Iraq inches closer to civil war

[2GOLD 0]

Remember when the thought of Iraq falling into Civil War was "Liberal-minded nonsense"

 

No. Cept Mike. Everyone else pretty much expected a civil war eventually. All new countries have one, it's just the way of the world. Two sides disagree and since they are incredibly new to the whole "freedom to do what we want" thing, it tends to end with them wanting to kick the shit out of each other.

 

They have just been on an incredibly fast track since being freed. Too damn fast because everyone wanted to force it and get us home.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Legit good news.

 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E1702,00.html

 

Sunnis and Sadr's Shiites make peace

From correspondents in Baghdad

February 26, 2006

THE movement of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, alleged to have played a role in the anti-Sunni violence over the last few days, publicly made peace with political and religious Sunni leaders overnight.

 

Four sheikhs from the Sadr movement made a "pact of honour" with the conservative Sunni Muslim Scholars Association, and called for an end to attacks on places of worship, the shedding of blood and condemning any act leading to sedition.

 

The agreement was made in the particularly symbolic setting of Baghdad's premier Sunni mosque Abu Hanifa where the Shiite sheikhs prayed under the guidance of Sunni imam Abdel Salam al-Qubaissi.

 

The meeting was broadcast on television and the religious leaders all "condemned the blowing up of the Shiite mausoleum of Samarra as much as the acts of sabotage against the houses of God as well as the assassinations and terrorisation of Muslims".

 

The statement made reference to the key concerns of both communities with the violent aftermath to the attack on the Samarra mausoleum which saw more than 119 people die.

 

The sheikhs condemned "those who excommunicate Muslims" a reference to the "takfireen" or Islamist extremists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who justify killing fellow Muslims by declaring them non-Muslims.

 

"It is not permitted to spill the Iraqi blood and to touch the houses of God," said the statement, adding that any mosques taken over by another community should be returned.

 

The meeting also announced the formation of a commission to "determine the reasons for the crisis with a view to solving it", while also calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops.

 

On the political front, Salam al-Maliki, a cabinet minister allied to Sadr, and Iyad al-Sammaraie of the Sunni Islamic Party proclaimed their own reconciliation at a joint press conference, aired on Iraqi state television.

 

The Islamic Party belongs to the Sunni National Concord Front, which won 44 seats in parliament and has broken off talks on forming the next Iraqi government since Wednesday's eruption of violence.

 

While overwhelmingly Shiite and representing thousands of poor and disaffected Shiites across the country, Sadr's movement has often made overtures to the Sunni Arabs over their mutual dislike of the US presence in the country.

 

Still, the roving bands of gun-toting, black clad youths attacking Sunnis and their places of worship on Wednesday were widely believed to have connections to the Mehdi Army, the armed wing of Sadr's movement.

 

In fact, Sadr's office in Najaf issued a statement Saturday calling on his followers to eschew their trademark black uniforms.

 

"The order has been given to members of the Mehdi Army to no longer wear their black uniform, so that it not exploited by those who commit crimes," said the statement.

 

The statement added that those attacking mosques were "criminal bands with no links to the Sadr movement."

[Vampiro69 0]

I turned on the TV and thought I was watching the Flintstones, and it ended up being footage of a bunch of rubble from Iraq.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I'm worried that the beefs of the people will override the beefs of the religious leaders. There are a lot more reasons to worry about this other than the religious aspect. That's #1 by a mile, but other things now come into play, like the Shi'a militias believing that perhaps they're the only ones who can maintain order, and the government mess still needs to be sorted out. But anyway, that's good news that the clerics want to chill.

[SuperJerk 0]

Remember when the thought of Iraq falling into Civil War was "Liberal-minded nonsense"

 

No. Cept Mike.

He pretty much said the same thing about Bush loosing the presidential debates. That guy is so far gone to his own little world you'd need the starship Enterprise to find him.

[2GOLD 0]

Remember when the thought of Iraq falling into Civil War was "Liberal-minded nonsense"

 

No. Cept Mike.

He pretty much said the same thing about Bush loosing the presidential debates. That guy is so far gone to his own little world you'd need the starship Enterprise to find him.

 

Bush didn't lose the Presidental debates. Didn't win them either. Both guys sucked so much it had to be called a draw.

[SuperJerk 0]

Remember when the thought of Iraq falling into Civil War was "Liberal-minded nonsense"

 

No. Cept Mike.

He pretty much said the same thing about Bush loosing the presidential debates. That guy is so far gone to his own little world you'd need the starship Enterprise to find him.

 

Bush didn't lose the Presidental debates. Didn't win them either. Both guys sucked so much it had to be called a draw.

