Civil war in Iraq "Likely"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Get a new shtick Moonie. I am just repeating what General Odom has been saying for two years now. Why do I believe him? Because he's been right about everything so far in this war from the initial dead calm to the "greatest strategic disaster in america's history" to "reverse domino therory" in the ME.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,156
6,317
126
No need for anything new. What I'm saying has been right for maybe 100, 000 years.
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Yeah I agree... let's abandon Iraq, and run away with our tails between our legs...

You people are idiots, why does everyone expect to be able to fight a war without killing people?
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: Doboji
Yeah I agree... let's abandon Iraq, and run away with our tails between our legs...

You people are idiots, why does everyone expect to be able to fight a war without killing people?

What war? Was it even declared or authorized?
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: Doboji
Yeah I agree... let's abandon Iraq, and run away with our tails between our legs...

You people are idiots, why does everyone expect to be able to fight a war without killing people?

What war? Was it even declared or authorized?

Does a war have to authorized or declared in order to be a war?

-Max
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,156
6,317
126
Originally posted by: Doboji
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: Doboji
Yeah I agree... let's abandon Iraq, and run away with our tails between our legs...

You people are idiots, why does everyone expect to be able to fight a war without killing people?

What war? Was it even declared or authorized?

Does a war have to authorized or declared in order to be a war?

-Max

No, but let's call it what is is, an occupation. It certainly is not a war. That mission was accomplished long ago. We won the war in a few days, of course because there were no WMD to slow us down.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Under the War Powers Act Congress needs to agree to the continued use of the Military and they did... not sure if you've read the broad aspects of the resolution Bush submitted but it seems to me he can keep the troops involved until every terrorist on earth is found..
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,156
6,317
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Under the War Powers Act Congress needs to agree to the continued use of the Military and they did... not sure if you've read the broad aspects of the resolution Bush submitted but it seems to me he can keep the troops involved until every terrorist on earth is found..

You should vote against every member of the house and Senate that will not vote to take back the power to declare all war. Everybody knew what would happen if a monster like Bush came to power.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,212
9,007
136
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Zebo
Calling it Bush's fault is an oversimplifiation. The Sunni Shi'a sectarian split and fighting as a result of it has gone back 1300 years virtually non stop. They willl probably never stop fighting as the Sunni will never surrender thier political and economic power to the Shi'a, whom they consider heretics, not muslims at all. You also have a strain of Arab supremecism Iraq Sunni are indioctrnated with. ("Arabs are the most noble in Deeds") Bush was foolish for the invasion but it was still salvagable form a stategic standpoint even 6 months after the invasion, where the violence was low if at all, by arming to the teeth the Shi'a and Kurdish populations to equal the balance and immdiately leaving. Now its a total cluster fusk we can't withdraw from after breaking Iraq down for three years combined with the resentment that has resulted from the ocupation. We can't withdraw for political reasons, pride and the iraqis will scream bloody murder if we try. Shia, until they have enough military power to annihilate the Sunni, will Scream "you broke things, you must stay and fix them" Sunni, the day they learn of our planned withdraw will scream "you can't leave, we will get slaughtered And so it goes a welfare and bloody tarbaby perhaps forever stuck to.

So how is that not Bush's fault? Yes, Iraq was a screwed up situation long before we got there, but Bush did decide to invade...and he did decide to not do what was necessary to win in the first 6 months of the war, pointedly ignoring the advice of military experts he should have been listening to.

The civil war is not Bush's fault because it could not have been prevented by anything done, or not done, by the Americans. It reflection of many things I eluded to. Age old hatred and distrust that goes back to the first century of Islam.. Demograhics imbalance the Sunni was not prepared to accept, e.g. when Saddam took power Shi'a was only 35% now it's 65%. Payback for 30 years of persecution and murder of Shi?a by Saddam Hussein?s Sunni-officered army. All of this has to be kept firmly in mind, lest one succumb to the temptation to believe that ?the Americans caused it? or "Bush's fault".


Bush has fault alright. Ignorance and folly to get our boys killed and our coffers drained for a pipe dream of "democracy" and all manner of things would be well if he went in. AKA cultural reativism - Bush, neocons and liberals alike engage in, in which they just can not believe that the Iraqis will not behave just like Kansans. He's an idiot for poo pooing those who told him it would turn into a maelstrom... etc.


