Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's somewhat consistent with his prior behaviors, but I also hope the Iraqi Army is true to Iraq. Many lives could be taken if they are not. It's too bad Sadr likely availed himself to influences of chaos. OTOH, maybe he saw that peace would be more beneficial to the people of Iraq. You never know what an absence can dissuade or promote. Our finest hope can only be that forces within Iraq will come together to end the bloodletting.Thanks, Trahan, and since al Sadr is behind this and other suspected eliminations, it would be just another America-hating killer taking over from another America-hating killer, Saddam Hussein. Al-Sad'r's goal has always been to take over, and he has a trained militia to make it happen. It's too bad this administration has taken it upon itself to snatch a defeat from the troops' victory in Iraq.
I don't think the Mahdi Army is strong enough to defeat the Iraqi Army. Back in 2008, the Iraqi army took over Sadr City without any involvement from the U.S. (it was Iraqi planned and executed). U.S. troops were involved earlier in a joint effort to control the southern third of Sadr City, but the final push was all Iraqi Army.
Sadr wants to make the Mahdi Army like Hezbollah, a well trained guerilla army that is the strongest force in the country, fortunately that is not the case in Iraq. The Mahdi Army are not as well trained, equipped or as good fighters as Hezbollah and like you say the Iraqi Army is better, but the Mahdi Army is good enough to create problems in the region especially if they are getting the support from Iran, which very well might be the case.
That's somewhat consistent with his prior behaviors, but I also hope the Iraqi Army is true to Iraq. Many lives could be taken if they are not. It's too bad Sadr likely availed himself to influences of chaos. OTOH, maybe he saw that peace would be more beneficial to the people of Iraq. You never know what an absence can dissuade or promote. Our finest hope can only be that forces within Iraq will come together to end the bloodletting.I don't think the Mahdi Army is strong enough to defeat the Iraqi Army. Back in 2008, the Iraqi army took over Sadr City without any involvement from the U.S. (it was Iraqi planned and executed). U.S. troops were involved earlier in a joint effort to control the southern third of Sadr City, but the final push was all Iraqi Army.
Sadr wants to make the Mahdi Army like Hezbollah, a well trained guerilla army that is the strongest force in the country, fortunately that is not the case in Iraq. The Mahdi Army are not as well trained, equipped or as good fighters as Hezbollah and like you say the Iraqi Army is better, but the Mahdi Army is good enough to create problems in the region especially if they are getting the support from Iran, which very well might be the case.
Sadr wants to make the Mahdi Army like Hezbollah, a well trained guerilla army that is the strongest force in the country, fortunately that is not the case in Iraq. The Mahdi Army are not as well trained, equipped or as good fighters as Hezbollah and like you say the Iraqi Army is better, but the Mahdi Army is good enough to create problems in the region especially if they are getting the support from Iran, which very well might be the case.
The problem is Sadrs agenda is totally different than the people of Iraq.
Sadr wants to make the Mahdi Army like Hezbollah, a well trained guerilla army that is the strongest force in the country, fortunately that is not the case in Iraq. The Mahdi Army are not as well trained, equipped or as good fighters as Hezbollah and like you say the Iraqi Army is better, but the Mahdi Army is good enough to create problems in the region especially if they are getting the support from Iran, which very well might be the case.
Working backwards, the Mahdi Army is definitely getting support from Iran. It's one of the top Iran-backed militias. The top one, though, is the Badr Bridgade, which is now mostly integrated into the army. It took a while, but the primarily Shi'a army is willing to deal with Shi'a militias, so maybe the Mahdi Army can eventually become part of the regular Iraqi forces.
Iran has its hands in a lot of things in Iraq. It's trying to hedge its bets. It's even supported Sunni militias, including those with links to Al Qaeda, which would have been unheard of a decade ago. Still, Iran's base of power is the Shi'a south. Iranian currency is accepted there, primarily because of all the tourists visiting the shrines. I also remember reading a few years ago that Iran provided electricity for some in the south.
I'm sure Sadr would like the Mahdi Army to be like Hizb'allah. Although, right now he doesn't need to since he's such an important figure politically. He's one of the pillars of the al-Maliki government, so he doesn't need to try to undermine the government yet.
Iran has also trained and given explosives to Taliban members in Afghanistan, they have been finding IED's with Iranian trade marks on them similar to the ones found in the Shite areas of Iraq for years now.
In Lebanon Hezbollah is also part of the government, they hold the majority of seats I believe and no decision gets made in Lebanon without Hezbollah signing off on it, thats the kind of situation Sadr would like for the Mahdi Army in Iraq I believe, not total outright control but enough so that they impact decisions made in the country. For some people that kind of arrangement is better than outright control, because if you have outright control you have no one to bitch to when the country is still a third world shit hole and disaster.
