News Is Civil War in Iraq Unavoidable?

[Astronuc]

A few days ago, I read an article stating that Bush would apply his diplomatic skill to the problems in Northern Ireland and I could imagine terrified looks on the faces of everyone living in Ireland.

The luck of the Irish. When I read that I laughed so hard it hurt.

Why does Bush want to pick on the Irish. What did they do? Is it to get back at Kennedy?

 

[Astronuc]

The only way to prevent civil war in Iraq is to perminatly stay. If this is required, so be it. The middle east is already unstable and I would prefer to keep both British and American forces in Iraq if it increase the stability of the middle east even slightly.

Well, we can debate about whether or not they have a civil war at the moment. Some will say yes, others will say no.

I don't think the presence of US and British or any other foreign troops will stabilize the situation.

It is also not clear that a democratic government will develop in Iraq. Not if it requires troops to 'maintain' it.

I do agree that Saddam and his sons had to go, and the government in Iraq had to change. I just disagree with the method and sloppy way the Bush administration went about it.

 

[Astronuc]

The only way to prevent civil war in Iraq is to perminatly stay. If this is required, so be it. The middle east is already unstable and I would prefer to keep both British and American forces in Iraq if it increase the stability of the middle east even slightly.

Well, we can debate about whether or not they have a civil war at the moment. Some will say yes, others will say no.

I don't think the presence of US and British or any other foreign troops will stabilize the situation.

It is also not clear that a democratic government will develop in Iraq. Not if it requires troops to 'maintain' it.

I do agree that Saddam and his sons had to go, and the government in Iraq had to change. I just disagree with the method and sloppy way the Bush administration went about it.

 

[Hootenanny]

I do agree that Saddam and his sons had to go, and the government in Iraq had to change. I just disagree with the method and sloppy way the Bush administration went about it.

I agree with you there. I also think that we should have gone to war, but we went for the wrong reasons. We went 'supposedly' for the WMD, when I think we should have gone for the Genocide etc.

 

[vanesch]

I do agree that Saddam and his sons had to go, and the government in Iraq had to change. I just disagree with the method and sloppy way the Bush administration went about it.

I think that *everybody* agreed upon that in principle: of course having a blossoming democracy would be better than a cruel dictator. But - as you say - it is not because you wish that the virus gets out of the patient, that you should hit him with a hammer on his head or make him drink 2 liters of concentrated sulphuric acid (which surely destroys the virus...)!
And I'd even put the caveat: Saddam surely was a bad boy, but there's worse. For instance, I think that a radical Islamic theocracy or an all-out civil war is worse.

 

[vanesch]

I agree with you there. I also think that we should have gone to war, but we went for the wrong reasons. We went 'supposedly' for the WMD, when I think we should have gone for the Genocide etc.

I think that war was a bad solution in this case. Lying over it made it even worse of course. War is always a bad solution, but sometimes there's no choice. Here, there was no urge. Saddam was NOT committing any genocide at the moment - what is talked about are things he did in the past. He was militarily crippled. There were/are several dictators in his case, some of which have explicit US support. All the expenses in lives, money and munition could have been put to far better use elsewhere, in order to do something positive. The geopolitical situation became far worse because of the intervention (and this was not a result of bad management, but a very predictable and predicted result of the intervention): International law and organisations have been put out of order ; the relationships between the West and the Arab world has never been worse ; the situation in the country at hand is not very bright and there has been a swing to radical Islamism in the entire region (look at the election results in Iran) ; and it worsened the terrorist threat. This intervention was plain stupid and most people knew that.

It only served to keep the US population in a "state of terror" with a wargoing president, so that he could get re-elected on the grounds of misplaced patriotism. What an expensive campaign!

But all that was not the point. The point was, that if we are going to make a comparison between the situation after the invasion (now, or in 20 years), we should compare it to the situation that would have EVOLVED out of the no-invasion situation, and not to the pre-invasion situation. Who is going to say that the situation in Iraq wouldn't improve - with Saddam, say - over 20 years, like things improved in Libya ?

 

[Art]

Former prime minister Iyad Allawi said in an interview with the BBC Iraq is already in the grip of a civil war.

Iraq in civil war, says former PM

Iraq is in the middle of civil war, the country's former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has told the BBC.
He said Iraq had not got to the point of no return, but if it fell apart sectarianism would spread abroad.

The UK and US have repeatedly denied Iraq is facing a civil war, but Mr Allawi suggested there was no other way to describe the sectarian violence.
<snip>
"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more.

"If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Mr Allawi added that a national unity government may not be "an immediate solution" to the country's problems.

Iraq is moving towards the "point of no return", he said, when the country would fragment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4821618.stm

 

[Astronuc]

I heard the comment by Allawi, although Cheney and Bush dispute that claim.

On the other hand, on Yahoo -

As the Iraq war entered its fourth year, police found the bodies of at least 15 more people dumped in and near Baghdad. The discoveries marked the latest in a string of execution-style killings that have become an almost daily event as Sunni and Shiite extremists settle scores.

Sectarian killings have swept across Iraq since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra. An Associated Press tally, including the deaths reported Monday, put the toll at 993 since the golden dome atop the Askariya shrine was left in rubble by two bombers, who are believed to remain at large.

Well, not everyone is involved, so its not a full scale civil war, but it is sectarian violence, much like the Protestants and Catholics in N. Ireland.

Sad situation for those who have to endure the violence.

 

[SOS2008]

The only way to prevent civil war in Iraq is to perminatly stay. If this is required, so be it. The middle east is already unstable and I would prefer to keep both British and American forces in Iraq if it increase the stability of the middle east even slightly.

Staying (the course) does not prevent civil war. At best it only keeps it from escalating at a faster rate. Even so, if the goal is stability, consider other ways to achieve this. For example, Brzezinski's comments posted by BobG and allowing/encouraging neighboring countries to become involved in the common interest of stability in the region.

Aside from loss of U.S. soldiers, I fail to see how $1 trillion spent on such a venture benefits the American people. If we don't begin repairs to our economy (deficit, foreign debt) we won't be able to help ourselves let alone anyone else. And the terrorists will have won. Don't be so foolish as to fall into their trap.

 

[Astronuc]

Iraq angered by civil war warning
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4892784.stm

Iraqi leaders have strongly criticised Egypt's president after he said Iraq was on the verge of a civil war.

Exactly three years after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, there is growing disagreement over whether Iraq has descended into civil war.

Dozens die in Iraq mosque attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4887856.stm

An apparent triple suicide bomb attack on a key Shia mosque in Baghdad has left at least 79 people dead and 160 injured, Iraqi police have said.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair and now Jack Straw absolutely deny that Iraq has slipped into Civil War.

Well, it seems it is a matter of perspective - I see Civil War and so do several Iraqis. The US and British governments and their Iraqi allies see - problems? OK - let's compromise and say - Sectarian Violence on a national scale.

