al-zarqawi is killed

[Rag-Doll 0]

Ocean,

 

This might be one of those agree to disagree situations. Oddly enough, it may be you this time who is adopting a naive view.

 

I'm all for the UN rather than the US having the ability to step in and bang some heads together when it needs to be done. Unforunately it's not going to happen. At least not while we're around.

[daver 0]

Back to the issue at hand; if presuming that the current sectarian violence can be nicely split into two sides with the coalition forces acting as eiter water or gas to the flame (choose which ever you prefer depending on the propoganda you read), and if we presume that al-Zarqawi represented the supreme leadership of the Sunni resistance front, I am noow curious as to how Moqtada al-Sadr will use this turn of events to his advantage. Does this give him more leverage and power in influencing the provisional government? Will the Sunni resistance implode within the new power vacuum or will a new leader arise from behind the curtain and quickly fill the void? Or, has a power vacuum indeed been created within the Sunni front, or was al-Zarqawi simply a figure head amongst a large number of self reliant factions fighting under one similar banner?

[Ocean11 0]

Chamberlain would have made war when it was really time from the point of view the Empire, and may well have prosecuted it far more successfully than Churchill. There wasn't anything especially visionary about Churchill - he just liked a good war.

 

You just think in slogans AND FULL CAPS.

[Ocean11 0]

Pull out now and let them sort themselves out. They've managed it before.

 

(They might just hire Rag-Doll as a consultant.)

[ncorrenti 0]

Woah caps.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Nicole, the caps were simply because the he said, I said, he said thing was getting a bit confusing. No shouting or agro was intended and I'm sure Ocean, despite his sensitive nature, wasn't offended.

[Ocean11 0]

Rag-Doll, I did actually misinterpret it as a shouting fit, but now you've explained it, I see the method in your madness.

 

Interesting thing here. One website seems to have posted some very timely analysis.

 

Zarqawi had stopped cutting off heads and was putting on weight alarmingly, so I guess a leaner, meaner bogeyman will be required for an election season.

[daver 0]

But Ocean11 they managed it before via manevolent dictatorship which systematically slaughtered any ethic minority which choose to oppose the regime. Surely that is not an exceptable alternative.

Now certainly much of the insurgancy and violence in Iraq is imported fanatacism, and the occupying forces are nothing more than a magnet, but would pulling out not just leave the country open to the hands of said fanatics and thus leaving the majority of the Iraqi civilians' lives no better off after the war that they were before or during? It seems to me that this would cause a similar scenerio to what we are seeing in Somalia only on a much more grandiose scale.

 

A UN finacially supported third party intervention seems to me to be the only plausible solution. Preferably from a coalition of Muslim nations and off the radar from this issue. I'm thinking maybe Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh. But of course they have plenty of there own issues to deal with currently.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Daver

 

That is some pretty erudite commentary there. Despite the UN objecting to the invasion of Iraq, they were subject to a pretty serious direct attack early on. I'm not sure having the UN in place of the US would really change much. Unfortunately there is no way to say this politely but a UN force comprising members of the armed forces of any of those countries above would be worse than useless. They're simply not up to that level of operation. It’s either a Westerner’s gig it would involve a lot of players from around the region. Most Arabs are Sunnis so there’d be Sunnis patrolling the Shia areas or they could get Iran to patrol the Shia areas and Arab Sunnis patrolling the Sunni areas – light a match and stand back!

[Ocean11 0]

daver, there are lots of malevolent dictatorships that slaughter their ethnic minorities, especially so when other countries sell them arms and ammunition. Certainly getting rid of the one in Iraq hasn't helped matters, and has cost a lot of human lives and wealth.

 

If Iraq is to be prevented from going the Somali route, the solution had better be found quickly because the educated middle classes are moving out of Iraq as fast as they can. As for 3rd party intervention, I don't know if there would be any takers - what would be in it for them? And I doubt most Iraqis would welcome armed foreign Muslims much more than they welcome foreign infidels.

 

It would probably be best to leave the Iraqis to their own devices. The result might be more bloodshed than now, or it might be less. The countries around Iraq would be motivated to see stability there, instead of being motivated to see menacing foreign forces slowly bled white there. That would make a big difference.

