Iraq: Civil War Result of Bush Regime

[Smurf]

I still havn't seen that, want to post a link?

 

[wasteofo2]

I have no illusions what this war is about, cowardice, Oil, imperialism, egalitarianism, bigotry, religious bigotry, cavalier disregard for law, and human rights, remorseless greed.

Just to tell you, egalitarianism is a positive thing (to most people), it means equality, especially in the sense of political equality and lack of class distinctions.

 

[vanesch]

Have you noticed how ya'll always change what you mean?

You stated clearly in your original post we know exactly who the terrorists are. You stated they were by and large, Al Queda (or Al Queda linked) terrorists IMPORTED during the war.

But even that statement, by itself, is funny: Iraq was invaded because it was a nest of terrorists with WMD that had to be cleaned out. Now they need to IMPORT their terrorists.

But I agree that about 150000 terrorists have been imported in Iraq

 

[Smurf]

Vanesch, 150,000 is more than are currently and have been in iraq since the war started, let alone only foriegn, I think the number is something like 20,000 right now.

 

[Dayle Record]

I think I meant something else beside egalitarianism, I think I meant what ever the one word is that describes, forcing something on someone, that they never asked for, never wanted, and then expecting to profit greatly in return. What would be the word for that?

I will look at this like a neurological test, the results aren't good.

 

[vanesch]

Vanesch, 150,000 is more than are currently and have been in iraq since the war started, let alone only foriegn, I think the number is something like 20,000 right now.

There are more US soldiers in Iraq than that, no ?

 

[omin]

omin, that post is so garbled, as to be barely readable, but your basic assertion is that the people we are fighting are, by and large, Iraqi. Two words for you: PROVE IT. I have provided ample evidence that you are wrong.

russ you have the burden of proof.

it is much more likely people in Iraq are Iraqis. hundereds of thousands of people didn't just get up and leave and then become replaced by other arabs who came from everywhere but Iraq.

when you say things are garbled or people are crackpots, it's not a valid argument. stick to the issue of debate mr. unsmarty pants.

 

[Dayle Record]

There is something I want to make perfectly clear, regarding my opinions, on the matter of Iraq. The US Soldiers there are in my heart and mind every day. They are family members, and brothers and sisters, and mothers and fathers, and have with great grace, answered the call of this government to go and "rescue" the people of Iraq, largely from our previous bungling. I have the highest degree of regard and respect and affection for the soldiers there. This is a management and vision problem. This government is behaving like a western government from a century ago, only they have more sophisticated means to sway opinion and some more sophisticated weaponry. Still their chief weapon is the intellect and body of the individual that fights for the US. What a fine weapon, but it is innately of such high value, one must question risking it for any cause.

The US government is very pro life, as long as life is defined is an embryo that can be used to control the lives of women, or the comfortable lives of the wealthy; otherwise for everyone else, all bets are off. Everything about life just became worse, from the air and water, to the job situation, to the health of our nation, to the spirit of our nation, as we live in an engineered emotional state that guarantees unlimited power to those that caused most of our current problems. There was a civil war here too, and we just lost it.

 

[russ_watters]

when you say things are garbled ...

What I was talking about was your grammar. Your posts are virtually unreadable.

1.American soldiers who attack iraqi civilians are not terrorists too?

Smurf, American soldiers do not attack civilians.

2.

Your sources are heavily biased and the conclusions are misleading. Lumping together crime with the "insurgency," for example, is an invalid association. Crime is a separate issue altogether.

I will acknowledge, though, that "vast majority" may be overstating it a bit. Part of the problem is that when the leadership is foreign and the foot-soldiers domestic, it clouds the issue. You can say half the people fighting in Falluja (made-up number) are domestic, but would they be fighting at all if their foreign leaders weren't inciting them?

 

[BobG]

You guys need to buy a program on your way into the stadium. That way you could keep the rosters straight.

Al-Sadr's group is mostly Iraqi Shiites who want to ensure religion has a very strong influence on Iraqi government and won't accept a secular government imposed by foreigners. He's separate from the Sistani Shiites, who are very hopeful they will achieve their main concerns peacably through Iraqi elections (provided, of course, the Kurds don't go ballistic at too much Shiite becoming government policy affecting the Kurds). There's at least a possibility his group will disband once the US leaves.

