Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1715981,00.html

Iraq's political and religious leaders were engaged in a desperate effort last night to stop the country from sliding into civil war after a huge bomb shattered the golden-domed mosque in the city of Samarra, one of Shia Islam's most revered sites.

What happens now?

Take the troops out. We should never have been there in the first place.

Leaving now is as wrong as going in the first place, but it was only a matter of time before the country would slip into further chaos it constantly done so since it was conquered. We'll just have to wait and see how this ends, perhaps it will all cool down again and perhaps a civil war will start, if its the last, a lot more troops would be needed or a full retreat...

The funny thing is, if the country does go into civil war mode, and the coalition forces pull out (which would be wrong, I didn't support the war in the first place, but it's happened, and it has to be finished properly) Iraq will likely end up with another single party dictator with military ties who oppresses the various factions in the name of over all stability, just like Saddam.

Which is also funny, as many analysts before the war began said that, due to the various factions and sects in the area, and the bad blood, what might very well be the best for the nation is for everyone to be kept forcibly on the straight and narrow. Saddam was a tyrant, but a tyrant who kept everyone in line (or nearly.) Whether it's right or not, in certain ways one can see they have a point. Which is a damn shame, if they suffered through all this needless bloodshed only to end up with a new version of the same old same.

situation really looks bad now

he sure did...we should've let him kill another half a million shi'ites...keeping the peace and all that

that mass grave with dead mothers holding babies. especially when the forensic teams realised that the babies were shot first while the mothers were holding them...then the mothers were shot....i really do miss those days...i'm sure you do to

Originally posted by jaden101
he sure did...we should've let him kill another half a million shi'ites...keeping the peace and all that

that mass grave with dead mothers holding babies. especially when the forensic teams realised that the babies were shot first while the mothers were holding them...then the mothers were shot....i really do miss those days...i'm sure you do to

Oh yes. Of course the fact is he was let kill those original half a million Shi'ites by the west (half a million? I don't think I have seen a single history book put the death toll at quite that.) And all those Iranians. And if I'm not mistaken there was some talk about where he got biological weapons to use on them...

Though yes Yes, you seemed to have picked up the "tyrant" I put in - I never disputed he did terrible things. Though it is almost given that in a civil war situation it would be just as bad. You have the massive Shi'ite population, the Sunni minority, and the Kurdish minority. All predisposed to be at each others throats. All well armed Saddam kept them oppressed, used fear, and stopped such a war.

And really, it's wrong to say that suddenly without Saddam it's all sun shine and lolllipops. What is the weekly average of civilians killed in clashes and terrorist bombings? Apparently a couple of weeks ago it was something like ten a week since the war "ended". Which is getting up there with the death rates from the Saddam era. Perhaps you are saying though it's in the definition. People are still dying, but they are dying in the name of democracy and freedom. Which is why it will be terrible if it turns out that after all of this we have a bloody civil war before another military strongman steps in and restores order.

Don't worry, folks. Dubya is on it! He's gonna send in our most potent weapon--Dick-didn't-see-ya-Cheney--to quell the massive unrest.

Iraq slips towards civil war after attack on Shia shrine

Yep, no one say this coming.

Originally posted by Fishy
Leaving now is as wrong as going in the first place

I agree, unfortunately politicians will spin it in a different manner and the troops will pull out leaving utter chaos behind.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The funny thing is, if the country does go into civil war mode, and the coalition forces pull out (which would be wrong, I didn't support the war in the first place, but it's happened, and it has to be finished properly) Iraq will likely end up with another single party dictator with military ties who oppresses the various factions in the name of over all stability, just like Saddam.

Or an islamic fundamentalist nation like Iran. Iran will definately get involved with an Iraqi civil war. Pretty much anyone with a clue predicted that this was likeley to happen.


Originally posted by jaden101
he sure did...we should've let him kill another half a million shi'ites...keeping the peace and all that

1/2 million? Do you have actual numbers on that? Although I agree that he was a homicidal tyrant, I've never seen numbers like that before.

Originally posted by jaden101
that mass grave with dead mothers holding babies. especially when the forensic teams realised that the babies were shot first while the mothers were holding them...then the mothers were shot....i really do miss those days...i'm sure you do to

Jaden, I'm sure that you are intelligent enough to realize that Imperial was not endorsing Sadam's method of gov't but was rather saying that more than likely all this death, destruction and global instability will most likely resultm in a political situation that will be pretty much exactly the same as before, with a decent chance that it will be much worse. I honestly believe that the Iraqi people are going to face such horrors and tumult in the next 5-10 years that many will actually look back in fondness on the reign of Sadam.