Thanks, High Gravity. That makes it a lot clearer to me. Your description reminds me of the Kuwaitis, except the Kuwaitis have power due to their oil wealth. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, I knew some students from Kuwait at Oregon State University. Of course, they were the only other people in the library when I was there (all the time) They took their education in the United States very seriously, and they stayed together in a group. One day after the war was over, I saw one of the students on television (all grown up) who had worked his way up and was some kind of a minister of foreign relations, being spokesperson for the leadership in the country. When I knew him, he had his eye on the very beautiful girl who was always in the library working on whatever she was studying at the time. Of course, that was a long time ago, and I just wondered if he won her over or not.
Anyway, I was upset the whole time Saddam was in Kuwait, and that's when I got really interested in Middle Eastern affairs. I really didn't know the kids all that well, but I admired how they looked out for one another, and was worried when I heard a couple of thousand Kuwaitis died. I've always thought of the Kuwaitis as friends. They are like what you described the Kurds as--liking the American people. I hope all those who visited at the library same time as me were ok. I grew fond of them, looked forward to seeing them; then was heartbroken when their country was invaded, wishing I hadn't been so busy and a little too shy to ask my quiet study friend for an address to send Christmas cards to. It's hard to be social when studying takes all your time. Their government paid for all Kuwaitis to be educated, and their literacy rate always used to be tops in the Middle East. I knew exactly why.
I was deployed to Kuwait during my time in the Military and I know what you are saying, a good portion of the Kuwaitis are fond of the US and don't have a problem with us, however there is also a segment of the Kuwaiti population that does NOT like the US. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003 the Mahdi Army was formed and they have set up offices in Kuwait amongst the Shite population there, they collect moneys from the Kuwaitis as charities to give to the Mahdi Army, and they spy on US Troops and the US bases in Kuwait. There are reports of Kuwaitis going to Iraq and Afghanistan as suicide bombers, it seems that Kuwait has the same problems just about every Arab country has these days with a portion of their population falling under the sway of Islamic Militants.
Kuwait is very much like Kosovo. He went to war to prevent Sadam from killing the entire Kuwaiti population and now they fund terrorism, help the terrorist in Iraq and are ANTIAMERICAN!
The we prevent the Serbs taking back their land in favor of the Muslims of the Ficticious Country of Kosovo. What do we have now. A mafesto run government. A hotbed of Islamic terrorist, antiamericanism and antiwesternism. The Russian were right on Kosovo. Now we created yet another Muslim country that the world needs to worry about!
Iran has also trained and given explosives to Taliban members in Afghanistan, they have been finding IED's with Iranian trade marks on them similar to the ones found in the Shite areas of Iraq for years now.
The "Iranian trademarks" on the IEDs is a bit overstated. It doesn't mean that Iran hasn't provided the IEDs; it just means that the IEDs could have been made with or without Iran. The big concern is from the mortar attacks now, and I'm pretty sure they're Iranian-made weapons.
Iran's involvement with the Taliban is also Iran hedging its bets. Iran and the Taliban have been enemies for so long. Let's not forget the Iran helped us overthrow the Taliban. It was a different Iranian president, but the Supreme Leader controls the military, so he must have ok'd it.
In Lebanon Hezbollah is also part of the government, they hold the majority of seats I believe and no decision gets made in Lebanon without Hezbollah signing off on it, thats the kind of situation Sadr would like for the Mahdi Army in Iraq I believe, not total outright control but enough so that they impact decisions made in the country. For some people that kind of arrangement is better than outright control, because if you have outright control you have no one to bitch to when the country is still a third world shit hole and disaster.
Yeah, Hezbollah have the majority in Lebanon. But that country is in a weird situation since they forced the last government collapse so they wouldn't be indicted for an assassination. It's possible for Iraq to end up like that. But so many pro-U.S. Iraqis have a lot of power. The Kurds are big enough as a group that their support is a requirement for a government. Then a bunch of Shi'a groups are closely allied with the U.S.
Throughout our Iraq engagement, it was made clear to me from reading at Centcom the concern that the IEDs getting our soldiers' humvees were of Iranian origin, and particularly after we reinforced the humvees to protect the soldiers riding in them, the technology to engage the new reinforced vehicles to maim and kill American troops was linked directly to Iran. In addition, editorial staffs in the Middle East, still driving Saddam's gifts of shiny new Mercedes around, were not entirely forthcoming with any information that would reinforce the good our troops did there for the purpose of impugning the entire effort that led to Saddam Hussein's arrest. When their press lied, our troops died, because selected monominded idiots in the EU could cherry pick their grievances-du-jour with America.Iran has also trained and given explosives to Taliban members in Afghanistan, they have been finding IED's with Iranian trade marks on them similar to the ones found in the Shite areas of Iraq for years now.
