Civil War in Iraq?

[numediaman]

This looks like a prelude to civil war (or all out war against the occupation troops):

This is from 12 noon CDT


Sources: Al-Sadr supporters take over Najaf
Wanted Iraqi cleric said to be at holy shrine

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Supporters of maverick Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr controlled government, religious and security buildings in the holy city of Najaf early Tuesday evening, according to a coalition source in southern Iraq.

The source said al-Sadr's followers controlled the governor's office, police stations and the Imam Ali mosque, one of Shia Muslim's holiest shrines.

Iraqi police were negotiating to regain their stations, the source said.

The source also said al-Sadr was busing followers into Najaf from Sadr City in Baghdad and that many members of his outlawed militia, Mehdi's Army, were from surrounding provinces.

Business people are closing their shops and either leaving the city or hoarding their wares in their homes, the source said.

Earlier Tuesday, fighting erupted on the northern side of Fallujah when a routine patrol came under fire. The Marines sent an Abrams tank and several Humvees to reinforce the patrol, along with helicopters.

One Marine was seriously wounded and evacuated to a combat hospital.

Also on Tuesday, U.S. Marines detained six Iraqis carrying explosives near an operational command post north of Fallujah, a Marine officer said. The officer said the material was intended to make homemade bombs.

EDIT: Another story . . .

Coalition crackdown on Sunni, Shiite rebels leaves dozens dead

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Dozens of Iraqis and almost 20 coalition troops have been killed as US troops move against Sunni insurgents and crack down on Shiite rebels of firebrand cleric Moqtada Sadr, declared wanted for murder.

The US military said Tuesday that four Marines died in Al-Anbar province, a hotbed of insurgents west of Baghdad.

[Ugg]

Has anyone ever doubted that civil war would'nt be the end result of gw & co.'s foray? It's only going to get worse.....

[numediaman]

Another view:
The battle the US wants to provoke

Bremer is deliberately pushing Iraq's Shia south into all-out chaos

Naomi Klein in Baghdad
Tuesday April 6, 2004
The Guardian

I heard the sound of freedom in Baghdad's Firdos Square, the famous plaza where the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled one year ago. It sounds like machine-gun fire.

On Sunday, Iraqi soldiers, trained and controlled by coalition forces, opened fire on a demonstration here. As the protesters returned to their homes in the poor neighbourhood of Sadr City, the US army followed with tanks, helicopters and planes, firing at random on homes, shops, streets, even ambulances. According to local hospitals, 47 people were killed and many more injured. In Najaf, the day was also bloody: 20 demonstrators dead, more than 150 injured.

In Sadr City yesterday, funeral marches passed by US military tanks and the hospitals were overflowing with the injured. By afternoon, clashes had resumed.

Make no mistake: this is not the "civil war" that Washington has been predicting will break out between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. Rather, it is a war provoked by the US occupation authority and waged by its forces against the growing number of Shia who support Moqtada al-Sadr.

Sadr is the younger, more radical rival of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and portrayed by his supporters as a cross between Ayatollah Khomeini and Che Guevara. He blames the US for attacks on civilians; compares the US occupation chief, Paul Bremer, to Saddam Hussein; aligns himself with Hamas and Hizbullah; and has called for a jihad against the controversial interim constitution. His Iraq might look a lot like Iran.

And it's a message with a market. With Sistani concentrating on lobbying the UN rather than on confronting the US-led occupation, many Shia are turning to the more militant tactics preached by Sadr. Some have joined the Mahdi, his black-clad army, which claims hundreds of thousands of members.

At first, Bremer responded to Sadr's growing strength by ignoring him; now he is attempting to provoke him into all-out battle. The trouble began when he closed down Sadr's newspaper last week, sparking a wave of peaceful demonstrations. On Saturday, Bremer raised the stakes further by sending coalition forces to surround Sadr's house near Najaf and arrest his communications officer.

Predictably, the arrest sparked immediate protests in Baghdad, which the Iraqi army responded to by opening fire and allegedly killing three people. At the end of the day on Sunday, Sadr called on his supporters to stop staging demonstrations and urged them to employ unnamed "other ways" to resist the occupation - a statement many interpreted as a call to arms.

On the surface, this chain of events is mystifying. With the so-called Sunni triangle in flames after the gruesome Falluja attacks, why is Bremer pushing the comparatively calm Shia south into battle?

