If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Iraqi Civil War
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Cant see a thread on this, so sorry if its already been mentioned.
Well, it looks like Bush, Blair and co have opened Pandora's Box in Iraq. The Golden Shrine, one of the most important Shiite shrines, is in pieces. and militias on every side are out for blood.
The Iraqi Government is in emergency talks and the President has openly warned of the threat of civil war. Al-Sistani and Al-Sadr have both said Shiites must defend themselves if they come under attack (read: there will be two mobs, not one) and are arguing for greater representation in the militias. Meanwhile, downtown Baghdad has turned into a warzone, over 90 Sunni mosques have been sacked and the presence of Shiite death squads operating among the police is escalating tensions. The daytime curfew is failing to have an effect, and all leave has been cancelled by the police and military.
Reads kind of bad, doesn't it? And while things are bloody now, we don't have open defiance of the Government by the Shiites, yet. But the killings can only continue so long. Prominent Shia families have already been assassinated. What would happen if Sistani, or a powerful political leader, was the next one to fall to a bullet?
If Iraq collapses...it doesn't bear thinking about. There would be a very real possibility of at least 3 bordering countries getting involved. Not to mention what effect that could have on the increasingly unstable Saudi Arabia. They suffered the first attempted attack on oil installations this week. If it had got through, Saudi oil exports would have been halved.
There needs to be a maximum troop presence in Iraq. I dont think we can run away from this, people would follow looking for revenge. Iraq would end up being another Afghanistan, assuming it wasn't totally annexed by Turkey and Iran. Damn Rumsfeld and his doctrine! If there had been half a million troops in Iraq, like the Pentagon wanted, this never would have got as far.
Well, it looks like Bush, Blair and co have opened Pandora's Box in Iraq. The Golden Shrine, one of the most important Shiite shrines, is in pieces. and militias on every side are out for blood.
The Iraqi Government is in emergency talks and the President has openly warned of the threat of civil war. Al-Sistani and Al-Sadr have both said Shiites must defend themselves if they come under attack (read: there will be two mobs, not one) and are arguing for greater representation in the militias. Meanwhile, downtown Baghdad has turned into a warzone, over 90 Sunni mosques have been sacked and the presence of Shiite death squads operating among the police is escalating tensions. The daytime curfew is failing to have an effect, and all leave has been cancelled by the police and military.
Reads kind of bad, doesn't it? And while things are bloody now, we don't have open defiance of the Government by the Shiites, yet. But the killings can only continue so long. Prominent Shia families have already been assassinated. What would happen if Sistani, or a powerful political leader, was the next one to fall to a bullet?
If Iraq collapses...it doesn't bear thinking about. There would be a very real possibility of at least 3 bordering countries getting involved. Not to mention what effect that could have on the increasingly unstable Saudi Arabia. They suffered the first attempted attack on oil installations this week. If it had got through, Saudi oil exports would have been halved.
There needs to be a maximum troop presence in Iraq. I dont think we can run away from this, people would follow looking for revenge. Iraq would end up being another Afghanistan, assuming it wasn't totally annexed by Turkey and Iran. Damn Rumsfeld and his doctrine! If there had been half a million troops in Iraq, like the Pentagon wanted, this never would have got as far.
0
Comments
and secondly, i dont think afghanistan is anywhere near as bad as iraq
True, but would it have been blown up by terrorists when Saddam was in power?
And to clarify, I meant Afghanistan after the Soviet retreat. Although it is getting worse now there too...
How logical that the sunnis would attack a mosque of those they need to maintain unity with against coalition forces if they ever hope to gain sufficient critical mass to drive out the occupation? How logical and historically consistent (divide and conquer) with British and US military strategy that it was orchestrated by our enormous covert agency presence (largest of any single base of operations anywhere in the world)?
And let us recall British SAS caught last year dressed as arabs stirring up trouble (only to be rescued by coalition forces from rightful imprisonment by those we claim to be a sovereign nation once again).
The implausibility of Iraqi sources for the origin of this renewed mayhem (also coming just at the right time for a PR coup to divert attention away from media scandals against Bush admin connection to Abramoff corruption as well as the escalating wiretapping scandal).
To make categorical dismissals against very plausible liklihoods is nothing more than blinkered nationalistic wishful thinking.
Remember, enormous sums have already been earmarked for additional expenditure to reinforce our long term presence, even greater amounts can be called for as "necessary" (and I would bet will be) with renewed spin suggesting to western publics that the oft claimed "democratically elected" Iraqi government is incapable of containing the violence.
If they can't, we must (as such duplicitous logic would contend). Nevermind that our invasion and occupation (with its numerous whitewashed machinations) were and are responsible for the destablisation in the first place.
