Implications of Iraqi Instability

#13 Romair

“Democracy was never the intention, nor the motivation of the Iraq war. It wasn’t even the reason given by the US administration itself.”

I agree with that but that was before the war. Things have changed considerably after the war. Do you expect the US to install another Saddam Hussein when the US leaves (Big question mark here) Iraq?
People who continue to harp on the reasons of war are non-political and lack the knowledge about history of wars all around the world. Just to illustrate my point, the reason Mohd bin Qasim went to Sindh was to save some Arab woman abducted by Raja Dahir in open seas, called Hajjaj for help. Hajaj had telepathic powers to hear her from some god-forsaken prison in Sindh and he sent Bin Qasim to get her released. Raja Dahir neither had any Ships to attack other ships in the open seas nor was he a pirate. Hajjaj made up an excuse and stupid historians faithfully repeat that in Pakistani text and history books. Another example and the most recent one would be the Gulf of Tompkins incident that allowed the US to get in the Vietnam. New evidence proves that there was no Gulf of Tompkins attack by the Vietnam on the US ships. I think it is time for people to forget about the WMD. It is conclusively proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The US made up the whole thing to find an excuse to go in Iraq. If some have any problem with that, they can take their complaint to the International Court of Justice and get some ruling in their favor. When they do that, they may have to sue other 10001 excuses of war scattered allover the history.

Has it ever occurred to you that the US had the power and enough resources to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq without resorting to a war? Just ask yourself this question. If the US could have removed Saddam from power w/o using the force, then why did US not do it? Once you get the answer to that question, lots of issue surrounding Iraq would clear up for you.

Even in Vietnam, the US left the country to an elected President. The US would leave Iraq (whenever), with democratically elected government. How stable that democracy or the Iraq government would be, would remain up in the air for sometime.

“I think there is a big disconnect between the picture painted to the Americans and the real picture, in Iraq. In the end, the only thing locals remember is the damage done to their country and the people killed. The USA has destroyed Iraq, city by city, and has killed over 100,000 people. Imagine if someone had killed 100,000 Americans. What would have been the reaction, in the USA? Imagine if that had happened in Sind. Would there be any kind of spin-doctoring that would have convinced you that it was for your own benefit?…………”

There is no truth to it that the US had destroyed Iraq city by city, after the war. The only city US destroyed and is now rehabilitating is Fallujah. Suicide bombers are destroying Baghdad everyday. Yes, people are dying and will continue to die as a minority is now opposing the US in Iraq. It is obvious that the Shias and Kurds are moving forward.
There is no evidence that the American would have reacted the same way Sunnis are doing in Iraq. There is a difference in Guerilla war and suicide bombing. However, we don’t really know until someone attacks and occupies the US.

Do you not see the clear divide in Iraq between the Sunnis, Shias and Kurd? Who constitutes the majority in Iraq? Shia and Kurd or Sunnis? If Shia and Kurds are working with the US, then a majority of Iraqis is with the US. Why people forget this equation in Iraq?

“When this war was initiated, the majority population of only two countries supported it: USA and Israel. Now even a majority of Americans don’t consider it worthwhile………Yet I am amazed there are still some people who keep arguing in its favour, despite the damage that has been done to so many people”

What matters is that the American supported this war(cos Americans were impacted by the worst terrorists attacks in the history of the planet) then and if you know the power of media, the US government can re-build that support again in the US. There is no doubt that war is a bad thing and it does worst things to people.

Someone, somewhere, everyday decides to tackle a problem head on. Many in the same world just sit there and hope that the problem would go away. I don’t know who do you support. I support people and governments who take problems head on and do something about it. This US admin is fighting the issue head on. Now we see it everywhere that the menace of terrorism and inhuman fundamentalists are beaten back into the caves. If the current resolve in the US admin continues, the remaining terrorists would be smoked out from the caves they currently live in.

Re: # 17 HP {``...This US admin is fighting the issue head on. Now we see it everywhere that the menace of terrorism and inhuman fundamentalists are beaten back into the caves. If the current resolve in the US admin continues, the remaining terrorists would be smoked out from the caves they currently live in. ...``}

These cave dwellers, never were, and are not now, nor will ever be, a substantial threat to the might and majesty of the world`s greatest hyper power. Smoking them out of their caves may make for a good turkey shoot, but that is not going to change the fundamental system of disparities and injustices that the imperial elite is protecting. The REAL TERRORISM has yet to come. But it will not come from the sands of Arabia. Instead it will come from the hills of Montana, the marshes of Minnasota and the mists of Michigan. Timothy Mc Veigh was just the tip of the iceberg.The imperialists in Washington DC ain`t seen nothin` yet. When the good ole` boys finally lose their patience and stand up, watch out. They won`t be as easy to dispose off as those towel head cammel jockeys that the USAF likes to send daisey cutters for.

...SR

Re: # 10 {``... Gold and silver are the most stable currency the world has ever seen...``}

Oh my god, finally there is someone else on Chowk who also sees this, though for somewhat different reasons...

I went blue in the face back in 2002, 2003 discussing the merits of the gold dinar on Chowk.

But its not just the US dollar, its EVERY fiat based paper currency, including the euro and the yen that are worthless pieces of confetti.