The "Iranian trademarks" on the IEDs is a bit overstated. It doesn't mean that Iran hasn't provided the IEDs; it just means that the IEDs could have been made with or without Iran. The big concern is from the mortar attacks now, and I'm pretty sure they're Iranian-made weapons.
Iran's involvement with the Taliban is also Iran hedging its bets. Iran and the Taliban have been enemies for so long. Let's not forget the Iran helped us overthrow the Taliban. It was a different Iranian president, but the Supreme Leader controls the military, so he must have ok'd it.
Yeah, Hezbollah have the majority in Lebanon. But that country is in a weird situation since they forced the last government collapse so they wouldn't be indicted for an assassination. It's possible for Iraq to end up like that. But so many pro-U.S. Iraqis have a lot of power. The Kurds are big enough as a group that their support is a requirement for a government. Then a bunch of Shi'a groups are closely allied with the U.S.In Lebanon Hezbollah is also part of the government, they hold the majority of seats I believe and no decision gets made in Lebanon without Hezbollah signing off on it, thats the kind of situation Sadr would like for the Mahdi Army in Iraq I believe, not total outright control but enough so that they impact decisions made in the country. For some people that kind of arrangement is better than outright control, because if you have outright control you have no one to bitch to when the country is still a third world shit hole and disaster.
Iran is willing to give the Taliban arms as well as various insurgent groups in Iraq because they don't want our time in these countries to be too easy, right now we basically have Iran cornered on both sides right now and they are nervous, no matter what they might say. They don't want us to successful so we can focus on toppling their government, so they arm these groups. It will be interesting to see what happens in Iraq in the future, you are correct the Kurds definently have the manpower and the clout and their approval is definently required for a government, we also have some Shite groups working with us. I would like to see Iraq become a functioning country, not a fractured country like Lebanon with militias arming themselves to the teeth and the government can't stop them.
Throughout our Iraq engagement, it was made clear to me from reading at Centcom the concern that the IEDs getting our soldiers' humvees were of Iranian origin, and particularly after we reinforced the humvees to protect the soldiers riding in them, the technology to engage the new reinforced vehicles to maim and kill American troops was linked directly to Iran. In addition, editorial staffs in the Middle East, still driving Saddam's gifts of shiny new Mercedes around, were not entirely forthcoming with any information that would reinforce the good our troops did there for the purpose of impugning the entire effort that led to Saddam Hussein's arrest. When their press lied, our troops died, because selected monominded idiots in the EU could cherry pick their grievances-du-jour with America.The "Iranian trademarks" on the IEDs is a bit overstated. It doesn't mean that Iran hasn't provided the IEDs; it just means that the IEDs could have been made with or without Iran. The big concern is from the mortar attacks now, and I'm pretty sure they're Iranian-made weapons.
Iran's involvement with the Taliban is also Iran hedging its bets. Iran and the Taliban have been enemies for so long. Let's not forget the Iran helped us overthrow the Taliban. It was a different Iranian president, but the Supreme Leader controls the military, so he must have ok'd it.
Yeah, Hezbollah have the majority in Lebanon. But that country is in a weird situation since they forced the last government collapse so they wouldn't be indicted for an assassination. It's possible for Iraq to end up like that. But so many pro-U.S. Iraqis have a lot of power. The Kurds are big enough as a group that their support is a requirement for a government. Then a bunch of Shi'a groups are closely allied with the U.S.
Iran is willing to give the Taliban arms as well as various insurgent groups in Iraq because they don't want our time in these countries to be too easy, right now we basically have Iran cornered on both sides right now and they are nervous, no matter what they might say. They don't want us to successful so we can focus on toppling their government, so they arm these groups. It will be interesting to see what happens in Iraq in the future, you are correct the Kurds definently have the manpower and the clout and their approval is definently required for a government, we also have some Shite groups working with us. I would like to see Iraq become a functioning country, not a fractured country like Lebanon with militias arming themselves to the teeth and the government can't stop them.
I would like to see Iraq become a functioning country, not a fractured country like Lebanon with militias arming themselves to the teeth and the government can't stop them.
I would like to see Iraq become a functioning country, not a fractured country like Lebanon with militias arming themselves to the teeth and the government can't stop them.
