Iraq may be on path to civil war, CIA officials warn

[zimv20]

link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001841528_cia22.html)


CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said yesterday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment President Bush gave in his State of the Union address.

The CIA officers' bleak assessment was delivered orally to Washington this week, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified information involved.

The warning echoed growing fears that Iraq's Shiite majority, which until now has accepted the U.S. occupation grudgingly, could turn to violence if its demands for direct elections are spurned.

Meanwhile, Iraq's Kurdish minority is pressing for autonomy and shares of oil revenue.

"Both the Shiites and the Kurds think that now's their time," one intelligence officer said. "They think that if they don't get what they want now, they'll probably never get it. Both of them feel they've been betrayed by the United States before."

These dire scenarios were discussed at meetings this week by Bush, his top national-security aides and the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, said a senior administration official who requested anonymity.

Another senior official said the concerns over a possible civil war are "broadly held within the government," including by regional experts at the State Department and National Security Council.

Top officials are scrambling to save the U.S. exit strategy after concluding Iraq's most powerful Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, is unlikely to drop his demand for elections for an interim assembly that would choose an interim government by July 1. Bremer then would hand over power to the interim government.

(more)

[Frohickey]

It seems like the Iraqi Shiites need to be the target of an advertising campaign of what the caucus system is all about.

I hear that the caucus system is what they already have in the tribal leader aspect.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

I hear that the caucus system is what they already have in the tribal leader aspect.

how so?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
how so?

Sorry. I don't have a link. That is what I heard on the TV news about the demonstrations in Iraq. It was some sort of foreign news source... like CNN-asia or MSNBC-asia.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Sorry. I don't have a link. That is what I heard on the TV news about the demonstrations in Iraq. It was some sort of foreign news source... like CNN-asia or MSNBC-asia.

that'd be pretty interesting, to see how closely the US' caucus recommendation matches the process of each ethnic group, and how those groups react to the idea.

that's the sort of piece the Economist would run.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
that'd be pretty interesting, to see how closely the US' caucus recommendation matches the process of each ethnic group, and how those groups react to the idea.

that's the sort of piece the Economist would run.

I think that the Shiite ayatollah knows what direct elections would result in. Iraq is 60% Shiite, so a direct election would give them a win, guaranteed.

The desire for a caucus system is because there isn't an Iraqi Constitution yet that would guarantee the rights of the Sunnis, Shiites, etc. So, a direct election is really like mob rule, where the mob is more than 50.1%.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I think that the Shiite ayatollah knows what direct elections would result in. Iraq is 60% Shiite, so a direct election would give them a win, guaranteed.

The desire for a caucus system is because there isn't an Iraqi Constitution yet that would guarantee the rights of the Sunnis, Shiites, etc. So, a direct election is really like mob rule, where the mob is more than 50.1%.

it's been clear to me from the start the the bush administration wouldn't allow elections which would put iraq out of their control.

[Frohickey]

Dunno about that.

I tend to think that what will end up happening in Iraq is what happened to Japan.

Namely, a democratic society with their own twist to it, being #2 or #3 in the world economy and technological expertise.

At least, that is the hope, and we know it can be done. Japan is proof.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

At least, that is the hope, and we know it can be done. Japan is proof.

i think the differences are larger than the similarities. a big one, imo, is the diverse nature of ethnicities in iraq. heck, the country didn't even form on its own accord.

i am for splitting up iraq.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i think the differences are larger than the similarities. a big one, imo, is the diverse nature of ethnicities in iraq. heck, the country didn't even form on its own accord.

i am for splitting up iraq.

Or, mirroring the United States. Split Iraq into multiple states, each with a strong state government. Kurds in the North, Shiite in the south, Sunni in the middle, etc Then, they can join into a republic afterwards.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Kurds in the North, Shiite in the south, Sunni in the middle, etc Then, they can join into a republic afterwards.

what's the benefit of them having a centralized gov't?

[zapp]

Originally posted by zimv20
what's the benefit of them having a centralized gov't?

