Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

SimeyTheLimey · Aug 18, 2004, 01:20 PM

It looks like good news!

CNN

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced Wednesday his militia will leave the Imam Ali Shrine after a threat by the Iraqi government to "liberate" the holy site in Najaf.

In a letter from al-Sadr's office in Baghdad, the cleric said he agreed to demands Tuesday night by a delegation from the Iraqi National Conference that he and his forces leave the mosque, disband his Mehdi Army and "enter into the mainstream political process."

voodoo · Aug 18, 2004, 01:22 PM

Great stuff. Perhaps this will be a step in the direction of a peaceful and democratic Iraq. A minor victory but a victory non-the-less.

PacHead · Aug 18, 2004, 01:22 PM

Sounds like ok news, if it turns out to be true. Unfortunately, I do not trust that dude, and they should have levelled him and his mosque a long time ago.

djohnson · Aug 18, 2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Sounds like ok news, if it turns out to be true. Unfortunately, I do not trust that dude, and they should have levelled him and his mosque a long time ago.

A little harsh huh? We are trying to create peace, not incite riots...

voodoo · Aug 18, 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by djohnson:
A little harsh huh? We are trying to create peace, not incite riots...

Exactly, and with him surrendering that is more likely to happen. Sooner rather than later.

SimeyTheLimey · Aug 18, 2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
Exactly, and with him surrendering that is more likely to happen. Sooner rather than later.

This is very frightening when we agree.

voodoo · Aug 18, 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is very frightening when we agree.

Don't worry about it. It's like the flu - it won't last long

BlackGriffen · Aug 18, 2004, 01:44 PM

Yes, this is a turn for the better. Hopefully, it will mean a decrease in violence in Najaf - even beyond just the end of military operations. I would also hope that this is an indication that Sadr was offered sufficient reassurances that the political process in Iraq will be opened up in the near future to a full participatory system (ie actual elected officials).

I didn't like Al-Sadr, but Allawi worries me, too. I don't want him to turn into another propped up dictator.

BlackGriffen

djohnson · Aug 18, 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I don't want him to turn into another propped up dictator.

Dictators are bad news...

voyageur · Aug 18, 2004, 01:48 PM

I agree, it sounds like good news to me too. Al Sadr was invited to join the interim Iraqi government before the June handover, but at that time apparently decided to fight rather than join. Perhaps now that he's been injured and is surrounded, he's decided if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I hope that he's sincere for the sake of the people living in Najaf.

Luca Rescigno · Aug 18, 2004, 01:52 PM

Good that he's surrendering. Bombing the sh*t out of him would have only strengthened the resolve of the various terrorist and resistance groups in Iraq. His surrender is a blow to the enemies of the United States.

OMG, I'm sounding like one of those damn conservatives!

PacHead · Aug 18, 2004, 01:57 PM

Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it. How many ceasefires and other crap has there been already ? Al sadr can not be trusted to hold his word.

I wouldn't be surprised if we read some news clip tommorow - Al sadr has decided to fight on and keep killing the American infidels. In that case, the solution in my previous post should be the only option.

Atomic Rooster · Aug 18, 2004, 02:13 PM

I think it would have been more appropriate to drag him out buy his ear ie. Three Stooges kinda thing or what my bitchy grade one teacher used to do to me ions ago.

Then try him and shoot him or maybe behead him. That is more honorable.

mo · Aug 18, 2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Sounds like ok news, if it turns out to be true. Unfortunately, I do not trust that dude, and they should have levelled him and his mosque a long time ago.

It's not "his" mosque. And its destruction would be a disaster for the U.S. in Iraq. Get a clue.

macvillage.net · Aug 18, 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Sounds like ok news, if it turns out to be true. Unfortunately, I do not trust that dude, and they should have levelled him and his mosque a long time ago.

All indications are he's legit.

He's been pretty genuine about his love of his country. Nothing has shown otherwise.

His hostility is at US occupation only.

This could be very good for Iraq, he's actually a bright guy. If the Iraqi government can get him to work with them, he would be a valuable asset, since many of the more militant people who are resisting the new Iraqi government as well as the US, will listen to him.

If he becomes part of the Iraqi government, it would mean more stability for Iraq...

which has it's benefits for the US as well.

And destroying that Mosque would have been the equivilant of blowing up the vatican... would have been terrible for the US, even if our troops didn't do it.

This was a big win for the US.

Logic · Aug 18, 2004, 04:53 PM

Don't see why you call this a surrender. If there will be true free elections he will become one of the most influential Iraqis in the years to come.