Me too. I really want to see what's left of ancient Babylonian history (actually a little bit).
Baghdad was also one of the great medieval cities, but that appeals to me slightly less (but still quite a bit). I'd be interested in seeing Kurdistan, but I can do that now.
There are tons of great Shi'a shrines that I'd be interested in seeing if I was there, but they're not a reason for me to go to Iraq (being that I'm not Muslim).
Do you actually think that's Babylon's contribution to Western Civilization?
Three thousand years ago, the ancient Hebrew people lived in the Near East in an area called Canaan. This ancient people developed the idea of monotheism, the belief in one god. They believed that their god gave them laws to regulate their society, their religious practices, and their relationships with other people.
Conquered by the neo-Babylonians and later by the Romans, the Hebrews eventually became a scattered people, living in many countries under different legal systems. But they continued to develop their own law and tried to follow it even in foreign lands. Their law was based on the Ten Commandments and other sacred writings, which today we find in the Hebrew Bible. In developing their law, they sometimes borrowed legal concepts from other civilizations as well as passing on their own ideas. The Jewish law that developed influenced Roman law, English law, and our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Equality
The Torah teaches that God created Adam, the first human, as the father of all peoples. Thus, all humans are born equal and should be treated equally by the law. This is today recognized as a major principle of law.
The Rule of Law
The Torah does not recognize the idea of kings ruling by divine right. According to tradition, the Hebrew people made Saul their first king in 1030 B.C., when enemy nations threatened their survival. But Saul and the other Hebrew kings that followed him were never considered to be gods or high priests with the power to interpret Gods will.
Hebrew kings, like everyone else, had to obey the Ten Commandments and the other laws of the Torah. The written Torah, not the whims of kings, was considered the law of the land.
Majority Rule and Democracy
The Hebrew concept of majority rule comes from the Torahs command to follow the multitude. The majority decided disputes among scholars on the meaning of Gods laws, the court decisions of judges, and the local acts of Jewish communities.
Since Jews lived under the rule of foreign nations after A.D. 70, they practiced only limited forms of self-government. By the 12th century, however, many countries permitted Jewish communities to elect local town councils, the Seven Good Men of the City. These councils, chosen by the majority of adult males, supervised religious, economic, educational, and charity activities. The entire community often decided important questions at a town meeting.
Freedom of Religion and Speech
Being born a Jew makes one obligated to follow the Torah. But Jews must do this freely. Non-Jews have the freedom to practice their own religions. Moreover, unlike most other religions, Judaism does not actively seek converts.
A tradition of free speech existed among the Hebrews. Hebrew prophets openly spoke out against their kings and the people for failing to follow the Torah. During the long history of disputes over the meaning of the Torah, no one was tried for heresy (going against religious doctrine). Also, while the majority decided matters of law, the minority had a chance to be heard and their opinions were often recorded.
Fair Trial
In Judea, the court system had three levels. The highest court was the Great Sandedrin, which had 71 judges. Lesser courts with 23 judges dealt with death penalty cases. Lower courts with three judges handled most civil and criminal matters. Most of these courts stopped functioning after the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. In countries where they were permitted to operate, however, three-judge courts continued to hand out justice in Jewish communities.
Many parts of the Torah, Talmud, and the codes of law that followed described due process procedures to ensure fair trials. Anyone accused of a crime had the right of bail except in death-penalty cases. Traditional Jewish courts had no trained lawyers arguing cases. The prosecutor was either the victim himself or, if he had been killed, a relative (blood-avenger) or someone appointed by the court. The accused could defend himself or ask another to plead for him. Evidence included documents and the testimony of witnesses. The consistent testimony of two male witnesses to the crime was necessary to convict the accused. The judges closely cross-examined witnesses in the presence of the accused. Circumstantial evidence alone was never enough to find someone guilty. Witnesses who broke the commandment forbidding one to bear false witness faced the same penalty that the accused would have suffered. The accused had an absolute right against self-incrimination and was not permitted to make statements harmful to himself. Likewise, confessions were not admissible evidence in court. There was no jury. The judges deliberated with the accused looking on. The youngest judge spoke his opinion first in order to avoid being influenced by the senior judges. The judges then decided the verdict by majority vote
BRIA 16 4 a The Hebrews and the Foundation of Western Law - Constitutional Rights Foundation
What about the Babylonian contributions to astronomy, math, agriculture and engineering?
Er, Pythagoras was Greek not Babylonian. Maybe, open a history book?
OK, now you're diving into self-parody. I understand your disdain of Arabs; that's just basic bigotry 101.
Er, Babylonians were not Arabs. You're severely confused