[marnix 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Rag-Doll:
Iran’s leaders are a bunch of crazy religious fanatics who hate the West and are keen to take a leading role in the Islamic world.

The same can be said about US leaders and they probably hate the east north and south. and maybe even the west.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Not sure about the hate bit but I reckon the rest is pretty true.

 

Why does reglion find it so easy to justify butchery of those who don't share the exact same view?

[daver 0]

Ocean 11

 

"there are lots of malevolent dictatorships that slaughter their ethnic minorities, especially so when other countries sell them arms and ammunition."

 

- without kicking at a dead horse, can i say the B word?

 

"Certainly getting rid of the one in Iraq hasn't helped matters, and has cost a lot of human lives and wealth."

 

- couldn't agree more. leaving the area alone was out of the question as it was long on the way of erupting do to years and years of foriegn manipulation, but a better way to go about this scenerio was certainly possible.

 

"the solution had better be found quickly because the educated middle classes are moving out of Iraq as fast as they can."

 

- this is one of the most distressing situations about it. the raise of warlord gangs controlling different regions of the country is becoming more and more enevitable. nobody needs another Congo.

 

" I don't know if there would be any takers - what would be in it for them?"

 

- a nice warm fuzzy feeling?

 

"I doubt most Iraqis would welcome armed foreign Muslims much more than they welcome foreign infidels."

 

- you might be right, certainly no country or region wants armed men patrolling the streets in scary vehicles. but i also think that a non Arab, non Persian, Muslim led peace keeping task force would do a lot to quell the hostility felt amongst all but the most fanatical in the region regarding non-muslims occupying so-called muslim land.

 

"The countries around Iraq would be motivated to see stability there, instead of being motivated to see menacing foreign forces slowly bled white there. That would make a big difference."

 

- would they? you are right that it certainly would make a big difference in eradicating the 'expell the infidels' movement. but i am not really sure how much syria or iran want to see a strong and influencial iraq. do you suspect it would become a bidding war amongst neighbouring countries to pick the last bits of meat off the perverbial bones? i don't know.

[Ocean11 0]

> Unfortunately there is no way to say this politely but a UN force comprising members of the armed forces of any of those countries above would be worse than useless. They're simply not up to that level of operation. It’s either a Westerner’s gig...

 

Kreck me if I'm wrong, but when you say 'Westerner's gig', I assume you mean 'those Western powers with a history of colonialism that are very quick to jump into areas over which they previously had colonial control', rather than say, Argentinian, or Cuban, or Venezuelan peacemakers and peacekeepers from the Western hemisphere. I wonder how much you actually know about the roles they have played in international assistance efforts.

 

> i am not really sure how much syria or iran want to see a strong and influencial iraq.

 

I speck they'd prefer it to a chaotic, non-state that breeds all sorts of revolution. They could also use a stable trading partner. So it would be in their interests to help, once the aggressive Western giggers have taken their guns home.

[Kumapix 0]

from:

http://www.crisscross.com/world/news/27941

 

So much blood covered al-Zarqawi's body that U.S. forces cleaned him up before taking photographs. "Despite the fact that this person actually had no regard for human life, we were not going to treat him in the same manner," Caldwell said.

 

ummm....let me see,you just dropped 2 500 pound bombs on this guys house to kill him and you killed 5 others too, but you still have regard for human life????

 

what a f'ing joke!

[marnix 0]

They should pull out all US and UK troups put in UN troups from other muslim countries, maybe that will help.

If not than move some militant guys from Iraq and send them off to Sudan and the other way around.

It's going to be a long bloody mess anyhow.

[Kumapix 0]

well, the US has built permanent bases there( which they aren't publicizing - I wonder why?) so the US do not intend to leave anytime soon. Even if all the violence stopped the pullout would take at least a year and they would leave a force 'at the request of the Iraqui government'. I read somewhere that they privatized Iraq's oil industry and forced that into the constitution so that a future government cannot kick us companies out easy

[marnix 0]

Oil vs human life

 

Very easy: less people (killed in Iraq), less demand for oil, less need to look for other fuels = everyone stays oil dependent = good for the Texans.