Iraq is full of armament. Why haven't they been using it?

my brother and i against my cousin...my brother and cousin and i against the stranger.

remember the siege of najaf? al sistani let al sadr run wild for a long enuff time that he killed a number of our soldiers and we killed a whole lot more of his militia. each death worked to sistani's favor by reducing the number of foreign occupiers as well as the number of usurpers with whom sistani would have to deal.

as far as turnout for iraqi national elections goes, it might be worth remembering it aint as if iraqis never went to the polls en masse. granted it may have been the first time they hadda choice of voting for their imam's guy rather than the baathist's guy, but iraq always used to have a 101% of eligible voters doin their thing in the bad ol days.

"my brother and i against my cousin...my brother and cousin and i against the stranger. "

The problem I have with that is the brother and the cousin really haven't been fighting. You really don't see sectarian violence all that much. You see baiting. You see well-planned strikes intended to start people fighting each other.

If MM's idea was correct, at least to me, you'd have been seeing Shia Mulims killing Sunnis a lot more than they have been. There would have been much, much more back-and-forth involved. Sure, all the sides remain armed and dangerous, like the Sadr example you cite. I believe, though, that were people motivated towards civil war the way MM relates, we'd have seen seiges like that weekly.

No, I think if we give up and call this a civil war, we're playing into the hands of the small percentage of Iraqis and the insurgents that have been trying to PROVOKE civil war. Maybe we should back off a bit. Maybe we should be a lot more stern with areas that are strongholds for violence. I can't for a moment believe that giving the people trying to subvert peace what they want will benefit anyone, though.

If MM's idea was correct, at least to me, you'd have been seeing Shia Mulims killing Sunnis a lot more than they have been

this is a link to an article published in december 2005 by der spiegel's english website Link

i've read at least 20-25 similar articles since mid-summer 2005. i'm guessin karadaghi's ratio of 48 iraqi deaths for every american killed is low. i can't find it right now but the la times hadda article last spring about the burial guilds in najaf being literally overwhelmed by the number of shiites killed by their sunni neighbors--and none went unavenged.

Enlightening article, Kingbee, thanks for the link. It's depressing, and I wonder at our lack of attention on the trouble spots in Iraq in the same way I do about the trouble spots we have here in America. Still, we have huge police presence in neighborhoods with little crime and leave the projects to destroy themselves.

I just don't think more of that is good. If anything I think we need to concentrate MORE on the kind of violence that the article relates, not abandon them. Heck, even the article itself ends thusly:

"If the Shiites are in fact given carte blanche to fight the insurgents, it would likely remove one of the last remaining obstacles to civil war in Iraq. The country would then descend into years of the kind of carnage that once consumed Lebanon, bloodshed on a much greater scale than the attacks, kidnappings, and general increase in lawlessness seen today. "

...which is about what I was saying above. I'm in no way saying that we are doing all we should be doing in Iraq. I just take issue with the idea that we should leave and do nothing at all. I tend to shy away from giving those who oppose me exactly what they want.

31 by kingbee Saturday, February 25, 2006

Iraq is full of armament. Why haven't they been using it? my brother and i against my cousin...my brother and cousin and i against the stranger

we did that here right? 1861 through 1865 10's of thousands killed, many more maimed, we came out of it just fine to become a world power about 40 years after our civil war.

32 by BakerStreet Saturday, February 25, 2006

No, I think if we give up and call this a civil war, we're playing into the hands of the small percentage of Iraqis and the insurgents that have been trying to PROVOKE civil war. Maybe we should back off a bit. Maybe we should be a lot more stern with areas that are strongholds for violence. I can't for a moment believe that giving the people trying to subvert peace what they want will benefit anyone, though.

now if we started to fight this war with a purpose and went after the terrorist hard! real hard, kill them all, never let them rest or regroup I might see things a little differently.

34 by BakerStreet Saturday, February 25, 2006

which is about what I was saying above. I'm in no way saying that we are doing all we should be doing in Iraq. I just take issue with the idea that we should leave and do nothing at all. I tend to shy away from giving those who oppose me exactly what they want.

I weighed that issue baker and decided sooner or later there is going to be a civil war there and the terrorist will get what they want {civil waR} but, because the Iraqis have their war does not mean that the terrorists win.

I don't know if I would necessarily label myself anti-war, because in the past I have felt that if the U.S. withdrew, it would be a dishonor to those fallen or injured soldiers who actually believed in the war...not to mention the fact that we would be seen as a lesser force for leaving.

But I have to ask myself...how many more young men and women are going to get killed before the job they went in to do gets "done"? And you wonder if it IS realistic to think that it CAN get accomplished...it just makes me have mixed feelings about it all.

Do you know what one of the saddest things about this all has been to me? It's the fact that many people have become so desensitized to hearing about fallen soldiers. It's such an expected and regular occurence that it doesn't even seem to phase or touch some people anymore...it's awful.

#38 by InBloom Saturday, February 25, 2006

Do you know what one of the saddest things about this all has been to me? It's the fact that many people have become so desensitized to hearing about fallen soldiers. It's such an expected and regular occurence that it doesn't even seem to phase or touch some people anymore...it's awful.

I have to agree, with all the unfair reporting of the war going on, the pictures, the stories, all of it slanted one way.

Vietnam was the first war to be brought into your home, now it's this war.