Uh ...... pretty sure it could have been prevented had we not invaded a country, that posed no danger to us whatsoever, in the first place. FTW.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Zebo
Calling it Bush's fault is an oversimplifiation. The Sunni Shi'a sectarian split and fighting as a result of it has gone back 1300 years virtually non stop. They willl probably never stop fighting as the Sunni will never surrender thier political and economic power to the Shi'a, whom they consider heretics, not muslims at all. You also have a strain of Arab supremecism Iraq Sunni are indioctrnated with. ("Arabs are the most noble in Deeds") Bush was foolish for the invasion but it was still salvagable form a stategic standpoint even 6 months after the invasion, where the violence was low if at all, by arming to the teeth the Shi'a and Kurdish populations to equal the balance and immdiately leaving. Now its a total cluster fusk we can't withdraw from after breaking Iraq down for three years combined with the resentment that has resulted from the ocupation. We can't withdraw for political reasons, pride and the iraqis will scream bloody murder if we try. Shia, until they have enough military power to annihilate the Sunni, will Scream "you broke things, you must stay and fix them" Sunni, the day they learn of our planned withdraw will scream "you can't leave, we will get slaughtered And so it goes a welfare and bloody tarbaby perhaps forever stuck to.

So how is that not Bush's fault? Yes, Iraq was a screwed up situation long before we got there, but Bush did decide to invade...and he did decide to not do what was necessary to win in the first 6 months of the war, pointedly ignoring the advice of military experts he should have been listening to.

The civil war is not Bush's fault because it could not have been prevented by anything done, or not done, by the Americans. It reflection of many things I eluded to. Age old hatred and distrust that goes back to the first century of Islam.. Demograhics imbalance the Sunni was not prepared to accept, e.g. when Saddam took power Shi'a was only 35% now it's 65%. Payback for 30 years of persecution and murder of Shi?a by Saddam Hussein?s Sunni-officered army. All of this has to be kept firmly in mind, lest one succumb to the temptation to believe that ?the Americans caused it? or "Bush's fault".


Bush has fault alright. Ignorance and folly to get our boys killed and our coffers drained for a pipe dream of "democracy" and all manner of things would be well if he went in. AKA cultural reativism - Bush, neocons and liberals alike engage in, in which they just can not believe that the Iraqis will not behave just like Kansans. He's an idiot for poo pooing those who told him it would turn into a maelstrom... etc.

Not even a little bit true. Had we done what every single expert suggested doing in the first months of the war (bring in lots more troops, work hard to establish basic law and order, etc) we would have done a lot better than we're doing right now. The basic problem is that now we have to break down a civil war and an insurgency that could have been prevented early on if we had done the proper things.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Doboji
Yeah I agree... let's abandon Iraq, and run away with our tails between our legs...

...

Blows to our pride aside, why is that a bad option? Continuing to fight a war just because we're too stubborn to give up seems like a truly stupid reason to me.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,212
9,007
136
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Doboji
Yeah I agree... let's abandon Iraq, and run away with our tails between our legs...

...

Blows to our pride aside, why is that a bad option? Continuing to fight a war just because we're too stubborn to give up seems like a truly stupid reason to me.

We can't let 2500+ troops die in vain. At least that's what Fox news tells me. ;)
 

ccbadd

Senior member
Jan 19, 2004
456
0
76
Uh ...... pretty sure it could have been prevented had we not invaded a country, that posed no danger to us whatsoever, in the first place. FTW.

You are so wise as to know this. Every Islamic country poses a threat to every non-Ilsamic contry by there own confession. "Convert or Kill" doctrine! Islamic people have never preached peaceful cohabitation. China is more friendly to other countries then any Islamic country. How many bombings has Christian, Buddist, even Aethist groups brought to bear on innocense without provocation?
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Originally posted by: fallenangel99
I hope they go into civil war/all-out-war. Then only will the Bush administration really open their eyes and do something about it - if something can even be done about it at that point. Oh, and we get to look like real dumba@ses in the


So your hope is that hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered so Bush gets a kick in the ass and the your country looks bad?
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Zebo
Calling it Bush's fault is an oversimplifiation. The Sunni Shi'a sectarian split and fighting as a result of it has gone back 1300 years virtually non stop. They willl probably never stop fighting as the Sunni will never surrender thier political and economic power to the Shi'a, whom they consider heretics, not muslims at all. You also have a strain of Arab supremecism Iraq Sunni are indioctrnated with. ("Arabs are the most noble in Deeds") Bush was foolish for the invasion but it was still salvagable form a stategic standpoint even 6 months after the invasion, where the violence was low if at all, by arming to the teeth the Shi'a and Kurdish populations to equal the balance and immdiately leaving. Now its a total cluster fusk we can't withdraw from after breaking Iraq down for three years combined with the resentment that has resulted from the ocupation. We can't withdraw for political reasons, pride and the iraqis will scream bloody murder if we try. Shia, until they have enough military power to annihilate the Sunni, will Scream "you broke things, you must stay and fix them" Sunni, the day they learn of our planned withdraw will scream "you can't leave, we will get slaughtered And so it goes a welfare and bloody tarbaby perhaps forever stuck to.