IN GOLD WE TRUST

...SR

Only Sunni Arabs (and not all of them) and a few Shias are actively opposing the Iraqi govt and US forces. Since the anti-govt forces are backed by a very small proportion of the population, not even a plurality since Sunni Arabs are barely 1/4 (if that) of the population, the anti-govt forces are indeed insurgents/terrorists. By all means, lets call a spade a spade: the worst elements of Iraqi society (disgruntled Baathists, former regime loyalists and Islamo-fascists) are the only ones actively opposing the current regime. Even the Shias have decided to, more or less, cooperative with the current US client regime (barring that lunatic whats-his-face).

So, Naqshbandi, don`t the Sunni Kurds and the Sunni Arabs cancel each other out? OR are you such a degenerate that only Sunni Arabs matter for you?

#17 by HP on June 2, 2005 10:07am PT


Another example and the most recent one would be the Gulf of Tompkins incident that allowed the US to get in the Vietnam. New evidence proves that there was no Gulf of Tompkins


Sheesh...If you`re planning to act like you have a clue, at least get the names right....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#23 by echoboom on June 3, 2005 3:11pm PT


``I helped kill a Palestinian today. If you paytaxes to the U.S. government, so did you


Maulana urstruly did too.....

HP #17: ``Now we see it everywhere that the menace of terrorism and inhuman fundamentalists are beaten back into the caves. If the current resolve in the US admin continues, the remaining terrorists would be smoked out from the caves they currently live in.``

Could you please highlight which terrorists existed in Iraq? Kindly provide names and some references........

The, ``terrorists`` that the USA is trying to chase down, primarily come from three countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Osama, Zawahiri and Zarqawi. Though the third is debatable, since he is still somewhat of a fictional character. The hijackers of 9/11 came from these countries also. All the funding for Wahabism in the world comes from Saudi Arabia. Egypt is a true out and out dictatorship. And Jordan is a kingdom........

All three of these regimes are fully backed by the USA and kept in power by the USA. If the USA stops supporting them, they will collapse. If the USA had attacked Saudi Arabia, Egypt and/or Jordan, I could perhaps, try to entertain the argument you have put up. It doesn`t even recognize them as a source of insurgents coming into Iraq. They seem to be coming from Syria and Iran.......

This Iraq war was a sham. An out and out sham, to control resources. Had Saddam remained a US ally, Rusmfeld would still be kissing him on the cheek. If you don`t believe me do look at how Islam Karimov of Uzbekestan is treated.

I am truly amazed at your naivete........And they way you have bought into all the media hype. Specifically since over 50% of the US population is now against it. It is wars like this that create vacuums which disintegrate societies, which lead to terrorism. Afghanistan suffered the same fate when USA and USSR fought it out, there. Creating the Taliban........

Same thing will happen in Iran if the USA attacks Iran..........

Fuzair #20: ``Only Sunni Arabs (and not all of them) and a few Shias are actively opposing the Iraqi govt and US forces. Since the anti-govt forces are backed by a very small proportion of the population, not even a plurality since Sunni Arabs are barely 1/4 (if that) of the population, the anti-govt forces are indeed insurgents/terrorists. By all means, lets call a spade a spade:``

This was a simple power play by a superpower to access resources and achieve the political goals highlighted by powerful pressure group, called the neo-cons. The only country, in the world, whose population supported this powerplay was Israel. However, the resistance stopped it in its tracks. And now the USA is trying to make lemonade out of lemon, using the age old Superpower excuse that it did it for the benefit of the inhabitants

What do you think the reaction of the average Iraqi (Sunni or Shia) is when a US soldier is killed? Do you think he is sad that a liberator has been killed? Or is he happy that an occupier has been killed?

Resistance is never just through violence. It is political also, i.e. ensuring the invading and occupying force does not achieve its political aims. Over a 100,000 people have been killed by the USA. I am sure they weren`t all Sunnis. That leaves quite a scar on a population......Imagine if 100,000 Pakistani were killed....What would be your reaction.......

...Polls indicate that 90% of the Iraqis consider USA to be occupiers and not liberators (so apparently even a lot of Kurds also consider the USA to be occupiers). The current political head of Iraq is Sistani. He is an Irani citizen and an Ayatollah, who refuses to meet with US representatives. In the end, he is the one who forced the USA to hold elections, through political resistance and threats of joining the insurgency. Otherwise, the last thing the USA would have wanted was a person like him, running Iraq......The USA plans were to put into place someone like Allawi or Chalabi, through some sort of screwed up poltical system.......Had the USA not held elections, on one person one vote, Sistani threatened to join the insurgency.......If the USA does not leave, I think the Shia will eventually join the violent resistance also........Currently they do not need to do that, because they can defeat the USA, through political threats and large scale peaceful protests.......

I think the region owes its thanks to the Iraqi resistance. Had they not stopped the USA in its tracks, it would be going into Iran and God knows where else. I can make a bet with you: In every country the USA goes into, it will end up strengthening the religious forces in that country..........

...........In the end, in my opinion, the deaths of 100,000 people make this, like most superpower invasions, an act of State terrorism, i.e. killing of innocent human beings, who did nothing to harm the killer.........Though I don`t think anyone from the USA will be facing the courts........

Romair # 26

A lot of Kurds and Shias have been happy to use United States to get rid of Sunni dominance and Saddam Hussein. What is so morally reprehensible about it ? Of course they have to encourage United States to leave to get their true freedom