[besson3c]

I'm sick of the notion of simply labeling the Iraqi insurgents as freedom hating terrorists, and leaving this label so incredibly vague and imprecise.

What factions are these insurgents a part of? Who are they attacking? Why? What is the underlying cause of these civil conflicts? What blame and justification do each of these factions carry? How would they explain their cause and their justifications? Please be precise...

Since our military solutions seem like they alone will not work, it seems imperative that we actually begin to understand these issues if we haven't already. I'm assuming for now that most of us don't, in part because this isn't reported.

However, I'd like to know what you think and to learn what I can...

[Sky Captain]

OK I see your topic now...
I'm in the same camp actually.
Who are these people and why are they targeting civillians?
Open markets? Pet markets?
Places of peace. Yet they want to instill chaos.(this is pure hate BTW, not an adgenda)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

OK I see your topic now...
I'm in the same camp actually.
Who are these people and why are they targeting civillians?
Open markets? Pet markets?
Places of peace. Yet they want to instill chaos.(this is pure hate BTW, not an adgenda)

Hate of what, and what motivates and inspires this hatred?

[Sky Captain]

Order.
The fact that these people aren't caving into chaos.
That's my take.
So they bomb them into chaos.
And only the lowest of lowlife garbage could purposely kill innocents on purpose.
"For the cause".


Any thoughts yourself?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Order.
The fact that these people aren't caving into chaos.
That's my take.
So they bomb them into chaos.
And only the lowest of lowlife garbage could purposely kill innocents on purpose.
"For the cause".


Any thoughts yourself?

So you think that their love of chaos is motivating them to commit these acts? I don't buy it... I'd imagine that they only see chaos as a means to an end, the end which I'm not certain of.

I'm still of a split mind over many of these proposed solutions (left and right). We can get into them at a later time I guess, but one thing I'm starting to believe quite strongly is that our collective understanding of our enemies and perhaps the middle east as a whole is piss poor. I probably won't be confident in my viewpoints until I've learned as much as I can, which means I have some reading to do!

[BRussell]

The term 'insurgent' doesn't seem to capture what's going on now. It used to be insurgents vs. American occupiers, but now the main issue is Sunni vs. Shiite sectarian conflict, or civil war if you prefer. 'Insurgent' implies that the primary target is the occupier, but that now seems to have been dwarfed by the sectarian violence.

[Sky Captain]

Ok, seriously.
The insurgeny's attack on the civillians is to "convincce" the civillian populace to drive the forces out.
While they inflict casualties on opposing religious factions that support us.
And to punish those we put into power.
But hate goes a long way in carrying out these cowardly attacks.
My their souls be shamed in allah's eyes.

[Millennium]

The important thing to remember is that "the insurgents" are not a single, cohesive group. "It" consists of several factions, divided more or less along tribal lines with a thin veneer of religion painted over top of each faction. Although they have a common enemy in the secular Iraqi government, they spend most of their time fighting each other, attempting to become the sole power in Iraq. Interestingly, while the US forces are certainly an obstacle to this, they don't seem to be the highest-priority target for any of the insurgent groups. This is, in and of itself, rather telling: the groups don't see the US as a big enough threat to band together against it.

What is their cause? Plain and simple: dominance. Each faction wants to run Iraq in its own way, preferably as the sole power. In the end, these intended methods tend to all blend into a dehumanizing perversion of Sharia law, with only small differences between them. The more telling difference is driving out opposing tribes, with this being defined ostensibly by religion but ultimately by things even more meaningless.

[tie]

I have heard that they are mostly Al Qaeda fighters (mostly from unspecified countries outside Iraq) who hate us for our way of life and want to destroy our civilization. If we weren't fighting them in Iraq, all those bombs would be going off here in the US!

[besson3c]

never mind

[besson3c]

I've been doing some research on this, and this is what I found...

The Sunni/Shitte conflict has been going on for over 1300 years. Saddam's part was the Bathist (sp?!) party, but he himself was a Sunni. While he was in power, he was very oppressive over the Shiite population. The Kurds living in the North probably would prefer to have their own country, they aren't interested in being a part of this conflict, I don't think.