Here's one possible answer: Washington has given up on its plans to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government on June 30, and is creating the chaos it needs to declare the handover impossible. A continued occupation will be bad news for George Bush on the campaign trail, but not as bad as if the hand-over happens and the country erupts, an increasingly likely scenario given the widespread rejection of the legitimacy of the interim constitution and the US- appointed governing council.

But by sending the new Iraqi army to fire on the people they are supposed to be protecting, Bremer has destroyed what slim hope they had of gaining credibility with an already highly mistrustful population. On Sunday, before storming the unarmed demonstrators, the soldiers could be seen pulling on ski masks, so they would not be recognised in their neighbourhoods later . . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4895872-103550,00.html

[mactastic]

Lots of us foresaw the possibility of a Shia uprising. After all, they are the majority, and they were ruthlessly oppressed by Saddam's Sunni minority. Now al Qaeda is trying (and succeeding) im fomenting war between the two, and we are playing right into their hands. Again. :mad:

[Frohickey]

Whoa!

al Sadr would turn Iraq into a province of Iran. I wonder how the Kurds and Sunnis like what al Sadr wants to do. It also seems that he controls Najef, or has enough to control Najef. I think that the Iraqi provisional government, with the help of the coalition forces should give him Najef and the surrounding area. Evacuate the area, surround it with a demilitarized zone, and arrest anyone that enters or exits.

Business people are closing their shops and either leaving the city or hoarding their wares in their homes, the source said.

I wonder how long they would last without food or water. You can't eat bullets and RPG grenades, and expect to live for long. :eek:

[Frohickey]

Healing Iraq: Zeyad blog (http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/)
Monday, April 05, 2004

A coup d'etat is taking place in Iraq a the moment. Al-Shu'la, Al-Hurria, Thawra (Sadr city), and Kadhimiya (all Shi'ite neighbourhoods in Baghdad) have been declared liberated from occupation. Looting has already started at some places downtown, a friend of mine just returned from Sadun street and he says Al-Mahdi militiamen are breaking stores and clinics open and also at Tahrir square just across the river from the Green Zone. News from other cities in the south indicate that Sadr followers (tens of thousands of them) have taken over IP stations and governorate buildings in Kufa, Nassiriya, Ammara, Kut, and Basrah. Al-Jazeera says that policemen in these cities have sided with the Shia insurgents, which doesn't come as a surprise to me since a large portion of the police forces in these areas were recruited from Shi'ite militias and we have talked about that ages ago. And it looks like this move has been planned a long time ago.

No one knows what is happening in the capital right now. Power has been cut off in my neighbourhood since the afternoon, and I can only hear helicopters, massive explosions, and continuous shooting nearby. The streets are empty, someone told us half an hour ago that Al-Mahdi are trying to take over our neighbourhood and are being met by resistance from Sunni hardliners. Doors are locked, and AK-47's are being loaded and put close by in case they are needed. The phone keeps ringing frantically. Baghdadis are horrified and everyone seems to have made up their mind to stay home tomorrow until the situation is clear.

Where is ****stani? And why is he keeping silent about this?

I have to admit that until now I have never longed for the days of Saddam, but now I'm not so sure. If we need a person like Saddam to keep those rabid dogs at bay then be it. Put Saddam back in power and after he fills a couple hundred more mass graves with those criminals they can start wailing and crying again for liberation. What a laugh we will have then. Then they can shove their filthy Hawza and marji'iya up somewhere else. I am so dissapointed in Iraqis and I hate myself for thinking this way. We are not worth your trouble, take back your billions of dollars and give us Saddam again. We truly 'deserve' leaders like Saddam.

UPDATE: Sorry for the depressing note. It seems like everything is back under control, at least from what I can see in my neighbourhood. There is an eerie silence outside, only dogs barking. Until about an hour ago, it sounded like a battlefield, and we had flashbacks of last April. I don't know what happened, but there were large plumes of smoke from the direction of Adhamiya and Kadhimiya. I wanted to take some pictures but my father and uncle both said they would shoot me on the spot if I tried, they were afraid the Apaches would mistake us for troublemakers and fire at us. I'm dreading tomorrow.


Hmm... how could you mistake someone carrying a camera with someone carrying a weapon. I think that maybe the al-Sadr forces might, but I doubt the Americans would. You could always wear a white tshirt and light colored pants to present a good contrast of the camera versus the background so that it won't be mistaken as a weapon.