So the states don't go to war with each other. It would start like America did after the revolution. The states had a lot of power, and the central goverment had control over foreign policy, a mediator between the states, and more or less acted as a voice of the states to the outside world.

If they are together hopefully any differences could be solved by diplomacy instead of war. Splitting them up into states will allow them to feel like they have their own area. Yet keepiing the country under one goverment will prevent the bordering countries from trying to take the land.

If the dominant sect has control over everything then you will get what happened in the former yugoslavia and have ethnic cleansing and that is not good.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by zapp
So the states don't go to war with each other.

yeah, 'cuz that was rampant 'til the US showed up...

i understand where you're coming from. one iraq or broken up, you're citing a need for some central authority stronger than the individual parts.

right now, that's the US. can the US really put together a gov't which, on its own, will be able to keep the peace?

if not, there's no practical difference between one "united" iraq and smaller states.

what a mess. is brutality the only way to keep the peace?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
what's the benefit of them having a centralized gov't?

Common defense. Muslim vs muslim wars are not uncommon. Plus, if they are united under a central govt, but have separate states, the central govt would not attack individual states, and each state can protect their own. Then, when a Bill of Rights or Constitution comes about...

1783 was when Great Britain signed the peace settlement.
1787 was when the US Constitution was ratified.

Lets see... 4 years. And Iraq gets how long? 1 year?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Common defense. Muslim vs muslim wars are not uncommon. Plus, if they are united under a central govt, but have separate states, the central govt would not attack individual states, and each state can protect their own.

clearly. i'm saying it's easier said than done, given how ethnic minorities will need to be protected.

take, for example, the kurds. either they can trust the US and shiites to form a gov't that protects them, or they can say 'give us that land up north that no one but us cares about, and we'll defend ourselves'

the effort of protection or cooperation is the same, separate countries or one. the TRUST would be higher in separate countries, imo.

[Sayhey]

All of this is exactly why the first Bush administration did not go into Baghdad. The States of the Middle East are the legacy of colonialism. They are not countries whose borders are the result of centuries of people developing their own nations. Having said that it does not follow that civil war and break up of Iraq are the inevitable consequence of our intervention. The mishandling of the situation may well lead to that, but it is not inevitable. There are secularists in each nationality and religious community. Those folks must be helped without making them isolated from other Iraqis. It means actually listening to and allowing Iraqis to control their destiny.

I think it is important to note that Sistani is not a clone of Khomeni. His concerns must be dealt with in a respectful way. I don't see any real way around direct elections for the constitutional assembly, but the question is what do you do in the meantime? If we go ahead and force a solution down their throats then it surely will explode. It is here that turning much of this over to authorities other than the US administration would make all the difference.

As to why a break up is not a good thing, I would point out that it would mean possible war with Turkey over the creation of a Kurdish state, the throwing of a mini-Shia state into Iranian hands, and the strengthening of the worst elements in Saudi Arabia with the cause of "protecting" Sunni Iraqis. None of this is any good for anyone is the region, least of all the Iraqi people. This mess is in our hands now and we had better find a way to bring others in, most importantly real leaders of the Iraq. The best way for this to spin out of control is to try and control it all from Bremer's office.

[zimv20]

all valid observations.

i now submit that the only way to keep peace is to rule as ruthlessly as saddam did.

we're in a catch-22.

[pseudobrit]

There go those liberals at the CIA being contrary again!

[g5man]

The situation in Iraq is not as dire as one is lead to believe simply from reading the regular press. The loss of 500 troops is peanuts compared to what has been accomplished so far. The progress I am refering to is the war on terror and the freedom of 22 million people.

Progress on the political front there will only be achieved if the factions are allowed to fight among themselves for a few years. As painful as that may sound, it is the only way to clean house. So yes a civil war is on its way. In fact it is happening as we speak on a small scale and it will increase as we give them more control. This article is simply preparing the public for what is to come.