Originally posted by Mindship
Don't worry, folks. Dubya is on it! He's gonna send in our most potent weapon--Dick-didn't-see-ya-Cheney--to quell the massive unrest.

That's funny

Originally posted by jaden101
he sure did...we should've let him kill another half a million shi'ites...keeping the peace and all that

that mass grave with dead mothers holding babies. especially when the forensic teams realised that the babies were shot first while the mothers were holding them...then the mothers were shot....i really do miss those days...i'm sure you do to

sarcasm or not, those days will be revisited 10 fold.
and all the feigned emotion and sympathy from the western world
wont stop that. iraq is facing a catastrophic civil war, while our troops
are facing an impending massacre being right smack in the middle of it.

when will people realise this, drop the pointless rhetoric and hind sight justifying
of this war grounded in lies and hypocrisy, and realise what we are really facing?

Originally posted by PVS


when will people realise this, drop the pointless rhetoric and hind sight justifying
of this war grounded in lies and hypocrisy, and realise what we are really facing?

When more of our troops die

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Jaden, I'm sure that you are intelligent enough to realize that Imperial was not endorsing Sadam's method of gov't but was rather saying that more than likely all this death, destruction and global instability will most likely resultm in a political situation that will be pretty much exactly the same as before, with a decent chance that it will be much worse. I honestly believe that the Iraqi people are going to face such horrors and tumult in the next 5-10 years that many will actually look back in fondness on the reign of Sadam.

Exactly.

Could this be the start of WWIII? cry

I'm too young to die a horrible slow death......

Originally posted by debbiejo
Could this be the start of WWIII? cry

I'm too young to die a horrible slow death......

Quickly turn to the quran for guidance.

perhaps you should look up firstly the Anfal campaign in 1988

the was 190,000+ of kurds( doesn't even include any shia)

the action against the shia uprising in the wake of the first gulf was claimed 300,000+ lives

http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php

this site reports that in the 53 confirmed mass graves there have been over 400,000 bodies...there are still another 220+ reported mass graves still to be investigated

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html



indeed...but to say that saddam somehow kept everyone in line through the threat of force is quite incorrect...it implies that the threat was enough....when infact he tried to erradicate the shia population...

its almost akin to saying that hitler kept the germans and jews from killing one another...by killing the jews...a bit of a skewed viewpoint

as for the point about who gave saddam the weapons...saying it completely out of historical context is pointless...why did we arm saddam?...because the Russians were arming Iran...all part of the cold war

i guess you could also blame hitler on the Americans and British given that it was us who rebuilt the economy of Germany after the 1st world war...again it seems rather irrelevant though does it not?

in the same sentence...you never cease to amaze me PVS

Originally posted by PVS
sarcasm or not, those days will be revisited 10 fold.
and all the feigned emotion and sympathy from the western world
wont stop that. iraq is facing a catastrophic civil war, while our troops
are facing an impending massacre being right smack in the middle of it.

when will people realise this, drop the pointless rhetoric and hind sight justifying
of this war grounded in lies and hypocrisy, and realise what we are really facing?

Agreed

Originally posted by debbiejo
Could this be the start of WWIII? cry

IMO, it's already underway, will likely continue for the next 20-40 years, and the worst is yet to come.

Last I checked, though, Michigan wasn't high on anybody's "Let's Kill Americans" list, so you should be relatively safe.

As for us here in NYC...

Originally posted by jaden101
in the same sentence...you never cease to amaze me PVS

way to avoid the point
derp

Originally posted by jaden101
perhaps you should look up firstly the Anfal campaign in 1988

the was 190,000+ of kurds( doesn't even include any shia)

the action against the shia uprising in the wake of the first gulf was claimed 300,000+ lives

http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php

this site reports that in the 53 confirmed mass graves there have been over 400,000 bodies...there are still another 220+ reported mass graves still to be investigated

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html


Kurdish researcher Shoresh Resoul estimates between 60,000 and 110,000' civilians died before, including and directly after Anfal. Some Estimates are higher, but Resoul's numbers are generally accepted to be closer as he is known to be quite meticulous.

No one is saying that Sadam was not a horrible man. What many have said before, and are saying now, is that this war was not about how he was commiting genocide. If that was the reason for this war it would have happened long ago. The people who were in power to stop this are just as guilty for letting it continue as Sadam is for enacting such policies. Also, Sadam's regime did offer a stabilizing effect in the middle east as he was against the fundamentalist islamic ideal that is sweeping the area.

