Liberals/leftist/Bushhaters want the US to lose. They don't care what happens to Iraq after that. QUAGMIRE! Pull up the tent stakes and retreat!
Actually, I think that many liberals feel that the situation will be terrible it the U.S. stays, and terrible if, having, arrived in the manner they did, they just leave. Damned if they do; damned if they don't.
Probably some conservatives feel the same way. The difference is, however, that liberals don't think that it had to be this way. Poor decisions in initiating the war and poor decisions in running the "peace" have made an already tricky situation worse in this area of the world and have contributed nothing - nothing - to U.S security.
Liberals/leftist/Bushhaters want the US to lose. They don't care what happens to Iraq after that. QUAGMIRE! Pull up the tent stakes and retreat!
No Scott. Liberals, leftists and Bush-haters want Iraqis and Americans to stop dying because of the hubris and seeming cluelessness of the Bush administration.
On the other hand, it certainly seems that Conservatives, right-wingers and Bush-lovers* are content to see more deaths as long as it allows them to preserve their distorted view of the world.
Edit: *If you take the cross section on AO as representative.
I'm an American. I take responsibility for the ineptitude of our leaders.
I was referring to populous in the latin sense of the word. I should have italicized it.
I didn't quote it for that exact reason - You did not in fact use the word 'all". It is called an "inference".
How else can one interpret "The civilians ARE the combatants now."?
"the" + "civilians" = all
Again, this is why one shouldn't be too cute with the semantics game. It is needlessly distracting and can easily be used against oneself.
On the other point, you might take responsibility for the ineptitude of our leaders but I sure as heck don't. I voted against him and I'll do it again. I can protest all I want but voting is the way we change leadership and voice our disapproval. Mighty Catholic of you to feel such guilt for things beyond your control.
Whoop, crank up the "we are all part of the problem/we can make a difference" klaxxon! Red Alert!
Short of sedition, there ain't much else you can do beyond voting, writing, protesting, speaking, marching etc.
No guilt here. Just strong disapproval and resolve to extricate ourselves from this -in good time- but not rushed. It "is started", we need to finish it properly and gracefully.
Why do you think I used the quotes around the word 'thought'? Quit playing coy semantics. One can reasonably speak of organizations as if they are an individuals. You likely do it all the time yourself. Don't even go there.
After I posted, I realized you would need it explained a little more clearly. How about this: heterogeneous. Got it?
Oh, and this imaginary 'thought' the UN had was a tad more complicated than you are making it, to put it mildly.
Quote:
Since, if the idea that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years" is a lie, then obviously a resolution predicated on the belief that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years" would also be a lie.
Bush citing non-existent IAEA report of Iraq being months away from nuclear weapons (IAEA pointed out no such report existed) saying "I don't know what more evidence we need."
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Lies and distortions. This is irrefutable fact, john. Deal with it.
What were the UN's finding on as opposed to the US's claims? Check out that top link again.
Here's the speech that outlines the reasons for going to war with Saddam. Please compare to whatever revisionist history you've been reading that "entirely discredits" the reasons for going there.
Ah, but are we lucky we have Fleisher to make it simple for you: "We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction -- that is what this war was about and is about."
I didn't quote it for that exact reason - You did not in fact use the word 'all". It is called an "inference".
How else can one interpret "The civilians ARE the combatants now."?
"the" + "civilians" = all
Again, this is why one shouldn't be too cute with the semantics game. It is needlessly distracting and can easily be used against oneself.
I'm glad you saw fit to read so much into my statement. I don't recall ever playing any games with you, semantic or otherwise, though.
Quote:
On the other point, you might take responsibility for the ineptitude of our leaders but I sure as heck don't. I voted against him and I'll do it again. I can protest all I want but voting is the way we change leadership and voice our disapproval. Mighty Catholic of you to feel such guilt for things beyond your control.
Did I say I felt guilty? No, I *said* I take responsibility. They are not the same thing. Not even close.