Kind of like Northern Ireland in the 60's and 70's. I seem to recall that the presence of British troops failed to stem the violence.

South Iraq's unpredictable future
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4889954.stm

In recent times, Shia-dominated southern Iraq has been spared the kind of bombing seen again on Friday in Baghdad, but it remains an unpredictable part of the country, too.

. . . .

No safe water- not for free anyway; erratic power if they have it at all; few job prospects beyond working on the land or fishing in the waterways of this area - though that does not deter young boys from saying they want to be doctors or teachers.

On the other hand, given that on 1 April 2006, the campaign group "Iraq Body Count" put the total number of civilian dead at 31,821 to 35,950 and the number of police dead at 1,950, it seems like Civil War to me. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm

The issue of counting the number of Iraqis killed since the US-led invasion is highly controversial and the figure is disputed.

The US and UK military authorities do not record the number of civilians killed by their forces. The security situation and administrative chaos also make counting extremely difficult.

 

[turbo]

If Iraq is not in a civil war, it's only because of the definition used. For much the same reason, any resistance against US occupation of Iraq is labeled as "terrorism" by the administration, regardless of the motivation or method of implementation. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If a foreign power invaded Maine, I would gladly haunt the roadways with my hunting rifle and snipe the occupying troops as they passed and improvise bombs, etc, if I had the means to do so in order to defend my homeland. I would expect no less of my neighbors and friends. We would all be labelled "terrorists" by the invading forces, probably, but we would consider ourselves gutless cowards if we did less. What would Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, and George Washington do if they were with us today and we were invaded? I think I know.

 

[Astronuc]

Mark Warner: World Help Needed to Stabilize Iraq

Morning Edition, April 21, 2006 · Mark Warner isn't saying whether he'll jump into the Democratic race for president in 2008, as many expect him to, but the former Virginia governor has some advice about the war in Iraq for the next commander-in-chief.

"First of all, get rid of [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld," he tells Steve Inskeep in an interview, echoing remarks made by several former generals in recent days. "It's remarkable in my mind that the architect of this war is still calling the shots. A failed Iraq is not in America's best long-term interest.

"We've got to look at how we cannot simply make this an American problem," Warner says. He says there needs to be more international involvement to help stabilize Iraq -- via either a regional "contact group" like the one that has been involved in dealing with North Korea's nuclear ambitions, or a U.N. high commissioner.

The goal should be to leave Iraq "in no worse shape, at least in terms of threatening to America and destabilizing to the region, than before we went in," Warner says.

"I'm not one that believes we can set an arbitrary deadline. But I think if we don't see the Iraqis themselves come together in weeks, not months, in terms of forming this unity government and then if we don't see measurable progress in months, not years, after this government is formed, then I think we have to look at a way to get out. We don't need American troops simply playing referee inside a civil war in Iraq."

On other issues, Warner says he would bring the same business-like approach he employed as governor of Virginia to the federal government. He says he would not rule out tax increases to help tackle the budget deficit.

"You start on lowering federal spending," Warner says. "At the end of the day, do you still potentially have to look at revenues? You don't take anything off the table, but you start, like any smart business person would, by tightening your belt and looking at how you can actually reform operations."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5354429

 

[edward]

"We've got to look at how we cannot simply make this an American problem," Warner says. He says there needs to be more international involvement to help stabilize Iraq -- via either a regional "contact group" like the one that has been involved in dealing with North Korea's nuclear ambitions, or a U.N. high commissioner.

But then we would have to share the Iraqi oil which is why we went into Iraq in the first place.

And to use Rummyism logic: We need to keep having American soldiers killed in the future in order that those who were killed previously will not have died in vain.

 

[turbo]

But then we would have to share the Iraqi oil which is why we went into Iraq in the first place.

The oil is important, sure, but Halliburton and other Bush supporters are making billions in no-bid contracts to ferry supplies to the troops, feed them, provide laundry services, etc, and are in position to benefit from any future "rebuilding" efforts to undo the damage the Bushco has done to Iraq. The nastier the situations on the ground, and the longer it takes to resolve them, the more money Bushco friends will make. Unless the next administration is incorruptible, the "war" will last a very long time. It's a huge money-pit, and it only takes a little lying and flag-waving to convince the US public to keep shoveling in the cash.

And to use Rummyism logic: We need to keep having American soldiers killed in the future in order that those who were killed previously will not have died in vain.

Well, yes. If we pulled out now, the Bushco companies would lose their windfall, and it would look like our brave men and women in uniform have put put in harm's way, injured, mutilated, and killed for nothing except profit and greed. We couldn't allow either of those things to happen.

 

[edward]

Civil war in Iraq started months ago. It is not the type of "one faction against another" war that we have historically equated to civil war. It is multiple political and religious factions fighting and killing each other.

The civilain death toll in recent months and weeks indicates civil war by any definition.

Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total
May-06 293
Apr-06 1010
Mar-06 1094
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 780
http://icasualties.org/oif/

 

[Astronuc]

Law and Disorder
Misjudgments Marred U.S. Plans for Iraqi Police

By MICHAEL MOSS and DAVID ROHDE, NY Times
Published: May 21, 2006

As chaos swept Iraq after the American invasion in 2003, the Pentagon began its effort to rebuild the Iraqi police with a mere dozen advisers. Overmatched from the start, one was sent to train a 4,000-officer unit to guard power plants and other utilities. A second to advise 500 commanders in Baghdad. Another to organize a border patrol for the entire country.

Three years later, the police are a battered and dysfunctional force that has helped bring Iraq to the brink of civil war. Police units stand accused of operating death squads for powerful political groups or simple profit. Citizens, deeply distrustful of the force, are setting up their own neighborhood security squads. Killings of police officers are rampant, with at least 547 slain this year, roughly as many as Iraqi and American soldiers combined, records show.

The police, initially envisioned by the Bush administration as a cornerstone in a new democracy, have instead become part of Iraq's grim constellation of shadowy commandos, ruthless political militias and other armed groups. Iraq's new prime minister and senior American officials now say the country's future — and the ability of America to withdraw its troops — rests in large measure on whether the police can be reformed and rogue groups reined in.

By some measure there does seem to be some kind of civil war, but perhaps to others it's simply chaos.

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AnC5UZXf3DaH_yGZUFiM2Uis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Well, Iraq continues to approach the brink of Civil War. Actually, it appears that Sunnis and Shi'a are engaged in a Civil War, perhaps limited, but nevertheless, there is ongoing tit-for-tat murders by both sides.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen ambushed a bus in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad on Monday, killing seven people, police said. The attack came after two car bombs struck a Shiite district in Baghdad, killing at least eight people and wounding dozens as sectarian continued to rise.

The gunmen killed all six passengers, including a woman, and the driver before setting the bus on fire in the Amariyah neighborhood of western Baghdad, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.