The Shitte now see Saddam being gone as a great opportunity to seek revenge and dominance over the Sunnis. However, this conflict is nothing new to the world. For many years, Catholics and Protestants battled over minute differences in their religion, the cause of this conflict being probably about as mysterious to the outside world as the Shitte/Sunni conflict is to us.

Still, I maintain my theory that Americans as a whole are not well informed about all of this. How many could name the differences between Shittes and Sunnis? Probably very few, including myself... How many could indicate that they are at war? How many even know they exist and where they are situated, primarily?

If 1300+ years of war has not made headway, all of our tanks and planes are probably not going to either.

[Kevin]

I kinda wish some other country would have taken care of Iraq.

Not that I think anyone could have done a better or worse job, but because I think the fact AMERICA did it had people calling it a failure from the start because of their partisan shenanigans. And no matter what happened that partisan road was going to stay on track.

I just wish one person in power that is bad mouthing the efforts in Iraq would atleast come up with a better realistic plan.

So far I have seen nada. Zip. Zilch.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If 1300+ years of war has not made headway, all of our tanks and planes are probably not going to either.

I am glad you finally found the time to actually reduce your ignorance of the Iraq war.

So, are you saying that we should just give up and leave? Let them just keep killing themselves? I am glad people care more for the people of Iraq than you do. Hell, you JUST too the time to figure out why they are fighting after years of being critical of the administration (in ignorance you admit nonetheless).

I wish more liberals would take the time like you have to reduce their ignorance, instead of just blindly protesting like sheep.

[Kevin]

People of Iraq are a petty insignificance when compared with the power of political partisanship.

Don't ever forget that.

Remember, it's election time again. More blaming and finger pointing without offering any other stance.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I kinda wish some other country would have taken care of Iraq.

Most other nations were smart enough to realize what would happen in a power vacuum. Our presidant thought that it all would be rosie when we deposed saddam.

I just wish one person in power that is bad mouthing the efforts in Iraq would atleast come up with a better realistic plan.

That because there isn't really anything feasible. We could put in another "strong leader" read dictator that would crush the insurgents and likewise crush personal freedoms, or we could keep propping up the current governement in the hopes that they'll get their act together.

Right now all of the insurgents smell blood, their government is unable to (or even unwilling) to take the steps needed to stop these attacks and the support for the war is here in the states is at an all time low. Add in the fact that Iran is meddling in the affairs in iraq means that there's no clean exit strategy. I think the writing is on the wall and the next administration is going to do what nobody wants to do, cut and run. I don't care if the next presidant is a democrat or republican with virtually zero support for the war our troops are coming home after the elections at some point.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I just wish one person in power that is bad mouthing the efforts in Iraq would atleast come up with a better realistic plan.

I just wish the person in power would do so. But coming up with a realistic plan requires acknowledging and responding to the current situation, which Bush is unwilling to do. So we get plans based on fantasies instead of realities. (... Which of course the entire war was based on from the beginning, too, but we'll never see that acknowledged either.)

So far I have seen nada. Zip. Zilch.

Exactly.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I just wish one person in power that is bad mouthing the efforts in Iraq would atleast come up with a better realistic plan.

So far I have seen nada. Zip. Zilch.

Today in the NY Times there's a proposal to disengage, force the Iraqis to stop depending on the US, and work it out for themselves. The theory is that our presence is causing the violence and if we stepped on to the sidelines, they'd be forced to work it out for themselves and they wouldn't have us to blame for the ongoing violence. That, of course, is what many Democrats have been saying for years.

Other plans, like this one from Joe Biden, call for the partition of Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite provinces within Iraq. This has also been suggested for years.

From what I can tell, every liberal think tank and policy group and Democratic politician has some white paper plan for Iraq.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Today in the NY Times there's a proposal to disengage, force the Iraqis to stop depending on the US, and work it out for themselves. The theory is that our presence is causing the violence and if we stepped on to the sidelines, they'd be forced to work it out for themselves and they wouldn't have us to blame for the ongoing violence. That, of course, is what many Democrats have been saying for years.

Other plans, like this one from Joe Biden, call for the partition of Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite provinces within Iraq. This has also been suggested for years.

From what I can tell, every liberal think tank and policy group and Democratic politician has some white paper plan for Iraq.

Pretty much every person I've seen who accuses them of not having a plan says so in the context of leaving the country in one piece and with a democratic gov't in tact.