Iraqis know very well who those 'pious' people are. They are gangsters, rapists, murderers, thieves, kidnappers, looters, and criminals. They are only using religion as cover. I can't even dream of what would happen if those people were left to make trouble on our streets that way without punishment. I believe that it's now time for Al-Sadr to experience a very bad accident soon. We will be sorry for him I assure you, "Oh poor fellow, what a terrible misfortune, what a great loss" we would say to each other knowingly. It's scenes like these that make me sometimes wonder to myself if Saddam wasn't justified in assassinating all those clerics. Get that new Mukhabarat working.

[Ugg]

Hmm... how could you mistake someone carrying a camera with someone carrying a weapon. I think that maybe the al-Sadr forces might, but I doubt the Americans would. You could always wear a white tshirt and light colored pants to present a good contrast of the camera versus the background so that it won't be mistaken as a weapon.

Oh, come on, there has been more than enough information about US forces detaining, roughing up, and yes, shooting people with cameras. After all, the only way gw is gonna succeed at this is to be even more ruthless about press freedom or should I say, the lack of it, than SH ever was. Reading the Arab papers via Google News is pretty revealing, even if we meet midway between Faux News and Al Jazeera, the lack of freedom due to US heavy handedness is pretty horrifying.



On another note, has anyone heard what the Kurds in neighboring Iran and Turkey are up to? I would think that there has been some pretty serious thoughts about secession on their part so that there could be a new Kurdish state. The coming civil war will only fall into their hands and then we'll see a real mess in the middle east. As if it could get any worse....

[Frohickey]

I dunno. Iraq is admitted to be a conglomeration of provinces that were not conducive to peaceful coexistence. Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites... Sounds like it required the iron hand of Saddam to keep the country from disintegrating. Maybe it would be a good idea for Iraq to break up into 3 different 'states'.

[Ugg]

I dunno. Iraq is admitted to be a conglomeration of provinces that were not conducive to peaceful coexistence. Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites... Sounds like it required the iron hand of Saddam to keep the country from disintegrating. Maybe it would be a good idea for Iraq to break up into 3 different 'states'.

I've often thought it would be the best solution to a bad situation. The bloodshed will go on for years as the three groups jockey for power. But then again maybe that's what the Pentagon wants, a low grade civil war where they can continually intervene until the worst of the worst have killed themselves off and the country is little more than a Niger or Afghanistan, ruled by foreign oil companies and their US political servants.

[miloblithe]

The "three state solution" is not one that the US is going to pursue. For starters, Turkey, a key ally, would never accept an independent Kurdistan and the Shiite and Sunni populations are not conveniently separated. As a general rule, the theory is it's easier to deal with one messed up state than three messed up states.

[mactastic]

I dunno. Iraq is admitted to be a conglomeration of provinces that were not conducive to peaceful coexistence. Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites... Sounds like it required the iron hand of Saddam to keep the country from disintegrating. Maybe it would be a good idea for Iraq to break up into 3 different 'states'.

Are you kidding? The Turks would go crazy if we reneged on our promises NOT to allow the Kurds any autonomy.

And I suppose you think things would get better if Iran was able to influence the Shia majority?

And who gets the Uzbeks? Do they get forced out? Back to Uzbekistan with you! Or do they become a new 'stateless' people like the Palestinians?

You WISH the Middle East fit neatly into your world view box, but it is far more complicated than I think you can even imagine.

[IJ Reilly]

At this point, an act of (or, active) imagination isn't required. Bush's pledges to "stay the course" in Iraq are looking positively Nixonian. The next step along this path will be the Bush backers accusing critics the Iraq fiasco of not allowing the military to "do the job they know how to do" in Iraq.

[zimv20]

a friend sent me a pointer to a Real 1 video of footage from Fallujah, where the four american contractors were killed. the US TV news versions were sanitized; the R1 footage is a real horrorshow.

i have to wonder if, upon americans seeing it, they'd start to ask harder questions about iraq.

i'll attach the .ram file. i g'zipped it, but added a .zip extension so i could upload it. you must delete the .zip extension (leaving the .gz). then you can double-click it and it'll extract a .ram file.

warning -- it's graphic.

[Frohickey]

Are you kidding? The Turks would go crazy if we reneged on our promises NOT to allow the Kurds any autonomy.