 

Rewatch the first debate. Please.

 

Kerry completely owned Bush. When one guy is totally incohernet, contradicts himself frequently, and fumbles his answers, and the other guy answers every question coherently, generally makes the other guy look like an idiot, and gets huge bounce in the polls the day following the first debate, I'd say that's a pretty clear indication there was a winner. MAYBE in the second and third debate it was a draw (and not from both guys sucking, but from both of them giving solid performances), but the polls after the debate indicated Kerry won all 3.

Edited February 26, 2006 by Y2Jerk

[2GOLD 0]

Remember when the thought of Iraq falling into Civil War was "Liberal-minded nonsense"

 

No. Cept Mike.

He pretty much said the same thing about Bush loosing the presidential debates. That guy is so far gone to his own little world you'd need the starship Enterprise to find him.

 

Bush didn't lose the Presidental debates. Didn't win them either. Both guys sucked so much it had to be called a draw.

 

Rewatch the first debate. Please.

 

Kerry completely owned Bush. When one guy is totally incohernet, contradicts himself frequently, and fumbles his answers, and the other guy answers every question coherently, generally makes the other guy look like an idiot, and gets huge bounce in the polls the day following the first debate, I'd say that's a pretty clear indication there was a winner. MAYBE in the second and third debate it was a draw (and not from both guys sucking, but from both of them giving solid performances), but the polls after the debate indicated Kerry won all 3.

 

 

Watched it twice. Kerry didn't really answer anything. He just said the same stuff over and over again. It's what made me decide once and for all not to vote for him or Bush. Neither man looked like they deserved to be President. After those debates, neither man deserved to be a high school gym teacher.

 

Pathetic, both men were pathetic. Polls mean dick to me, what matters to me is what I saw and I saw nothing to indicate either man won. Seemed like the real losers were the middle of the road voters since most of us left still wondering if we could select "do your damn primaries again assholes".

[SuperJerk 0]

Watched it twice. Kerry didn't really answer anything. He just said the same stuff over and over again. It's what made me decide once and for all not to vote for him or Bush. Neither man looked like they deserved to be President. After those debates, neither man deserved to be a high school gym teacher.

 

Pathetic, both men were pathetic. Polls mean dick to me, what matters to me is what I saw and I saw nothing to indicate either man won. Seemed like the real losers were the middle of the road voters since most of us left still wondering if we could select "do your damn primaries again assholes".

Was that second time recently?

 

I'll admit that Kerry used his "We had bin Laden trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora" line a few times, but everything else you said was an exaggeration. Polls aside, Kerry may have seemed repetitive to you, but Bush was a goddamn joke in that thing and came across like a rambling idiot. Thus, Kerry won.

 

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

 

 

Just wondering...Who did you vote for in the primaries?

Edited February 26, 2006 by Y2Jerk

[Guest]

Why does this shit even matter when Kerry isn't in office? Fuck, this is a stupid thing to discuss. Obviously he didn't win, or he'd be sleeping in the White House. And even if he did, that's the only victory he can claim, so it's pointless.

 

I beat Dubya in a debate, but he beat me in the election!

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Kerry won the first debate...it was proven by the fact that basically no commentators, even GOP shills, had the balls to say Bush won it the following day. Some of them claimed it was a draw or Bush did ok, but _no one_ was saying Bush beat Kerry in that debate.

 

Kerry lost because he overall ran a terrible campaign and didn't do enough to explain his policies. End of story.

[SuperJerk 0]

Why does this shit even matter when Kerry isn't in office?

 

Because I was using it to take a cheap shot a MikeSC's slanted perception of reality.

 

Remember when the thought of Iraq falling into Civil War was "Liberal-minded nonsense"

 

No. Cept Mike.

He pretty much said the same thing about Bush loosing the presidential debates. That guy is so far gone to his own little world you'd need the starship Enterprise to find him.

 

I wasn't trying to derail the thread, just making an observation that someone else decided to take issue with (not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

I figured "Bush lost the presidential debate" was a pretty safe comment to make, but apparently we can't even agree on that around here.

 

Disagreement keeps this place from getting boring.

Edited February 26, 2006 by Y2Jerk

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Regardless of who won the debates or lost them, Bush won the Presidency and that is all that matters. As much as I have my own opinions about Bush and whether I think he is a good president, Bush ran the better campaign overall and was able to win. Besides, most people are going to vote along Republican/Democratic line no matter what. So the only way the debates were going to hurt Bush would be him going up and saying he worships satan, is a pedophile, and is a communist, and also by dropping his pants and taking a dump and lighting the American Flag on fire, Bush never was in danger of losing his electoral base. No matter how strong or weak he looked during the debats. Bush ran a better campaign than Kerry in many people's eyes.