There is no plan for that from the left.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Pretty much every person I've seen who accuses them of not having a plan says so in the context of leaving the country in one piece and with a democratic gov't in tact.

There is no plan for that from the left.

That's because it's not possible. How did Saddam keep the country stable? With an iron fist. Either we do that or we leave. I'd prefer we leave and let them kill each other. At least we're not wasting money and human lives.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

That's because it's not possible.

That's why they are called "defeatist".

How did Saddam keep the country stable? With an iron fist.

Just because it worked doesn't mean it was the only way.

I'd prefer we leave and let them kill each other. At least we're not wasting money and Americans' lives.

Fixed™

[macintologist]

Ok then let's change one little thing. How about, instead of forcing everyone to pay for this stupid war, we'll let people KEEP their money, and those who SUPPORT keeping the troops there can cut a check for whatever amount and donate to the cause.

How much would you donate, smacintush?

I personally would donate $0

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie 

I just wish the person in power would do so. But coming up with a realistic plan requires acknowledging and responding to the current situation, which Bush is unwilling to do. So we get plans based on fantasies instead of realities. (... Which of course the entire war was based on from the beginning, too, but we'll never see that acknowledged either.)
Exactly.

I am speaking about those pointing their fingers at bush with no plan themselves.

Easy to condemn, hard to actually do it yourself.

It's all just shilling. Election time again.

Wait till the Rudy spins show up.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Today in the NY Times there's a proposal to disengage, force the Iraqis to stop depending on the US, and work it out for themselves.

I said realistic.

[macintologist]

Why isn't disengagement a valid plan?

[Kevin]

Ask the top advisors who claimed it would just cause MORE problems in that area if we left NOW.

But what do they know.

They are just using common sense and being realistic. AKA doing their jobs without the partisan spin.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Ok then let's change one little thing. How about, instead of forcing everyone to pay for this stupid war, we'll let people KEEP their money, and those who SUPPORT keeping the troops there can cut a check for whatever amount and donate to the cause.

How much would you donate, smacintush?

I personally would donate $0

You're barking up the wrong tree. I wouldn't donate because I don't think we should be spending a dime on this war either.

[Sky Captain]

So was the one detail that made a difference in Europe was troop numbers after the defeat of the axis powers?
Or were the people just willing to stop fighting and rebuild?
And in Japan too?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I am speaking about those pointing their fingers at bush with no plan themselves.

Easy to condemn, hard to actually do it yourself.

I would say that everyone has a realistic plan except for Bush. (Of course, everyone has their own separate plan, and certainly not all Democrats support any single plan. Nor do all Republicans.) But certainly everyone has some sort of plan; we have more than enough of those.

And anybody who fell for Bush's lies about mobile bioweapons factories needs to reconsider their personal definition of "realistic." (You know who you are.) Bush's plans are all based on fantasies rather than reality.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Ok then let's change one little thing. How about, instead of forcing everyone to pay for this stupid war, we'll let people KEEP their money, and those who SUPPORT keeping the troops there can cut a check for whatever amount and donate to the cause.

How much would you donate, smacintush?

I personally would donate $0

Why the mental masturbation?

We don't live in a pure democracy like you think we do. The public elected officials to carry out what they think is best for the country. And they are doing that. It's fine that you disagree with what they are doing. And thankfully you live in a country where you can publicly vocalize that. But I think you are missing the greater point.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by tie 

Bush's plans are all based on fantasies rather than reality.

Not fantasy. Bush makes faith based war plans ("consults a higher father").

In turn, his followers have faith in Bush - nonbelievers are "haters".

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I said realistic.

I think it's probably true that things would get more violent, at least in the short term, if we pulled out. However it might also lead to pressure to reach an agreement, pressure that doesn't exist with us there. But you have to compare every alternative plan to the existing plan, and things aren't exactly going well there now. If things were going great, that would be a good argument against changing course. But I don't think anyone thinks things are going great, which is why alternative plans (including this surge) are being considered.

[besson3c]

So, do you guys agree that simply painting a conflict this old as simply good vs. evil is pretty simplistic? Do you agree that our collective understanding of this conflict is pretty poor?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, do you guys agree that simply painting a conflict this old as simply good vs. evil is pretty simplistic? Do you agree that our collective understanding of this conflict is pretty poor?

