bloodiest day in bagdhad since 'end of aggression'

[Creek]

I aggree...failure is not an option..Well said...(handshake)...It's a very complicated problem/mess/issue/task..or whatever ya wana call it...ahead,and must be delt with..not take any shortcuts...It's not gona be all pretty on this path,to stray off course would be more bloodshed....No shortcuts..but some other options might be needed....Now if a semi working Democratic Government could be established...the oil can be the boundries to some degree...but the last sources I read..and many articles is Iraq would pay for this war..after all is set up,and the government running functionaly...not sure what credibility to give that....But ya know...all these middle-east countries have their bombings even amonst themselves.......Not sure what I'm saying...but after all is over...don't expect Iraq to ever be a safe place for American Tourists.....That's my fortune cookie two bits....

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by spillmind


i hate to be a downer on seemingly genuine optimism, but the US is not succeeding as we speak. the best we could do is to set up an interim government- one run by iraqis- but even then corruption will soon set in, and bloody coups to follow.

its that or keep our boys stationed in that shooting gallery until a battalion gets nailed, or something equivalent. the aggressions would be persisting even if the democracy was in place AS WE SPEAK. it's common sense.

You saying "the best we could do" makes it sounds like we are unable to continue acting in Iraq, which is obviously not true. And yes, the actions will persist until we vanquish the enemy, or until they give up the will to resist. When will that happen? My guess is that terrorists attacks against the US have peaked, and that, while we will certainly see more terrorism in Iraq in the future, I don't believe it will be as organized or as costly. When US troops leave, and the Iraqi government is on its own, there will probably be an upswing in terrorism, as the Muslim hardliners try to topple a Western-style democracy that they will find repulsive. But to say that we have failed because there is still resistance to US troops is a fallacy.

until we stop funnelling all of our money and energy into the middle east, the aggressors will retain the power/capacity for terror! oh but then again, we have so much (collectively as a nation) vested in petrol, that we cannot get away from it.

Agreed, we are too dependent on Arab oil. What are you (or we, I should say) going to do about it? I say, drill in ANWR and/or offshore locations while we continue to research alternate/renewable energy sources. And build nuclear power plants! But that's probably a topic for a different thread.

let's look to afghanistan to see how the american re-org panned out there:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3209639.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3192880.stm
i wish i could share your optimism, but i simply don't.

Again, the presence of resistance does not equal failure. We still have troops in Afghanistan, and for good reason - to assist Karzai in establishing control over his country. We kicked the Taliban's butt once, we can do it again.

 

[spillmind]

jeff:

i didn't say we failed:

'But to say that we have failed because there is still resistance to US troops is a fallacy.'

i have stated that we are flailing horribly and i for one, don't think the terror attacks will quell after this. what on earth make syou think this? it certainly isn't the track record. and is this optimism because you really think it's going to happen, or just because it's along party lines for you?

you yourself admit that there will be resistance to the new gov... whatever that may transpire to be, so what exactly is the point of that? a statement to terrorists? a victory for the US? i'm not following how this is in the bush game plan.
good to know you have your feet set in reality, however.

it's not *arab* oil that we are too dependant on, it's *oil* itself that destroys our environment, and is an energy source with a long history of the distributor's corruptions. not to say that a new fuel will not be subject to corporate crime -these dayts it's practically an american way- but companies buying us electric car technology and then not producing it, or running innovation into the ground- it doesn't take a fifth grader to add that up.

do you know how much oil is in the ANWR oil reserve? i bet the next step for you is to set up derricks off the coast of washington, oregon and northern california.... thing would get VERY ugly if the cons try to push that one through!

'Again, the presence of resistance does not equal failure. We still have troops in Afghanistan, and for good reason - to assist Karzai in establishing control over his country. We kicked the Taliban's butt once, we can do it again.'

are you a proponent of a new war in afghanistan? i'm afraid your public support for that would be fleeting, at best.

so we have not 'failed' per se, but we are in the process of failing. it is not something i wish to be, but reality intrudes once again.

 

[Amras]

When US troops leave, and the Iraqi government is on its own, there will probably be an upswing in terrorism, as the Muslim hardliners try to topple a Western-style democracy that they will find repulsive. But to say that we have failed because there is still resistance to US troops is a fallacy.

There was an interesting article in the london daily Times in April 2003, the article analysed the mass pilgrimage of Shiite Muslims in the city of Karbala. Quote: “No party conference or statement of policy could spell out more clearly the wishes of these people: for an Islamic democracy, based not upon the traditions of the West, but on Sharia (Islamic law) and the Koran.”

