Civil War in Iraq: Is This Not a Small-Scale Conflict?

[Mattius_]

First, as the number of bombings go up, and as the fear escalates to the point where a rumor of a suicide bomber turns into a stampede killing over 1000, I wonder how long a Shiite can live with the fact that a sunni is living next to him. I wonder how long until a shiite won't live in the same city as a sunni. I wonder what it will be like when Americans start to leave, and the Iraqi army has to fend for itself.

When that happens, I wonder how long the Iraqi government will put up with daily car bombings and stick to the belief that it is wrong to put an entire sect of a religon into interment camps. I wonder how long it will take before the iraqi army decides it it okay to quarantine entire neighborhoods and cities with the intent to do so for years.

Is this not a small scale civil war right now? What differentiates an insurgency from a civil war? The scale of fatalities? The types of warfare? As it stands, hundreds of civilians die every month. The iraqi army created under US guidance is made up of and dominated by shiites, and the insurgency is made of and dominated by the sunnis. Arent these two factions at war? I don't get it.

Lots of rambling here, sorry.

 

[Anttech]

It 'isnt' a civil war yet per say, because they still have a political process.. If (and when) that dies, Iraq will be plungged into civil war.

I used to say when asked, 'what do you think of the Iraq war' I would say, well it is wrong, the ends can't justify the means. Iraq is better of without Sadam but, I can't justify the killings.

Now I think Iraq was FAR better off with Sadam, The Ends are worse than the means, if Iraq falls into Civil war...

What will the "legacy" of Bush be? Evil springs to mind

 

[one_raven]

al Zarqawi declared war on Shi'ite Muslims yesterday.
According to al Zarqawi, at least, it is an official "Civil War".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050914/wl_nm/iraq_dc_43;_ylt=Ai5QPis7BKzck0Ica2MgIVZX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
My question, is what, if any, significance will this declaration of civil war turn out to be?

 

[Daminc]

What are the main contentions between Sunni's and Shiites? Is it similar to the problems between Protestants and Catholics? Some stupid differences in interperating a religious text?

If it is then I've got no sympathy for them because I've have no tolorance for that kind of stupidity.

 

[Anttech]

What are the main contentions between Sunni's and Shiites? Is it similar to the problems between Protestants and Catholics? Some stupid differences in interperating a religious text?

If you are referring to N.I. then the problems are not to do with interperating Relgious texts.. I think you are aware of that arent you? Its to do with Republicans, who want to be part of Eire and Unionist who want to be part of the UK... It just so happens that Catholics are Republican (they weren't to begin with) and Unionists are Protestants..

What are the main contentions between Sunni's and Shiites?

To be honest I don't know the full context, but I do know that under Sadam the Sunni's killed many Shiites. The problems are similar to that, that was in Rwanda for example...

There is a lot of hate between these two factions streaching back many many years

 

[Daminc]

It may be a solution just to let them kill each other.

I know it sounds a bit callus but if the hatred is insurmountable (neither side willing to accommodate the other for any reason) then what other choices are available?

If the UN or any other country thinks it has a right to intervine then THEY would be seen as 'terrorists' by the people being 'pacified'. Just because we have the might to withstand any complaints doesn't mean we have the right.

If we allowed them to fight it out then they only have themselves to blame and sooner or later they will begin to see the folly of their ways or seize to exist.

(I wasn't neccessarily talking about N.I., the contention between Protestants and Catholics is the only example I could think of as two 'faiths' disagreeing over religious interpretations and I was wondering if the contentions between Sunni's and Shiites was born of a similar folly.)

 

[Art]

It may be a solution just to let them kill each other.

I know it sounds a bit callus but if the hatred is insurmountable (neither side willing to accommodate the other for any reason) then what other choices are available?

If the UN or any other country thinks it has a right to intervine then THEY would be seen as 'terrorists' by the people being 'pacified'. Just because we have the might to withstand any complaints doesn't mean we have the right.

If we allowed them to fight it out then they only have themselves to blame and sooner or later they will begin to see the folly of their ways or seize to exist.

(I wasn't neccessarily talking about N.I., the contention between Protestants and Catholics is the only example I could think of as two 'faiths' disagreeing over religious interpretations and I was wondering if the contentions between Sunni's and Shiites was born of a similar folly.)

It is unlikely the civil war would remain confined to Iraq. Most of the surrounding countries are Sunni with the exception of Iran which is Shi'ite. It is inevitable that these countries will be drawn into the conflict resulting in the entire ME going up in flames.