 

Also, during times of ar, it is very difficult to unseat the sitting President, which in a poll I saw, something like 8-10% of all voters said they would vote for the sitting President, regardless of how well they felt he was doing. They just don't want to go through too much change. Throw in the fact that Kerry comes off as cold and uncharismatic, and victim of the Swift Boat ads which took away the one thing that Democrats thought they had over Bush (his military record) and it was going to be very difficult for Kerry to win. I think last election showed that the current strategy being used by the Democrats will not work. Time to stop trying to convert the conservative base, it will not happen. Too much stubborness and loyalty to the Republicans for it to happen. I think the Democrats need to focus on the millions of voters who did not vote and go after them. Also, come up with ideas and stick with them and don't come off as Republican-lite. There are many issues that are not being addressed which are just calling for a candidate to address.

 

Sorry for the presidential election analysis, as for Iraq. Well, I think that when religious sites are bombed in the Middle East, trouble can't be far behind. Of course I love the fact the the US managed to share the blame here in some Muslims eyes, but regardless, a sacred Shiite mosque was destroyed by the Sunnis and I just read that the Shiites have returned the favor.

 

Sunni Shrine Bombed by Shiites

 

So I am not very optimistic here. There has been bad blood brewing for many decades now, ever since the end of WWI and Great Britain created Iraq, while ignoring ethnicity, religious, and territories. In this case, Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis were now countrymen. Can you imagine the excitement there, I am sure they partied for years. So tension has been building for decades, between these three ethnic groups. Unfortunately, the troops might find themselves caught in the middle of a Civil War, which always end up with many dead. I hope this can be worked out, I really do. Unfortunately, as it has been demonstrated, Islam is life and death for many people. There is a very thin line that is being crossed here. Heck, look at all the protests over cartoons. Muslims will die for their religion and I just forsee two sides which will not budge. Hopefully calmer heads prevail here, but the tension will continue to build to a point of no return.

[The Czech Republic 0]

the current strategy being used by the Democrats will not work. Time to stop trying to convert the conservative base, it will not happen. Too much stubborness and loyalty to the Republicans for it to happen. I think the Democrats need to focus on the millions of voters who did not vote and go after them. Also, come up with ideas and stick with them and don't come off as Republican-lite.

 

I think that's a horrible idea. They were clearly more successful as a mass-appeal centrist party than as this catch-all for undesirables that they are now. Who do people want to run in '08? Moderate Democrats. Pushing the party further to the left to appease their hodgepodge of stoner teens, welfare queens, Earth nuts, socialist academics, gays, angry blacks, self-hating whites, and all those other marginal portions of society is not a winning gameplan.* Democratic darlings Kennedy and Clinton were pretty moderate; Clinton was the biggest advocate for NAFTA, after all. Red state/blue state is bullshit: most of the country lies very much in the middle of things. You go after moderates, you win. You sit in the corner and bitch "well this election will be stolen from me anyway and we're smarter than you so we get the moral victory," you lose.

 

 

*Note to Republicans: pushing the party further to the right to appease Jesus freaks is not a winning gameplan either

[Dobbs 3K 0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Halimi

 

So they call themselves, so they should be known as.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

the current strategy being used by the Democrats will not work. Time to stop trying to convert the conservative base, it will not happen. Too much stubborness and loyalty to the Republicans for it to happen. I think the Democrats need to focus on the millions of voters who did not vote and go after them. Also, come up with ideas and stick with them and don't come off as Republican-lite.

 

I think that's a horrible idea. They were clearly more successful as a mass-appeal centrist party than as this catch-all for undesirables that they are now. Who do people want to run in '08? Moderate Democrats. Pushing the party further to the left to appease their hodgepodge of stoner teens, welfare queens, Earth nuts, socialist academics, gays, angry blacks, self-hating whites, and all those other marginal portions of society is not a winning gameplan.* Democratic darlings Kennedy and Clinton were pretty moderate; Clinton was the biggest advocate for NAFTA, after all. Red state/blue state is bullshit: most of the country lies very much in the middle of things. You go after moderates, you win. You sit in the corner and bitch "well this election will be stolen from me anyway and we're smarter than you so we get the moral victory," you lose.

 

 

*Note to Republicans: pushing the party further to the right to appease Jesus freaks is not a winning gameplan either

 

I don't think it's fair to list gays in there. Simply wanting gay marriage does not seem offensive to me enough for them to garner their own grouping as a "wacko" demographic. The dems didn't really push for gays, rather just wanted to give them certain rights. You make it sound like they are going far left by doing this. I don't know, maybe things are different in the States.