Originally posted by jaden101
as for the point about who gave saddam the weapons...saying it completely out of historical context is pointless...why did we arm saddam?...because the Russians were arming Iran...all part of the cold war

Fair enough, but why did the americans and allies turn a blind eye to Sadams actions in his own country? Because they did not give a sh*t. To use these reason now as a pretext for invasion is just as bad as when these actions were ignored. The reigning powers that were, cared as little for those people as Sadam did, for them to say anything different now is a joke.

Originally posted by jaden101
i guess you could also blame hitler on the Americans and British given that it was us who rebuilt the economy of Germany after the 1st world war...again it seems rather irrelevant though does it not?

I prefer to blame the British and allies for allowing Hitler to act as he did while knowing what he was capable of and intent on doing. The Americans I am just pissed of for waiting so long to get in the fray.

There is a fine line between inactivity and compliance.

I (and I hope I am correct in so thinking) am under the impression that you believe that it is a good thing that Sadam is out of power and that it was a necesary measure. I agree, but the context in which it was done was false, and the power vacuum left behind (not to mention the stupidity an ineffectiveness with which this campaign has been conducted) have set up a situation that is now more of a global threat than a local threat. This is what I think people are trying to say.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, it's already underway, will likely continue for the next 20-40 years, and the worst is yet to come.

Last I checked, though, Michigan wasn't high on anybody's "Let's Kill Americans" list, so you should be relatively safe.

As for us here in NYC... Well Michigan does have the largest population of Muslims in the WHOLE US OF A!!....So.. maybe we'll be OK.......

Look a rhyme..

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well Michigan does have the largest population of Muslims in the WHOLE US OF A!!...

Now isn't That an interestin' lil' fact...
Maybe it's not the fanatics you should be worrying about. But Dubya and his Posse...that's another story...

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Kurdish researcher Shoresh Resoul estimates between 60,000 and 110,000' civilians died before, including and directly after Anfal. Some Estimates are higher, but Resoul's numbers are generally accepted to be closer as he is known to be quite meticulous.

No one is saying that Sadam was not a horrible man. What many have said before, and are saying now, is that this war was not about how he was commiting genocide. If that was the reason for this war it would have happened long ago. The people who were in power to stop this are just as guilty for letting it continue as Sadam is for enacting such policies. Also, Sadam's regime did offer a stabilizing effect in the middle east as he was against the fundamentalist islamic ideal that is sweeping the area.



Fair enough, but why did the americans and allies turn a blind eye to Sadams actions in his own country? Because they did not give a sh*t. To use these reason now as a pretext for invasion is just as bad as when these actions were ignored. The reigning powers that were, cared as little for those people as Sadam did, for them to say anything different now is a joke.



I prefer to blame the British and allies for allowing Hitler to act as he did while knowing what he was capable of and intent on doing. The Americans I am just pissed of for waiting so long to get in the fray.

There is a fine line between inactivity and compliance.

I (and I hope I am correct in so thinking) am under the impression that you believe that it is a good thing that Sadam is out of power and that it was a necesary measure. I agree, but the context in which it was done was false, and the power vacuum left behind (not to mention the stupidity an ineffectiveness with which this campaign has been conducted) have set up a situation that is now more of a global threat than a local threat. This is what I think people are trying to say.

I agree with this post 100%.

I'm a conservative republican, and I support the war because Saddam was an ass, but Dubya lied about it.

No doubt.

I woulda had more respect for him saying "He tried to kill my dad. That, and our country looks to do better with him gone."... rather than the WMD theory. (which had some truth to it, as Clinton has admitted that they suspected he still had weapons, or the plans to make them).

Regardless, Bush stretched the truth to go in there.

He wanted to take out anybody who could "hit us again" (as he likes to say), or anyone who would want to hit us again.

Personally, I'm fine with that.

Somebody who comes into my neighborhood, shoots at my house and my neigbor's house, and kills my brother and one of his kids....

I'm not waiting for him to come back and try again before I do something about it.

I will arm myself, gather a few close friends and go smoke out the bastard, his home, and anyone who looks like him. (women and children excluded of course.)

I for one, am glad that my President thinks that way.

I wish that he would have the balls to have just said so. (but that goes against rules of engagement, geneva convention, popular belief, political correctness...)

One other thing, we knew that Saddam tried to kill Bush #1, why isn't that a good enough reason to get him?

When the hell did our country become a bunch of p*ssy's?