The idea that there is some deep historical divide between the Sunni and Shi'a in Iraq is false. Pre 2003, despite the dominance of the Sunni majority in power Iraqis held a very strong sense of nationalism. It's a little known fact that two-thirds of the Iraqi army which fought the Iranians (also Shias) in the '80s were Iraqi Shi'as, loyal to Iraq as a nation. Even today despite all that has happened the majority of Iraqis - including the Kurds - would prefer a strong, centralised unitary state.

The explanation for the factional rivalry we see today in Iraq is better understood in the context of the complete collapse of the Iraqi state following the invasion. The state's capacity to provide basic needs - healthcare, education, security, basically all the things any state in any country is expected to take care of is not happening in Iraq today. People have been forced to turn to those groups that can provide what they need - family, tribes, religious sects, militias etc. Society is fragmented, so are it's loyalties and the different forces at play are competing with each other. The result is the mayhem we are observing today.

I think the only solution to the crisis is, sadly, brute force. The proposal to increase troop levels is not a bad one, but the number proposed is not enough. I don't think 20,000 will easily secure Baghdad let alone the rest of the country.

From the moment Saddam's regime collapsed, Iraq needed order and security - it's the first stage in any state building exercise and yet after nearly 4 years we haven't even moved beyond the first hurdle.

I've been studying the Middle East for 3 years now so you can be assured I know at least 1% more than you.

[Big Mac]

If you've been studying the middle east for only 3 years now, why have you been posting that retarded signature for far longer?

[besson3c]

From this Wikipedia article:

Historical Shia-Sunni relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Shia suffered indirect and direct persecution under independent Iraqi governments since 1932, especially that of Saddam Hussein. In 1969 when the son of Iraq's highest Shia Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim was arrested and allegedly tortured, during widespread persecution of Shia, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Badri, a Sunni Islamic lawyer (Alim), leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, criticised the regime, and was killed under torture. A Sunni leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir is thus seen as the first martyr for the rights of Shia in Iraq, against the old Baathist regime [12]. This party has also called for Sunni, Shia, Arab and Kurdish citizens to unite in Iraq.[13] Shia religious leaders were particularly targeted. "Between 1970 and 1985 the Baathist regime executed at least 41 clerics" [31], and Shia opposition to the government following the first Gulf War was reportedly suppressed.

Would you agree with 1932? I'm not sure where I read that the conflict was much older, but perhaps this information was false or misleading.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you agree that our collective understanding of this conflict is pretty poor?

No, you have certainly demonstrated that you bring the class average down.

I am pleased that you recognize your ignorance, but I assure you, not everyone is so ignorant.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

No, you have certainly demonstrated that you bring the class average down.

I am pleased that you recognize your ignorance, but I assure you, not everyone is so ignorant.

Zzzzzzzing!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If you've been studying the middle east for only 3 years now, why have you been posting that retarded signature for far longer?

DOUBLE ZING...

BTW LBK in your little rant, you do well to blame the US, but not the little terrorist fiends that are causing it.

Good job. I was hoping you'd not disappoint us.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

BTW LBK in your little rant, you do well to blame the US, but not the little terrorist fiends that are causing it.

Did the insurgents cause the collapse of Iraq as a nation? No doubt they aren't helping create a new Iraq, but they didn't cause it.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If you've been studying the middle east for only 3 years now, why have you been posting that retarded signature for far longer?

Because you and your Zionist comrades are still suffering from that delusional coma.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

BTW LBK in your little rant, you do well to blame the US, but not the little terrorist fiends that are causing it.

Good job. I was hoping you'd not disappoint us.

I don't believe pointed any blame, I described how the insurgency evolved.

But you wouldn't be the same 'ole Zimpy if you spent more time processing what you've read rather than hitting that reply button. I'm not dissapointed either.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Did the insurgents cause the collapse of Iraq as a nation? No doubt they aren't helping create a new Iraq, but they didn't cause it.

Um you mean us toppling Iraq's gov? Saddam caused that. He had the choice to stop it. He choose himself over his people. And did it in a cowardly fashion.

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten 

Because you and your Zionist comrades are still suffering from that delusional coma.

Sounds hateful and delusional in itself. (Your post that is)