard in charge of things.

How about George W Bush?

 

[Dave A]

I believe Iraq would be better off if they put Saddam back in power. Though, he tortured his people, he kept their asses in line. He basically said, "If there's going to be killing in Iraq, I'll be the one doing it."

You know what, I can see some sense in that. As it is I only see the situation getting worse, fast.

 

[Kylehnat]

Don't you get the feeling that the Middle East HAS to have a babysitter? Otherwise, they'll just end up killing each other until everyone is dead. (Oh wait, they're doing that already). It is absolutely appalling that people over there are so insane as to think that walking into a coffee shop and blowing up tens of innocent people is not senseless murder, but martyrdom. They blame the West for killing their children, but what are they doing? It's just ****ed up. We should pull all of our troops out of Iraq, let chaos reign, and let mass death ensue. Maybe it would wake up the rest of the region: this is what happens when all you do is hate.

 

[niky]

The problem in Iraq is the division between both ethnic and religious subgroups. You see the same thing happen in Africa, Europe and Asia. It's just easier to see in the Middle East because of the microscope that the entire region is under.

You just can't mix old culture with modern economic and cultural pressures and expect everything to gel. Especially in a country wherein unity of various elements has been forced. Stabilization, like I've said, is a process that takes decades at best, and centuries at worst. Too bad we don't have that much time.

That's a very sweeping generalization to make. I'd point you at Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and various other Arab states that do not suffer from internal strife.

I could point at the L.A. Riots and the New Orleans looting and say: "Hey, all those Americans do is hate each other." The actions of a small but very aggressive minority doesn't automatically mean the entire region is unstable.

Iran and Iraq are a special case, with a long history of military adventurism, foreign intervention, and power-hungry despots.

Actually, in any place were you have a clash of cultures, or a poor ethnic or religious subgroup with little hope of upliftment or progress, you have the potential for violence. L.A. showed that. The Paris riots showed that. It's just that in the Middle East, there's more impetus for the violence to start. There's a strain of suppressed rage running under most societies, it's just in the places where there's more opportunities for people to vent it that it shows.

We pull out our troops, Iraq dissolves into chaos. And the insurgents will have a field day recruiting new members. If the US loses Iraq, that would be a disaster of epic proportions... creating a breeding ground for terrorists ten times worse than Afghanistan.

 

[Kylehnat]

We pull out our troops, Iraq dissolves into chaos. And the insurgents will have a field day recruiting new members. If the US loses Iraq, that would be a disaster of epic proportions... creating a breeding ground for terrorists ten times worse than Afghanistan.

Change must come from within. The people over there must WANT for the violence to end before it actually will. Right now, many see the chance to smite their enemies, so they're taking it. There will be bombings and murder whether U.S. troops are there or not. There will be breeding grounds for terrorism whether we are there or not. There will be civil unrest whether we are there or not. The severity of these things may vary with U.S. presence, but that's debatable. Besides, these are centuries-old fueds we're trying to stem. Our attempt to implement democracy is dividing Iraqis, and giving them completely new reasons to hate and kill each other. It's a mess with no solution.

 

[s0nny80y]

Don't you get the feeling that the Middle East HAS to have a babysitter? Otherwise, they'll just end up killing each other until everyone is dead. (Oh wait, they're doing that already).

The Middle East is like Africa with oil.

 

[Solid Fro]

What civil war?

Al Qaeda in Iraq blew up another bomb that destroyed a Muslim holy shrine. How is that a civil war? It looks like more of the same from Al Qaeda and more misinformation from the media.

"Militants"? Yeah, whatever.

 

[niky]

While it's common knowledge that Al Quaeda is responsible for the initial attack, your statement ignores the fact that we had civilians marching in the streets with AK47s.

...and the Sunni mosque the Shiites blew up in reprisal? Or the dozens of bullet holes that Sunni mosques have just recently acquired as decorations? Or the 130 or so people who have died in the in-fighting and violence since the start of the week?

I guess the liberal media just took those people out back and shot them for propaganda purposes.

The commanders on the ground are pretty worried. They say that it is critical that the Iraqi people pull together, otherwise they're going to do the insurgents' work for them.

The possibility of open violence right now is moderate, civil war may be a possibility, but it seems like things are calming down now.

Why don't you watch the news? Or is there no media source (left or right) that you actually trust?

@kylenhat: Sadly, you're right... change does have to come from within. It seems that Iraqi leaders are starting to see the danger of their position, as all sides are actually calling for unity and peace right now.

 

[kennythebomb]

The Middle East is like Africa with oil.

In other words, no one would give a **** if the Middle East didn't have oil.

Sadly, you're right... change does have to come from within. It seems that Iraqi leaders are starting to see the danger of their position, as all sides are actually calling for unity and peace right now.

I'm glad.... hopefully it will work and they will continue to promote peace when the spotlight is off.

 

[GT4_Rule]

There's gonna be civil war. Guaranteed. US soldiers are keeping peace (somehow) but as soon as they withdraw, Iraq will be a mess. I think they should just divide into three coutries: northern region - Kurds, eastern - Sunn'i, southern - Shi'tes. Then it would be better because each group has its own area now.

 

[kennythebomb]

There's gonna be civil war. Guaranteed. US soldiers are keeping peace (somehow) but as soon as they withdraw, Iraq will be a mess. I think they should just divide into three coutries: northern region - Kurds, eastern - Sunn'i, southern - Shi'tes. Then it would be better because each group has its own area now.

I agree that Iraq probably would erupt into civil war if the US left right now.

However, if they created three seperate little countries for 'em...

(1) Personally, I doubt that all sides would be appeased, and some blokes would go and start a war with their neighbors because of past atrocities or w/e have you...
(2) Those new little countries would be mighty vulnerable.

 

[niky]

Are we talking Iraq or Yugoslavia? Whoops... no difference.

 

[GT4_Rule]

I agree that Iraq probably would erupt into civil war if the US left right now.

However, if they created three seperate little countries for 'em...

(1) Personally, I doubt that all sides would be appeased, and some blokes would go and start a war with their neighbors because of past atrocities or w/e have you...
(2) Those new little countries would be mighty vulnerable.

True....

Look at Yugoslavia.

Good point.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Former interim PM Mr Allawi has stated that Iraq is on the brink of a serious sectarian clash;

The beeb has it.

Any smileys?

 

[Touring Mars]

Merged with a previous thread ('Iraq Civil War?') on the subject

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Merged with a previous thread ('Iraq Civil War?') on the subject

There is a sort of Jaundice to the topic that 'fades' it, but civil war is always a river of blood in the slaughterhouse that 'history' creates. If people knew how to pause their heavy beliefs and find some way to 'stand outside' their mortal inheritances then soultions would be more readily available.

 

[GT4_Rule]

You know, this isn't going to be the solution and wont please all sides, but I think that they should split into 3 smaller coutries - Kurds, Shi'tes, and the Sun'nis. I mean, if they cant take it anymore being united as one country, then thats the only solution. Split it apart, let them find out how they're going to keep their area running. Dependence on the oil isnt good - when it runs out in several decades, then youve got serious problem.

Edit: Ive just re-read some of the old posts, and Ill add that they might be vulnerable; so thats why alliance with a superpower like US or something like that is necessary.

 

[Zardoz]

It's all good:

Bush upbeat on Iraq anniversary