If you or I, or anyone else tried to kill the President, we would be arrested, and charged with, at least, attempted murder, and probably treason, which is punishable by execution.

No middle eastern country would be tolerant of an attempt on their leader.


*whew*.... sorry for the rant.


Back on topic:


Now that we are in this mess, Bush should just increase the troop level.

What do we have? 250,000 to 500,000 over there?

Make it a million.

Go to as many areas as possible, and arrest anyone with a weapon. (no one but Iraqi police/military should be allowed to own a weapon for 2-5 years..... that would make it easy to identify insurgents more quickly.)

Clean this deal up, and get the hell out of there.

After that, its up to the people who live there.

Unfortunately, there are alot of cultural biases, and deep-rooted feelings of hate from one group to another.

Things may very well end up as they were before, unless we put our own person there to run the country for a few years.

(but that would make us invaders/occupiers/rulers of another country, which would never be allowed)

They should have just sent special ops in to cut his throat in the middle of the night, and see what happened from there.

(I don't know if that would have been possible, but......)

indeed...and i've always thought that is a huge problem with our cherished democracy

it's not really accurate to say "America" did this or "America" didn't do that in a historical context...because no democratic country is run by the same people with the same intentions as time goes by...

you also cant take action or inaction towards other nations as merely one country against another...they had and still have global implications...between the 1950's and 1980's...most actions were taken in other countries such as vietnam, korea and the middle east as spin offs from the cold war



it was an idiotic way to go to war...whether or not it was deliberate misleading of the UN or whether it was genuinly mistaken intelligence was a massive mistake by the allies...but the fact remains that if George Bush had gone to the senate...the American people and the UN with evidence of mass graves and huge ethnic cleansing...and said he had to act against Saddam...the response would have been a resounding NO from each...and the pretext is there for it...Rwanda, East Timor, Darfour,



what was your point?...that things are bad in Iraq?...wow...profound...truely

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I agree with this post 100%.

You don't know how much that frightens me.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
He wanted to take out anybody who could "hit us again" (as he likes to say), or anyone who would want to hit us again.

If that was true then he would have gotten Osama instead of forgetting about him and would have definitely dome something about Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Somebody who comes into my neighborhood, shoots at my house and my neigbor's house, and kills my brother and one of his kids....

What about somebody who encourages a war and strife between countries and profits from both sides? Because the U.S. did that as well as much more. Do you have any clue about your country's past foreign policies?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I for one, am glad that my President thinks that way.

Your president thinks just enough to make horrible decisions and make himself look like an idiot.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Now that we are in this mess, Bush should just increase the troop level.

What do we have? 250,000 to 500,000 over there?

Make it a million.

You are indeed clueless. Not only do you not understand the situation, you have absolutely no clue about the catastrophic logistical and economic nightmare that you just proposed.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Go to as many areas as possible, and arrest anyone with a weapon. (no one but Iraqi police/military should be allowed to own a weapon for 2-5 years..... that would make it easy to identify insurgents more quickly.)

You do realize that not only is this impossible, but that you would have the entire country rebelling against you instead of just the insurgents?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Things may very well end up as they were before, unless we put our own person there to run the country for a few years.

Sadam was your own person to begin with. The U.S. has tried that many times and it has failed each time. Do have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
They should have just sent special ops in to cut his throat in the middle of the night, and see what happened from there.

(I don't know if that would have been possible, but......)

Not only is it possible, but it is against international law. Not only that, but such an action would have left a power vacuum that probably would have been filled by one of his own sons, which would have been much worse.

Please don't agree with me in the future, It scares me to think that we even remotely see things the same way.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You don't know how much that frightens me.




Please don't agree with me in the future, It scares me to think that we even remotely see things the same way.


Damn that freedom of speech.


I don't completely agree with your point of view, ... make you feel better?


I agree that the war was started under false(I prefer "thin"pretenses, and has the potential to become a bigger, more unstable problem, if not handled correctly.

(I also have no clue as to what "correctly" would be.)

The style of killings is remiding of the type of religous riots in India.

This can turn very ugly for Iraq. Remeber that cleric who almost brought Iraq to its knees and killed dozens of US troops? If that type of violence goes starts agin it will not only caused the deaths of many Iraqis but also the deaths of many Soldiers.

Originally posted by manny321
The style of killings is remiding of the type of religous riots in India.

This can turn very ugly for Iraq. Remeber that cleric who almost brought Iraq to its knees and killed dozens of US troops? If that type of violence goes starts agin it will not only caused the deaths of many Iraqis but also the deaths of many Soldiers.