Saddam was ruthless and in that culture those who were oppressed are waiting their revenge. Presently we are actually protecting the very people that are killing our troops. The regular folks in the Sunni area know this, and they dread the day the US will not protect them from the Shiites and Kurds who are eager to see us leave. We will have less of our troops get killed and more Iraqi die instead.

It is much too early to discuss what shape the government there will be. The British attempted to educate Iraq in how to form a democracy 1920 and it was semi-successful until Saddam came to power. The region with the exception of Israel has not dealt well with free elections. Despite this they have been able to maintain healthy economic ties with the world.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
The situation in Iraq is not as dire as one is lead to believe simply from reading the regular press.

the situation in iraq is not as rosy as one is led to believe simply from listening to bush's SOTU address


Progress on the political front there will only be achieved if the factions are allowed to fight among themselves for a few years. As painful as that may sound, it is the only way to clean house. So yes a civil war is on its way.


so this was all planned? sorry, i don't buy it. the planning had more to do w/ flowers and open arms, if you'll recall.


It is much too early to discuss what shape the government there will be.


i submit that it's way too late. extensive plans, such as the one zinni drew up years ago, were ignored by the bush administration. there was no post-war planning, and a forthcoming civil war is evidence of _that_, not some fanciful "everything is rosy and going according to plan & the civil war is just more evidence of the foreign fighters' desperation" storybook ending.

the time it takes to put together a real gov't is greater than the length of time the iraqis will allow an occupation, imo. welcome to 'shoot first, ask questions later' cowboy foreign policy. it's fubar, not rosy.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
the situation in iraq is not as rosy as one is led to believe simply from listening to bush's SOTU address

Don't listen to Bush. Please talk to the Iraqi people directly and not through the press.



Originally posted by zimv20
so this was all planned? sorry, i don't buy it. the planning had more to do w/ flowers and open arms, if you'll recall.

No it was not all planned but anticipated never the less. As far as flowers please talk to soldiers like I have and you will get a very good picture how the people feel about Bush and his army of liberators.


Originally posted by zimv20

there was no post-war planning, and a forthcoming civil war is evidence of _that_, not some fanciful "everything is rosy and going according to plan & the civil war is just more evidence of the foreign fighters' desperation" storybook ending.

zimv try to stay way from those DNC talking points. Not everything is going to plan, but since you are not prevy to the actual plan put together when Clinton was president, it is naive to make such a statement.

There are foreign fighters and all attacks on Americans are acts of desperation.They have gone down quite a bit in the last 2 months. Now they are killing women, but of course they are not terrorists but simply freedom fighters.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

Please talk to the Iraqi people directly
[...]
please talk to soldiers like I have and you will get a very good picture how the people feel about Bush and his army of liberators.


are you communicating to iraqis and soldiers (in iraq?) in some sort of official capacity?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
The loss of 500 troops is peanuts

You're sick.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
are you communicating to iraqis and soldiers (in iraq?) in some sort of official capacity?

I have not talked to Iraqis personally but I have seen posts on boards from them and have read long detailed accounts from free lance journalists that are not part of the regular press core.

The soliders I have talked to in person were on leave after coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. My conversations with them were not in an official capacity.

Here is some official good info from Iraq.
http://www.centcom.mil/

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You're sick.

No I am not sick. When one looks at what is at stake and compares it to other conflicts 500 troops in 10 months is nothing. We lost that many in less than one day numerous time in history Remember the ratio is about 10 to 1. They lose 10 bad guys for each one of ours. And the bad guys are fighting hard. The info we have gotten in Iraq about Al Queda and terrorism will blow you away. Be patient. It was all worth it.

Did you expect to see no troops getting killed? I thought you guys were predicting tens of thousands killed?

We lose 1200 a year in accidents.

I am not a politician so I can call it like I see it.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
I have not talked to Iraqis personally but I have seen posts on boards from them and have read long detailed accounts from free lance journalists that are not part of the regular press core.