So how is that not Bush's fault? Yes, Iraq was a screwed up situation long before we got there, but Bush did decide to invade...and he did decide to not do what was necessary to win in the first 6 months of the war, pointedly ignoring the advice of military experts he should have been listening to.

The civil war is not Bush's fault because it could not have been prevented by anything done, or not done, by the Americans. It reflection of many things I eluded to. Age old hatred and distrust that goes back to the first century of Islam.. Demograhics imbalance the Sunni was not prepared to accept, e.g. when Saddam took power Shi'a was only 35% now it's 65%. Payback for 30 years of persecution and murder of Shi?a by Saddam Hussein?s Sunni-officered army. All of this has to be kept firmly in mind, lest one succumb to the temptation to believe that ?the Americans caused it? or "Bush's fault".


Bush has fault alright. Ignorance and folly to get our boys killed and our coffers drained for a pipe dream of "democracy" and all manner of things would be well if he went in. AKA cultural reativism - Bush, neocons and liberals alike engage in, in which they just can not believe that the Iraqis will not behave just like Kansans. He's an idiot for poo pooing those who told him it would turn into a maelstrom... etc.

You project onto the Iraqis what you feel about yourself. You won't let go of your own hate so you see in them that trait. You don't believe they will ever live in peace because you won't either. You are the enemy of peace because you know that to have peace you must die, you sickness that is your ego, that is. To die you have to go up on the cross and suffer and while you're being tortured to death, forgive. It will help to know, first, I think, that all your opinions and thoughts are nothing.

oh shut the f#ck up
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,156
6,317
126
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Zebo
Calling it Bush's fault is an oversimplifiation. The Sunni Shi'a sectarian split and fighting as a result of it has gone back 1300 years virtually non stop. They willl probably never stop fighting as the Sunni will never surrender thier political and economic power to the Shi'a, whom they consider heretics, not muslims at all. You also have a strain of Arab supremecism Iraq Sunni are indioctrnated with. ("Arabs are the most noble in Deeds") Bush was foolish for the invasion but it was still salvagable form a stategic standpoint even 6 months after the invasion, where the violence was low if at all, by arming to the teeth the Shi'a and Kurdish populations to equal the balance and immdiately leaving. Now its a total cluster fusk we can't withdraw from after breaking Iraq down for three years combined with the resentment that has resulted from the ocupation. We can't withdraw for political reasons, pride and the iraqis will scream bloody murder if we try. Shia, until they have enough military power to annihilate the Sunni, will Scream "you broke things, you must stay and fix them" Sunni, the day they learn of our planned withdraw will scream "you can't leave, we will get slaughtered And so it goes a welfare and bloody tarbaby perhaps forever stuck to.

So how is that not Bush's fault? Yes, Iraq was a screwed up situation long before we got there, but Bush did decide to invade...and he did decide to not do what was necessary to win in the first 6 months of the war, pointedly ignoring the advice of military experts he should have been listening to.

The civil war is not Bush's fault because it could not have been prevented by anything done, or not done, by the Americans. It reflection of many things I eluded to. Age old hatred and distrust that goes back to the first century of Islam.. Demograhics imbalance the Sunni was not prepared to accept, e.g. when Saddam took power Shi'a was only 35% now it's 65%. Payback for 30 years of persecution and murder of Shi?a by Saddam Hussein?s Sunni-officered army. All of this has to be kept firmly in mind, lest one succumb to the temptation to believe that ?the Americans caused it? or "Bush's fault".


Bush has fault alright. Ignorance and folly to get our boys killed and our coffers drained for a pipe dream of "democracy" and all manner of things would be well if he went in. AKA cultural reativism - Bush, neocons and liberals alike engage in, in which they just can not believe that the Iraqis will not behave just like Kansans. He's an idiot for poo pooing those who told him it would turn into a maelstrom... etc.