It does a bit

Originally posted by sithsaber408

I'm a conservative republican, and I support the war because Saddam was an ass, but Dubya lied about it.

No doubt.



I can't help but think that this is the most representative post made that illustrates the very core problem with Americans on that side of the aisle. It's an ends justifying the means kind of logic. This presidency has managed to justify going to war by !lying! to us.

No one will argue that Saddam was a bad man. However, how have we become any better than Iraq during the first Gulf War?

As absurd as it may seem, a civil war in Iraq could actually be a 'good' thing. At least it would allow a fully representative government to emerge. The problem is that it could easily lead to a return to the authoritarian-style governement that the US 'liberated' Iraq from.

These are just initial thoughts. They could be garbage.

yeah maybe it could be good however its grounded with religious overtures.

If its not shiites then its sunnis or they can gang up on the jewish or the reality is they have alot of conflict inspired by religion over thar

Actually, the worrying thing is that for some Iraqis the bomb was not set by the other muslims, but by America to provoke the civil war.
Some of them claim that the shrine was not touched for 1000, but as soon as USA moved in, it happened.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually, the worrying thing is that for some Iraqis the bomb was not set by the other muslims, but by America to provoke the civil war.
Some of them claim that the shrine was not touched for 1000, but as soon as USA moved in, it happened.

Yes I heard this from Deano

I heard it was the Pope...he want's to destory Islam...?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually, the worrying thing is that for some Iraqis the bomb was not set by the other muslims, but by America to provoke the civil war.
Some of them claim that the shrine was not touched for 1000, but as soon as USA moved in, it happened.



an ounce of doubt can create a pound of belief..............yeah yeah Maybe Lil however one could also contend that soonis did this in a time it would make the US take blame.................those sneaky guys

Whatever the reason one thing is for certain the middle east has been a hotbed for violence far before the USA ever put its foot over there and religion has been a driving factor for a great deal of it.

If you want to blame anyone, don't blame Hitler. Iraq was created after teh first world war. The allies in that war were the ones who decided to set up a state comprised of two radically different religions and the Kurds.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
As absurd as it may seem, a civil war in Iraq could actually be a 'good' thing. At least it would allow a fully representative government to emerge. The problem is that it could easily lead to a return to the authoritarian-style governement that the US 'liberated' Iraq from.

These are just initial thoughts. They could be garbage.

I hate to differ with you. But civil war in Iraq is not a good thing. It's not a good thing for the trops this administration will leave there to get slaughtered during it's opening. It's not a good thing for non-muslim governments all over the world, and it's not a good thing in regards to th egrowing threat of Iran as a nuclear power.

I understand what you are saying. I also agree that civil war is a terrible thing, but perhaps it is the only way that the allegations of US interference can be dissolved. Basically, I was just wondering whether the organic nature of a civil war would ultimately allow a representative government, supported by the majority of the people, to be formed. It certainly would reduce the amount of outside interference that currently goes on there. Ideally, it wouldn't happen, but then ideally the US wouldn't have led an invasion that was rejected by the UN.

This area of the world is pretty much screwed.....the hatred runs so deep that I dont see any lasting peace for a very very long time.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
This area of the world is pretty much screwed.....the hatred runs so deep that I dont see any lasting peace for a very very long time.

true...but while Northern Ireland still has problem with working together politically...there isn't the same degree of violence as there was...and the hatred there ran as deep as anywhere in the middle east

its probably the best comparison given that both are hatred steeped in religious bigotry

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I prefer to blame the British and allies for allowing Hitler to act as he did while knowing what he was capable of and intent on doing. The Americans I am just pissed of for waiting so long to get in the fray.


Oh my , please let me forgive you for our incompetence even though were 1/8 the size of your country and near enough had Germany up the whazoo . Were so sorry for not acting when we should have.

Originally posted by grey fox
Oh my , please let me forgive you for our incompetence even though were 1/8 the size of your country and near enough had Germany up the whazoo . Were so sorry for not acting when we should have.

you may remember Dunkirk..fact is we got our asses severely kicked by the Germans before D-Day

only the RAF held their own before the US lended a hand

Originally posted by grey fox
Oh my , please let me forgive you for our incompetence even though were 1/8 the size of your country and near enough had Germany up the whazoo . Were so sorry for not acting when we should have.

1/8 the size of canada? what's that have to do with anything? You had a higher population back then and far more political and military power.

I fail to see the point of your sarcasm.