The soliders I have talked to in person were on leave after coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. My conversations with them were not in an official capacity.


that i'm supposed to ignore mainstream media and instead defer to your fringe news sources and anecdotal conversations belies some non-trivial distrust of media on your part.

before i go on defending mainstream media too much, i do hold it in some contempt and i reserve my right to be skeptical.

but mainstream media's spin or agenda aside, i don't read the deaths and attacks as a sidenote.

sure, there are probably a lot of iraqis who are sick of the whole business and want the US to prevail. but that sheer desire doesn't equal "everything is a-ok"

there's also a lot of palestinians and israelis who want peace, probably more than are causing trouble. but i don't see peace there.

why? the people who want to cause trouble have entropy on their side. and that's a powerful force.

i don't see the trend as calming down. previously calm areas are flaring up. that's trending towards more chaos, hence the subject of this thread.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
that i'm supposed to ignore mainstream media and instead defer to your fringe news sources and anecdotal conversations belies some non-trivial distrust of media on your part.

I never said ignore it. Just realize that an emphasis on the negative does not show the true picture all the time. But the problem that you will run into is that you will assume Iraq is falling apart, while the opposite is true.



Originally posted by zimv20
sure, there are probably a lot of iraqis who are sick of the whole business and want the US to prevail. but that sheer desire doesn't equal "everything is a-ok"

I never said everything is OK. A lot of Iraqis are actually about 60% who like what Bush did for them.

Originally posted by zimv20
there's also a lot of palestinians and israelis who want peace, probably more than are causing trouble. but i don't see peace there.

Four years ago one could travel to Israel without fear of being blown up by some terrorist. Israel has faced terror for over 50 years and yet they managed to create some what of a normal society. So an occational car bombs and attacks are just part of the landscape there, just as the daily deaths of motorists here.

If an Native Indian suddenly came to life after being dead for 200 years and saw our society he would think we are nuts to live in the US. We loose over 50,000 a year to car accidents. We loose thousands to crime and millions to disease. How can we possibly call this a peaceful and normal society?


Originally posted by zimv20
i don't see the trend as calming down. previously calm areas are flaring up. that's trending towards more chaos, hence the subject of this thread.

There is no chaos like you want to believe. Security is bad in certain areas and foreigners should not travel alone (there are parts of Turkey that are like this), but 90% of the country is moving along fairly normally.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
all valid observations.

i now submit that the only way to keep peace is to rule as ruthlessly as saddam did.

we're in a catch-22.

I don't think we are there yet. We will be if we antagonize Sistani and the Shia community to the point they are fighting US forces. The key is to get the political reconstruction of Iraq out of the sole hands of the US while creating an effective fighting force of Iraqis against fundamentalist and Baathist elements that will try to stop any new government. Trouble is the Bush administration is trying to dictate to all concerned the end game and in so doing will make any possible positive outcome impossible. I don't think it is possible for Bush to bring together the international forces to change it for the better, but he could stop making it worse on such a rapid pace. It will take new leadership in Baghdad and Washington to figure a way out.

Sorry, I can't help with g5man -- I've taken IJ's approach. You can't argue someone out of their delusions with logic and facts.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
I never said ignore it. [...] I never said everything is OK.


noted. i guess time will tell what the reality is.


Four years ago one could travel to Israel without fear of being blown up by some terrorist. Israel has faced terror for over 50 years and yet they managed to create some what of a normal society. So an occational car bombs and attacks are just part of the landscape there, just as the daily deaths of motorists here.


i know some israelis, and i believe they would disagree with you. they come here to get away from that.

How can we possibly call this a peaceful and normal society?


i wouldn't, but it doesn't mean i want to trade that for what israel's got, which you call normal.


There is no chaos like you want to believe. Security is bad in certain areas and foreigners should not travel alone (there are parts of Turkey that are like this), but 90% of the country is moving along fairly normally.

you know, it's possible, but it's not my feeling. and i've traveled about 1/2 of turkey, but i've no interest in being in iraq right now. even the "calm parts"

[g5man]

Originally posted by Sayhey


Sorry, I can't help with g5man -- I've taken IJ's approach. You can't argue someone out of their delusions with logic and facts.

