News Will Saddam Hussein's Execution Lead to Civil War in Iraq?

[Gokul43201]

Iraq may be in "deep trouble" now, but they were in even DEEPER trouble before. Yes, I agree that it is the fault of the President of the United States that Iraq has become a better country to live in. People are no longer being assassinated for their political beliefs, they are no longer living in that much fear as they did before and they are allowed to vote according to what they think.

Are you serious about this bit? You really think the Iraqis share your opinion?

The death rate in Iraq is now about 5 times greater than what it was before the invasion, and most Iraqis polled think they are worse off now. As for the bit about people not being killed for their political beliefs, that may be true. The militias haven't really bothered with conducting political opinion polls before they pump their victims full of lead.

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

 

[Moridin]

I'd like to take this as an opportunity as to question your source, Gokul43201 one the basis of

i. The website is run by 9 volunteers.
ii. It has no government affiliation, which normally ensures an unbias approach most of the time.
iii. It originates in the United Kingdom, yet content from Iraq, but people who do not appear to have the possibility to collect it in any scientific way.
iv. Have not received any awards or recognitions for their "effort"
v. According to Alexa, they do not get much traffic either.
vi. Most of the content is either circumstantial or without proper citation

 

[edward]

I am only trying to look at things in the proper perspective.

When you said:

and

It implies either that:

1. Iraq received more weapon systems from the USA than from any other country.

or

2. USA supplied more weapon systems to Iraq than to any other country in the region.

No those are your implications.

Now my question is:
Exactly what kind of weapon systems did we provide to Iraq that exceeded those listed in either case?

For the most part we assisted them financially.

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

Click on the link and read a bit, or even watch a video.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

 

[edward]

I'd like to take this as an opportunity as to question your source, Gokul43201 one the basis of

i. The website is run by 9 volunteers.
ii. It has no government affiliation, which normally ensures an unbias approach most of the time.
iii. It originates in the United Kingdom, yet content from Iraq, but people who do not appear to have the possibility to collect it in any scientific way.
iv. Have not received any awards or recognitions for their "effort"
v. According to Alexa, they do not get much traffic either.
vi. Most of the content is either circumstantial or without proper citation

Content would have to come from Iraq now then wouldn't it? The following link does not make it appear that Iraqi's are enjoying their new found freedom if they can find a way to escape it.

Until recently the Bush administration had planned to resettle just 500 Iraqis this year, a fraction of the estimated 60,000 to 90,000 Iraqis now fleeing their country each month. State Department officials say they are open to admitting larger numbers, but are limited by a cumbersome and poorly funded U.N. referral system.

And you will find the same stats in just about every publication, or media source you look into.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070102/NEWS/701020362/1002/rss01
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...dec14,1,7442658.story?coll=la-headlines-world
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/refugee_12-28.html

 

[grant9076]

There's a flaw in the argument. It neglects the indigenous capability of the countries in question and it neglects their relative strengths. To make a simplification for the sake of argument, let there be 3 countries in the region (A, B and C), and let their total military capability be represented by the number of missiles they possess. A has 100 missiles, B has 500, and C has 550. Currently C has the largest number and will win any 2-nation conflict, making C the "bully-boy" in the region so long as A and B don't have an alliance. Now, if I sell 200 missiles to A and 100 missiles to B, I've made B the "bully-boy" despite having sold them fewer missiles than another country in the region. Also, the participation of other sellers does not exclude my role, it only includes theirs as well.

Furthermore, no relevance to the context of timeline was considered. The fact that I refuse to sell missiles today doesn't negate the fact that I did sell missiles at a crucial time (some Y years ago), when B and C were engaged in conflict, and I wanted B to win.

Gokul, perhaps I should have clarified my argument. If you look at the period before 1990, you will notice that the Iraqis' American made aircraft were C-130's (cargo), along with Bell Jetranger and UH-1 utility helicopters. None of their fighter or bomber aircraft were American made. In addition, we did not provide them with any surface to surface missiles, air to surface missiles, air to air missiles, or surface to air missiles. Also, their tanks were Russian made. Furthermore, when I listed the equipment that we provided to the other countries, I chose to omit the F-16's to Jordan and the F-18's to Kuwait because these systems were provided after the first Gulf War. Frankly, an unbiased observer looking at the weapons that we sold to any individual neighbor of Iraq (except Syria) compared to what we sold to Iraq would find more physical evidence to support the argument that we were equipping other countries to defend themselves against Iraq (not my personal argument). The truth is that Iraq was well equipped. But it was mostly due to the Russians and the French.