In Kirkuk, a suicide truck bomber struck an office of one of the main Kurdish political parties in Iraq, killing five people and wounding 12, police said.

On Sunday, masked Shiite gunmen roamed Baghdad's Jihad neighborhood, dragging Sunnis from their cars, picking them out on the street and killing them in a brazen series of attacks. Police said 41 people were killed, although there were conflicting figures that put the death toll at more than 50 and as low as nine.

Sunni leaders expressed outrage over the killings, and President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, appealed for calm, warning that the nation stood "in front of a dangerous precipice."

Ayad al-Samaraie, a member of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni bloc in parliament, blamed members of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia for Sunday's killings. He called on the U.N. Security Council to send peacekeepers to Iraq, saying Monday that U.S.-led "occupation forces" cannot protect Iraqis.

. . . .

A day after reports that Shiites pulled Sunnis from cars and shot them dead, revenge car bomb attacks target Shiite neighborhoods.

(AP, July 10)

Baghdad Erupts in Mob Violence (NYTimes, July 10, 2006)

BAGHDAD, July 9 — A mob of gunmen went on a brazen daytime rampage through a predominantly Sunni Arab district of western Baghdad on Sunday, pulling people from their cars and homes and killing them in what officials and residents called a spasm of revenge by Shiite militias for the bombing of a Shiite mosque on Saturday. Hours later, two car bombs exploded beside a Shiite mosque in another Baghdad neighborhood in a deadly act of what appeared to be retaliation.

While Baghdad has been ravaged by Sunni-Shiite bloodletting in recent months, even by recent standards the violence here on Sunday was frightening, delivered with impunity by gun-wielding vigilantes on the street. In the culture of revenge that has seized Iraq, residents all over the city braced for an escalation in the cycle of retributive mayhem between the Shiites and Sunnis that has threatened to expand into civil war.

Meanwhile

Four more U.S. soldiers have been charged with rape and murder and a fifth with dereliction of duty in the alleged rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman and the killings of her relatives.

(AP, July 9) One more reason I oppose war.

 

[Skyhunter]

I seem to remember an election 2 years ago where the losing candidate said that in order to extricate ourselves from Iraq, without leaving a power vacuum and civil war/chaos, we would need the help of the international community. It seems that the Iraqis agree with him.

The major reason I supported Kerry, not just voted for him was that I felt he stood a much greater chance of engaging NATO, the UN, and other ME nations in the process. That and I felt that anyway to break the power of the profiteers would go a long way toward stabilizing Iraq.

Putting an International face on the occupation, and accelerating the reconstruction would accomplish more toward establishing peace in Iraq than the deaths of 100 Zarqawis.

 

[edward]

Putting an International face on the occupation, and accelerating the reconstruction would accomplish more toward establishing peace in Iraq than the deaths of 100 Zarqawis.

I don't think any force that is primarily Christian Anglo's is going to work at this point. We call ouselves a coalition, they call us crusaders. The only thing that the Sunnis and the Shiites hate more than each other is the U.S occupying force.

There has to be a peace keeping force that is to a great extent comprised of neighboring Islamic countries.

Yet the Bush administration is not about to invite other Islamic countries into Iraq. We are over three years into this and have accomplished absolutley nothing. Oh yes there were those wonderful American style elections which only put into place a totally disfunctional government that is having no effect at all on the violence. Newly elected Iraqi officials who live outside the green zone seem to have a very short life span.

We in essence have to take a close look at what our real reasons for invading Iraq were. There have been a number of reasons given by the administration that were in reality only slogans, usually spewed out during pep talks at military installations. Before the slaogans began we had the cherry picked WMD garbage.

Why did we think it necessary to Inavade Iraq when we did? Iraq had just signed large oil contracts with Russia, France, and Germany, the three countries who wanted no part of the war.

So what was the reason for the invasion? From my point of view it was to establish permant military bases in remote locations in Iraq. The intention being to have permanent bases for American ground troops in the middle east in general.

When the permanent bases are completed in 2008 we will relocate our troops to those bases and the turmoil in Iraq will continue until another strong leader comes along. Hopefully this one will be user friendly to the USA. Bear in mind that we did lay the groundwork for Saddams presidency when the CIA put the Baath party into power in 1978.

As for the oil in Iraq, it was a long term goal. The Administration had been advised previous to the invasion that the existing oil infrastructure was so fragile that it could not be considered a financial source that could provide funding for the rebuilding of the country.

Behind the scenes, however, senior figures in the administration - including Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary, Douglas Feith, in charge of Pentagon postwar planning, Vice-President Richard Cheney, as well as the CIA's George Tenet - were being advised by former officials, experts and corporate bosses that the badly dilapidated Iraqi oil industry in no way represented a financial lifeline.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0116-10.htm

Whew, just a long needed rant.

 

[Astronuc]

Wave of Violence in Baghdad Puts 3-Day Death Toll Past 100
NY Times, July 12
By KIRK SEMPLE

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 11 — More than 50 people were killed in Baghdad on Tuesday in violence that included a double suicide bombing near busy entrances to the fortified Green Zone, scattered shootings, mortar attacks, a series of car bombs and the ambush of a bus with Shiite mourners returning from a burial.

Tuesday’s killings, many of them apparently carried out with sectarian vengeance, raised the three-day death toll in the capital alone to well over 100, magnified the daunting challenges facing the new government and deepened a sense of dread among Iraqis.

Many of the attacks, particularly those in neighborhoods primarily populated by one religious group or another, bore the hallmarks of sectarian militias, both Sunni Arab and Shiite. Militias now appear to be dictating the ebb and flow of life in Iraq, and have left the new government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and his American counterparts scrambling to come up with a military and political strategy to combat them.

Many Iraqis say the worsening security crisis in Baghdad and neighboring provinces feels like a low-grade civil war.

 

[BobG]

I'd say things in Iraq have almost reached the point where you can truly say civil war in Iraq is inevitable.

Pentagon brass: Iraq civil war is possible - Violence ‘is probably as bad as I have seen it,’ general testifies

The real test will be to track the flow of money and weapons into Iraq. You could almost expect Iran to give support to Shi'ites in Iraq regardless of how likely civil war is. If Sunni countries, such as Saudi Arabia, start providing support to Sunni insurgents, it means the struggle to form a new Iraq is effectively over. Countries whose best interest lie in a stable Iraq have given up and are already looking to what a post-Iraq future holds. You'll have the break-up of Yugoslavia repeated, except even worse - it'll be as critical to outside players who wins control of which oil fields as it will be to the inside players.

 

[turbo]

Countries whose best interest lie in a stable Iraq have given up and are already looking to what a post-Iraq future holds. You'll have the break-up of Yugoslavia repeated, except even worse - it'll be as critical to outside players who wins control of which oil fields as it will be to the inside players.