Sorry, I do have to respond. Lets see.
You logically and based on facts believe that the economy sucks, the democrats are becoming a larger force while the GOP little people are getting smaller, and you actually believe that one of those 7 dwarfs can actually beat Bush. Oh and one more think, Iraq is in total chaos and you equate 500 lost troops to a national tradegy while 70% of public thinks you are simply nuts.

Zimv you will have to pass this on for me.

I will bring my threads back to life again just to remind you guys of the hole you are digging for yourselfs.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I don't think we are there yet. We will be if we antagonize Sistani and the Shia community to the point they are fighting US forces.


what's at odds is the stated goal of democracy and the reality, according to me, that bush won't cede control (just the appearance of control).

(oh, that was about iraq)

so you're right in that, if there is a change of leadership in the US, then there may be an element of hope. realistically, that's one year off at the earliest. can iraqis wait that long? not on the current trend.

[g5man]

Good Night:)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

[chomp] Zimv you will have to pass this on for me. [snip]


sorry, i'm not going to intentionally violate sayhey's ignore. especially with _that_ post.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
what's at odds is the stated goal of democracy and the reality, according to me, that bush won't cede control (just the appearance of control).

(oh, that was about iraq)

so you're right in that, if there is a change of leadership in the US, then there may be an element of hope. realistically, that's one year off at the earliest. can iraqis wait that long? not on the current trend.

I think if there is a plan in place for a government that is not controlled by the US and involves direct elections to a constitutional assembly then there can still be time. That would help to isolate the Baath and others and give a chance of getting some Sunni participation that is not seen as puppets of Washington. It will only work if an international body, the UN or Regional governments, oversee the process. I'm like you zim and not very hopeful that it can happen, but I haven't given up all hope. The one thing Bush can't afford is for Iraq to be falling totally apart next fall. Then again Cheney, Wolfowitz, etal might have them invading Damascus, banking on the "rally round the flag" effect of an October surprise.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Cheney, Wolfowitz, etal might have them invading Damascus, banking on the "rally round the flag" effect of an October surprise.

and it would probably work.

what's more interesting to me is, what if there's another 9/11? would the masses say, "hey, you haven't kept us safe at all!", or would bush get the same kind of post-9/11 bounce?

i wonder what rove thinks.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
i wonder what rove thinks.

I'm guessing Rove thinks he wins either way. If the US is attacked again before the election, the line will be "don't change horses in midstream," and if the US isn't attacked, it will be "see how much safer we've made the nation." We've seen it all before. Remember how many times the rationale for the tax cuts changed?

[g5man]

You two are a pleasure to follow.:D

Everything regarding the war on terror is to ensure a 2nd term. :rolleyes:

We are fighting a fanthom enemy simply to increase poll numbers. So any military action is simply done for political reasons. Keep up those great thoughts as the DNC gives them to you, but just remember what happend to Dean after went to far left.

[Frohickey]

An Iraq patterned after the United States would work. The individual states, be it Kurdish, Sunnis, or Shiites can make their own religious laws all they want. The individual states can then send their delegations for a Constitutional convention, which would shape the 'federal government'. The 'federal government' can be patterned after the US, and have to observe religious freedom and all the other freedoms, as well as freedom to move between states.

A direct election would lead to a civil war or a fracturing of the Iraq, which could lead to civil war since the people in the minority do not have the protections in place yet from the majority.

Democracy is majority rule. Democracy sucks if you are in the minority, unless you have constitutional protections.

[Frohickey]

I think that another attack in the magnitude of Sept 11 would really be very very bad. Very bad that we'd lose more people, but very bad that we would go mad.

There is no telling if a second attack would guarantee a GWBush reelection. When the electorate gets mad, everything is up in the air. If another attack happens, you could actually have a Pat Buchanan presidency. :eek:

Reminds me of Babylon 5.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Did you expect to see no troops getting killed?

Yes, in fact. I expected the UN to be allowed to continue their (successful) inspections and peace to be upheld.

Bush ran off to war for nothing and over 500 of our boys are dead, thousands are wounded and maimed, and thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead and many more injured. Not to mention the suffering caused by the chaos that the nation is in.