But it is good to see that he values the safety of the Mosque and the inhabitants of the city more than the US has shown so far.

Just don't be surprised when the next President of the truly free Iraq will be named Moqtada Al Sadr and the US bases in Iraq will be dismantled. Only problem is that a true free Iraq will never happen......

BlackGriffen · Aug 18, 2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Just don't be surprised when the next President of the truly free Iraq will be named Moqtada Al Sadr and the US bases in Iraq will be dismantled. Only problem is that a true free Iraq will never happen......

Why dismantle them? If they get the U.S. to vacate, then they'll probably use them for their own purposes.

BG

LoganCharles · Aug 18, 2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Don't see why you call this a surrender. If there will be true free elections he will become one of the most influential Iraqis in the years to come.

But it is good to see that he values the safety of the Mosque and the inhabitants of the city more than the US has shown so far.

Just don't be surprised when the next President of the truly free Iraq will be named Moqtada Al Sadr and the US bases in Iraq will be dismantled. Only problem is that a true free Iraq will never happen......

Whatever. The guy tried to make a power play and it failed....for now. He lacks the charisma to run Iraq, that and bad teeth. He could use to trim up that beard of his as well. Sadddam could of played Rhett Butler he was that smooth...until we found him in that spider hole. Notice how excited some people got when they dandied him up for that court appearance.

LoganCharles · Aug 18, 2004, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
But it is good to see that he values the safety of the Mosque and the inhabitants of the city more than the US has shown so far.

I'm not sure how you would call rigging to blow the Mosque up as a healthy value.

Logic · Aug 18, 2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
I'm not sure how you would call rigging to blow the Mosque up as a healthy value.

And you are of course able to back that claim up aren't you?

LoganCharles · Aug 18, 2004, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
And you are of course able to back that claim up aren't you?

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1190138/posts

Logic · Aug 18, 2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1190138/posts

How cute..... Did you put that site up yourself?

LoganCharles · Aug 18, 2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
How cute..... Did you put that site up yourself?

The guy claims to be a martyr. Isn't that what martyrs do, blow themselves up? I know you know what I'm talking about.

Logic · Aug 18, 2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
The guy claims to be a martyr. Isn't that what martyrs do, blow themselves up? I know you know what I'm talking about.

Where does he claim to be a martyr? And please provide some credible source to back it up.

LoganCharles · Aug 18, 2004, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Where does he claim to be a martyr? And please provide some credible source to back it up.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...adr/index.html

"I will continue to defend Najaf as it is the holiest place. I will remain in the city until the last drop of my blood has been spilled."

He has even resorted to covering himself with white shrouds at Friday mosque ceremonies to say "I know I'm going to die," Amatzia Baram, a senior fellow of the U.S. Institute of Peace, told CNN.

According to Islamic tradition, the dead are buried in white shrouds.

Joshua · Aug 18, 2004, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Don't see why you call this a surrender. If there will be true free elections he will become one of the most influential Iraqis in the years to come.

But it is good to see that he values the safety of the Mosque and the inhabitants of the city more than the US has shown so far.

Basing an armed rebel militia out of the Mosque shows that he values its safety?

macvillage.net · Aug 18, 2004, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Why dismantle them? If they get the U.S. to vacate, then they'll probably use them for their own purposes.

BG

Most 'bases' are temporary structures errected, or facilities taken over (palaces, international airport). One would assume those would go back to their previous job. Baghdad Intl. has an important role to play in their economy. The palaces are extremely expensive. Not worth wasting on a base. Worth more as government buildings.

Then there were a few Iraqi bases we took when we invaded. Those will be left.

But the US didn't build much perminant structures. Mostly repaired what was there, and temporary (trailers etc.). Great thing about that is that when we leave, we don't leave a big footprint, allowing Iraq to move forward much easier.

I'd bet the US will most likely build a base when things settle down a bit, and promise Air support and ground support for Iraq at their request for a period of 5-10 years. At that point the base would be turned over to Iraq, and US personnel would leave, or it would be extended at their will. This would help deter a overthrow of government until it gains some strength. I'd bet it would be US lead, but UN countries providing some staffing, and equipment. But that's a few years down the line.

CreepingDeth · Aug 18, 2004, 11:02 PM

Very mixed:
Pro: At least the bastard isn't on the run.
Con: I don't trust him at all
I would have rather him been captured DOA than to put this guy up in gov't.

Also, the whole mosque thing is a joke. Apparently out enemies think nothing of holy places, so why give them better? Nothing is holy in war�

The more sensitive military�.