And I suppose you think things would get better if Iran was able to influence the Shia majority?

And who gets the Uzbeks? Do they get forced out? Back to Uzbekistan with you! Or do they become a new 'stateless' people like the Palestinians?

You WISH the Middle East fit neatly into your world view box, but it is far more complicated than I think you can even imagine.

There is no WISH for the Middle East to neatly fit in my world view box. I just see that divisions present in the situation, and sometimes, when kids can't play nice together, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, maybe its time for them to go their separate ways and go at it alone. Sometimes, this break would show them how much they really needed each other, or how much things were better when they were together.

[mactastic]

There is no WISH for the Middle East to neatly fit in my world view box. I just see that divisions present in the situation, and sometimes, when kids can't play nice together, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, maybe its time for them to go their separate ways and go at it alone. Sometimes, this break would show them how much they really needed each other, or how much things were better when they were together.

So you're OK if these groups go their seperate ways, knowing that it could potentially enlarge Iran's influence in the region, possibly create a civil war in Turkey, and lead to the bloody extermination of the Sunnis?

This is precisely what many of us were warning about in the run-up to war, and we were brushed aside by those who said we would be welcomed with open arms and flowers by people who were thrilled to see the US military occupy their towns. The fact that you would advocate a position so at odds with the goal of bringing 'Democracy' to Iraq shows how far the pro-war folks have had to backpedal in the face of mounting reality.

[skunk]

Sometimes, this break would show them how much they really needed each other, or how much things were better when they were together.

And other times (Yugoslavia) it just causes total chaos in all the neighbouring countries, breakdown of any remaining cohesion, thousands more dead as different groups ethnically cleanse each other, political turmoil, lack of any control, and a safe haven for any number of freedom fighters - sorry, "terrorists".

[numediaman]

Sen. Byrd is sometimes a strange guy -- and I'm not thrilled with certain elements of his past. But every now and then he stands up in the Senate and says the right thing:
NY Times:
On Capitol Hill, a senior Democrat, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, urged caution.

"Surely I am not the only one who hears echoes of Vietnam in this development," .25 said. "Surely, the administration recognizes that increasing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq will only suck us deeper, deeper into the maelstrom, into the quicksand of violence that has become the hallmark of that unfortunate, miserable country."

"Starkly put, at this juncture, more U.S. forces in Iraq equates more U.S. targets in Iraq," Byrd said. "The harsh reality is this: one year after the fall of Baghdad, the United States should not be casting about for a formula to bring additional U.S. troops to Iraq. We should instead be working toward an exit strategy."

Everyone seems to want to throw in more troops. But the US has a strategy problem, not to mention a political problem, in Iraq.

This reminds me of post war Europe. The Poles and the Czechs were certainly happy to see Russian troops liberate them from the Nazis -- but they were not happy when the Russians stayed and imposed a system on them. Now the US is doing the same thing in Iraq.

By the way, the ".25" was in the original story. Who am I to correct the N.Y. Times own typo!

EDIT: great parody by The Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html

[mactastic]

.25? Is that '50 cent's' little brother? :D

[Frohickey]

This reminds me of post war Europe. The Poles and the Czechs were certainly happy to see Russian troops liberate them from the Nazis -- but they were not happy when the Russians stayed and imposed a system on them. Now the US is doing the same thing in Iraq.


But we are leaving on June 30, 2004... come hell or high water.

[Frohickey]

So you're OK if these groups go their seperate ways, knowing that it could potentially enlarge Iran's influence in the region, possibly create a civil war in Turkey, and lead to the bloody extermination of the Sunnis?

This is precisely what many of us were warning about in the run-up to war, and we were brushed aside by those who said we would be welcomed with open arms and flowers by people who were thrilled to see the US military occupy their towns. The fact that you would advocate a position so at odds with the goal of bringing 'Democracy' to Iraq shows how far the pro-war folks have had to backpedal in the face of mounting reality.

Each group needs to figure out whats best for themselves. I think the US would intervene if the Sunnis asked for help, that is, if we are still in the region, and the administration is not cowed by the anti-war activists.

The US went in there to remove Saddam. Okay, done deal. Removing Saddam left a power vacuum in Iraq, and you have various factions elbowing their way to become the main power structure in the region. Some are benevolent, some are not. Iran-backed Shiites, Kurds that want autonomy, Sunni that are afraid of reprisals since they are the minority.