The Sunni groups are in total chaos, since a significant portion of their leadership was part of the old Iraqi regime. They have a significant number of foreign fundamentalists who have flowed into the region to fill the vacuum. The Sunnis are also the most desperate group, being the most likely to lose the most and the most willing to either follow or at least tolerate foreigners fighting the US (it's far from unamimous support, even among the Sunnis, many of whom are reaching the point where they'd just like to live without the fear of one side or the other killing them). At this point, these guys will be a problem regardless of who's in charge. How many fighters in this region are foreign terrorists? Maybe this is one instance of where Bush put it accurately: "They're guessing."

The Kurds are just the next potential insurgency group, depending upon how the Iraqi govermnment shakes out in the end.

We're fighting two wars in Iraq, one worse than the other, and hoping we don't wind up fighting a third.

 

[omin]

Russ, you have the burden of proof because you assert the highly unsual: the Bush theory that fundamentally implies that what I call "Iraqi civilians in defense of Iraq" were fully displaced by "terrorists from outside Iraq".

I don't have the burden of proof, because what I state is not highly improbable. But what you and regime Bush assert is physicaly ridiculous. It is highly improbable that that many human beings would exchange places in such a short period of time almost under any circumstances. Those people who fight against the occupiers are surely civilians defending their Iraq, until you provide physical evidence proving how this unusual switch was done.

Even if what you say was true about the ridiculous switch...

Our military consists of people from many American states. In a similar idiotic case that California were being occupyied by a terrorist Bush type to glean the last bit of gold from Californias streams, the people who crossed state lines to defend California would be mere terrorists, under Bushes abject reasoning. They are not terrorists only because they are not from California or Iraq in either case.

Bush regime ignores this superior point, therefore the Bush regime is ignorant in a superior way on this issue. I will accept that I am only the ignorant one Russ, when you provide the physical evidence that supports your unusual claim. But, then I'll know, and I won't be ignorant. Come on Russ, enlighten me!

The evidence to date equates to mutilated women and children and men without guns from outside Iraq who according to your Bush theory displaced the real Iraqis. They have been the significant target when we let the evidence tell the story versus letting the propoganda tell the story.

In science Russ, actions do speak louder than theories.

 

[BobG]

As far off the mark as some of Omin's comments have drifted, his core contention that Iraq is now a civil war is pretty close to an accurate description. Naturally, almost all Iraqi groups are philosophically opposed to US occupation, even if some groups feel it's currently necessary in order to prevent a far bloodier civil war from occurring.

Iraq has been a civil war waiting to happen for quite some time. Hussein's oppression of opposing groups set the table for massive instability to occur as soon as he (or his sons or other Baathist ruler) lost control.

There's a huge number of disparate groups in Iraq and accepting the presence of foreign terrorists in sections of Iraq is as much a reflection of the internal struggle that would occur with an immediate US withdrawal as it is opposition of the US presence itself.

As I said earlier, you need a program to understand who the players are and the positions they're playing. The link below lists the different political organizations in Iraq and give an indication both of the possible alliances that could bring stability as well as the difficulties in achieving a unified country.

http://www.rferl.org/specials/iraqcrisis/
The political organizations are in the Specials section, under Iraqi political groups (it takes two parts to list them all).

 

[omin]

BobG,

The comments I have tackled asserted that Iraq is not a civil war. These comments abjectly asserted those who are fighting the Bush regime occupation aren't from Iraq. I didn't drift to this. I simply showed how this "Great People Swap" is highly improbable, to decrease what you call drifting.

By evidence of the information you put forward, it can seem to imply that by Iraqis differing factions was seed enough to cause the war occurring or that these political differences would have brought such violence anyway. This is a common misception by the way that it attempts to serve as a justification for the invasion. Is this where you want this to drift? This civil war has a simple cause: The US criminal invasion, not preexisting factions which are common to all state societies.

We have severals factions within our country, America, which in the event of a Bush-type terror attack and occupation, would create a similar stuggle to take political control. We would have looting. We would have insurgents. We'd have so-called terrorists who are terrorsts just because they crossed state lines to fight the occupiers. And we'd damn right snipe occupiers and execute those who joined the occupiers. Despite the many Iraqi factions, like our own, Iraq was much more stable before the occupation, and less likely to become unstable without an invasion. The is apparently understood by most of the world who was more intelligent that Bush to not agree with the invasion.