A western style democracy requires a strict separation of church and state. However, that separation is not wanted by many Iraqis and the coalition has made it very clear that they would not accept any kind of "theocracy", a very understandable position. You cannot cut them out of the political process. If you do, they will use "other" means to participate.

So what to do? I'm a just lowlife civilian, I may ask those questions. It's just a pity that the people in power have no answers after they opened that Pandora Box. I wonder if Bremer and Bush sleep well.

Let's face it, the coalition isn't getting out of Iraq anytime soon.

 

[spillmind]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/iraq

let me know when i am beating a dead horse (no pun inteneded)

 

[spillmind]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031030/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_52

anyone seeing a trend here?

 

[dijetlo]

>>the article analysed the mass pilgrimage of Shiite Muslims in the city of Karbala. Quote: “No party conference or statement of policy could spell out more clearly the wishes of these people: for an Islamic democracy, based not upon the traditions of the West, but on Sharia (Islamic law) and the Koran.”<<

And yet the Shiia have demonstrated no organized resistance to our provisional authority. Seven months into the invasion, it might be safe to say the analysis was flawed. The holiest sites for the Shiia are in Karbala, while Hussein was in power, they were not allowed to travel to them. I think the movement the article is analyzing was a response to the opening travel restrictions at the outset of the occupation, it doesn't demonstrate a political movement towards a government based on Sharria. (Islamic government is not even popular in Iran). The polling numbers from Iraq tend to bear this out.

>>A western style democracy requires a strict separation of church and state. <<
England and the Anglican Church. Point: Democracy comes in lots of flavors, let the Iraqis pick the one they like. The only stipulation I can think of is this can't be the standard arab democracy (one man, one vote, one time). Otherwise, we're just changing the face on the posters.
The sticking point will not be over religion, it'll be over military bases. When the Iraqis tell us to vacate their soil, will we actually go?
>>You cannot cut them out of the political process. If you do, they will use "other" means to participate.<<
Excellent, excellent point.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by spillmind
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031030/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_52
anyone seeing a trend here?

This is a page taken from the Viet Congs playbook
From your article:
>>The police, prime targets in the bombings Monday, were targeted again Thursday, when officers intercepted a motorist who tried to toss a hand grenade into a police station on the edge of Baghdad's heavily guarded "green zone," the headquarters enclave for the U.S. occupation. <<
That is a level of sophistication I find very disquieting, avoid the heavily armed military and attack the "collaborating", lightly armed police.

I'm sticking this one in 'cause it reminds me of Baltimore...

>> No casualties were reported, but the attack sparked a frenzy of looting by Iraqis who carried off computers, tents, bottled water and other supplies. <<

Ill bet its' Christmas in the slums of Baghdad right now :cof:

 

[Amras]

And yet the Shiia have demonstrated no organized resistance to our provisional authority. Seven months into the invasion, it might be safe to say the analysis was flawed. The holiest sites for the Shiia are in Karbala, while Hussein was in power, they were not allowed to travel to them. I think the movement the article is analyzing was a response to the opening travel restrictions at the outset of the occupation, it doesn't demonstrate a political movement towards a government based on Sharria. (Islamic government is not even popular in Iran)

In a democracy, you normally win by numerical majority. Considering the fact that more than 60% of Iraq are Shia, you can deduce who will dominate that government.
According to Dr. Peter Scholl Latour, a publicist who has written outstanding books and essays on terrorism and Islam, the Shia clerics are just waiting for now. They keep a low profile because they see a peaceful path to take over the government. Those ayathollas have ordered that their followers don't commit violent acts and they do not openly argue for a theocratic takeover like in Iran. They want to let their people decide.
The Shia population doesn't really trust the occupying forces or the UN, which will be remembered for the sanctions. Is it so surprising that they have more faith in their religion. Dr. Latour is convinced that the outcome of free elections will give the Shia religious leaders political authority. His predictions, concerning the Blitzkrieg and the problems that would come after it, were quite accurate.
I guess no one this board would be happy if a secular mass-murderer would be replaced by anti-western ayathollas.
If the US are unable to fulfill their promise to grant free elections in the months to come or if they would refuse to recognize an eventual pro-islam outcome, then we will witness another fatwa against America.

US officials have been complaining that the reconstruction effort doesn't get enough media attention. The television networks are too focused on the sunni triangle. In my opinion, this is another issue which hasn't been properly covered so far.

The polling numbers from Iraq tend to bear this out

Do you have any sources for these? I'd like to know more about them

Democracy comes in lots of flavors, let the Iraqis pick the one they like.

I can only agree.

 

[dijetlo]

>>Do you have any sources for these? I'd like to know more about them <<

But of course...