[zimv20]

But we are leaving on June 30, 2004... come hell or high water.
???????

[mactastic]

Each group needs to figure out whats best for themselves.

A little late for that sentiment don't you think? Where was this view when you were arguing that we needed to go kick Saddam's ass to protect ourselves? If you really believed that, you would not have supported an invasion.

This is your exit strategy? And you figure that if we leave, only supplying help if asked for it (not bloody likely the way most Arabs feel about us these days) that we will have made ourselves safer from the threat of terrorism?

Let's see, we'll create a power vacuum and then split and see what happens. That'll make us safer. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

But we are leaving on June 30, 2004... come hell or high water.

Don't kid yourself. Paul Bremer is leaving. The troops are staying.

[Frohickey]

A little late for that sentiment don't you think? Where was this view when you were arguing that we needed to go kick Saddam's ass to protect ourselves? If you really believed that, you would not have supported an invasion.

This is your exit strategy? And you figure that if we leave, only supplying help if asked for it (not bloody likely the way most Arabs feel about us these days) that we will have made ourselves safer from the threat of terrorism?

Let's see, we'll create a power vacuum and then split and see what happens. That'll make us safer. :rolleyes:

Remember the few months where we tried to get Saddam to leave the country peaceably? Same thing would have happened, a power vacuum would have been created as well.

Saddam was dangerous because he wanted nuclear weapons and other nasties, and we did not have any assurances that he wouldn't sell them to the highest bidder. We have the same problem with Kim Jong Il and North Korea. We thought that we would have the same problem with Pervez Musharraf, but he quickly saw the light. That, and he's got an India to keep him honest as well.

Iran, same deal.

Now, we know that Saddam's scientists were lying to him and taking his money. Thats what you get when you have a non-tech saavy President.

Too bad we did not have good spies inside of Iraq and these various other countries, we might have known if we are being lied to or not by these scientists. Too much reliance on high-tech spy satellites, instead of Arab-on-the-ground intelligence. That kind of stuff doesn't grow on trees, and takes a while to take root. Hopefully, we are encouraging this now.

[zimv20]

Too bad we did not have good spies inside of Iraq and these various other countries, we might have known if we are being lied to or not by these scientists. Too much reliance on high-tech spy satellites, instead of Arab-on-the-ground intelligence. That kind of stuff doesn't grow on trees, and takes a while to take root. Hopefully, we are encouraging this now.
the CIA didn't believe much of that intelligence. blame the WH for stovepiping its intelligence from a handful of guys w/ an agenda and ignoring dissenting opinions. THAT should get your blood boiling. the WH's rush to war was either outright lying or complete incompetence.

you can't pass this off on the CIA.

[skunk]

Remember the few months where we tried to get Saddam to leave the country peaceably?

By what right? On what grounds?

Saddam was dangerous because he wanted nuclear weapons and other nasties, and we did not have any assurances that he wouldn't sell them to the highest bidder. We have the same problem with Kim Jong Il and North Korea. We thought that we would have the same problem with Pervez Musharraf, but he quickly saw the light.

This is total rubbish, and you know it. "We" had no assurances that he wouldn't sell weapons he didn't have? And the Koreans are going to do that too? "We" indeed have the "same problem" with Pakistan, except they have the weapons, they have proliferated them, they have been let off. What light exactly did Musharraf see?

Now, we know that Saddam's scientists were lying to him and taking his money. Thats what you get when you have a non-tech saavy President.

Is this a new justification for this illegal war and occupation? So "we" went in because Saddam THOUGHT he was planning to obtain these fictional weapons? Jeez....

Too bad we did not have good spies inside of Iraq and these various other countries, we might have known if we are being lied to or not by these scientists.

Too bad you didn't have a proper press, you might have known if you were being lied to by these politicians. Get real.

[mactastic]

Too bad we did not have good spies inside of Iraq and these various other countries, we might have known if we are being lied to or not by these scientists. Too much reliance on high-tech spy satellites, instead of Arab-on-the-ground intelligence. That kind of stuff doesn't grow on trees, and takes a while to take root. Hopefully, we are encouraging this now.
Yeah, too bad. Oh well, on to the next conquest - I mean oil field - I mean terrorist haven. ;)

Too bad for all those American who have died in Iraq. Too bad for the Iraqis as well. Too bad for the taxpayer who gets to foot the bill for the mistake. Too bad indeed.