 

I also would like to hear you elaborate on "self hating whites".

[SuperJerk 0]

Regardless of who won the debates or lost them, Bush won the Presidency and that is all that matters.

 

I WAS USING THE DEBATE TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I also would like to hear you elaborate on "self hating whites".

This is the term conservatives use to deride white people that recognize the good and the bad that Europeans taking over the world brought with it. Understandably, many feel a degree of guilt given that their race tried to subjugate the entire planet. The rest just don't get it, so they call the former group "self-hating whites."

[Justice 0]

Conversely, it represents whites who do not recognize the good that Europeanization of the planet has done due to the bad things that have happened with it. A prime example would be Africa: While Europeans might have done bad things in Africa, when one looks at it, Africa was in much better shape in European hands in comparison to where it is now.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Conversely, it represents whites who do not recognize the good that Europeanization of the planet has done due to the bad things that have happened with it. A prime example would be Africa: While Europeans might have done bad things in Africa, when one looks at it, Africa was in much better shape in European hands in comparison to where it is now.

 

That's true. One forgotten example I like to bring up is Rhodesia compared to its successor, Zimbabwe. Basically they went from having an apartheid-like system moving towards gradual racial integration and a growing economy, to being dominated by a repressive dictator.

[SuperJerk 0]

Conversely, it represents whites who do not recognize the good that Europeanization of the planet has done due to the bad things that have happened with it. A prime example would be Africa: While Europeans might have done bad things in Africa, when one looks at it, Africa was in much better shape in European hands in comparison to where it is now.

 

And it was also in better shape before the Europeans got there, fucked everything up, and didn't clean up the mess when they left.

[Art Sandusky 0]

It also becomes a point of contention with whitey when other white people have gotten over the cultural superiority complex and don't define "in better hands" the same way.

[Justice 0]

Conversely, it represents whites who do not recognize the good that Europeanization of the planet has done due to the bad things that have happened with it. A prime example would be Africa: While Europeans might have done bad things in Africa, when one looks at it, Africa was in much better shape in European hands in comparison to where it is now.

 

And it was also in better shape before the Europeans got there, fucked everything up, and didn't clean up the mess when they left.

 

Of course, it was technologically backwards, enough so for many to be basically around Stone Age or Iron Age. How much longer did you want to stay out of the way?

[SuperJerk 0]

Conversely, it represents whites who do not recognize the good that Europeanization of the planet has done due to the bad things that have happened with it. A prime example would be Africa: While Europeans might have done bad things in Africa, when one looks at it, Africa was in much better shape in European hands in comparison to where it is now.

 

And it was also in better shape before the Europeans got there, fucked everything up, and didn't clean up the mess when they left.

 

Of course, it was technologically backwards, enough so for many to be basically around Stone Age or Iron Age. How much longer did you want to stay out of the way?

I'll excuse your ignorance of their level of technology because I'd rather point out that the political, cultural, and biological devastation that Europeans brought to Africa is being completely overlooked here.

[Art Sandusky 0]

That and we assume that they need all the other stuff besides health care and education. Do not bring your televisions and iPods.

[cbacon 0]

Gunmen kill 19 Shias near Baghdad

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4768846.stm

 

The bodies of at least 19 Shias killed in what is believed to be a sectarian attack have been found in a small town near the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

 

Residents said about 50 gunmen attacked Nahrawan, south-east of Baghdad, at nightfall on Thursday.

 

At least 400 people have died since a holy Shia shrine was bombed last week in the city of Samarra.

 

The top US commander in Iraq, Gen George Casey, said it appeared the crisis of sectarian unrest had passed.

 

A daytime curfew was in force in the capital during Friday prayers, in an attempt to curb a surge in violence.

 

Bodies found

 

In the latest large-scale attack, insurgents entered Nahrawan at dusk on Thursday and disabled a local electricity sub-station.

 

Having killed the guards, the attackers moved on to two nearby brick factories, where they killed 19 workers, all believed to be Shia.

 

"They all have a single bullet to the forehead," town council leader Alaa al-Lamy told Reuters news agency. "This was a sectarian attack."

 

Police said some Shia families were moving out of the area in response to the killings.

 

Last week, the bodies of 47 factory workers, who had been dragged from their vehicles and shot, were also found in Nahrawan.

 

At least nine security forces members died in an attack on a checkpoint near Tikrit on Thursday.

 

Speaking by video link from Iraq, Gen Casey did not rule out the possibiity of a descent into civil war, but suggested the situation had stabilised.

 

"Is the violence out of control? Clearly not. Now, it appears the crisis has passed," he said.