My challenge to turbo to find compelling evidence to the contrary was an attempt to let him discover this for himself.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'd like to take this as an opportunity as to question your source, Gokul43201 one the basis of

i. The website is run by 9 volunteers.
ii. It has no government affiliation, which normally ensures an unbias approach most of the time.
iii. It originates in the United Kingdom, yet content from Iraq, but people who do not appear to have the possibility to collect it in any scientific way.
iv. Have not received any awards or recognitions for their "effort"
v. According to Alexa, they do not get much traffic either.
vi. Most of the content is either circumstantial or without proper citation

What on Earth are you talking about? Did you even look through the page I linked, or did you just start searching for stuff to discredit them with?

FYI, and you'll see this if you visit that link again, all of the content on that page is simply a compilation of polls conducted by well-recognized polling organizations (ICRSS, PIPA, US DoD, UK MoD, Zogby, Oxford Research, etc.).

 

[Anttech]

This is hardly relevant. People who go to war based on religion is fundamentalists no matter what. You still have not explained why the execution of Saddam will lead to tribal blood bath. Can you clarify this?

I already did

Also has no relevance. All Sunni Muslims do not seek revenge for the execution. That is prejudice.

You are really trying to build a stawman around me arent you. I am not a racist, nor do I think Iraqi's are.

Please explain as to why the execution will lead to more segregation and bloodbath using factual information instead of pointing out that a handful of people were happy that he was dead rather than saying that the millions of millions of people in several Middle East countries have the same views (by referring it to "Sunni Muslim thinks" and similar), which can be viewed as prejudice.

I already did, twice, and I don't think it will help to say it again. I already gave links to two bbc websites, that give differing views of worldleaders, many of whom seem to share my thoughts.

for the final time:

The Shia Militia executed Saddam who is a Sunni Bathest. The Sunni's are (FACTUALLY) Now very pissed off, they will and have already started to take revenge for what they see as the murder of a Sunni for who he was, and not what he did.

What facts do you need? Do you want me to show you that most of the killings that are happening in Iraq now are due to Sectarian violence? If you are not willing to see this fact, then I don't know what to say. Did you actually watch the Execution footage?

 

[Moridin]

I already did, twice, and I don't think it will help to say it again. I already gave links to two bbc websites, that give differing views of worldleaders, many of whom seem to share my thoughts.

for the final time:

The Shia Militia executed Saddam who is a Sunni Bathest. The Sunni's are (FACTUALLY) Now very pissed off, they will and have already started to take revenge for what they see as the murder of a Sunni for who he was, and not what he did.

What facts do you need? Do you want me to show you that most of the killings that are happening in Iraq now are due to Sectarian violence? If you are not willing to see this fact, then I don't know what to say. Did you actually watch the Execution footage?

No, your second link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6225689.stm) does NOT give more quotes from world leaders. They are views and opinions expressed by Middle East Reporters, NOT from world leaders. If you are going to cite a source, please do it accurately. As a side not, it wasn't two links to two different BCC websites, they were just two different articles from one website that is maintained by the BBC.

Here is a screen shot of your previous post taken a few moments in case you would edit it later if you have the opportunity and/or idea http://www.filehive.com/files/0105/image.png.

Again, you continue with unsubstantiated, prejudice claims and conspiracy theories. No, Saddam Hussein was not killed by Shia militia, but by the government of Iraq, which was the ones that ultimately tried, convicted and executed Saddam Hussein. He was not executed by the United States nor paramilitary unions.

Yes, I am aware that there are violence between certain limited factions of the different religious wings in Iraq. I have never denied it. Yes, I say the execution of Saddam, both the official video and the short and blurry video filmed by a mobile phone. Yes, I did see photos of his dead body. Yes, I did see and I do people that some people where happy that Saddam Hussein has been executed.