[IJ Reilly]

Don't kid yourself. Paul Bremer is leaving. The troops are staying.

We'll see where Bremer ends up, but the only other thing to change on June 30 will be the name on the compound, from CPA to US Embassy. Nobody is fooled by this (except those who want to be). The US military won't be under Iraqi authority -- efforts to make that transition were quietly abandoned recently.

[Frohickey]

Two GI's Murdered in Ambush (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/93095079.html?did=93095079&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=May+12,+1946&author=&desc=TWO+GI%27S+MURDERED+IN+GERMAN+AMBUSH)

US Fears Uprising (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/94045444.html?did=94045444&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Mar+23,+1946&author=By+SYDNEY+GRUSON+By+Wireless+to+THE+NEW+YORK+TIMES.&desc=U.S.+FEARS+UPRISING+OF+YOUNG+GERMANS)

I think that we have been here before...

...and it turned out alright.

[pseudobrit]

a friend sent me a pointer to a Real 1 video of footage from Fallujah, where the four american contractors were killed. the US TV news versions were sanitized; the R1 footage is a real horrorshow...
warning -- it's graphic.

I saw that on US TV. It was either CNN, MSNBC or C-SPAN, but I know I saw that exact feed. Once.

[zimv20]

I saw that on US TV. It was either CNN, MSNBC or C-SPAN, but I know I saw that exact feed. Once.
ah, i don't have cable. or as we say in chicago, "i don't have the cable"

[mactastic]

Two GI's Murdered in Ambush (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/93095079.html?did=93095079&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=May+12,+1946&author=&desc=TWO+GI%27S+MURDERED+IN+GERMAN+AMBUSH)

US Fears Uprising (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/94045444.html?did=94045444&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Mar+23,+1946&author=By+SYDNEY+GRUSON+By+Wireless+to+THE+NEW+YORK+TIMES.&desc=U.S.+FEARS+UPRISING+OF+YOUNG+GERMANS)

I think that we have been here before...

...and it turned out alright.

We invaded Germany again??? :eek:

Seriously Frohickey, would some posts of news from Vietnam counter your post? Isn't that as good of evidence as you provide?

[Frohickey]

Since a lot here are against the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war, would you support granting letters of marque and reprisals instead?

Here is an explanation (http://www.progress.org/archive/fold232.htm) of what letters of marque and reprisals are.

Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country, as happened with the attack by persons who were in Afghanistan.

Letter of marque: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque)

The formal statement of the warrant was to authorize the agent to pass beyond the borders of the nation ("marque", meaning frontier), and there to search, seize, or destroy assets or personnel of the hostile foreign party ("reprisal"), not necessarily a nation, to a degree and in a way that was proportional to the original offense. It was considered a retaliatory measure short of a full declaration of war, and by maintaining a rough proportionality, was intended to justify the action to other nations, who might otherwise consider it an act of war or piracy.

Then again, its not like we currently have a full declaration of war neither. I swear, the politicians that we have these days are neutered.

[zimv20]

Since a lot here are against the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war
was, in fact, anyone here opposed to action in afghanistan? i wasn't. of course, i have a problem w/ the way the whole affair was handled...
link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=785263)

[SiliconAddict]

Is it just me or does every generation have to have some sort of Vietnam to get the message across about war? Does the message not make its way from one generation to another or is it the pride and superiority of a country a is what gets carried along that keeps us from learning anything.
Personally I don’t think we’ve hit Uncivil War just yet but if its keeps going the way it has. Soon enough.

[SiliconAddict]

was, in fact, anyone here opposed to action in afghanistan? i wasn't. of course, i have a problem w/ the way the whole affair was handled...
link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=785263)


I had no problems with Afgan if we had stuck it out. But in typical American fashion we got bored with Afgan and moved on to Iraq. Afgan WAS a center point of Al Quada. There was at least some reason to go in. There was a point. Heck there hasn't been a single major Al Quada official captured in Iraq. Its all been in Afgan and Pack.

[IJ Reilly]

was, in fact, anyone here opposed to action in afghanistan?

Nobody in the year and half or so I've been a regular on this board. Yet another misdirection...

[zimv20]

Is it just me or does every generation have to have some sort of Vietnam to get the message across about war?
i'd said a couple times that i believe at least part of the motivation for iraq was to give the majority of the armed forces real-life combat training.