Either way, no matter how many Americans die, no maatter how many coalition members die, the {iraqies} are going to have their civil war, IMO of course.

all of it slanted one way.

i don't mean to be presumptious, so i'm gonna keep an open mind as to which side you believe the news, pictures and stories slant.

if one approaches coverage by the major networks in the same way--with an open mind--and one considers the fox network one of the majors, only one of the four has a stated agenda. it ain't cbs, nbc nor abc.

i realize there are a lotta people here who are convinced it's just the opposite, but please consider the following:

this country's major newspapers--most of which are owned by corporations such as gannett, the tribune company, knight-ridder, hearst corporation, cox, copley, etc--each has its own editorial pov. no editor is gonna thrive for long if his or her view is in constant opposition with the publisher's interests. while some of the major us dailies lean left, others (most notably the tribune and hearst papers) have historically done the opposite. still others (the atlanta journal-constitution) are agressively moderate.

if you combine coverage of this war and the situation in iraq by any 20 of the country's major dailies and then compare it with reportage provided by cbs, nbc and abc --and i urge you to do this to see for yourself--the 'facts' as well as the presentation don't generally conflict.

(that can't be said of the fox network btw; news corporation is the ultimate tabloid media presence and fox news is--no matter whether you love it or hate it--purely 'anything that can be sensationalized will be' tabloid.)

my point is this: either there's some huge media conspiracy as your not-so-moderate brethren constantly claim--one in which large, traditionally conservative corporations are prime participants--or the fact that major dailies generally report the same events in much the same fashion as those three non-fox broadcasters is valid evidence against such claims.

If a withdrawal is needed, withdraw to Kurdistan.

Talk to Turkey, give them what they want, threaten Syria a bit. Tell them that if they continue as they do now, and if an invasion will happen, they will lose Kurdistan. (I don't care about the UN, the Kurds should have the right of self-determination just like the nastier nations, even if they are not Arabs.)

Disconnect Kurdistan from Iraq, give them the Turkish part (this will be expensive!), and unify them with the Syrian part. Here is your new middle eastern dream ally.

Assist one of the two factions in Iraq with words and humanitarian aid. Choose whatever faction is most friendly with the idea of an independent Kurdistan.

That's the ticket.

The Arabs in Iraq are the victims of this. I know that it is foreign terrorists who keep attacking them. But they have a choice. Either OPENLY support the US and recognise Israel or the Kurdistan-option it is.

That would be my proposal anyway.

too bad the bush administration had already decided to invade iraq before taking office so your united kurdistan proposal was never considered. if we hadda piss off most of our allies we woulda been better off pissin em off doing something that appeared to make sense.

the biggest problem would be turkey altho i truly can't imagine turkey or iran relinguishing kurdish territory peacefully. if only the kurds hadda prospective homeland that wasn't so badly cursed with all that water and oil.

i love how you snuck this in btw.

Either OPENLY support the US and recognise Israel or the Kurdistan-option it is.

even tho i'm sure it's not your intention, i doubt even the nazi high command coulda come up with a more effective means of taking anti-israeli hatred to a higher level.

40 by kingbee Saturday, February 25, 2006

all of it slanted one way. i don't mean to be presumptuous, so I'm gonna keep an open mind as to which side you believe the news, pictures and stories slant.

Oh I believe what is presented kingbee, I know there is death galore there in Iraq, but most media only shows the fighting and horrors of was, the never ending body count, they use the broken bodies of the military.

Why is it no stations present the other side of war? How about all them schools built, how about the new hospitals? How about girls being allow to learn?

While I have changed my mind about the war, the elite media is another story, they do slant the news one way,,. anything to make bush look bad or stupid.

too bad the bush administration had already decided to invade iraq before taking office so your united kurdistan proposal was never considered. if we hadda piss off most of our allies we woulda been better off pissin em off doing something that appeared to make sense.

The Bush administration didn't exist before taking office. You are talking about the Clinton administration. You are right though, because regime change in Iraq was already a goal under that administration.

the biggest problem would be turkey altho i truly can't imagine turkey or iran relinguishing kurdish territory peacefully. if only the kurds hadda prospective homeland that wasn't so badly cursed with all that water and oil.

There is a lot that Turkey wants. The US can help them get some of it. They want in the EU, they want a profitable solution to the Cyprus conflict, they want weapons technology, and they want investment.

With a Kurdistan allied to the US at the far side, Turkey will be a prime target for investment. The Turkish government knows that. If Turkey can join the EU without Kurdistan they probably will. And Kurdistan, an American ally, will likely not join the EU anyway.

i love how you snuck this in btw. "Either OPENLY support the US and recognise Israel or the Kurdistan-option it is." even tho i'm sure it's not your intention, i doubt even the nazi high command coulda come up with a more effective means of taking anti-israeli hatred to a higher level.

Many Arab countries are often asked to recognise Israel. It never changes anything.

The way to do it would for the US to withdraw to Kurdistan and advocate the Kurdistan option as described above. And Israel would offer to mediate. At the end I am only looking for a way to make it appear as if whatever happens to (Arab) Iraq afterwards was an Iraqi decision. All I needed was an offer they could not accept. (And if they did anyway, we'd be even closer to victory.)

Kurdistan will recognise Israel. Arab Iraqis know that. They also know that the "Palestinians" and the PLO openly supported Saddam. And the other Arab countries have done everything in their power to lower the prestige of Arab nationalism in Iraq over the last few years.

They will still say no, but a "no" is all we need for the Kurdistan option.

If the people of Iraq really wanted to rid themselves of the terrorists it would be done and over already, how many more innocent Iraqis must be slaughtered before they do something about it?

I agree; I think Bakerstreet is being much too apologetic in behalf of passive Muslims.