Civil War in Iraq?

Exactly a month after I posted this thread, and no real progress that I've heard. In fact, things seem to be getting slightly worse with prison raids.
 
The Sunnis joining the insurgency? Not a good thing. Does this mean that Saddam's guerillas are gaining supporters?
 
30 corpses of what, policemen?

Those insurgents must have nerves of steel, no, diamond, because I can't even kill a mouse...:indiff: Beheading is probably the worst way to kill someone...
 
Viper Zero
What civil war?
.
Click to expand...

This one..

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

Allawi himself stated such. Civil War in Iraq. Rememeber that BushCo is still in denail over the non-existance of WMDs as he led the US soldiers into Iraq under the false pretenses of WMDs. He lied, there were no WMDs at that time. No threat to the west. He is still in denail over Global Warming, labelling it a 'hoax'. Still lying.

You really, really shouldnt put your faith in that man. Remember the 'War is over' speech, 'we won'. ? News flash Mr Bush...More people are dying in Iraq NOW than died under the Hussain era.

We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more - if this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is. - Allawi
 
Oh Im sure WMDs existed, but you know Saddam, he probably destroyed it before the war ended. Of course they wont hide somewhere, they know its going to be found sometime. They destroyed it.
 
GT4_Rule
Oh Im sure WMDs existed, but you know Saddam, he probably destroyed it before the war ended. Of course they wont hide somewhere, they know its going to be found sometime. They destroyed it.
Click to expand...

That's just speculation piled upon speculation. "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction we know they are there", "We haven't found any weapons of mass destruction but we know Saddam moved/destroyed them."

I find it ironic that the world's best intelligence agency, the one that used all that advanced technology to 'show the world the proof of Saddam's WMDs, can't keep track of them.

Surveillance photos were shown as proof as Iraq's WMD plants, they zoomed in and showed us the shots of the 'tubes' discarded on the ground, yet they can't keep track of any vehicles leaving that area?
 
I bet it shows SEAL teams leaving the tubes behind ;) But really, what were we seeing... Desert looks like desert... For all we know it could have been done in area 51... I'm not saying they were, before you jump all over me. I'm only saying that we're shown pictures of things in places that could have been anywhere. The only reason we think it's where they say it is, is because they say that's where it is... Why the big push to prevent U.N. people from going to the said places first and checking them out themselves?

Now we've got another place that will remain hot for years to come, like was said, Yugoslavia. Only with oil, hence why the U.N. is in Yugoslavia and the U.S. is in the middle East...
 
Iraq hasent become another Vietnam, yet, but unfortunately for Americans our short attention spans make anything look like Vietnam. Wether we like it or not, we are comitted to Iraq now, and there is no telling how long it will take to get the country on sure footing once again. We may be looking at a situation similar to post-war Europe or Japan where we are still semi-involved more than sixty years after the end of the conflict.

Even as a right-winger, I'll admit that we made plenty of mistakes in Iraq. We underestimated the resolve of the people, we underestimated the insurgent forces, and thus we have underestimated the potential for trouble in the nation of Iraq. However, to place everything uppon Bush's head is completely illogical. He may be incharge of the US, but he also has a cabinet that controls many aspects of the country, and more importantly, he has Donnie Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs to decide what is going down in Iraq. Their poor choises have had a direct effect on the outcome of this conflict, and we are going to pay for mistakes made on their behalf.

Here is a good question, if the world is so dead-set on the success of Iraq, why exactly won't the world help in securing the future of the nation? Sure, it may be the US' problem, but an unstable Iraq is sure to be a catalyst for a growing ammount of unstability in the Middle-East. I would love to see the all-powerful UN step in and make a difference, but after they put their tail between their legs and split after being bombed, I don't know what to think of them. Same can be said of the Spanish, who flew the scene after their trains were bombed.

If anything, we have learned since 2001 that we are all targets. It doesnt matter if you are a Cristian, a Jew, a Hindu, etc. as the Islamic fundamentalists are even willing to attack their own people. The bombings in the US, Spain, UK, Saudi Arabia, Malasia, etc. should be something to bring us together to fight against terrorism, not hide in fear because of it. I may not be a religious man, but one statement always stands out for me from the Bible:

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

Violence shouldnt always be met with more violence, but it only gives the Islamic Fundamentalists vindication for their actions when nothing is done.
 
YSSMAN as I said a while ago please be a preacher and lectuer all those extreme Muslim leadheads out there because you make some real good arguments.
 
YSSMAN
We may be looking at a situation similar to post-war Europe or Japan where we are still semi-involved more than sixty years after the end of the conflict.
Click to expand...