You project onto the Iraqis what you feel about yourself. You won't let go of your own hate so you see in them that trait. You don't believe they will ever live in peace because you won't either. You are the enemy of peace because you know that to have peace you must die, you sickness that is your ego, that is. To die you have to go up on the cross and suffer and while you're being tortured to death, forgive. It will help to know, first, I think, that all your opinions and thoughts are nothing.

oh shut the f#ck up

Yes yes yes, this is very very good. You feel the violence within when you see yourself in the mirror. Your thoughts and opinions are nothing, but that seemingly impotent rage is a door back to life through suffering.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
It's "Stay the course" type of thinking that got us into Iraq and which is driving us off a cliff. At some point and time you need to look at the facts and realize that a mistake is a mistake and continuing to make further mistakes and sticking around is not a good option. As to the whole "It's not Bush's fault" crap line well it is his fault ! Who the hell got us invovled in this mess ? Who pushed for the removal of Iran's number 1 enemy besides Israel in the region ? Seriously Bushbots need to own up to the fact that their leader despite all the warnings and cautions about what might happen after Saddam was toppled screwed up royally.Saddam was the only thing holding Iraq intact as a nation and the only one really checking the power and influence of Iran and Syria in the region.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: ccbadd
Uh ...... pretty sure it could have been prevented had we not invaded a country, that posed no danger to us whatsoever, in the first place. FTW.

You are so wise as to know this. Every Islamic country poses a threat to every non-Ilsamic contry by there own confession. "Convert or Kill" doctrine! Islamic people have never preached peaceful cohabitation. China is more friendly to other countries then any Islamic country. How many bombings has Christian, Buddist, even Aethist groups brought to bear on innocense without provocation?


What type of garbage is this ? There were no WMD's as the UN inspectors before they were rushed out told the world and us that Iraq was free of WMD's. Of course cowboys like yourself couldn't wait to start munching on freedom fries to watch the "awe and shock" show on Faux news and ignored it all.

Experts in the CIA, US Defense Department, etc.. basically laid out the dangers of removing Saddam and pitfalls of not having a force large enough to police the nation until some semblance of order could be restored. Basically you had the whole world including many experts in our own intelligence agencies telling you cowboys that invading Iraq was not a smart thing to do yet you all ignored this advise and "Stayed the course" right off that cliff. Geez talk about having the blinders on.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,156
6,317
126
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: ccbadd
Uh ...... pretty sure it could have been prevented had we not invaded a country, that posed no danger to us whatsoever, in the first place. FTW.

You are so wise as to know this. Every Islamic country poses a threat to every non-Ilsamic contry by there own confession. "Convert or Kill" doctrine! Islamic people have never preached peaceful cohabitation. China is more friendly to other countries then any Islamic country. How many bombings has Christian, Buddist, even Aethist groups brought to bear on innocense without provocation?


What type of garbage is this ? There were no WMD's as the UN inspectors before they were rushed out told the world and us that Iraq was free of WMD's. Of course cowboys like yourself couldn't wait to start munching on freedom fries to watch the "awe and shock" show on Faux news and ignored it all.

Experts in the CIA, US Defense Department, etc.. basically laid out the dangers of removing Saddam and pitfalls of not having a force large enough to police the nation until so semblance of order could be restored. Basically you had the whole world including many experts in our own intelligence agencies telling you cowboys that invading Iraq was not a smart thing to do yet you all ignored this advise and "Stayed the course" right off that cliff. Geez talk about having the blinders on.

A large enough police force can still go in and should go in.
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
The op is correct. IMO. I present the facts.

Bombings, shootings kill 31 across Iraq By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer, 1 hour, 41 minutes ago, Tues, August 8, 2006.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A series of bombings and shootings killed at least 31 people Tuesday, most in the Baghdad area, as more U.S. troops were seen in the capital as part of a campaign to reduce Sunni-Shiite violence that threatens civil war.

Three bombs exploded simultaneously near the Interior Ministry buildings in central Baghdad, killing 10 people and wounding eight, police Lt. Bilal Ali Majid said.

A couple of hours later, two roadside bombs ripped through the main Shurja market, also in central Baghdad, killing 10 civilians and wounding 50, police Lt. Mohammed Kheyoun said.

The blasts were the latest sign of the security crisis that prompted U.S. commanders to bolster the American troop presence in the city. More U.S. troops patrolled the streets of the Ghazaliyah neighborhood, a mostly Sunni area and among the most violent parts of the capital.

Elsewhere, gunmen in two cars stormed a bank Tuesday in the Azamiyah district, killing three bank employees before fleeing with the equivalent of $5,500, according to the Iraqi Defense Ministry

U.S. officials fear progress elsewhere in Iraq will be undermined as long as the security situation in Baghdad remains precarious. U.S. and Iraqi forces have launched a new bid to reclaim the streets from Sunni and Shiite extremists after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's security plan for Baghdad failed to stem the violence.