Bush wasn't wrong, he was stupid. People who are wrong can understand the difference between wrong and right and have the ability to correct themselves. Stupid people keep doing more of the same stupidity. Four more years of murder is what we are looking at.

We'd have the same oil at a lower price and Iraq would still be stable to supply it. Dropping the sactions was all that needed to be done. But now we are further in debt, diplomacy between Iraq and US is horrible, and ten of thousands of Iraqis have been unnecessarily killed (which is murder according to human civil theory) only because of Bush regimes abject political theory.

 

[BobG]

Actually, my feeling was that Iraq was a box of trouble that the US shouldn't have opened, especially when our emphasis should have been on the real war against terror. No matter how bad Hussein may have been for Iraqis, stability in Iraq was the best thing for the US. As likely as Iraq may have been to fall into civil war on its own (absent tyranical repression), the US invasion has made the situation in Iraq even more complicated and divisive.

There are foreign terrorists in Iraq, but that's also a misleading fact. Here's a link to the known armed rogue groups in Iraq:

http://www.rferl.org/specials/IraqCrisis/specials-armedgroups.asp

The first, an Islamic fundamentalist group called Ansar Al-Islam, did have Al-Qaeda connections and did exist prior to the invasion of Iraq. This was an armed group that opposed Saddam Hussein. Since Hussein's departure, this group has had a split, with the Ansar Al-Sunnah Army opposing the US and coalition forces even more actively than they opposed Hussein.

Other groups with foreign backing include Jama'at Al-Tawhid wa Al-Jihad (Zarqawi's group) that moved in after the US invasion; Faylaq Badr (Badr Corps), the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)'s armed wing that was backed by Iran prior to the US invasion (this group was hostile, if ineffective against Hussein and is less than hostile to the coalition government, even if it resists disarming); and Islamic Jihad Brigades of Muhammad's Army, a loose organization of several militant groups that includes a small percentage of foreign terrorist groups.

The groups include Hussein loyalists (Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party and Hussein's son, Uday's, Fedayeen Saddam (Saddam's Martyrs).

The groups also include an anti-Hussein group, Tha'r Allah (Vengeance Detachments) that hunts down former Hussein officials with no regard to the laws of Iraq's provisional government.

The group also include Muqtada Sadr's group (Imam Al-Mahdi Army) and its sub-groups, including the Usbat Al-Huda (The daughter of Guidance), a group of women fighters that conduct suicide attacks against US forces.

And, yes, Bush was very stupid. Beyond any ideological differences I have against his administration, stupidity and incompetence is the main reason I had hoped to see him defeated in the election. Stupidity and incompetence are much more dangerous than a president with an opposing view point.

 

[BobG]

http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID3263.htm

Quote:
In the Summer of 2003, there were some reports that Syrians were often outnumbering locals in carrying out attacks in various locations including Fallujah, Ramadi, Baghdad, Baqubah, Balad, Tikrit and Mosul however, these reports were contradicted by reports in November indicating most fighters in most parts of Iraq have been native Iraqis.

This points out a key difference. Some reports about a few locations in Iraq (notably the Sunni triangle) vs. reports about Iraq, overall.

 

[kat]

BobG-Ansar Al-Islam were not opposition to Saddam, they were opposition to Kurdish opposition forces.

 

[vanesch]

Actually, my feeling was that Iraq was a box of trouble that the US shouldn't have opened, especially when our emphasis should have been on the real war against terror. No matter how bad Hussein may have been for Iraqis, stability in Iraq was the best thing for the US. As likely as Iraq may have been to fall into civil war on its own (absent tyranical repression), the US invasion has made the situation in Iraq even more complicated and divisive.

Amen to that! And the US (and the West) is now taking up the burden of guilt for something which should have remained a local problem.
THIS is what is completely incomprehensible to me that such a thing wasn't clear as crystal to those starting the war. It was clear to most non-US citizens. It was the main reason Bush Sr. didn't go into Iraq. It was what several european nations tried to explain to the Bush administration. It was what Chirac tried to say to the US citizens in a completely failed interview. You cannot be _that_ stupid, can you ? So was there a hidden agenda ?

 

[omin]

BobG,

Thanks for pointing that out.