Quote:
Short of sedition, there ain't much else you can do beyond voting, writing, protesting, speaking, marching etc.
No guilt here. Just strong disapproval and resolve to extricate ourselves from this -in good time- but not rushed. It "is started", we need to finish it properly and gracefully.
Speaking and protesting are what I'm doing. I'm not sure why you think I was suggesting otherwise. Where's your argument again? I'm not sure I'm seeing it.
-t
ps - In case you missed my point while you were playing games with yourself, the population has begun to turn against the coalition forces. It's going to get harder and harder to distinguish between the real "combatants" and those who are just plain mad about the fact that their holy sites are being destroyed by non-believers. Disregard for a moment whether their interpretation of the situation is accurate or if they don't fully understand the reasons why these sites are being destroyed. Their reality is that the US came in promising peace and prosperity and they haven't delivered and are killing their friends and loved ones.
It's going to get harder and harder to distinguish between the real "combatants" and those who are just plain mad about the fact that their holy sites are being destroyed by non-believers. Disregard for a moment whether their interpretation of the situation is accurate or if they don't fully understand the reasons why these sites are being destroyed. Their reality is that the US came in promising peace and prosperity and they haven't delivered and are killing their friends and loved ones.
They have desecrated their own holy sites when they fire weapons from within them. That is the reality of their actions. They should realize there will be consequences for such actions, as well. If they really valued these structures, they wouldn't be putting them at risk with their own actions (same goes for taking cover among civilians). This needs to be acknowledged by reasonable people instead of perpetuating the myth that coalition forces have nothing better to do than indiscriminantly fire upon holy mosques. The Iraqi people are not "saved" by our action or inaction. They are saved by their own actions. If they are to choose anarchy and tribal/religious tyranny, they will lose, and justifiably so. That is not a scenario where they will find "salvation" either way (they are just screwed, period, with that choice). If they choose civilization and democracy, then that is a plan to work on.
THE OCCUPATION OF Iraq by the United States and its few allies has become increasingly untenable with the Shia community in the country joining the armed uprising against the foreign forces. The Coalition Provisional Authority, the instrumentality with which the occupation is administered, prefers to characterise the violent clashes between foreign troops and a militia loyal to Shia cleric Moqtada al Sadr as nothing more than isolated and easily controllable incidents. However, the Shias are not likely to quieten down soon, as more than 60 members of the community have already been killed in clashes in Baghdad, Kufa and several other towns in southern Iraq. They may well be further inflamed if the Authority carries out its threat to arrest Mr. Al Sadr. Other political and paramilitary organisations, representing Sunnis as well as Shias, are understood to have contacted the firebrand cleric. An occupation force already under considerable pressure from guerrillas will find itself in a dire situation if the insurgents act upon Mr. Al Sadr's instructions that they should emulate Hamas and Hizbollah in the efforts to "intimidate their enemies." While Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other senior clerics do not approve of the politics or methods of the Sadr-led militia, they might not be able to stop the masses from rallying to its cause.
The relationship between the Shias and the occupation forces was far from smooth even before this phase of violence. Washington might have thought that it was entitled to the gratitude of Iraq's majority community that is well-positioned to take over power when, and if, the occupation ends. However, the Shias take an entirely different view of the sequence of events. They have not forgotten that the U.S. had at first encouraged them to rise against the regime of Saddam Hussein at the end of the 1991 war and then failed to come to their rescue when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt. The Shias' scepticism about American motives is reinforced by the perception that their liberation was not the main objective that the invaders sought to achieve in 2003, all the propaganda notwithstanding. The manner in which the Authority controlled developments after the invasion has exacerbated rather than allayed Shia misgivings. The community has reservations about the draft interim constitution and has reason to be displeased with the procedures adopted for setting up an interim government that will take office before June 30. The Authority has already hand-picked nominees to head the health, education, defence and intelligence ministries and is likely to constitute the rest of the Cabinet in similar fashion. While a Shia is likely to be appointed Prime Minister, the community will not have much reason to be satisfied. They and other Iraqis are aware that the Authority will continue to wield real power even after a nominal transfer.
