-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Iraq car bombing causes carnage
- Thread starter Czar
- Start date
UglyCasanova
Lifer
I think it would be more along the lines of a community rising up to take back their neighborhood from a gang, but on a much larger scale.
Part of the civil war is killing your fellow citizens with opposing political views. For example, about one million people were killed in Spanish Civil War by both sides - Republicans and Nationals mostly by mass executions.
If Iraqis supporting US style democracy rose against Iraqis supporting whatever type of authoritarian regime terrorists are fighting for, the end result would be a civil war.
Your line of thinking is more reactionary than well-thought out. The Iraqis are lining up, literally, to fight this insurgency. This was just an example of that because they were there to get a check-up to sign up for the police. The Iraqis are not cowering away, at least not most. Despite the thousand that have died within the past year, many are still queing up for civil service. The last thing anyone wants is for a vigilante group to go around slaughtering sunni "terrorists." That is bad all around.
The American forces and their Iraqi counterpart are doing a noble job despite the many dangers they face. The killing of innocent people may help the insurgency in the short-run but it's bad for business in the long-run.
These bombings are terrible news, and they occur so often that we are becoming desensitized to them.
I don't know how the Iraqi's can rise up and set up vigilante patrols to combat these bombers. They can't tell who the bad guy's are just by looking at them.
If the United States was ever in a situation like this, can you imagine all of us shooting at each other?
I don't know how the Iraqi's can rise up and set up vigilante patrols to combat these bombers. They can't tell who the bad guy's are just by looking at them.
If the United States was ever in a situation like this, can you imagine all of us shooting at each other?
Red Dawn
Elite Member
True but even in the US when our democracy was already established for over a 100 years often citizens would take matters into their own hands against terrorists, outlaws, indigenous tribes and foreign nationals when they killed innocent American citizens. Wheres the Iraqi's outrage over these attacks?
That would be a recipe for disaster. Do you really want American soldiers dealing with that kind of chaos? Imagine not being able to tell the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun, like that?s not hard enough already.
The best way Iraqis can fight insurgency is joining Iraqi army and police forces in greater numbers and be more cooperative/informative with American forces.
Proletariat
Diamond Member
Any battle between a Shi'ite militia and Sunni rebels would start an all-out war. It would be bad for the Shi'ites as well since they are so badly armed and poor. Use your brains liberals.
The interesting thing is the way people view these 3 groups. The Kurds and the Shi'ites are very hardcore Islam. The Sunni's are actually much more moderate. In Saddam's time there were women and minorities in all sectors of government. Women could divorce their husbands and keep custody of their children. Burqas were rarely seen except in remote village areas and Shi'ite places. The thing is Sunni's have tremendous pride in Iraqi and pre-Islamic civilizations in the area. That is why you are seeing such resistance against foreign Imperial occupation from them.
It is a shame we meddled with Iraqi politics so much. Saddam was probably the best choice after our first round of meddling.
1. 1920's Imperialism leaves country in chaos
2. Democracy fails after CIA supports Ba'ath party
3. Saddam gets in power in the 1960's uses an iron hand to keep warring ethnic groups in order, Iraq becomes one of the riches countries in the Middle East and greater Asia.
4. CIA instigates Iran-Iraq War funding both sides. War leaves Iraqi economy devastated
5. Persian Gulf war and sanctions further destroys Iraq
6. After 10 years of sanctions Gulf War 2 begins. Massive casualties/chaos in Iraq with no end in sight.
The interesting thing is the way people view these 3 groups. The Kurds and the Shi'ites are very hardcore Islam. The Sunni's are actually much more moderate. In Saddam's time there were women and minorities in all sectors of government. Women could divorce their husbands and keep custody of their children. Burqas were rarely seen except in remote village areas and Shi'ite places. The thing is Sunni's have tremendous pride in Iraqi and pre-Islamic civilizations in the area. That is why you are seeing such resistance against foreign Imperial occupation from them.
It is a shame we meddled with Iraqi politics so much. Saddam was probably the best choice after our first round of meddling.
1. 1920's Imperialism leaves country in chaos
2. Democracy fails after CIA supports Ba'ath party
3. Saddam gets in power in the 1960's uses an iron hand to keep warring ethnic groups in order, Iraq becomes one of the riches countries in the Middle East and greater Asia.
4. CIA instigates Iran-Iraq War funding both sides. War leaves Iraqi economy devastated
5. Persian Gulf war and sanctions further destroys Iraq
6. After 10 years of sanctions Gulf War 2 begins. Massive casualties/chaos in Iraq with no end in sight.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
