Poll
50%
50%
Iraq slips towards civil war after attack on Shia shrine
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?
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.
Saddam was a tyrant, but a tyrant who kept everyone in line
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 thatthat 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.
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 thatthat 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 KharmaDog
[B]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.
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.)
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.
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
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,
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?
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
perhaps you should look up firstly the Anfal campaign in 1988the 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
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.[/B][/QUOTE]
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.