The occupying powers will come under greater pressure if the various elements of the Iraqi resistance forge links with one another. That denouement, once unthinkable, does not now appear remote for a couple of reasons. One, Sunnis are already present in the Sadr militia's camp and two, the Shias have not turned against the other sect even when members of their community were killed in the several suicide bombings that have taken place. Sections of Sunni militants have, in fact, tried to keep alive the chances of unity between the two communities by trying to ensure that their resistance movement was not taken over by sectarian extremists. Iraq's turmoil is far from over.
Then you have this news from today.
Quote:
The uprising in Iraq against American occupation gathered momentum today with Shia fighters taking control of three major towns and holding on to three others. Kirkuk in the north emerged as the new flashpoint.
In the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah, where a major U.S. operation is under way, around 40 persons were killed when a U.S. helicopter fired three missiles at a mosque compound.
The U.S. military command in the country today threatened to "destroy" the key Shia militia heading the uprising after the killing of 12 U.S. troops in an attack in the restive town of Ramadi on Tuesday. The U.S. military commander in Iraq, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, told a news conference that, "in the central and southern regions of Iraq, coalition and Iraqi security forces are conducting operations to destroy the Mehdi army."
The Mehdi army is the militia loyal to the firebrand Shia cleric, Moqtada al Sadr.
The attack on the mosque in Fallujah took place when worshippers had gathered for afternoon prayers. Soon after the strike, cars ferried bodies from the scene to makeshift hospitals that were set up in private homes.
Angry residents gathered around the mosque, whose wall was partly destroyed. Mosques in Fallujah have called for a "holy war" against Americans. Women carrying guns were seen on the streets before the attack.
In Kirkuk, in the north, an estimated 1,500 people took part in a violent demonstration protesting against the U.S. "massacres" in Fallujah. At least eight Iraqis were shot dead and 12 wounded in an exchange of fire with U.S. forces.
In the fighting for the Sunni cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, at least 30 Americans and more than 150 Iraqis were reported killed.
Analysts say that the attack in Ramadi, dominated by Sunnis, could be "diversionary" and intended to ease the pressure on fighters encircled in Fallujah. It is seen as the first major instance of military coordination between Sunni and Shia guerilla fighters.
As the anti-American revolt swept through Iraq, Shia fighters brought down a U.S. helicopter in Baquba, a town on the outskirts of Baghdad. Television pictures showed the chopper burning on a field, but there has been no word on casualties so far.
(A Reuters report from Beirut quoted a top aide of Mr. Al Sadr as saying that the cleric's forces had captured a number of coalition soldiers during clashes throughout Iraq.)
On the fourth day of the revolt, Ukrainian forces allied to the U.S. occupation have withdrawn from the southern Iraqi town of Al Kut, which is now under the control of Mr. Al Sadr's forces. The Mehdi army has also taken a firm hold on Kufa, on the outskirts of Najaf, as well as on Diwaniyeh, the first town that has fallen to the militia.
There is no exit policy from Iraq. I am willing to take bets that the coalition / occupying forces will not leave Iraq this June or anytime soon. I just hope we don't end up with another Palestine like situation.
Yes, I realize that, JohnQ. It's pretty much a given. My principle is that it is still good to peep up every now and then just to make them realize that not everyone has been brainwashed by "Air America" radio type of media. It's pretty obvious when you can pick out keywords and phrases which are being consistently repeated just to rile people up on an emotional level. At this point, it has come down to dealing with people who are clearly in a reactively thinking fervor rather than an objectively thinking condition.
What may be most damaging about this hysteria over Bush' intentions, and Iraq as an abject failure---is that when you throw terms like "liar" and Quagmire" around---either for effect or simple tools of rehotric---you run the risk of loosing sight of the truth.
That's the "common knowledge" the Air America gang wishes to seed so that when June comes and they don't see ships and troops in a massive exodus, they can point out, "Aha! See I told you so! It's just like I had predicted..."