The reason the US is still in Japan 60 years later is because they want to be strategically positioned globally. Japan is no bother to anyone in its current state and if Japan had its way the U.S. would have gone a long time ago. I know the Japanese don't like paying for a foreign army to occupy Japanese land.

And you will have this in Iraq. With the country of Iraq being strategically important in the middle east, as well as being an oil producer, I imagine the US will never get out of there. Why have an exit strategy when you don't want to leave?

Isn't the US busy building 14 bases there?
 
You're absolutley right. There is no exit strategy and as far as Bush is concerned the war is over. As far as America is concerned the war is over. Bush tells you the war is over and thats all he deems that you need to know. Closed book.

The American presence there is a strategic one to make sure the oil doesnt dry up. Sure, there are many American soldiers being killed weekly but that is a risk Bush is willing to take. Collateral damage. The financial benefit far out-weights the human cost. So what, 10 soldiers a week? Thats nothing. He has a huge pool of soldiers ready for drafting, an infinite supply. The more soldiers get killed the more the machine pumps out crap about suicide bombers killing our boys. Bush's policy of killing soldiers is good for America, good for Replublican profiteering. It brings Americans closer together to fight the common foe.

The only way you can 'support our troops' is to get the the hell out of Iraq and back to thier families and let the politicians find a diplomatic solution for the provision of oil. Ditch Bush and wake up.

speedy_samurai
The reason the US is still in Japan 60 years later is because they want to be strategically positioned globally. Japan is no bother to anyone in its current state and if Japan had its way the U.S. would have gone a long time ago. I know the Japanese don't like paying for a foreign army to occupy Japanese land.

And you will have this in Iraq. With the country of Iraq being strategically important in the middle east, as well as being an oil producer, I imagine the US will never get out of there. Why have an exit strategy when you don't want to leave?

Isn't the US busy building 14 bases there?
Click to expand...
 
speedy_samurai
The reason the US is still in Japan 60 years later is because they want to be strategically positioned globally. Japan is no bother to anyone in its current state and if Japan had its way the U.S. would have gone a long time ago. I know the Japanese don't like paying for a foreign army to occupy Japanese land.
Click to expand...
U.S. forces does not occupy Japan, and not everyone wants them out. Since the days of U.S. occupation of Japan in the 40's, U.S. military presence in Japan has been very positive for Japan. We have a very small "Self Defense Force", compared to the militaries of our neighbors like South and North Korea, China, Russia and embarrassingly, even Taiwan. :ouch: But there were almost zero chance of any hostile nations attacking Japan, due to the U.S. presence in Japan from down in Okinawa, all the way up to Hokkaido. IMO, paying for the U.S. bases was very small price to pay compared to tripling, quadrupling our defense budget.

I do agree about the reason U.S. forces are still in Japan. Japanese aren't the reason why U.S. stays, location is. We are one of their hubs and that's about it.
 
I wouldnt say that Japan is paying only a small price. What if the US decides to take military action against N. Korea. N. Korea's first target would be to take out US bases within missile range. We all know that Korea is not far from nuclear capability, despite what US 'intellegence' says. This intellenegnce has been catastrophically wrong in the past and no-one knows what goes on in that country.

No, i wouldnt say that was a small price but the US needs you more that you need them.


a6m5
IMO, paying for the U.S. bases was very small price to pay compared to tripling, quadrupling our defense budget.
Click to expand...
 
TurboSmoke
I wouldnt say that Japan is paying only a small price. What if the US decides to take military action against N. Korea. N. Korea's first target would be to take out US bases within missile range. We all know that Korea is not far from nuclear capability, despite what US 'intellegence' says. This intellenegnce has been catastrophically wrong in the past and no-one knows what goes on in that country.

No, i wouldnt say that was a small price but the US needs you more that you need them.
Click to expand...
Keyword in bold.
a6m5
IMO, paying for the U.S. bases was very small price to pay compared to tripling, quadrupling our defense budget.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the U.S. presence since the 1940's. Japan didn't have to budget their defense according to the threats from the U.S.S.R. and China, because of the U.S. bases in Japan. If the Japanese government did, how many trillions of dollars would we be talking about? Japan is the second largest economy in the world. But if Japan actually had to compete militarily in the Far East since the 40's, you can bet Japan's economic power will barely be in top 10 for sure.

If you strictly just look at Japan's current situation, yes, arguably, you could say that it's not a "small price".