 

[Anttech]

If we allowed them to fight it out then they only have themselves to blame and sooner or later they will begin to see the folly of their ways or seize to exist.

Well Hatered is being stirred up by Al Q. in Iraq, they are trying to stop the democradtic political process so the country falls into Civil war...

Whos fault is it.. well it is partly Bush's fault for going in there in the goddam first place, and creating the enviorment for this problem to happen.

If Iraq does fall into civil war, let's face it Bin Ladden got exactly what he wanted... Engaging the USA in a most bloody of bloody campaigns.

 

[Daminc]

But Iran’s position has been tougher. The official IRNA news agency quoted Mr Ahmadinejad as saying to Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Prime Minister: “With respect to the needs of Islamic countries, we are ready to transfer nuclear know-how to these countries.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1782808,00.html

Things are going to start getting even hotter.

 

[ray b]

What are the main contentions between Sunni's and Shiites? Is it similar to the problems between Protestants and Catholics? Some stupid differences in interperating a religious text?

If it is then I've got no sympathy for them because I've have no tolorance for that kind of stupidity.

more like the split between roman and greek churches
old and based on politics and power more then belifes
it is based on who rules more that the rules
and who killed who a very long time ago
differences in interperating a religious text have grown in the 1000 years
and each side says the other is wrong
but the root is power not belifes

 

[BobG]

al Zarqawi declared war on Shi'ite Muslims yesterday.
According to al Zarqawi, at least, it is an official "Civil War".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050914/wl_nm/iraq_dc_43;_ylt=Ai5QPis7BKzck0Ica2MgIVZX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
My question, is what, if any, significance will this declaration of civil war turn out to be?

That's ironic. Bin Laden's al-Qaeda would prefer a very strict Shiite theocracy, along the lines of what Sadr is trying to achieve.

I'm not sure what you would call what's going on the Sunni section - there's almost too many groups to call it a traditional civil war.

At least one or more of the insurgent groups in the area are fighting because the Sunni area will the poorest part of Iraq under a federalist government that allows the Kurdish and Shiite sections a lot of autonomy and allows them to keep a lot of the proceeds from the oil fields in their areas. Quite a few Sunnis will see life get much worse than it was when the Sunni Baath party could more or less control the Kurds and Shiites and take their share (or more) of the proceeds from Iraq's oil fields. But you also have several other renegade groups with all sorts of different agendas.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Now I think Iraq was FAR better off with Sadam, The Ends are worse than the means, if Iraq falls into Civil war...

Iraq is worse off in many ways now. Still, if the Iraqi people had overthrown Saddam on their own, what would be the outcome?

What will the "legacy" of Bush be? Evil springs to mind

Bush supporters are still lobbying for adding him to Mount Rushmore

That's ironic. Bin Laden's al-Qaeda would prefer a very strict Shiite theocracy, along the lines of what Sadr is trying to achieve.

I'm not sure what you would call what's going on the Sunni section - there's almost too many groups to call it a traditional civil war.

At least one or more of the insurgent groups in the area are fighting because the Sunni area will the poorest part of Iraq under a federalist government that allows the Kurdish and Shiite sections a lot of autonomy and allows them to keep a lot of the proceeds from the oil fields in their areas. Quite a few Sunnis will see life get much worse than it was when the Sunni Baath party could more or less control the Kurds and Shiites and take their share (or more) of the proceeds from Iraq's oil fields. But you also have several other renegade groups with all sorts of different agendas.

I agree with your summary. I see this more as a matter of representation than a religious dispute.

 

[Smurf]

Iraq is worse off in many ways now. Still, if the Iraqi people had overthrown Saddam on their own, what would be the outcome?

Could it be worse?

 

[2CentsWorth]

Could it be worse?

It would likely to go toward another dictatorship (usually a general in the military) with no chance of equality for all parties. So there would be B'aath rebel fighting at the minimum, probably all out civil war. On the other hand, it would have been an internal matter, and without US intervention, there would be no terrorist organizations contributing to the large death toll.

 

[Skyhunter]

On the other hand, it would have been an internal matter, and without US intervention, there would be no terrorist organizations contributing to the large death toll.

This is the crux of the folly of going into Iraq. I don't know what the "fight them over there" policy is exactly. I have never heard or seen it articulated in a way that made sense to me.