The relationship between the Shias and the occupation forces was far from smooth even before this phase of violence. Washington might have thought that it was entitled to the gratitude of Iraq's majority community that is well-positioned to take over power when, and if, the occupation ends. However, the Shias take an entirely different view of the sequence of events. They have not forgotten that the U.S. had at first encouraged them to rise against the regime of Saddam Hussein at the end of the 1991 war and then failed to come to their rescue when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt.
And your precious U.N. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the U.N. come to their rescue?
The French did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the French come to their rescue?
The E.U. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the E.U. come to their rescue?
The Ba'athists are responsible for their own brutality against their so-called brothers and so-called fellow Muslims.
The U.S. has bloodied hands, no doubt. But to pretend everything is America's fault is silly.
If the Shi'ia can take on the U.S. military they could have damn well taken on the Ba'athists.
Quit expecting us to break up these internal power struggles. It's a snake pit.
And your precious U.N. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the U.N. come to their rescue?
The French did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the French come to their rescue?
The E.U. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the E.U. come to their rescue?
The Ba'athists are responsible for their own brutality against their so-called brothers and so-called fellow Muslims.
The U.S. has bloodied hands, no doubt. But to pretend everything is America's fault is silly.
If the Shi'ia can take on the U.S. military they could have damn well taken on the Ba'athists.
Quit expecting us to break up these internal power struggles. It's a snake pit.
You forgot about how France and Russia corrupted "Oil for Food" for their own (and Saddam') profit. And also how Kofi is going to white wash the whole thing with a "high level" investigation to protect his son.
Comments
Liberals/leftist/Bushhaters want the US to lose. They don't care what happens to Iraq after that. QUAGMIRE! Pull up the tent stakes and retreat!
Originally posted by johnq
All of the civilians are combatants? You should work at the Pentagon.
Did I *say* all?
"We" done gone and fvcked up the country? I did? You did? Giant too?
I'm an American. I take responsibility for the ineptitude of our leaders.
A populous isn't a mind, so it cannot be "pissed off" at anything.
I was referring to populous in the latin sense of the word. I should have italicized it.
Originally posted by Scott
Liberals/leftist/Bushhaters want the US to lose. They don't care what happens to Iraq after that. QUAGMIRE! Pull up the tent stakes and retreat!
Actually, I think that many liberals feel that the situation will be terrible it the U.S. stays, and terrible if, having, arrived in the manner they did, they just leave. Damned if they do; damned if they don't.
Probably some conservatives feel the same way. The difference is, however, that liberals don't think that it had to be this way. Poor decisions in initiating the war and poor decisions in running the "peace" have made an already tricky situation worse in this area of the world and have contributed nothing - nothing - to U.S security.
Originally posted by Scott
FUD
Liberals/leftist/Bushhaters want the US to lose. They don't care what happens to Iraq after that. QUAGMIRE! Pull up the tent stakes and retreat!
No Scott. Liberals, leftists and Bush-haters want Iraqis and Americans to stop dying because of the hubris and seeming cluelessness of the Bush administration.
On the other hand, it certainly seems that Conservatives, right-wingers and Bush-lovers* are content to see more deaths as long as it allows them to preserve their distorted view of the world.
Edit: *If you take the cross section on AO as representative.
Originally posted by torifile
Did I *say* all?
I'm an American. I take responsibility for the ineptitude of our leaders.
I was referring to populous in the latin sense of the word. I should have italicized it.
I didn't quote it for that exact reason - You did not in fact use the word 'all". It is called an "inference".
How else can one interpret "The civilians ARE the combatants now."?
"the" + "civilians" = all
Again, this is why one shouldn't be too cute with the semantics game. It is needlessly distracting and can easily be used against oneself.
On the other point, you might take responsibility for the ineptitude of our leaders but I sure as heck don't. I voted against him and I'll do it again. I can protest all I want but voting is the way we change leadership and voice our disapproval. Mighty Catholic of you to feel such guilt for things beyond your control.