North Korea is not a very good example. They know that if they fire a nuke, they are history. And if they do get it on with the U.S., they will fire their nuke at Japan. With or without the U.S. presence there. Really good example to support your point would've been the Taiwan Strait Conflict. If China actually does attempt to invade Taiwan, there is a good chance that U.S. will defend Taiwan. Then, Japan will be forced into this war. Now, this one's pretty realistic.
 
Not a "civil war", huh? How many people have to flee for their lives for it to constitute a civil war?

Fighting displaces tens of thousands of Iraqis

"The U.N.'s refugee agency has published reports putting the number of refugees fleeing the country entirely at several hundred thousand. It is not clear how many of those have subsequently returned."

Baghdad: Where No One Is Safe

"Bodies are found every day, all over Baghdad. Dozens. Sometimes scores. Some are bound, tortured and beheaded. Others are simply shot, execution-style. The spiral continues, and no one knows what the sunrise in Baghdad will bring tomorrow, next week or next month."
 
GT4_Rule
It must be....terrible + awful to live there. No words can probably describe it.
Click to expand...

you know, i have had several friends go to iraq and be lukcy enough to come home. they said the people there were quite nice, and that whether or not we reailze it, the weather conditions are not too bad either.

now, if King George would have NOT invaded, i think we would have been better off
 
BMWteamPTG
you know, i have had several friends go to iraq and be lukcy enough to come home. they said the people there were quite nice, and that whether or not we reailze it, the weather conditions are not too bad either.

now, if King George would have NOT invaded, i think we would have been better off
Click to expand...

Well, you know, people there might be nice, but the insurgents and those who support those extremist leaders arent so nice. And its pretty hard to tell one another when in city streets, etc. The suicide bombers look perfectly normal, until they set their bombs off. Then its too late.

You friends must have a lot of luck, dont they :P
 
GT4_Rule
I think they should just divide into three coutries: northern region - Kurds, eastern - Sunn'i, southern - Shi'tes.
Click to expand...
Although it's likely the best idea, there's still several problems with this:

The Kurdish quest for autonomy is defined by two types of people: Hawks and Doves, if you will. There's two large cities (Sulimeniya, and Erbil) that are vying to be the capital of future Kurdistan; one wants to go head-to-head with the rest of Arab Iraq, and kick Arabs out of their land (read: genocide). The other side just wants to move on, and re-build their country, but are worried that too much Arab influence might destroy their lives once more.

Kurdistan loosely drew their borders after the First Gulf War, but to the extreme mid-southern regions of their territory, a large oil field was discovered. A good chunk of this huge oil field is in "Arab" Iraq, and many Kurds are willing to fight for this land. Many want to cut off commerce and transit to everything south of them, and truly isolate themselves from the rest of Iraq.

As for the Sunnis and Shiites, that's a whole other problem, because there's no previous borders for them. Unless a deal is hammered out between them, which is going to be difficult because each wants to rule all of Iraq, not part of it. Now that there's no central force running Iraq other than Coalition Forces, it's going to be difficult to keep every one in line. Our forces are hugely outnumbered, and the only thing that's going to work is if agreements are made.

The tough part, though, is that no one side is willing to just put up a border, made concessions with the factions on thier side, drop their weapons, and go home for the night. They all want more and more, and a civil war looms very likely in the near future, in my opinion.
 
I get your point, pupik - thats a valid reason.

The situation is tough...I dont see any way Iraq can become an united country again.
 
GT4_Rule
Well, you know, people there might be nice, but the insurgents and those who support those extremist leaders arent so nice. And its pretty hard to tell one another when in city streets, etc. The suicide bombers look perfectly normal, until they set their bombs off. Then its too late.

You friends must have a lot of luck, dont they :P
Click to expand...

luck has nothing to do with it. they had a lot of people praying for them and they watched their backs. i understand that they all look the same, and obviously i wasnt there. but its just sad that there has to be war like this...cant we all just get along???
 
speedy_samurai
I think human history has shown that we are not able to get along.. lol
Click to expand...

I think the internet shows that even better... :lol:

People can get along... but you can't force them to. It takes a long to to unite people, and whatever wrongs are done by one group to another still sting after decades... centuries even. :(
 
niky
I think the internet shows that even better... :lol:

People can get along... but you can't force them to. It takes a long to to unite people, and whatever wrongs are done by one group to another still sting after decades... centuries even. :(
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the recent anti-Japanese feelings in China and Korea over the WWII.
 
Not just recent. Current. Ask a Chinese or Korean if they're Japanese, and if they're old enough, they'll whup your ass for that.
 

Latest Posts

Back