[Frohickey]

i'd said a couple times that i believe at least part of the motivation for iraq was to give the majority of the armed forces real-life combat training.

In preparation for what? Defense of Taiwan?

[Frohickey]

Still... I think granting letters of marque and reprisals would be a good way to get things done. That would depoliticize the whole going to war and combat casualties received, as well as deflate the arguments of the anti-war protestors.

[pseudobrit]

In preparation for what? Defense of Taiwan?

IIRC, there were certain members of the military hierarchy, the Bush cabinetry or PNAC (scary that I can't remember which) who lauded a shooting war for this very reason.

edit: not defense of Taiwan, but for training and to produce veterans.

[Frohickey]

IIRC, there were certain members of the military hierarchy, the Bush cabinetry or PNAC (scary that I can't remember which) who lauded a shooting war for this very reason.

edit: not defense of Taiwan, but for training and to produce veterans.

Hmm... there were plenty created in Gulf War I, though that was only for 100 hours. Not a whole lot of chance to create battle-hardened veterans.

I'm assuming that the veterans that are wanted here are the men on the ground. Veterans doing the bombing from 100 feet, doing combat sorties, and targetting and launching missiles, you can get those with the simulators that we have. Heck, you could make it more difficult with the simulators.

The training of ground troops is pretty good though. You have lots of realistic training scenarios. Sure, they are not the real thing, but the adage about 'You die the way you train' works. Nonfatal mistakes in training makes for better soldiers, not something you can do if you make a mistake in real life.

[wwworry]

The dead are glad to have served, if only to prepare for the next round of dead.

[3rdpath]

We'll see where Bremer ends up, but the only other thing to change on June 30 will be the name on the compound, from CPA to US Embassy. Nobody is fooled by this (except those who want to be). The US military won't be under Iraqi authority -- efforts to make that transition were quietly abandoned recently.

and don't forget, according to the l.a. times, iraq will also have the LARGEST cia station in the world...convenient huh?!

[IJ Reilly]

and don't forget, according to the l.a. times, iraq will also have the LARGEST cia station in the world...convenient huh?!

I guess those Iraqis really like spying on themselves.

[mactastic]

Still... I think granting letters of marque and reprisals would be a good way to get things done. That would depoliticize the whole going to war and combat casualties received, as well as deflate the arguments of the anti-war protestors.

I don't see how that would deflate my arguments. We'd still be meddling around in parts of the world that we shouldn't for reasons that aren't conducive to fostering friendly relations between nations.

And for the record, since you insist on slandering the left at every possible opportunity, I was never against the Afghan war. Go try that BS somewhere else. Spare us the AM radio crap please.

Now as to missle defense, I can't see how you reconcile asking soldiers to buy their own flak vests yet you want to government to pay for the massive boondoggle that is NMD. Why don't we ask the bases that are going to deploy NMD to buy it themselves, and insist on a private industry solution to develop it?

[skunk]

Looks like the "civil war" is going to be put on hold: the Iraqis are too busy in their united fight against their oppressors to worry about fighting each other. Even the police seem to agree. What a bloody shambles.

[numediaman]

A look back:

February 28, 2003
Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops.

Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year . . . "the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion."

At a Pentagon news conference . . . Mr. Rumsfeld echoed his deputy's comments. Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a postwar Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort.

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said . . .

. . . A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate.

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

Also, from this morning, an ominous new development:
Japanese, Koreans taken hostage

Thursday, April 8, 2004 Posted: 10:34 AM EDT (1434 GMT)

(CNN) -- Three Japanese citizens and seven South Korean civilians have been taken hostage in Iraq, where fighting between insurgents and coalition troops has escalated in recent days.

Also, Iranian TV is airing footage of two Arab residents of Jerusalem, reportedly kidnapped in Iraq, and the British government is hunting down a citizen who has been missing since Monday.

The Arabic-language news channel Al-Jazeera Thursday aired video showing three kidnapped Japanese citizens in Iraq.

A previously unknown group calling itself the Mujahedeen Squadrons issued a statement saying the three would be burned alive unless Japan pulled its troops from Iraq.

[SiliconAddict]

edit: not defense of Taiwan, but for training and to produce veterans.


LOL. I did that in Civilization III just last night :eek:

Life is one big computer game.