Whoop, crank up the "we are all part of the problem/we can make a difference" klaxxon! Red Alert!
Short of sedition, there ain't much else you can do beyond voting, writing, protesting, speaking, marching etc.
No guilt here. Just strong disapproval and resolve to extricate ourselves from this -in good time- but not rushed. It "is started", we need to finish it properly and gracefully.
Originally posted by johnq
Why do you think I used the quotes around the word 'thought'? Quit playing coy semantics. One can reasonably speak of organizations as if they are an individuals. You likely do it all the time yourself. Don't even go there.
After I posted, I realized you would need it explained a little more clearly. How about this: heterogeneous. Got it?
Oh, and this imaginary 'thought' the UN had was a tad more complicated than you are making it, to put it mildly.
Since, if the idea that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years" is a lie, then obviously a resolution predicated on the belief that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years" would also be a lie.
Again, you are invoking a straw man.
Many of the claims made by the US were lies coupled with distortions of UN findings. This information is readily available. One example of each:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
And a couple quotes to note:
"We found the weapons of mass destruction."
Bush citing non-existent IAEA report of Iraq being months away from nuclear weapons (IAEA pointed out no such report existed) saying "I don't know what more evidence we need."
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Lies and distortions. This is irrefutable fact, john. Deal with it.
What were the UN's finding on as opposed to the US's claims? Check out that top link again.
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html
Originally posted by dviant
Here's the speech that outlines the reasons for going to war with Saddam. Please compare to whatever revisionist history you've been reading that "entirely discredits" the reasons for going there.
Ah, but are we lucky we have Fleisher to make it simple for you: "We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction -- that is what this war was about and is about."
Originally posted by johnq
I didn't quote it for that exact reason - You did not in fact use the word 'all". It is called an "inference".
How else can one interpret "The civilians ARE the combatants now."?
"the" + "civilians" = all
Again, this is why one shouldn't be too cute with the semantics game. It is needlessly distracting and can easily be used against oneself.
I'm glad you saw fit to read so much into my statement. I don't recall ever playing any games with you, semantic or otherwise, though.
On the other point, you might take responsibility for the ineptitude of our leaders but I sure as heck don't. I voted against him and I'll do it again. I can protest all I want but voting is the way we change leadership and voice our disapproval. Mighty Catholic of you to feel such guilt for things beyond your control.
Did I say I felt guilty? No, I *said* I take responsibility. They are not the same thing. Not even close.
Short of sedition, there ain't much else you can do beyond voting, writing, protesting, speaking, marching etc.
No guilt here. Just strong disapproval and resolve to extricate ourselves from this -in good time- but not rushed. It "is started", we need to finish it properly and gracefully.
Speaking and protesting are what I'm doing. I'm not sure why you think I was suggesting otherwise. Where's your argument again? I'm not sure I'm seeing it.
-t
ps - In case you missed my point while you were playing games with yourself, the population has begun to turn against the coalition forces. It's going to get harder and harder to distinguish between the real "combatants" and those who are just plain mad about the fact that their holy sites are being destroyed by non-believers. Disregard for a moment whether their interpretation of the situation is accurate or if they don't fully understand the reasons why these sites are being destroyed. Their reality is that the US came in promising peace and prosperity and they haven't delivered and are killing their friends and loved ones.
I'm sure they're not feeling too liberated now.
Originally posted by torifile
It's going to get harder and harder to distinguish between the real "combatants" and those who are just plain mad about the fact that their holy sites are being destroyed by non-believers. Disregard for a moment whether their interpretation of the situation is accurate or if they don't fully understand the reasons why these sites are being destroyed. Their reality is that the US came in promising peace and prosperity and they haven't delivered and are killing their friends and loved ones.