Once international military aid get polarized, we might expect Turkey to step in and rid itself of more Kurds, as well. There is a heightened danger of rash opportunism when a whole country is plunged in chaos. I'm sure glad our idiot-in-chief decided to go after those Iraqi terrorists who brought down the WTC. No, wait! It was the WMDs we went in for, and the Nigerian yellowcake. Still, it's been worth every human killed or maimed to keep the price of oil high.

 

[Astronuc]

I'd say things in Iraq have almost reached the point where you can truly say civil war in Iraq is inevitable.

I think some (including myself) would say, that civil war has been occurring in Iraq for some time.

 

[turbo]

I think some (including myself) would say, that civil war has been occurring in Iraq for some time.

Yes, I join you in that estimation. The Interior Ministry thugs have been killing Sunnis pretty routinely, and when the Sunnis retaliate, they are characterised as "insurgents", "terrorists" and worse.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yah ok some light relief and some prescient coverage, in no particular order, but hey let's lighten up Strangely I couldn't find the Iraqis preparing for peace by stockpiling weapons story, but they were strangely presciently right

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27948

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29893

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27963

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30570

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28954

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34144

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28151

And my personal favourite:-

God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule

September 26, 2001 | Issue 37•34

NEW YORK—Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.

god

God.

"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again," said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. "Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand."

Worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, God said His name has been invoked countless times over the centuries as a reason to kill in what He called "an unending cycle of violence."

"I don't care how holy somebody claims to be," God said. "If a person tells you it's My will that they kill someone, they're wrong. Got it? I don't care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else's, ever again."

The press conference came as a surprise to humankind, as God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs. As a matter of longstanding policy, He has traditionally left the task of interpreting His message and divine will to clerics, rabbis, priests, imams, and Biblical scholars. Theologians and laymen alike have been given the task of pondering His ineffable mysteries, deciding for themselves what to do as a matter of faith. His decision to manifest on the material plane was motivated by the deep sense of shock, outrage, and sorrow He felt over the Sept. 11 violence carried out in His name, and over its dire potential ramifications around the globe.

Attack On America Icon

"I tried to put it in the simplest possible terms for you people, so you'd get it straight, because I thought it was pretty important," said God, called Yahweh and Allah respectively in the Judaic and Muslim traditions. "I guess I figured I'd left no real room for confusion after putting it in a four-word sentence with one-syllable words, on the tablets I gave to Moses. How much more clear can I get?"

"But somehow, it all gets twisted around and, next thing you know, somebody's spouting off some nonsense about, 'God says I have to kill this guy, God wants me to kill that guy, it's God's will,'" God continued. "It's not God's will, all right? News flash: 'God's will' equals 'Don't murder people.'"

Worse yet, many of the worst violators claim that their actions are justified by passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an.

"To be honest, there's some contradictory stuff in there, okay?" God said. "So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bull****. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it's God's will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall."

God praised the overwhelming majority of His Muslim followers as "wonderful, pious people," calling the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks rare exceptions.

"This whole medieval concept of the jihad, or holy war, had all but vanished from the Muslim world in, like, the 10th century, and with good reason," God said. "There's no such thing as a holy war, only unholy ones. The vast majority of Muslims in this world reject the murderous actions of these radical extremists, just like the vast majority of Christians in America are pissed off over those two bigots on The 700 Club."

Continued God, "Read the book: 'Allah is kind, Allah is beautiful, Allah is merciful.' It goes on and on that way, page after page. But, no, some *******s have to come along and revive this stupid holy-war crap just to further their own hateful agenda. So now, everybody thinks Muslims are all murderous barbarians. Thanks, Taliban: 1,000 years of pan-Islamic cultural progress down the drain."

God stressed that His remarks were not directed exclusively at Islamic extremists, but rather at anyone whose ideological zealotry overrides his or her ability to comprehend the core message of all world religions.

"I don't care what faith you are, everybody's been making this same mistake since the dawn of time," God said. "The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims. The Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews, don't even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, 'Turn the other cheek,' but you've been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades."

Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."

"Why would you think I'd want anything else? Humans don't need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you've been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!" God said. "The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?"

"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm ****ing serious!"

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.

ah c'mon everyone needs a laugh once in a while

 

[pcorbett]

Sure. For the kitty crap that passes as civil war these days, why not?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Sure. For the kitty crap that passes as civil war these days, why not?

I always wonder about that. What, 600 Lebanese have died in the past month? Seriously, back in the day, 600 casualties would be a good DAY! Sheesh



They don't make wars like they used to

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

hi there , i am a new member and a proud muslim,

Welcome to PF, nice to have a mulsim perspective. I'm from the UK by the way, to put some perspective on what I say next.

as i can see , there are a lot of people on this forum that think Islam is based upon bombs and terrorism and I don't blame them because that's what they get brainwashed to believe on the media.
But let me just be clear here - the media is all false and rubbis- - It is all based upon the ''strings'' of the USA and Israel-

Most people here on this forum are actually a little better educated than that and know that it is both forbidden to kill innocents and to commit suicide in the Quran.

and just to clear some MAJOR misconceptions about Islam , let me state the following:
- 1)Islam forbids terrorism- in the Quran =- there is a verse that clearly states that :- who so ever kills someone - gets the same scale of sin as if he/she has killed ALL MANKIND

It's not those who follow their religion strictly we worry about it's the minority who corrupt it to suit a political agenda(fundementalists) Sadly they have the most power and loudest voices, we don't believe that for example Osamah Bin Laden is a Muslim any more than I personally believe Bush is a Christian(their both incredibly poor examples of their faith) I know full well that in the Quran, Jihad means to struggle not holy war, in fact war is a last resort of Jihad only after everything else has failed, be nice if the US adhered to that principle as well as the fundementalists but hey nm, we have a hundred and one reasons not to go to war from our bible, but religion in the US is both a convenience and an inconvenience to the president, he uses his suposed religous foundation to rally support, but ironically is not in any way following his beliefs, it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

-2) Palestine and Iraq people have all the right to kill American troops because the USA and Israel are invadiong their land under inllegal occupation- so its atural for them to defend their land!