It seems that the goal of such a policy however is to create a civil war. By calling the war on terrorism a "crusade", Bush got the attention of the Arab world. Then he invaded Iraq under false pretenses and told the Terrorists to "bring it on." By disbanding the Iraq army and outlawing the Baath party, he stripped the Sunnis of all their power. Democratic elections meant that the Shiite would come into power in Iraq.

The Sunni were set up to be the army for Al Qaeda. Now we are in Iraq and Al Qaeda is in Iraq with ready made recruits. Looks like Bush got his war. In the mean time we are no safer because there is nothing to keep Al Qaeda from attacking here again.

So we live in fear of terrorism, Iraq remains unstable, and the US establishes a permanent military presence in the Middle East. With a policy of nuclear preemption we can keep the rest ot the area cowed, or Bush nukes them. I don't believe he would think twice about it.(I am not sure he can even think once about it.)

It is set up to keep us there for a long time. We can't leave until there is a government in place, and once there is we will have to stay in order to keep the Shia from exterminating the Sunnis, or worse siding with Iran.

We are there to stay because manageable wars are extrememly provitable to those contracting with the government. It costs a lot of money to run a war, TAX PAYER money. It is a high risk environment, those corporate contractors have to make a profit.

By keeping the American people divided and in fear the whole thing was managable. Until a natural disaster struck here.

Now here we are.

 

[SOS2008]

This is the crux of the folly of going into Iraq. I don't know what the "fight them over there" policy is exactly. I have never heard or seen it articulated in a way that made sense to me.

It seems that the goal of such a policy however is to create a civil war. By calling the war on terrorism a "crusade", Bush got the attention of the Arab world. Then he invaded Iraq under false pretenses and told the Terrorists to "bring it on." By disbanding the Iraq army and outlawing the Baath party, he stripped the Sunnis of all their power. Democratic elections meant that the Shiite would come into power in Iraq.

Of course the "take the fight over there" was a decoy since there were no terrorists in Iraq. I don't believe there was any real understanding of the complexity of the Middle East. When we were not greeted with flowers followed by a short and sweet regime change, Bush saw the neocon philosophy as a way to save his butt (look at how his actions changed and the timing of it). And of course a way to stay in power--Iraq was an issue critical to his reelection. At first he may have been pleased with terrorist attacks, since this helped justify the reference to the invasion as a "war on terror." But by the time "democracy" had become the reason for war, damage had been done with the use of the word "crusade," minimizing the Baath party, etc. Oh the webs we weave...

 

[vanesch]

al Zarqawi declared war on Shi'ite Muslims yesterday.
According to al Zarqawi, at least, it is an official "Civil War".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050914/wl_nm/iraq_dc_43;_ylt=Ai5QPis7BKzck0Ica2MgIVZX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
My question, is what, if any, significance will this declaration of civil war turn out to be?

Here, http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-689730@51-627391,0.html
it is claimed that Al-Zarkaoui is dead since a long time (and even burried by his Jordanian family), and that the US uses his name in order for them to discredit the Sunnis, hence pushing the Shiites "in the arms of the coalition". At least this is what a Shiite leader, Jawad Al-Khalessi (the Imam of the mosque in Bagdad) claims. To him, he can only understand it as a US means of propaganda to make the Shiites distantiate themselves from the insurgency.

 

[Bilal]

All the Iraqi I met, many of them visited Iraq recently; do not believe that Zarkawi exist!

I also surprised to know that this man exists and succeeded to live in Iraq for all this period with a lot of activity. Western Iraq is tribal society and it is difficult to give the leadership to a foreigner...

Saddam who spent a lot of money to tribal leaders to hide him was arrested after few months of fall of Iraq, so how Zaraqawi who just foreigner succeeded to get all this support and to hide all this long period?

Even if he exist, I believe that American do not want to show ugly face for Iraqi resistance ... Additionally, they can use Zarkawi to start civil war if their strategy fails in Iraq.

This is the strategy of imperialists through history, if they fail to ‘’enslave’’ other nations and to steal their resources, they will burn everything and leave.

Here, http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-689730@51-627391,0.html
it is claimed that Al-Zarkaoui is dead since a long time (and even burried by his Jordanian family), and that the US uses his name in order for them to discredit the Sunnis, hence pushing the Shiites "in the arms of the coalition". At least this is what a Shiite leader, Jawad Al-Khalessi (the Imam of the mosque in Bagdad) claims. To him, he can only understand it as a US means of propaganda to make the Shiites distantiate themselves from the insurgency.