They have desecrated their own holy sites when they fire weapons from within them. That is the reality of their actions. They should realize there will be consequences for such actions, as well. If they really valued these structures, they wouldn't be putting them at risk with their own actions (same goes for taking cover among civilians). This needs to be acknowledged by reasonable people instead of perpetuating the myth that coalition forces have nothing better to do than indiscriminantly fire upon holy mosques. The Iraqi people are not "saved" by our action or inaction. They are saved by their own actions. If they are to choose anarchy and tribal/religious tyranny, they will lose, and justifiably so. That is not a scenario where they will find "salvation" either way (they are just screwed, period, with that choice). If they choose civilization and democracy, then that is a plan to work on.
You won't get far with this crowd. They hear what they want to hear and drown the rest out...
THE OCCUPATION OF Iraq by the United States and its few allies has become increasingly untenable with the Shia community in the country joining the armed uprising against the foreign forces. The Coalition Provisional Authority, the instrumentality with which the occupation is administered, prefers to characterise the violent clashes between foreign troops and a militia loyal to Shia cleric Moqtada al Sadr as nothing more than isolated and easily controllable incidents. However, the Shias are not likely to quieten down soon, as more than 60 members of the community have already been killed in clashes in Baghdad, Kufa and several other towns in southern Iraq. They may well be further inflamed if the Authority carries out its threat to arrest Mr. Al Sadr. Other political and paramilitary organisations, representing Sunnis as well as Shias, are understood to have contacted the firebrand cleric. An occupation force already under considerable pressure from guerrillas will find itself in a dire situation if the insurgents act upon Mr. Al Sadr's instructions that they should emulate Hamas and Hizbollah in the efforts to "intimidate their enemies." While Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other senior clerics do not approve of the politics or methods of the Sadr-led militia, they might not be able to stop the masses from rallying to its cause.
The relationship between the Shias and the occupation forces was far from smooth even before this phase of violence. Washington might have thought that it was entitled to the gratitude of Iraq's majority community that is well-positioned to take over power when, and if, the occupation ends. However, the Shias take an entirely different view of the sequence of events. They have not forgotten that the U.S. had at first encouraged them to rise against the regime of Saddam Hussein at the end of the 1991 war and then failed to come to their rescue when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt. The Shias' scepticism about American motives is reinforced by the perception that their liberation was not the main objective that the invaders sought to achieve in 2003, all the propaganda notwithstanding. The manner in which the Authority controlled developments after the invasion has exacerbated rather than allayed Shia misgivings. The community has reservations about the draft interim constitution and has reason to be displeased with the procedures adopted for setting up an interim government that will take office before June 30. The Authority has already hand-picked nominees to head the health, education, defence and intelligence ministries and is likely to constitute the rest of the Cabinet in similar fashion. While a Shia is likely to be appointed Prime Minister, the community will not have much reason to be satisfied. They and other Iraqis are aware that the Authority will continue to wield real power even after a nominal transfer.
The occupying powers will come under greater pressure if the various elements of the Iraqi resistance forge links with one another. That denouement, once unthinkable, does not now appear remote for a couple of reasons. One, Sunnis are already present in the Sadr militia's camp and two, the Shias have not turned against the other sect even when members of their community were killed in the several suicide bombings that have taken place. Sections of Sunni militants have, in fact, tried to keep alive the chances of unity between the two communities by trying to ensure that their resistance movement was not taken over by sectarian extremists. Iraq's turmoil is far from over.
Then you have this news from today.
The uprising in Iraq against American occupation gathered momentum today with Shia fighters taking control of three major towns and holding on to three others. Kirkuk in the north emerged as the new flashpoint.
In the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah, where a major U.S. operation is under way, around 40 persons were killed when a U.S. helicopter fired three missiles at a mosque compound.
The U.S. military command in the country today threatened to "destroy" the key Shia militia heading the uprising after the killing of 12 U.S. troops in an attack in the restive town of Ramadi on Tuesday. The U.S. military commander in Iraq, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, told a news conference that, "in the central and southern regions of Iraq, coalition and Iraqi security forces are conducting operations to destroy the Mehdi army."