You are being prejudice when you claim that ALL Sunni Muslims (as a group of people) are very bloodthirsty and only want revenge. I am convinced that this is the fact for some people, or even a lot, but hardly the majority or everyone. If this is the truth, I wish to see some direct evidence that a majority of the Sunni Muslims only want revenge and bloodshed. In itself, it is a highly offensive statement against Sunni Muslims, especially secularized ones.

As a said earlier, prejudice and anger goes both ways. Saddam had been a dictator for 27 long and horrific years and suppressed a lot of people. He was a Sunni Muslim and the Shia Muslims are in a clear majority of the country's population according to the https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/iz.html. It comes as no surprise that some Sunni Muslims are angered over the arrest, trial, sentence and execution.

Saying that all Sunni Muslims are vicious and angry revenge-seekers that will cause a bloodbath is like calling all the people that live in the Middle East terrorists or saying that all the people living in the United States are pro-Bush and pro-war. Neither of these three statements are true. You have explained or clarified nothing at all.

So I ask you again, please present evidence or rational, logical explanations without the use of conspiracy theories as to why the execution of Saddam enrages ALL Sunni Muslims and will lead to an all out tribal war and bloodbath.

 

[Anttech]

You are being prejudice when you claim that ALL Sunni Muslims (as a group of people) are very bloodthirsty and only want revenge.

I never said ALL Sunni's. Nor did I say:

all Sunni Muslims are vicious and angry revenge-seekers that will cause a bloodbath is like calling all the people that live in the Middle East terrorists or saying that all the people living in the United States are pro-Bush and pro-war

You seem to keep saying this not me.

I said:

The Shia Militia executed Saddam who is a Sunni Bathest. The Sunni's are (FACTUALLY) Now very pissed off, they will and have already started to take revenge for what they see as the murder of a Sunni for who he was, and not what he did.

Like to point out where I said the blood thirsty part? Or the part where I am being racist?

Look whoever you are, I really don't care if you disagree with me, or you want to debate with me, this is fine, I get in quit a few here, however there are several rules u need to follow if you want to continue posting here. 1 is not building strawmen, Stop attempting to position me as a racist, your whole argument is based around this... So you can stop this accusations: I AM NOT A RACIST. I believe in Racial and Religious equality, if you don't believe me u only have to seach through the many posts I have posted here to see this. I hope this is the end of your strawman building.Anyway to reiterate, so we can move on from the racist accusations:

I believe that the execution of saddam was handled extreemly badly, like a lynching and I believe as a POINT OF FACT that the violence will now escalate due to the fact that sunni Muslims are now pissed off at what happened. I believe this fact to also be known by the US admin, and this is why more troops are being send in. I also no don't subscribe to your fantasy that Iraq is now a better place since the war, considering the death toll now. And finally I don't believe nor do I subscribe to consiperacy theories, like the attack on 911 was by bushes cronies. I however don't take, seemingly opposite to you, what Bush or other politicians tell the media at face value. One should look at all the facts of what is actually happening and make his own mind up.

Now if you want to debate about whether Saddams death is a good thing then fine, lets, but stop your strawman building.

 

[Moridin]

Yes, you did claim this to ALL Sunni's by speaking of them as a group with only one wish and action in several of your posts. Here is an example.

"The Shia Militia executed Saddam who is a Sunni Bathest. The Sunni's are (FACTUALLY) Now very pissed off, they will and have already started to take revenge for what they see as the murder of a Sunni for who he was, and not what he did."

I knew that it would end up a civil war blood bath due to the racial/tribal hatred between the factions in Iraq.

Here is it, black on white, that your opinion is that ALL Sunni Muslims are "pissed off" and wants to "take revenge" in a "tribal bloodbath". Those are EXACT quotes from your above and previous posts. Do not attempt to deny it one more time, because we can clearly see that this is the case.