But rifts have appeared between Iraq's government and American forces on how to deal with the crisis, especially the Mahdi Army militia of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. His militiamen have been blamed for several reprisal attacks against Sunnis.

On Monday, al-Maliki sharply criticized a U.S.-Iraqi attack on Mahdi Army's stronghold in Baghdad's Sadr City area that left three people dead including a child. The U.S. command said the raid was to capture "individuals involved in punishment and torture cell activities."

President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, met Monday with the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., to discuss security. Talabani said he told Casey that "it is in no one's interest" to force a showdown with al-Sadr, a key supporter of al-Maliki, also a Shiite.

In a television broadcast late Monday, al-Maliki said he was "very angered and pained" by the operation, warning that it could undermine his efforts toward national reconciliation.

"Reconciliation cannot go hand in hand with operations that violate the rights of citizens this way," al-Maliki said. He apologized to the Iraqi people for the operation and said "this won't happen again."

For his part, al-Sadr urged his militiamen to be "calm and patient, and avoid being drawn into civil war." Mohammed al-Fartousi, an al-Sadr aide, said the young cleric urged his followers to purge their ranks of those who bring the Mahdi Army into disrepute and to refrain from attacking Sunni mosques and killing "innocent people."

In other violence Tuesday, two Sunni bothers were slain in their car repair shop in southwestern Baghdad and four Shiites were gunned down in a series of attacks in Baqouba and Muqdadiyah, two cities in Diyala province northeast of the capital, police said.

A policeman was killed in a bombing in Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad, and a police sergeant was shot dead in his car in Baghdad, police said.

Police also found two bodies, both shot in the head, in northwest Baghdad on Tuesday.

Also Tuesday, police said two Iraqi journalists were killed in separate attacks the day before in Baghdad. They were among more than 100 Iraqi and foreign media workers slain here since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003.

End story ___
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I dont think the US military or the people in the US are willing to back a tough enough policy to make peace in Iraq. I think it will require a lot of innocent people to be arrested and killed along with a secret police and fierce rule of law to be enforced to get people in-line. Along with that we will probably have to attack the surrounding neighboring countries civilians to do to them what they are doing to the civilians in Iraq. It is basically going to require a ruler like Sadam.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,156
6,317
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
I dont think the US military or the people in the US are willing to back a tough enough policy to make peace in Iraq. I think it will require a lot of innocent people to be arrested and killed along with a secret police and fierce rule of law to be enforced to get people in-line. Along with that we will probably have to attack the surrounding neighboring countries civilians to do to them what they are doing to the civilians in Iraq. It is basically going to require a ruler like Sadam.

It only requires a rule of law. Obey or be taken out of the body of society. You win the souls of people by acting out the souls desire. Everybody once wanted justice, not revenge.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I think once again I disagree with the Moonbeam's notion of creating a large enough police force and there by being able to rid the Iraqi society of mal-contents... and provide their soul's desire.

I say this because for one thing what IS their souls desire currently... not after a generation from now but today.? I say they desire to rid their land of not only the US imperialists but also each other because neither of the major factions deem the other fit to be alive. This won't change no matter how many troops we direct there. Well.... If we could send 10 million perhaps we could have one attached to every citizen and insure the peace but within reason we've not enough to do the job.

I opt of .... what was it Nixon call leaving Vietnam... some catchy phrase... yeah.. we need one of them for this occasion.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: ccbadd
Uh ...... pretty sure it could have been prevented had we not invaded a country, that posed no danger to us whatsoever, in the first place. FTW.

You are so wise as to know this. Every Islamic country poses a threat to every non-Ilsamic contry by there own confession. "Convert or Kill" doctrine! Islamic people have never preached peaceful cohabitation. China is more friendly to other countries then any Islamic country. How many bombings has Christian, Buddist, even Aethist groups brought to bear on innocense without provocation?


What type of garbage is this ? There were no WMD's as the UN inspectors before they were rushed out told the world and us that Iraq was free of WMD's. Of course cowboys like yourself couldn't wait to start munching on freedom fries to watch the "awe and shock" show on Faux news and ignored it all.

Experts in the CIA, US Defense Department, etc.. basically laid out the dangers of removing Saddam and pitfalls of not having a force large enough to police the nation until so semblance of order could be restored. Basically you had the whole world including many experts in our own intelligence agencies telling you cowboys that invading Iraq was not a smart thing to do yet you all ignored this advise and "Stayed the course" right off that cliff. Geez talk about having the blinders on.

A large enough police force can still go in and should go in.


Basically what you are saying is we need another Saddam or Saddam like force.