I quite agree. However the US is not at war with the Iraqi people believe it or not, it is caught between Sunni and Shei'ite factions though. With only the Khurds with any love for the US. When England controlled Iraq, the Sunnis and Shei'ites united together to rid themselves of this colonial rule, when England left they fell to fighting amongst each other for power, Saddam if he did nothing else secured peace and a secular rule;so why we didn't expect this to happen again is beyond me, in fact most did expect this to happen but the planning for the smooth transition and the winning the hearts and minds of people was apallingly badly executed, most have gone as far as saying incompetent. Also it has come to light that some Soldiers most notably a UK Dr and SAS seargeant have refused to return to Iraq because they claim the war is illegal, The SAS soldier also saw widespread as he put it Untermensch(sub-human or under man) philosophy amongst the Americans who he stated had no real idea about the culture or respect for the Iraqi people(again a result of poor training and planning)

Addressing the why are they still there issue, Americans don't know when to quit maybe? I say they pull out and leave the country to it, but it won't happen, they probably still think they can salvage something out of this.

and the americans are killing civilians,,raping women, torturng people all just for no reason

Attrocities happen in war, I won't be trite enough to say s**t happens though in war like some people do, needles to say the rapists are being tried and will no doubt spend the rest of their lives or a significant part of it in a military prison(not sure, Court martials win around 98% of the time though, they are not like civil courts, they tend only to bring to trial crimes they know they can win) Its not quite sharia law but it's not exactly going to go lightly for them either. Same goes for the Marines who massacred villagers in Haditha(I think it was) They'll be strictly punished if it is found that they behaved badly. As for torture, we could start a whole new thread on that, suffice to say there is international pressure on the US to follow strictly the Geneva convention, it is not clear whether they are though, so I can't comment further.

- because if they TRULY went into remove SADDAM HUSSEIN- then why are they still in there even though they have captured him ages ago since the 2003 led invasion of Iraq?
- and if anyone just thinks LOGIACLLY - you would realize that the USA and Britain are in there for the same sole purpose - yes you gussed it -- OIL!
- Iraq has the 2nd/3rd biggest oil reserves in the world!
- 17/80 Oil reserves are currently used and ONE of them is ten times bigger and wealthier then North Britains OIL reserves!

This is part of it and I don't say a small part either(you need to understand capatilist mentallity it is greedy and selfish, and the Republicans hold economics up as a false idol - akin to the golden calf - almost it's not a perfect analogy but it's the best I can think of, which is ironic as the US is labouring under a 3 trillion dollar debt due in no small part to it's war mongering) It's just so widely accepted that no one mentions it any more. The same reason the British were there 50 years ago. I'm not sure if it's any comfort but should the US&UK sell all of the fuel reserves left in Iraq it is estimated it will not cover the cost of the campaign, if you include human lives it never would.

- if anyone has any questions about Islam - please just email me -

No I'm good, peace be with you

 

[Astronuc]

It's not those who follow their religion strictly we worry about it's the minority who corrupt it to suit a political agenda(fundementalists) Sadly they have the most power and loudest voices, we don't believe that for example Osamah Bin Laden is a Muslim any more than I personally believe Bush is a Christian(their both incredibly poor examples of their faith) I know full well that in the Quran, Jihad means to struggle not holy war, in fact war is a last resort of Jihad only after everything else has failed, be nice if the US adhered to that principle as well as the fundementalists but hey nm, we have a hundred and one reasons not to go to war from our bible, but religion in the US is both a convenience and an inconvenience to the president, he uses his suposed religous foundation to rally support, but ironically is not in any way following his beliefs, it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

The term "Fundamentalists" seems to be a misnomer IMO, which is used to refer to those who have some simplistic and literal interpretation (or more accurately, MIS-interpration) of a religious text. As for Bush's beliefs, I am left wondering what he actually does believe. His actions speak louder than words, and he appears to me to worship power and materialism. I cannot consider him Christian, since his behavior is contrary to Christian principles.

As SD mentioned, it was expected that the Suni and Shi'ia would be in conflict without a strong central authority, and that is one of the major failures of the US policy. There was no effective planning for post-Saddam Iraq. Incompetent would be putting it mildly.

 

[pcorbett]

This is something that lots of people overlook. If we "regionalized" Iraq and allowed each faction local control with a central government, Turkey would probably start attacking the Kurdish state, Iran would side with the Shiites and lay into the Sunnis, and perhaps prompt Syria to throw in with the Sunnis...it's going to be pure hell no matter how we try to disengage. President Cheney and his little Bush yes-man have sold us out and have destined the Iraqis to civil war. There is no war as destructive or as hard to recover from as a civil war, as any US citizen should know, if they bother to study history.

First thing. What interest does Syria have in supporting Sunni independence in Iraq.

Second, you might notice that the bulk of the Shi'a insurgency is al-Sadr's Mahdi Army--a force which pales in comparison with SCIRI and even al Dawa's Shahid al Sadr. Both parties have embraced the political process. That leaves three former regime groups with over a thousand fighters--Fedayeen Saddam, Jaish Muhammad and Islamic Response--the greatest threats to Iraqi internal security.

 

[Astronuc]

Lebanon and Shiite Movements
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5633492

Fresh Air from WHYY, August 10, 2006 · Augustus Richard Norton is a professor of international relations and anthropology at Boston University and has been writing about Lebanon for 25 years. He is an expert on the Shiite political movements, including Hezbollah. A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Norton's books include Amal and the Shi'a: Struggle for the Soul of Lebanon and Civil Society in the Middle East.

Norton makes the comment that the situation in Iraq IS Civil War.

 

[tarbag]

ll all of the fuel reserves left in Iraq it is estimated it will not cover the cost of the campaign, if you include human lives it never would.

:

try to say the truth at least here. If the Americans came to Iraq for the democracy, it was preferable to start with Saudi Arabia. The Americans came to Iraq neither for oil neither for the democracy nor for their proper interest, they came just to make like Israil. The Americans can pump the oil of the East as they want even at the time of Saddam.

With this war American did much enemy starting from their clean friends. They declared the war against everyone like Hitler. And I think that all the Moslems hate the Americans deeply even the Emirs of Saudi Arabia, and this feeling will grow with time. You can imagine the remainder when the Moslem people become free to choose their presidents.

The world will never forget the photographs of the prison "Abou-Gharib".

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I agree, but I'm hoping that the US governemnt will change in a few years, and there will be moderation in the ME, if not I fear your prognosis may well be right. The US government aren't exactly making friends in Europe let alone the ME or as far as I can tell in Asia, they seem determined to be in a them and us situation on this issue, with them being the tiny minority as far as world opinion goes, this is not healthy, and it's not smart either.

I have heard many people say why should we care what the rest of the world thinks? This is a truly blinkered question, and is devoid of the way world politics works, fortunately it's rarely bandied around here, so I judge this place as at least slightly better informed or very liberal biased one of the two Anyway when was the last time you could accuse the US government of acting smart? Listening to Bushes speaches they can't even talk smart. I mean defending our freedom, fighting terror, assuring peace, how dumb do you have to be to get how broad and airy these vague assertions are, and how little they actually mean? Anyway I've wondered OT in my rambellings and there's a thread about that defending freedom guff already.

 

[Astronuc]

Iraq Violence Grows Despite U.S. Security Plan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5688641

Morning Edition, August 22, 2006 · The rising death toll and number of insurgent attacks in Iraq has forced the U.S. to add troops in Baghdad to try and reverse the trend in the country's capital. The U.S. plans to eventually turn over security responsibility to Iraqis.

Steve Inskeep speaks to Gen. George Casey, the commanding general of the multinational force in Iraq.