Zogby Poll of Iraqi

>>Considering the fact that more than 60% of Iraq are Shia, you can deduce who will dominate that government.<<
90% of the US is christian and yet we reject a Christian dominated government, I don't think it impossible that the Shia have similar opinion of after having lived in the shadow of Iran all these years. I'm somewhat encouraged by this statistic

Memes Analysis of Zogby Poll
>>Less than a third of those polled, 32.9 percent, said they favored an Islamic government, while 60.3 percent said they wanted a government that "let everyone practice their own religion."<<
So if the Shiite make up 60% of the country, approximately half (quite possibly more if some of the Sunni are numbered in the knotheads who want a theocracy) of the Shia are looking for freedom of (islamic) religion in the new Iraq. That doesn't bode well for the Ayotallahs plans.

 

[Amras]

Darn, it's too bad that you have to pay to get the complete original data sheets. 99$ for a power point presentation!

The second link that you posted gives me a mixed picture. I could spin those statistics a bit:

Only 38.6 percent of the Iraqis polled said democracy could work well in their country, while 50.8 percent agreed with the statement that "democracy is a Western way of doing things and it will not work here." Only 35.3 percent believe that the United States will help Iraq over the next five years, while 50 percent thought the United States would hurt the country.

Clearly, I can't be wrong

90% of the US is christian and yet we reject a Christian dominated government, I don't think it impossible that the Shia have similar opinion of after having lived in the shadow of Iran all these years. I'm somewhat encouraged by this statistic

I like your scenario better than mine, it would be convenient for the coalition if it turns to be true.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Amras
Darn, it's too bad that you have to pay to get the complete original data sheets. 99$ for a power point presentation!

I'm sorry, I didn't mention I worked for Zogby???(Kidding)

>>Only 38.6 percent of the Iraqis polled said democracy...while 50 percent thought the United States would hurt the country. <<

Damn you people for reading the supporting documentation!!! Can't you just look at the link and think, " that guy must know what he's talking about..."

>>Clearly, I can't be wrong <<
Infallibility can be such a burden

 

[spillmind]

funny how little the token back slappers around here avoid this topic like the plague. and thanks for the insightful preceding posts. arguably covering all the bases!

and it seems that the unrest will keep going... and going... and going...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20031031/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_73

at what point would the united states say enough is enough and leave iraq?

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by spillmind
funny how little the token back slappers around here avoid this topic like the plague.

Your grandma ever tell you you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? Your article refs the Sunni Triangle, and for this reason alone is not directly germaine to the prior discussion about the Shia. If you would like to talk about the growing problems amongst the Sunni, please do.

 

[spillmind]

no my grandma did NOT go on about your proverbs.

and the start topic of the thread is 'bloodiest day in bagdhad since 'end of aggression''

and i have been posting articles related to the escalating violence in iraq.

you go off on a tangent, and then expect me to adhere to your tangent of the main topic, and the ridicule me for getting back along thread lines?



seems you have are little too proud of yourself sometimes, no?

 

[spillmind]

'seems you have are little too proud of yourself sometimes, no?'

should be ' seem you are little too proud of yourself sometimes, no?'

:cof: coffee working against me today-

leave it to me to try and do three things at once. not the first time i've done crap like that , nor the last. i'm sure you'll try to rip me for it, however.

 

[dijetlo]

>>you go off on a tangent, <<
In all humility, you started the tangent by posting the article from April about how the Shia have begun gathering in thier holy cities. I got involved discussing what I percieved to be the error in that argument.

>> and the ridicule me for getting back along thread lines?<<
I didn't ridicule you. The question about the your grandmother was prompted by your use of the words "token" and "backslapper". The reference to your article was to reassure you we were not
>> avoid(ing) this topic like the plague<<
we were just talking about something else. The "please do" was a sincere invitation.
>>seems you have are little too proud of yourself sometimes, no?<<
I'll take it under advisement.
>> i'm sure you'll try to rip me for it, however.<<
Nah, no more than I just did.

 

[jimnyc]

dijetlo, meet Spillmind. Enjoy yourself.

He's a bit hard headed, but at least he stands by what he says. A lot of people repeat things and have no clue what they are talking about. Spillmind at least believes in his cause and backs up most of what he is saying (although sometimes with questionable sources, but we've all done that I suppose).

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
dijetlo, meet Spillmind. Enjoy yourself.
Spillmind at least believes in his cause and backs up most of what he is saying (although sometimes with questionable sources, but we've all done that I suppose).

I'm sure we'll get along famously...btw, did we add some cool new emoticons to the boards repertoire?(or should I have just scrolled down sooner?)

 

[Amras]

and it seems that the unrest will keep going... and going... and going...

Fifteen die as US helicopter downed

Another bad day in Iraq...