Spliffdaddy · Aug 18, 2004, 11:19 PM

I guess he lied (not surprisingly).

Ain't nobody laying down their arms.

Time to kill 'em all dead.

Logic · Aug 19, 2004, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...adr/index.html

Where in that quote does he say he's a martyr?

Logic · Aug 19, 2004, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Joshua:
Basing an armed rebel militia out of the Mosque shows that he values its safety?

Where else should he base his militia to protect the mosque? And the US didn't complain when he and his militia made Sadr City(formerly known as Saddam City) the safest place in Baghdad just after Baghdad was conquered by the coalition.

Logic · Aug 19, 2004, 04:08 AM

Some wise words from the cnn article posted above:

"In the present situation, democracy and occupation cannot be together nor freedom and occupation," al-Sadr said.

"Let us remove the occupation fist, then there will be freedom and democracy, but no democracy nor freedom with the occupation."

LoganCharles · Aug 19, 2004, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Some wise words from the cnn article posted above:

That's just rhetoric. The guy knows we in effect created him. He also found out that we can destroy him which is why he backed down. He's smart enough to know that there will be a next time. We should of killed him when we had a chance.

Logic · Aug 19, 2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
That's just rhetoric. The guy knows we in effect created him. He also found out that we can destroy him which is why he backed down. He's smart enough to know that there will be a next time. We should of killed him when we had a chance.

And why should you have killed him?

LoganCharles · Aug 19, 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
And why should you have killed him?

Because he represents a dangerous element of religious extremism. One of the things we are combating in that region.

Logic · Aug 19, 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Because he represents a dangerous element of religious extremism. One of the things we are combating in that region.

So you are fighting Islam? And what of what he has done can be classified as religious extremism?

LoganCharles · Aug 19, 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
So you are fighting Islam? And what of what he has done can be classified as religious extremism?

No. I didn't say that. That is what you believe.

I've heard your opinion on the matter. I don't think this discussion needs to go further.

Logic · Aug 19, 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
No. I didn't say that. That is what you believe.

I've heard your opinion on the matter. I don't think this discussion needs to go further.

That's what I thought. Thank you for an "enlightening" discussion.

PacHead · Aug 19, 2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
So you are fighting Islam? And what of what he has done can be classified as religious extremism?

Extremist islamists are the enemy. They are the ones churning out terrorists.

Logic · Aug 19, 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Extremist islamists are the enemy. They are the ones churning out terrorists.

And what has that got to do with Al Sadr?

tie · Aug 19, 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by voyageur:
I agree, it sounds like good news to me too. Al Sadr was invited to join the interim Iraqi government before the June handover, but at that time apparently decided to fight rather than join. Perhaps now that he's been injured and is surrounded, he's decided if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I hope that he's sincere for the sake of the people living in Najaf.

I am not sure this is going anywhere. But if it does..

Should the US let al-Sadr off? Should he be allowed to become part of the Iraqi government? He is responsible for killing numerous American soldiers. He quite properly has a murder warrant on his head.

Realistically, I suppose he can't become part of the government, and he knows it. As soon as his militia disbands, they'll pin something on him (perhaps like Chalabi) and get rid of him.

Wiskedjak · Aug 19, 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by tie:
Should he be allowed to become part of the Iraqi government?

Isn't that a decision for Iraqi voters?

LoganCharles · Aug 19, 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
And what has that got to do with Al Sadr?

Logic · Aug 19, 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by tie:
I am not sure this is going anywhere. But if it does..

Should the US let al-Sadr off? Should he be allowed to become part of the Iraqi government? He is responsible for killing numerous American soldiers. He quite properly has a murder warrant on his head.

Realistically, I suppose he can't become part of the government, and he knows it. As soon as his militia disbands, they'll pin something on him (perhaps like Chalabi) and get rid of him.

Of course. We don't want to allow free elections in Iraq do we? That would be catastrophic for the PNAC people and their minions.

LoganCharles · Aug 19, 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Isn't that a decision for Iraqi voters?

No. Al Sadr is a criminal.

voyageur · Aug 19, 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by tie:
I am not sure this is going anywhere. But if it does..

Should the US let al-Sadr off? Should he be allowed to become part of the Iraqi government? He is responsible for killing numerous American soldiers. He quite properly has a murder warrant on his head.

Realistically, I suppose he can't become part of the government, and he knows it. As soon as his militia disbands, they'll pin something on him (perhaps like Chalabi) and get rid of him.

I think the US has to let Iraqis decide what to do with Al Sadr, as we have with Saddam. It is not our call to make anymore.