Casey says that Baghdad has become safer since the U.S. deployed additional forces to the capital earlier this summer.

"But we have a long way to go…. We actually have seen a positive trend over the last five weeks here. [It's] too early to say that this is going to last, but the operations that we have been doing have had a positive impact.

. . . .

Journalist Says Iraq Security Outlook is Bleak
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5688644

Morning Edition, August 22, 2006 · One observer of the security situation in Iraq says that the U.S. response to Iraq's growing violence is failing to quell the trouble.

Steve Inskeep talks to Time Magazine's Bobby Ghosh in Baghdad about General Casey's view of the conflict in Iraq.

I heard a comment yesterday that most experts (including many retired generals) in the matter see that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, at last, Rumsfeld says something with which I can agree! Will wonders never cease?! Then again he states the exceedingly obvious.

Rumsfeld: Iraq must reconcile sects
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060825/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

WASHINGTON - The presence of several thousand extra U.S. troops in Baghdad in recent weeks showed that sectarian violence can be quelled by force of arms. But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the gains will be lost unless the Iraqi government reconciles rival religious sects.

"There ... is no question but that you can go in and clear out an area and achieve a reduction in violence, and the test is not that," Rumsfeld told reporters in a joint appearance Friday at the Pentagon with Iraqi Deputy President Adil Al-Mahdi.

"The test is what happens thereafter. And the important thing is for the Iraqi government to achieve success with respect to its reconciliation process," he said. "It's important that they deal with the militia issue."

 

[Skyhunter]

Well, at last, Rumsfeld says something with which I can agree! Will wonders never cease?! Then again he states the exceedingly obvious.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060825/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

Would have been nice had it been obvious to him in 2002/2003 when he was deciding on troop levels for the invasion/occupation.

I heard an interesting analogy by Jonathan Schell on C-SPAN about "regime change."

And I paraphrase:

If I intend to change my clothes, I would naturally have another set of clothes to wear, before I took off the ones I was wearing.

It is a great interview and live callin.

http://www.c-span.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100

 

[Astronuc]

The Pentagon finally concedes the risk of Civil War - despite the fact that Iraq has been embroiled in Civil War for months.

Pentagon Report: Iraq Is at Risk of Civil War
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5751612

All Things Considered, September 1, 2006 · The Pentagon acknowledges what already has been expressed by U.S. military commanders and others recently: Sectarian violence in Iraq is spreading beyond Baghdad. In its quarterly report, the Pentagon report showed Iraqi deaths have risen by 50 percent over the previous quarter.

Five weeks after the Bush administration brought thousands of new troops to quell rising sectarian violence in Baghdad, Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman says violence between Sunni and Shiite muslims has increased elsewhere in Iraq.

The report says violence has held steady in Baghdad. But it has increased in the southern city of Basra, where British troops have clashed with the Mahdi Army. It has risen in Diyala Province in central Iraq, as well as in the northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.

The report says, "Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months."

Nationwide in Iraq, the average number of weekly attacks tallied by the Pentagon has increased 15 percent over the past few months. Iraqi casualties have risen by 51 percent. That translates to 1,000 additional Iraqis killed each month.

also posted in the Fiasco thread, but repeated here.

Childhood Marriages Resurface in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5748348

Morning Edition, September 1, 2006 · Some families in Iraq are reverting to an old practice: marrying off daughters and female dependents at younger and younger ages. It's thought that women who marry very young will be more attached to their homes and children. For some girls, though, a childhood marriage can be the beginning of a life of misery.

So this is an improvement?! Way to go George.

Umm . . . this is not the path to Democracy, or does that not matter anymore . . . if it in the first place.

 

[Astronuc]

Fouad Ajami on What Went Wrong in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5739619

Morning Edition, August 31, 2006 · Fouad Ajami supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq. In a new book, The Foreigner's Gift, he writes about went wrong with that war.

Ajami says the Arab world was prejudiced against the Shia Muslims who were poised to lead Iraq, and it was prejudiced against the Americans who confidently expected to help them do it.

Ajami was born in Lebanon to a Shiite Muslim family. Today, as an American journalist and academic, he has advised the White House on Iraq. He traveled to Iraq several times while writing a book called The Foreigner's Gift.

To Ajami, that gift was supposed to be liberty for Iraq and a new political order for the Arab world. He says the disaster came when Arab governments, Muslim imams, even Western-leaning intellectuals, rejected that gift.

Excerpt from Ajami's book - The Foreigner's Gift

Those nineteen young Arabs who assaulted America on the morning of 9/11 had come into their own after the disappointments of modern Arab history. They were not exactly traditional men: they were the issue, the children, of disappointment and of the tearing asunder of modern Arab history. They were city people, newly urbanized, half educated. They had filled the faith with their anxieties and a belligerent piety. They hated the West but were drawn to its magnetic force and felt the power of its attraction; they sharpened their "tradition," but it could no longer contain their lives or truly answer their needs. I had set out to write a long narrative of these pitiless young men -- and the culture that had given rise to them. But the Iraq war, "embedded" in this cruel history, was to overtake the writing I was doing.

Listen to -
Ajami Describes the Real Reasons for the Iraq War
Ajami on How History Will View the Iraq War

 

[kyleb]

It makes sense that, especially as a Shia, Fouad Ajami would be so strongly in favor of replacing Saddam's Sunni rule with one respective of the Shia majority in Iraq. However, I dispute his focus on the foreign nature of that "gift", as in doing so he is overlooking the the effect of our chosen method of delivery. Diamonds are a gift few can deny, but even the most adored gems can be unwelcome when delivered though the barrel of a gun.

 

[turbo]

It makes sense that, especially as a Shia, Fouad Ajami would be so strongly in favor of replacing Saddam's Sunni rule with one respective of the Shia majority in Iraq. However, I dispute his focus on the foreign nature of that "gift", as in doing so he is overlooking the the effect of our chosen method of delivery. Diamonds are a gift few can deny, but even the most adored gems can be unwelcome when delivered though the barrel of a gun.

Thank you!

 

[Astronuc]

It makes sense that, especially as a Shia, Fouad Ajami would be so strongly in favor of replacing Saddam's Sunni rule with one respective of the Shia majority in Iraq. However, I dispute his focus on the foreign nature of that "gift", as in doing so he is overlooking the the effect of our chosen method of delivery. Diamonds are a gift few can deny, but even the most adored gems can be unwelcome when delivered though the barrel of a gun.

Agreed! Especially since it was unnecessary. I don't agree with everything Ajami said. It will only be successful if the Iraqis - Shia, Sunni, Kurd and anyone else - can put aside the violence and start working together peacefully for common interest. Only then can Iraq be successful. Meanwhile, it is pointed out that the very un-democratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt are holding on - with tacit approval/acceptance of the US.

I just heard this morning that a bus was ambushed enroute to the Shia shrine at Karbala. Fourteen men were removed from the bush and executed. The women were allowed to continue on and notified authorities. This is a civil war!