If you think this is acceptable you are a sick human being.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
An Iraq patterned after the United States would work.

Not even possibly work, but would work?

This kind of assumption is problem one. Believe it or not, not everyone in the world really wants to live like we do in the US. Problem two is that Turkey would never stand for the formation of any kind of Kurdish state. And before you claim that the US could persuade the Turks to go along with something to which they've always been vehemently opposed, I offer up the example of Turkish cooperation in the invasion. The Bush administration couldn't pay them enough for that. So let's just try to form a Kurdish state and see when the shooting starts.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Yes, in fact. I expected the UN to be allowed to continue their (successful) inspections and peace to be upheld.

Not this debate again. Yes 12 years of sanctions and no-fly zones in which the whole country suffered, while the inspectors were given the run around was a success to you. Even Kay's first report clearly showed that Iraq was hiding WMD programs.

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Bush ran off to war for nothing and over 500 of our boys are dead, thousands are wounded and maimed, and thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead and many more injured. Not to mention the suffering caused by the chaos that the nation is in.

If you think this is acceptable you are a sick human being.

Well you can add the 190 million Americans who are sick right along with me. But I am not using that reasoning to justify my position, but simply to point out how out of touch you guys are in an election year.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
A direct election would lead to a civil war or a fracturing of the Iraq, which could lead to civil war since the people in the minority do not have the protections in place yet from the majority.

Democracy is majority rule. Democracy sucks if you are in the minority, unless you have constitutional protections.

Frohickey,

you assume that all Shia will vote in a block for an Islamic Republic dominated by their view of Islam. No community, religious or ethinic, in Iraq is monolithic and as I said before Sistani is not a cleric in the mould of Khomeni. What is clear is that if we allow direct elections the US won't have the control over the constitution that it wants. Time to give up on that pipe dream, boys. If we don't there will be a civil war - between the few who owe their political power to the US and the rest of Iraq.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Not this debate again. Yes 12 years of sanctions and no-fly zones in which the whole country suffered, while the inspectors were given the run around was a success to you. Even Kay's first report clearly showed that Iraq was hiding WMD programs.

Oh, clearly. All those WMD we found are evidence. I can't believe you're still towing this line. It's like you've eaten this BS and are asking for seconds.

Well you can add the 190 million Americans who are sick right along with me. But I am not using that reasoning to justify my position, but simply to point out how out of touch you guys are in an election year.

If 190 million Americans are satisfied with losing 500 troops for nothing, then I'm happy to be in the sane minority.

But just keep telling yourself that the majority agrees with you sanfelipe, it's all you seem to have left.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Frohickey,

you assume that all Shia will vote in a block for an Islamic Republic dominated by their view of Islam. No community, religious or ethinic, in Iraq is monolithic and as I said before Sistani is not a cleric in the mould of Khomeni. What is clear is that if we allow direct elections the US won't have the control over the constitution that it wants. Time to give up on that pipe dream, boys. If we don't there will be a civil war - between the few who owe their political power to the US and the rest of Iraq.

What if Sistani is a cleric in the mold of Khomeni or he ends up becoming another Hussein? What if all shia vote as a block, and ethnic cleansing starts. Civil war is preferable to ethnic cleansing.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What if Sistani is a cleric in the mold of Khomeni or he ends up becoming another Hussein? What if all shia vote as a block, and ethnic cleansing starts. Civil war is preferable to ethnic cleansing.

Not quite sure how you get to a choice between the two. It seems to me ethnic cleansing is the most extreme consequence of civil war. If you mean that it is a choice of ethnic cleansing or US diktat then I disagree. Even the Bush administration has a better understanding of the forces in Iraq than the superficial scenarios you describe. The main problem is if US actions alienate huge sectors of the populace into a confrontation on the future of Iraq. If we let our geopolitical ambitions continue to rule our policy we are in for even greater problems than we have now.

