Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 109

Listen, Saddam was not a good person. He deserved to die plain and simple. However, don't mistake the type of person he was for his ability to hold an unstable region together. Iraq has three crazy sects of muslims all willing to kill each other over the land to get control. That is why there is a civil war right now. Saddam held it together by force, arguably the only way it can be held together. The people of Iraq are only glad he is gone so they can kill each other now.

I would like to see what you all think about the letter of redress from over 1,000 soldiers, most of them on the ground in Iraq. The letter is simple and is asking for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. They all know its a civil war now, they don't want the US there, they want us gone so they can kill each other. Many of those signing are commanders and other officers on the ground. They know the score and know we shouldn't be there now.

Of course, the public cried out against the war, voted against anyone standing with Bush, has a million plus signature signed petition, a soldier signed petition, and have given the president the lowest approval rating ever over this war. His commission said to have a significant amount of troops out by 2008. So what does our president do? Well, he wants to send 30,000 more troops, and remove the restrictions on the call up of the national guard to do it. The man is either insane or stupid, I can't tell which. Who deliberately continues with a war that everyone says we can't win and need to get out? What arrogance does he have to think he knows better than everyone including the generals, congress, and a special committee? Iraq is a lost cause. Sure we helped create that, but its people want this civil war because each group wants power, we have lost control and won't get it back.

Iraq War Post

Saddam execution video draws criticism

Grainy cell phone video of Saddam Hussein's execution triggered international criticism Tuesday, with Britain's deputy prime minister calling the leaked images "unacceptable" and the Vatican decrying the footage as a "spectacle" violating human rights. Meanwhile, the Italian government pushed for a U.N. moratorium on the death penalty, Cuba called the execution "an illegal act," and Sunnis in Iraq took to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations across the country.
Ref. https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_...addam_execution

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

I am not surprised in the least. In the video, you see a guy who is going to pay for his crimes by hanging, what you at least expect is some quiet moment to do what needs to be done and that's it...Was it necessary the taunting, the insults, the dancing over his dead body? Was it necessary to show every detail of the video? I have seen US citizens on the internet creating all type of drawings, making fun of the hanging...using Flash and mocking the exact execution. Those people scare me. One thing is to be satisfied that Justice may have been served by his death, another completly different thing is enjoying what happened.

Rather off topic, but... What happened with the new UN Secretary General's Ban Ki-moon statement about death penalty? The official position of the UN is that they are against it, yet he says now is up to each country to decide that. It seems he did not start with the right foot.

Edited: LDS_forever on 3rd Jan, 2007 - 1:02pm

Page 109 Iraq War Post

I"m not sure I entirely agree with you on this point. Saddam did manage to control his population through extreme suppression. The three sects, Shiite, Sunni and Kurds, don't always have a history of fighting with one another. However, one of the spin-offs of the brutal dictator was that he marginalised the majority Shiite population and committed countless atrocities against them and the Kurds to keep them both in check. Naturally there is going to be a large power vacuum when you remove a hard-lined dictator and replace him with a mess. But these people don't have natural in-built hatred for each other.

Many Sunnis and Shiites are married to one another. What you are seeing is a power struggle led by opportunists who are loyal to either sect. Without any reliable security force and a strong, united government, it is impossible to see peace.

Iran does stand to gain from this chaos because they have strong ties to the Shiite population. But by sidelining Iran, the US will only make the scenario a lot worse. Bush and Co. need to get over their arrogance and for once in their lives get a reality check. Iraq is a failure on just about every front. This whole fiasco has only benefited large US multinationals while costing 100,000s of lives, including 3000 US troops. It's sad to say, but these brave men and women have died not defending their country, instead faithfully following the orders of a few foolish politicians with a ludicrous agenda.

What do I think about 30,000 more troops heading to Iraq? I feel sorry for anyone who is being forced to go to that country. Maybe Bush, someone who ran away from his responsibility of national service, and Cheney should send their children on the first boat over there? Would this change the Texan's policy?

LDS, it is too early to say much about the new UN chief. But if he is condoning capital punishment, by not denouncing it, it could be an early sign that he is a US (and other superpower) stooge. UN secretary generals do have a history of this. This is what makes Kofi Annan a gem.