 

[McGyver]

Torture and Sectarian Intimidation Fuels Civil War

The pundits can use any number of adjectives to decribe what is happening within the sectarian communities of Iraq, but one thing is CLEAR: Torture and its Related Intimidation is Fueling the Conflict.

SEE MSN News Story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14798662/

What is most disturbing about this report is how militias and sectarian activists use "torture and intimidation" to press their agendas. Such political tactics are extremely destructive to community sharing of views, long term growth, and personal freedoms.

It is SHOCKING that the collective Arab world is yet to speak out with "one collective voice" against the use of torture to advance one's political and religious views. Many cried foul over the reports of some U.S. military practices. But where it really matters, THEY remain SILENT!

 

[Astronuc]

Bodies Found Across Baghdad Show Signs of Torture
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6067132

NPR.org, September 13, 2006 · Police find 65 bodies across Baghdad, many in Sunni areas, showing signs of torture. [During 24 hrs]

Forty-five of the victims were discovered in predominantly Sunni Arab parts of western Baghdad, and 15 were found in mostly Shiite areas of eastern Baghdad.

Meanwhile, mortar attacks, car bombings and shootings left another 30 dead across Iraq.

None have been identified. Some may have been kidnapped for ransom.

 

[Astronuc]

The news from Iraq seems especially grim these days as sectarian violence continues, apparently unabated.

Eight women shot in Iraq

BAGHDAD: Gunmen attacked a group of Shi'ite women picking vegetables in a field yesterday, slaying six adults and two young girls and kidnapping two teenagers near a tense village south of Baghdad where many residents - Sunnis and Shi'ites - have fled to escape violence. The shooting was one of the deadliest single attacks specifically targeting women in Iraq's months-long wave of sectarian violence. Police said they suspected Sunni gunmen seeking to intimidate Shi'ites into fleeing the area.

The attack took place in fields outside Saifiya, a mixed Sunni-Shi'ite village on the southern outskirts of Baghdad.

Most residents have already left to escape violence, the Sunnis going to the nearby town of Madain, the Shi'ites to neighbouring Suwayrah.

In another sign of Iraq's escalating sectarian violence, police in the town of Duluiyah north of Baghdad found 14 beheaded bodies thought to be from a group of 17 workers kidnapped by gunmen on Thursday while traveling home to the nearby town of Balad, which is mostly Shi'ite.

The police discovered the bodies at noon Friday, but had no word on the fate of the three other abducted workers.

The group of women killed yesterday were gathering vegetables when gunmen pulled up in two cars around 8 am and surrounded the field. They opened fire, killing six women and two girls aged about 4 or 5 years old, said police Lt Mohammed Al Shammari. The attackers forced two teenage girls into their vehicles and escaped, he said.

Besides the attack on the women, at least 10 other Iraqi civilians were killed yesterday. A US soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in northern Iraq, the 45th American death this month.

Meanwhile, a new video on the Internet showed a man claiming to be an Iraqi Sunni insurgent asking Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to replace the leader of the group in Iraq because of its attacks against Sunni clerics. . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_shiite_cleric_1

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani once wielded so much influence he seemed to single-handedly chart the post- Saddam Hussein political future in Iraq. Now, the country's top Shiite cleric appears powerless as Iraq edges toward civil war.

With dozens of Iraqis dying daily from Sunni-Shiite reprisal killings, the failures of al-Sistani's pleas for peace underline a major power shift in the Shiite establishment.

"Their political interests now outweigh religious interests," said Mustapha al-Ani, a Dubai-based Iraqi analyst. "To some extent, the need for al-Sistani's endorsement is no longer a prerequisite to gain power. Those with street credibility and a militia now have the power."

It's a major shift from the more than two years following Saddam's ouster, when Shiite leaders hung on al-Sistani's every word concerning politics. His opposition to U.S. plans for elections and a constitution forced the Americans to make dramatic changes. His calls for Shiites to avoid violence were largely adhered to.

But priorities for Shiite political parties have changed and their leaders no longer appear to feel the need to be seen to be closely associated with al-Sistani to gain legitimacy.

The swing has stripped the Shiite clergy, with the Iranian-born al-Sistani at its head, of much of its influence and given a lead role to followers of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who does not recognize al-Sistani's religious authority.

It is a power shift that does not bode well for Iraq's Shiite-dominated government or the U.S.-led military coalition as they try to contain the stubborn Sunni insurgency and the wave of sectarian killings that has swelled since last winter.

Al-Sadr's supporters are widely suspected in many of the attacks on Sunni Arabs. His militiamen, who staged two revolts against U.S. troops in 2004, also have clashed with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers in Baghdad and southern Iraq in recent weeks.

Al-Sistani has responded to the bloodshed with a mixture of resignation and a deep sense of disappointment, said an official who is in regular contact with al-Sistani in the southern holy city of Najaf.

"He keeps praying for peace," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. "He feels the pain every day, but he has no magic wand. He tells visitors every day that what's happening does not please God or his prophet and has nothing to do with Islamic teachings."

. . . .

Essentially, Iraq is embroiled in a civil war. Various entities are jockeying for power and control, and that means targeting opposition groups. It seems to be a no-win situation at present.

 

[Astronuc]

Analysis
Are the Troops in Iraq in the Right Position?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6358685

Weekend Edition Saturday, October 21, 2006 · The Bush administration's recent Iraq strategy has been to concentrate troops in Baghdad. Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former 1st Infantry Division commander in Iraq, tells Andrea Seabrook the rest of Iraq also needs U.S. troops for security and training.

When a general of this caliber feels he can do more for his troops by retiring and leaving the military (Army), then something is very wrong with the government, as is certainly apparent when one reads Bob Woodward's book, "State of Denial".

 

[turbo]

Lately, Bush has said that he would listen to some of the generals in the field to see if tactics need changing. If he had done this years ago instead of listening to Rummy and Shooter, we might not be in as bad a mess as we are. As it is, the idiots have painted our military into a corner and their options are quite limited.

 

[edward]

Lately, Bush has said that he would listen to some of the generals in the field to see if tactics need changing. If he had done this years ago instead of listening to Rummy and Shooter, we might not be in as bad a mess as we are. As it is, the idiots have painted our military into a corner and their options are quite limited.

Actually Bush has been saying that he depends on information from his commanders in the field for the past several years. His commanders know that any request for more troops would be a career ending event.

In the case of Batiste, he retired so that he could express his displeasure with the current tactics.

As far as concentrating troops in one area, that too goes back several years. Iraq is like a balloon, we squeeze one area and the insergency expands in another.

Marine combat reserves are now preparing for a second tour in Iraq. Most people would presume that this would have already happened, but the Marine combat reserves are supposed to be the spearhead of our ability to fight wars on two fronts. The Marine combat reserves are not being sent to Iraq in addition to existing troops they are being sent as replacements for the battle worn units who will be leaving Iraq.