 

"But we should all be clear Iraqis remain under threat of terrorist attack by those who will stop at nothing to undermine the formation of the constitutionally elected government."

 

He said another attack on a major religious site in the next couple of days "would have a significant impact" on the situation.

 

 

Clerics from both sides urge for unity

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....RAQ-PRAYERS.xml

 

QUOTE

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Clerics from across Iraq's Shi'ite-Sunni divide called for calm and national unity in Friday prayers after a wave of sectarian violence that has killed hundreds and edged the country toward civil war.

 

Fearing clashes on the Muslim day of the week when mosques are filled with worshippers, the Iraqi government imposed a new daytime traffic curfew on Baghdad on Friday.

 

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, criticized for failing to combat violence that has killed at least 500 people since a Shi'ite shrine was bombed on February 22, warned preachers against "inflammatory" language.

 

"We have to say 'yes' to political justice, independence and unity and say 'no' to dictatorship, foreign interference and sectarianism," Sadr-al-Deen al-Qubanchi, a member of one of the largest Shi'ite parties, told worshippers at the Fatima Mosque in the holy city of Najaf.

 

In Baghdad's Sunni Saadiya mosque, the preacher praised Shi'ites for helping protect the mosque from gunmen who attacked numerous other mosques in the religiously-mixed capital. Two police cars guarded the mosque as locals gathered inside.

 

"The worshippers have informed me that the Sunnis and Shi'ites in the area came together to protect this mosque. This is evidence of Iraq's unity and brotherhood," he told a congregation of around 150 people.

 

The bloodless but symbolic bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra triggered an unprecedented backlash from Shi'ites against minority Sunni Arabs, who make up the backbone of an insurgency battling the Shi'ite and Kurdish-led government.

 

Most speeches took a cautious line to avoid worsening tensions but in the southern Shi'ite city of Basra, Iraq's second largest, Sabah al-Saadi of the Shi'ite Fadhila party criticized Sunnis for appeasing insurgents.

 

Fox news poll: 81% believe war is likely

 

Gallup: 2 out of 3 Americans want out of Iraq

 

Edit: OMG ominous post count :/

[Art Sandusky 0]

Fox News shocked me today when they actually reported on one of their own polls showing the approval of Democrats leading Republicans en masse with eight months until the midterms, as well as one that showed a 60/40 majority wanting out of Iraq.

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

If anything, this situation is another example of how cultures do not do well when existing in such intimate conditions. The nations that invaded Iraq should leave immediately because it's obvious that they will not be able to

 

A: forge Iraq's(and indeed the middle east as a whole) government and culture in their own Christian Democratic image.

 

B: Fix the damage they've done by waging war there in the first place. It would widely be considered a defeat, but in the eyes of logical and reasonable people, it would be a heroic act. Let their culture and people decide their own fate under their own conditions. The only bad thing I see from that would be that less ugly skyscrapers would fall then...

 

Again, these people need to decide their own fate and walk their own path without interference from those that would profit from mutating their culture. Do we (the west) really need to "fix" these nations? Further, do we even need to care about what happens to them? Smart money says that all their ill will towards us goes away pretty quick if we just stop fucking around with them.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Fox News shocked me today when they actually reported on one of their own polls showing the approval of Democrats leading Republicans en masse with eight months until the midterms, as well as one that showed a 60/40 majority wanting out of Iraq.

 

I don't want to turn this thread into another Fox News debate, but that just shows you that they're not as completely biased as people claim. Yeah, I'll agree that they lean conservative, but it's not like the whole network is a bunch of Sean Hannitys towing the line. I wonder if people that criticize Fox News all the time have even watched the network for more than five minutes, sometimes...

 

As far as Africa, I find it ironic that they once wanted Europeans out of Africa, now they constantly turn to the West for financial aid. I think the key to breaking the cycle is to cut off pretty much all economic aid unless it comes in the form of trade and technological assistance. I've heard from more than one source that many African governments simply try to get more aid year after year, and of course there's problems with graft and corruption, etc. Africa needs to pull Africa up if they want to move ahead.

[SuperJerk 0]

Fox News shocked me today when they actually reported on one of their own polls showing the approval of Democrats leading Republicans en masse with eight months until the midterms, as well as one that showed a 60/40 majority wanting out of Iraq.

 

I don't want to turn this thread into another Fox News debate, but that just shows you that they're not as completely biased as people claim. Yeah, I'll agree that they lean conservative, but it's not like the whole network is a bunch of Sean Hannitys towing the line. I wonder if people that criticize Fox News all the time have even watched the network for more than five minutes, sometimes...

 

I must agree with this. When it comes to actually reporting the news, they aren't that bad.