Let's just get hte fuck outof Iraq and concentrate of Afghanistan before it fecks up.
The Shiites and Sunni's hate each other as a result of Saddam's favouritism to his own group and suppression to the majority of the population. There is no desire to unite in Iraq to drive out Americans and British occupation forces. The drive is to become the dominant Muslim group with in Iraq so they can take over once the Americans withdraw enough troops to make a power play.
This incident is terrible for America and the Coalition forces and plays into the hands of those who want to create enough of a bloodbath to force a withdrawl too soon.
the yanks have taken over the capital and thats all.
they pour millions of dollars into the hands of the warlords to grow opium and keep a false peace.
outside kabul conditions are much worse for women in many areas than they were under the taliban ...do the yanks or brits care ...no.
theres nothing in afghanistan for us other than its strategic position.
the yanks have so far spent a billion dollars ...iraqi oil dollars ...building super fortresses ...three so far ...which to me says ...we are staying for a long time.
The largest military compound since WW2 is surrently under construction. They ain't going anywhere any time soon.
I'd say Afghanistan... it's not as bad as Iraq... so there is hope. If we can get hte yanks out and start an honest reconstruction.
This is unlikley with the current Blairite system though. Cameron is the same too. So.. no option.
theres a certain phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which isnt actually always true
Only when you see the whole long planned agenda spelled out will all of this make utter sense for the ideologically-inspired criminality that it is.
A purposely contrived division and fragmantation of an otherwise culturally, religiously and socially intertwined and intermarried society, serves coalition governments' interests far more than it does the interests of those who share a unified desire to see the US/UK driven out.
Ever hear of Khuzestan? Well you're about to hear a lot more about it soon, because that appears to be the only province of Iran that we're actually going to take control of in the up-coming war with Iran.
It's the province where 90% of the currently producing oil fields are located (see maps above). And it's right next to all our forces in Iraq, so--with an indigenous Arab rebellion--we can easily take Khuzestan on the tired old WMD and democracy excuses. All without the 600,000 troops estimated for a full conquest of all Iran.
And this is all going to happen sooner rather than later. The Iranians plan to open their own oil "bourse" in March, which will be the first oil state to sell oil for Euros. This will have the effect of driving the dollar down, so Bush and Cheney have great incentive to act now.
Khuzestan has a population of 3 million plus, Arabs who will be offered a share of the oil their northern Persian masters now control. The Zagros Mountains to the north and east and the Gulf to the south make Khuzestan a natural fortress
So the old medieval state of Khuzestan will be reinstated by the petrolist fascists. Iran won't have enough oil to sell to drive the dollar down with the Bourse--and their military and society will soon be running on fumes.
This is officilaly called by global strategists "The Khuzestan Gambit", a risky move to get to Oil Checkmate quickly on "The Grand Chessboard", the regions we usually call the Mideast and Central Asia.
Khuzestan is actually the province Saddam tried to conquer in the Iraq-Iran War.
..........................
presumably then ...we can expect a terrorist atrocity on american soil soon?
to galvanise and terrorise the popukation into action ...
amazing how people can be made to respond in times of war.
USA takes Khuzestan...with minimal troops, then adopts seige mentality to hold the region from Iranian Assault. Should Iran get too aggresive simply reduce their major cities to the ground with air raids, so ground troops dont have to be sacrificed. forcing the Iranians down and having to look inwards on themselves to rebuild.
The Dollar stays strong. America stays powerful. Euro doesn't take off as expected to. America's colonialist expansion ends and becomes a consolidation exercise.
Diabolical! Supervillainly Diabolical in fact!
M1A2 Abrams. Apache. F14 Tomcat. MiG-29 (Ex-Saddam). M-60 Patton. Infinite AK's. Lots of Fanatical, Well-Trained men.
It's not something to take lightly.
Probably.
I am guessing a nuclear "accident" in Iran itself though.
it's taken over ten years of bombardment and sanctions to make it possible to take iraq.
Iraq is one big mess ...as planned.
if this little corner of iran is occupied and the rest of it has a few bunker busters fired hourly here and there ...they won't be able to get their act together.
the americans will reduce these people to savagery if need.
fighting savages is relatively easy in the american mind i reckon.
and no ...this is very different than vietnam.
theres no where to hide.
yes i burgled klints outlook express box!
Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.
And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.
Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.
The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.
So, it was you!!
I thought it was the usual suspects. hmm lemme see - you been asking people questions, Mr. Roll?
...and you won't get me to look into your eyes!
I wouldn't need to. I can do my stuff in a handshake or a footstep.
Thats a CIA spying device!
What do you mean by "value"? Use value? Exchange value?