There is a critical shortage of vehicles in the military. The Red River Army Depot recently announced that they have ramped up the rebuilding (reseting in army parlance) of Humvees to the rate of 32 per day compared to 3 per week a year ago.
http://www.army.mil/armybtkc/news/index.htm

As one military trade journal put it, half of the vehicles are in Iraq and the other half are in for repair. And this includes all types of vehicles.
We don't even have enough vehicles to do proper training of new recruits.
http://cw2.trb.com/news/nationworld/nation/kwgn-natl-military-vehicles,0,2458763.story?coll=kwgn-nation-1

We keep hearing that the Iraq military and polce must control the insurgency, yet the Iraqi police are only armed with hand guns and the military is only armed with AK 47's. They are outgunned by insergents who have RPG's and mortars. I have a gut feeling that we don't trust them with real weapons.

sorry, just a little rant

 

[Astronuc]

Iraqi officials 'stole millions'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6076834.stm

A former Iraqi minister has said that officials in the former interim government stole about $800m (£425m) meant for buying military equipment.

Former Finance Minister Ali Allawi told the US CBS network that about $1.2bn had been allocated for new weapons.

About $400m was spent on outdated equipment and the rest stolen, he said.

Mr Allawi said the UK and US had done little to recover the money or catch the suspects, who were "running around the world".

"We have not been given any serious, official support from either the United States or the UK or any of the surrounding Arab countries," he said.

"The only explanation I can come up with is that too many people in positions of power and authority in the new Iraq have been, in one way or another, found with their hands inside the cookie jar.

"And if they are brought to trial, it will cast a very disparaging light on those people who had supported them and brought them to this position of power and authority."

'Pay-offs'

The head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, Judge Radhi al-Radhi, said he had obtained arrest warrants for a number of officials in October 2005, but almost all the suspects fled the country.

None of the officials have been named.

But CBS's 60 Minutes programme also played an audio recording of Ziad Cattan, who was in charge of military procurement at the time, apparently talking in Amman, Jordan to an associate about pay-offs to senior Iraqi officials.

The interim government was established by the Bush administration.

US official retracts Iraq remarks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6075934.stm

The US state department official who said that the US had shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq has apologised for his comments.
Alberto Fernandez, who made the remarks during an interview with Arabic TV station al-Jazeera, said he had "seriously misspoken".

His comments did not represent the views of the state department, he said.

The BBC's Sarah Morris in Washington says it is unclear if Mr Fernandez was told by his seniors to apologise.

His original remarks have resonated with many Democrats and some Republicans who have been urging the administration to shift their course in the conflict, she says.

They came at a time of intense scrutiny of White House Iraq policy, with mid-term elections due next month.

'Disaster for region'

Mr Fernandez is an Arabic speaker who is director of public diplomacy in the state department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

On Saturday, he told the Qatar-based broadcaster that the world was "witnessing failure in Iraq".

Based on what I have seen and heard eslewhere, Fernandez's initial remarks are on the mark.

US 'arrogant and stupid' in Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6074182.stm

A senior US state department official has said that the US has shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq.

Alberto Fernandez made the remarks during an interview with Arabic television station al-Jazeera.

The state department says Mr Fernandez was quoted incorrectly - but BBC Arabic language experts say Mr Fernandez did indeed use the words.

Herein US really refers to the Bush administration.

 

[Astronuc]

Iraqi Realities Undermine the Pentagon’s Predictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/world/middleeast/25assess.html

BAGHDAD, Oct. 24 — In trying to build support for the American strategy in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said Tuesday that the Iraqi military could be expected to take over the primary responsibility for securing the country within 12 to 18 months.

But that laudable goal seems far removed from the violence-plagued streets of Iraq’s capital, where American forces have taken the lead in trying to protect the city and American soldiers substantially outnumber Iraqi ones.

Given the rise in sectarian killings, a Sunni-based insurgency that appears to be as potent as ever and an Iraqi security establishment that continues to have difficulties deploying sufficient numbers of motivated and proficient forces in Baghdad, General Casey’s target seems to be an increasingly heroic assumption.

On paper, Iraq has substantial security forces. The Pentagon noted in an August report to Congress that Iraq had more than 277,000 troops and police officers, including some 115,000 army combat soldiers.

But those figures, which have often been cited at Pentagon news conferences as an indicator of progress and a potential exit strategy for American troops, paint a distorted picture. When the deep-seated reluctance of many soldiers to serve outside their home regions, leaves of absence and AWOL rates are taken into account, only a portion of the Iraqi Army is readily available for duty in Baghdad and other hot spots.

One consideration - is the NY Times accurately with respect to the Sunni insurgency being as potent as ever? If so, progress is not being made. And if the Iraqi army is not going into the field, it ain't working.

Based on conflicting reports and what I hear from inside and outside the administration and military, I don't see Iraq getting better.

Bush needs to start being honest. Rumsfeld (and Cheney) should have gone a long time ago. Rumsfeld has not been honest with Bush, and based on that I'd say Rumsfeld has been disloyal.

Meanwhile - Idle Contractors Add Millions to Iraq Rebuilding
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/world/middleeast/25reconstruct.html

Overhead costs have consumed more than half the budget of some reconstruction projects in Iraq, according to a government estimate released yesterday, leaving far less money than expected to provide the oil, water and electricity needed to improve the lives of Iraqis.

The report provided the first official estimate that, in some cases, more money was being spent on housing and feeding employees, completing paperwork and providing security than on actual construction.

Those overhead costs have ranged from under 20 percent to as much as 55 percent of the budgets, according to the report, by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. On similar projects in the United States, those costs generally run to a few percent.

The highest proportion of overhead was incurred in oil-facility contracts won by KBR Inc., the Halliburton subsidiary formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root, which has frequently been challenged by critics in Congress and elsewhere.

The actual costs for many projects could be even higher than the estimates, the report said, because the United States has not properly tracked how much such expenses have taken from the $18.4 billion of taxpayer-financed reconstruction approved by Congress two years ago.

The report said the prime reason was not the need to provide security, though those costs have clearly risen in the perilous environment, and are a burden that both contractors and American officials routinely blame for such increases.

Instead, the inspector general pointed to a simple bureaucratic flaw: the United States ordered the contractors and their equipment to Iraq and then let them sit idle for months at a time.

Hah! Hippies did not order contractors and equipment and had them sitting around doing nothing while collecting huge paychecks.

 

[MeJennifer]

Based on conflicting reports and what I hear from inside and outside the administration and military, I don't see Iraq getting better.

It depends on the point of view.

To me it is obvious that the only reason the US went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan is to disable their military and economic power. I fear that the same is going to happen to Iran, Libanon and Syria.
"Helping" the population has nothing to do with it and one must be extremely naive to think that that was the real reason.