Iraq War Post

I disagree with your assessment of the conflict between Sunni and Shiites in Iraq. In fact, both groups have a history of conflict dating to the 7th century. Here is a brief overview of how it started.

https://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/features/arc...0fe042000c.html

However, their beliefs stem from the separation of the Koran and the Hadith and truly becomes a religious war at its heart. A more in depth look at the struggle between the two is at this great muslim site I found.

https://www.rim.org/muslim/shiite.htm

The conflict in Iraq may well be a political war for dominance in the vacuum of the country. But at its core, the opponents are separated by fundamental religious differences that echos of the protestant vs. catholic fight in Ireland for so many years. Its a civil war in which we do not have a place in since we don't rule the country nor do we believe as they do. In every way, we don't belong.

Post War Iraq

MORE ARRESTS EXPECTED FROM HUSSEIN EXECUTION VIDEO

At least two more arrests are expected in connection with cell-phone video of the moments before Saddam Hussein was hanged, Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie said Wednesday.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/03/...tion/index.html

Post War Iraq - Page 109

Konq, almost all the research I have done indicates that Shiite and Sunni Muslims have not fought religious wars throughout history against each other. They certainly are not traditionally hostile towards one another, especially in Iraq. I"m sure there was the odd killing between the two sects throughout history, but nothing to compare to the Irish Catholic vs Protestant violence.

You have to remember two things. Both sects hold separate Islamic beliefs, but they are still Muslims. There is a difference in their interpretation of Islam, this has been the case since the 7th Century as you illustrate. But this hasn't meant violence or mass religious warfare. The second link you provided was published by a Christian outreach group called the Reformed Internet Ministry.

I am not saying the information is fundamentally incorrect, but appears to be driven by an agenda to clearly illustrate a divide in Islam.

Shiites and Sunnis have not only lived peacefully with one another throughout the history of Mesotopia (now know as Iraq), but they also inter-marry. We have quite a few Iraqis in Australia and I have interviewed several for stories relating to the war. Whenever I ask if they are Sunni or Shiites, they almost always respond by saying they are plain "Iraqi". They say there is no real difference because the two have always lived with one another.

Another point worth remembering is that the Sunni Muslims are by far the majority of followers of Islam (90 percent). The Shiites are only a majority in Iraq, Iran and perhaps Syria. They are a small minority and don't really create enough of a threat for friction.

It is only in recent history that they have been pressed against one another in Iraq. Admittedly, I am a bit surprised by the scale of the sectarian violence, but this is a country that has been wounded for a long time. I believe a lot of this is to do with Saddam, the mess he created by marginalising and repressing Shiites and Kurds, and the power vacuum he has left. The Sunnis had it good under Saddam and now they don't have anywhere near the same power or privilege. Meanwhile, the Shiites are also worried the US will turn more and more to the Sunnis to prevent a Shiite dominated population that is perceived to be led by the anti-American Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Also Iran, "axis of evil" enemy number two, has a lot of sway over the Shiites.

The Iraqi Government, which almost all Iraqis view as a puppet of the US, is toothless and divided. Futhermore, it has no control over any security force. Could you imagine the US if there was no security force to keep law and order?

I found this information published on the George Mason University. It sights a historian and comments he has made about the "Sunni-Shiite" violence. I cannot verify how much of an expert this historian is and he does make these claims on his blog. But I have heard similar claims from journalists who have covered the Middle East for decades.

On a separate note, I read another interesting article which made mention of Bush's plan to send in more troops.

What do you think?

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 109

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on the Sunni Shiite issue. For this reason:

On the history channel, they had a story on Iraq, and people still visit the shrine of Hussein, cry and weep over it at least once a year. That moment is still a point of tension between the two groups.

However, it is very obvious that Bush is sending the troops in because he is going to do it his way or no way. When everyone says to pull out and you put more into it in, then your bull headed pride is showing. He will never admit what he sees as defeat, never admit he was wrong, and will never lower himself (in his view) to asking another country like Iran to help keep the region stable. Unfortunately, our presidents inability to be diplomatic and keep the lines of communication open with other countries will again cost us in Iraq.