I used the last two sentences in following quote as rhetorics to prove your arguments wrong, not to claim that you said it. The first sentence you have said, as proven above.

all Sunni Muslims are vicious and angry revenge-seekers that will cause a bloodbath is like calling all the people that live in the Middle East terrorists or saying that all the people living in the United States are pro-Bush and pro-war

I have never claimed that you are a racist, nor would I ever to that as personal attacks are a bad way or making an argument. I said that your view and opinions tend to be prejudice, as you cannot possibly claim that ALL Sunni Muslims (which are almost a billion people according to some sources such as http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islamic_sects.htm one). Using terms such as "The Sunni Muslims want" or "The Sunni Muslims are" can as a result be considered highly prejudice statements. You cannot possibly speak for close to a billion people, many of which are secularized to some extent. I'd like to reiterate that I have never called or insinuated that you are a racists, only that your claims can be viewed as highly prejudice.

I believe that the execution of saddam was handled extreemly badly, like a lynching and I believe as a POINT OF FACT that the violence will now escalate due to the fact that sunni Muslims are now pissed off at what happened. I believe this fact to also be known by the US admin, and this is why more troops are being send in

Yes, you have stated that you believe that the execution was wrong under these particular circumstances. The only thing that I am questioning is why the execution of Saddam and the way it was carried out would lead to greater civil war and a bloodbath between religious and racial factions, as you have clearly stated that it will. You are again claiming that you represent close to a billion people by saying that "the Sunni Muslims are now pissed off".

The United States are sending in more supplies and support due to the fact that there is too little support and supplies in Iraq for the coalition army. It may also be to send in more troops just to be on the safe side. That really has no relevance, since just because the United States sends in more support and supplies doesn't mean that all the Sunni Muslims will try to seek revenge against the execution of Saddam Hussein. There is a difference between something that will actually happen and (more or less) substantiated predictions saying that it might happen.

And finally I don't believe nor do I subscribe to consiperacy theories, like the attack on 911 was by bushes cronies.

You are arguing against your own statements. You have time and time again posted conspiracy theories such as:

The REAL reasons why he was executed so quickly are because the Shei and the US Admin had a common interest Saddam deposed of ASAP. Bushco would have HATED to have a real trail, and have even more unsightly political scandal come to the forefront!

The US did not Kill him, but they pulled and still pull all the strings on the Iraqi government that did.

and having been in bed with so many countries of the west he could have told many things that would have made the Oil for pencils scandal nothing in comparison...

These are unsubstantiated claims made by your very self, without referring to one SINGLE source. These are the conspiracy theories that you have been arguing for. They are exact quotes from your previous posts. You say that you have not used conspiracy theories as arguments? Prove it.

I am not accusing you of being prejudice and using unsupported conspiracy theories as facts for the sake of it - I have nothing personal against you or your views and opinions - I am using it to disprove your faulty arguments.

Since you have not stated one single source of information to support your conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims, I will ask for a third time:

So I ask you again, please present evidence or rational, logical explanations without the use of conspiracy theories as to why the execution of Saddam enrages ALL Sunni Muslims and will lead to an all out tribal war and bloodbath. This time without being prejudice or resorting to conspiracy theories. Please.

You asked me to debate if the execution of Saddam was a good or bad thing? That is what I am doing. You are using the argument that the above will happen and I am questioning it with the arguments in this and previous posts which you have yet to counter. Please.

 

[Anttech]

I won't debate anymore with you until you stop building a strawman argument. I never said ALL Sunni's you did. If this is what you are going to base your aguement on, then I stop now, and you can argue with someone else who has the viewpoint you are trying to build around me.

Germany invade poland to start the 2nd world war

What does that mean, that all Germans invaded Poland? Or Germans invaded Poland?

Here is it, black on white, that your opinion is that ALL Sunni Muslims are "pissed off" and wants to "take revenge" in a "tribal bloodbath". Those are EXACT quotes from your above and previous posts. Do not attempt to deny it one more time, because we can clearly see that this is the case.

Well done, you have been able to quote me (allbeit with adding extra bits to further your claims), and I never denied I said that, I denny I said:

You are being prejudice when you claim that ALL Sunni Muslims (as a group of people) are very bloodthirsty and only want revenge.

and

all Sunni Muslims are vicious and angry revenge-seekers that will cause a bloodbath is like calling all the people that live in the Middle East terrorists or saying that all the people living in the United States are pro-Bush and pro-war

There are big differences in what I said, and what you are attempting to position on me.

Until we get past this point there is no point in debating... (Katalava?)