The Mehdi army is the militia loyal to the firebrand Shia cleric, Moqtada al Sadr.
The attack on the mosque in Fallujah took place when worshippers had gathered for afternoon prayers. Soon after the strike, cars ferried bodies from the scene to makeshift hospitals that were set up in private homes.
Angry residents gathered around the mosque, whose wall was partly destroyed. Mosques in Fallujah have called for a "holy war" against Americans. Women carrying guns were seen on the streets before the attack.
In Kirkuk, in the north, an estimated 1,500 people took part in a violent demonstration protesting against the U.S. "massacres" in Fallujah. At least eight Iraqis were shot dead and 12 wounded in an exchange of fire with U.S. forces.
In the fighting for the Sunni cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, at least 30 Americans and more than 150 Iraqis were reported killed.
Analysts say that the attack in Ramadi, dominated by Sunnis, could be "diversionary" and intended to ease the pressure on fighters encircled in Fallujah. It is seen as the first major instance of military coordination between Sunni and Shia guerilla fighters.
As the anti-American revolt swept through Iraq, Shia fighters brought down a U.S. helicopter in Baquba, a town on the outskirts of Baghdad. Television pictures showed the chopper burning on a field, but there has been no word on casualties so far.
(A Reuters report from Beirut quoted a top aide of Mr. Al Sadr as saying that the cleric's forces had captured a number of coalition soldiers during clashes throughout Iraq.)
On the fourth day of the revolt, Ukrainian forces allied to the U.S. occupation have withdrawn from the southern Iraqi town of Al Kut, which is now under the control of Mr. Al Sadr's forces. The Mehdi army has also taken a firm hold on Kufa, on the outskirts of Najaf, as well as on Diwaniyeh, the first town that has fallen to the militia.
There is no exit policy from Iraq. I am willing to take bets that the coalition / occupying forces will not leave Iraq this June or anytime soon. I just hope we don't end up with another Palestine like situation.
Yeah right!...
Originally posted by talksense101
The relationship between the Shias and the occupation forces was far from smooth even before this phase of violence. Washington might have thought that it was entitled to the gratitude of Iraq's majority community that is well-positioned to take over power when, and if, the occupation ends. However, the Shias take an entirely different view of the sequence of events. They have not forgotten that the U.S. had at first encouraged them to rise against the regime of Saddam Hussein at the end of the 1991 war and then failed to come to their rescue when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt.
And your precious U.N. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the U.N. come to their rescue?
The French did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the French come to their rescue?
The E.U. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the E.U. come to their rescue?
The Ba'athists are responsible for their own brutality against their so-called brothers and so-called fellow Muslims.
The U.S. has bloodied hands, no doubt. But to pretend everything is America's fault is silly.
If the Shi'ia can take on the U.S. military they could have damn well taken on the Ba'athists.
Quit expecting us to break up these internal power struggles. It's a snake pit.
they turn over power to an interim government...
that has no power.
What's the plan? Anyone know? I haven't heard one.
They've had a year and they're still making no progress...
democracy isn't happening.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
They have no plan. June 30th means nothing...
they turn over power to an interim government...
that has no power.
What's the plan? Anyone know? I haven't heard one.
They've had a year and they're still making no progress...
democracy isn't happening.
FUD
Originally posted by johnq
And your precious U.N. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the U.N. come to their rescue?
The French did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the French come to their rescue?
The E.U. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the E.U. come to their rescue?
The Ba'athists are responsible for their own brutality against their so-called brothers and so-called fellow Muslims.
The U.S. has bloodied hands, no doubt. But to pretend everything is America's fault is silly.
If the Shi'ia can take on the U.S. military they could have damn well taken on the Ba'athists.
Quit expecting us to break up these internal power struggles. It's a snake pit.
You forgot about how France and Russia corrupted "Oil for Food" for their own (and Saddam') profit. And also how Kofi is going to white wash the whole thing with a "high level" investigation to protect his son.