[Frohickey]

okay... you can have ethnic cleansing when one side loses drastically to the other.

but you can have ethnic cleansing as happened in Nazi Germany. Jews were hardly combatants.

I think a good set of Constitutional protections is in order before direct elections are in order. Start it from the small tribes, grow it to the villages, cities, areas, states then finally the whole country.

Kinda like the Borg mentality. :D

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
okay... you can have ethnic cleansing when one side loses drastically to the other.

but you can have ethnic cleansing as happened in Nazi Germany. Jews were hardly combatants.

I think a good set of Constitutional protections is in order before direct elections are in order. Start it from the small tribes, grow it to the villages, cities, areas, states then finally the whole country.

Kinda like the Borg mentality. :D

There are many ways to get to a constitutional assembly in the abstract, but the problem is that in the reality of Iraq if the US dictates to the people who will decide the new constitution it will be illegitimate in the eyes of almost all Iraqis. The only possible exception would be with the Kurdish political parties who would accept any constitution from whatever authority as long is it gave them as much autonomy as possible. If the US imposes a strong central authority they won't accept it either. The only real beneficiaries to the current US approach are the exile organizations that rode in with US troops and they have no real following in Iraq.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Oh, clearly. All those WMD we found are evidence. I can't believe you're still towing this line. It's like you've eaten this BS and are asking for seconds.

So you are willing to give up the hunt since you believe that there were no WMD programs or actual weapons? Saddam had 6 months to move things around until we attacked. This is why we don't want liberals in charge of national security

Here is the first draft of the Kay report. This is only the first draft. I have heard military officers comment that we may not find the actual weapons for year. You might want to read it and sit down before commenting and exposing your ignorance.







Originally posted by pseudobrit
If 190 million Americans are satisfied with losing 500 troops for nothing, then I'm happy to be in the sane minority.

But just keep telling yourself that the majority agrees with you , it's all you seem to have left.


1. From birth, all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;


2. Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;


3. Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;


4. Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;


5. Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;


6. The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.


What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?


We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:


· A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.


· A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.


· Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.


· New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.


· Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).


· A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


· Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.


· Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
So you are willing to give up the hunt since you believe that there were no WMD programs or actual weapons? Saddam had 6 months to move things around until we attacked.

They aren't there. What's the source for your quote?

This is why we don't want liberals in charge of national security

And the PATRIOT Acts administered by a secretive right-wing regime are what we need?

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
They aren't there. What's the source for your quote?

Yes you are correct. Now I believe you because those who moved them are dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

Just remember this the unclassified version.





Originally posted by pseudobrit
TAnd the PATRIOT Acts administered by a secretive right-wing regime are what we need?

Well call you Senator and ask her not to vote for the extention. Last time it passed by an large majority. That might be a good idea, since her vote against it will ensure this is the last year in office for her. All this is not for your but your buddies in California.

[denjeff]

Originally posted by g5man
Well call you Senator and ask her not to vote for the extention. Last time it passed by an large majority. That might be a good idea, since her vote against it will ensure this is the last year in office for her. All this is not for your but your buddies in California. [/B]

So... there are no free politicians in the USA. Only pure intimidation. Hurray for the land of freedom.

Are there still any politicians with guts in the USA?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Well call you Senator and ask her not to vote for the extention. Last time it passed by an large majority. That might be a good idea, since her vote against it will ensure this is the last year in office for her. All this is not for your but your buddies in California.


Do you not know how the Congress works or what?

I have one Representative.
I have two Senators. And, BTW, both of them are Republican men.

WTF are you after, anyway?

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Do you not know how the Congress works or what?

I have one Representative.
I have two Senators. And, BTW, both of them are Republican men.

WTF are you after, anyway?

pseudobrit,

Thank you. Next time take a little time and read the whole quote before asking ignorant questions like zimv. And by the way I do not cuss when making an argument nor in my own private life.

What am I after? First of all I just want to educate you folks to what is really going on and were this country is going. This way you will not be so shocked when events take place. Like the economy actually getting better (thanks to tax cuts), GOP becoming stronger (thanks to floks like you), and so on.