Civil war

OkeeDon · Feb 23, 2006

For some time on this forum, as long as I can remember, I've been talking about Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq and the problems that could arise. I've been talking about the folly of going into Iraq in the first place, because, in my opinion, as long as there are divisions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, there can be no successful democracy in that country.

There's no way I can prove it to the present group, as this forum was not in existence in those days, but I've been predicting problems between the sects since before we ever invaded Iraq. It's one of the reasons why I was against the invasion from the beginning.

I've been watching Fox News for the past several hours, and one of the prime subjects has been the real problem of a civil war in Iraq between the Sunnis and Shiites. Essentially what they are saying is that unless this situation can somehow be improved, all of our efforts, all of the money, and all of the lives lost, may be for nothing.

I'm not the smartest guy in the world; I don't have access to all the so-called "Intelligence" that the government enjoys. Yet, it looks like more than 3 years ago, I predicted it correctly. If the administration could not see what I saw, and what is now turning out to be true, you may begin to understand why I have so little regard for this administration.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope a miracle happens and the Sunnis and Shiites can get their act together and create a government. Don't forget, it will also have to accomodate the Kurds, who make up the third key element in the Iraqi demographics. But, I fear that such a miracle is not possible.

ddrane2115 · Feb 23, 2006

and you want ........... a big pat on the back? you sound like Rush in some ways. :pat:

JimR · Feb 23, 2006

Now that is not nice picking on Don. He was just expressing his opinion which is rightfully justified. Those people over there are living like dogs without a food bowl. Put yourself in there place with their nutty leaders. Some people think the cure is to just carpet bomb the whole country and start over. Hey, wait a minute. We could start a new America in the desert after that.

OkeeDon · Feb 23, 2006

ddrane2115 said:
and you want ........... a big pat on the back? you sound like Rush in some ways.

Sorry you took it that way. I hope it doesn't reflect the way you judge everyone. My point was a little different -- I am NOT a rocket scientist, and if even a lightweight like me could see the truth, why could not the Bush adminstration? But, you go on judging me any way you like. Nothing I can do about it, anyway.

ddrane2115 · Feb 23, 2006

I guess if you have to be right about something, might as well be something as silly as this. Congrats Don...........you win.

OkeeDon · Feb 23, 2006

ddrane2115 said:
...might as well be something as silly as this.

Am I reading you correctly? Are you saying that a preemptive invasion of another country, which has resulted in the death of over 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and is now going down in flames, is a silly subject?

Av8r3400 · Feb 23, 2006

You were right Don. There have also been others in the media (like Michael Savage) who also have been saying this would happen for several years. As far back as during the lead-up to the war.

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq · Feb 23, 2006

Av8r3400 said:
You were right Don. There have also been others in the media (like Michael Savage) who also have been saying this would happen for several years. As far back as during the lead-up to the war.

The Savage Nation! One of the best shows on the radio! He's good!

ddrane2115 · Feb 23, 2006

OkeeDon said:
Am I reading you correctly? Are you saying that a preemptive invasion of another country, which has resulted in the death of over 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and is now going down in flames, is a silly subject?

NO, Don. I dont like the war, I also dont like people being done to what this tyrant did. AND, the reason they are fighting for you and me is that we can post in public like we are right now.

ddrane2115 · Feb 23, 2006

OkeeDon said:
Sorry you took it that way. I hope it doesn't reflect the way you judge everyone. My point was a little different -- I am NOT a rocket scientist, and if even a lightweight like me could see the truth, why could not the Bush adminstration? But, you go on judging me any way you like. Nothing I can do about it, anyway.

I dont judge others, fact is fact. You could see the "truth" in this, but when the liar clinton was in office all was cool with a bj in the oval office. Sorry, I do see this, if the person is rep, you dont like it or them.

beds · Feb 23, 2006

But the whole read on the region was wrong. The proud, muslim community was never going to embrace the coalition as saviors. The guerilla warfare tactics have been successful in that region forever and as recently as Russia in Afghanistan. Thinking that there would be a battle royale with Hussein's army either surrendering or dying was probably naive as well. I still dont think all is lost in the region. Create a Sunni Palestine with the west of Iraq and a larger Iran or Shiite portion of Iraq and give the north to Turkey

OkeeDon · Feb 23, 2006

ddrane2115 said:
I dont judge others, fact is fact.

Bullshit. You're wrong about your so-called "facts" about me, so it has to be a false judgement, not fact. Before you try to weasel out of it, you should take into consideration that you don't know me, you can't possibly know what any "facts" are about me, and any opinion you have formed about me is colored by your own negative personality.

BoneheadNW · Feb 23, 2006

ddrane2115 said:
I dont judge others, fact is fact.

That is B.S. You did it in your last post!

ddrane2115 said:
when the liar clinton was in office all was cool with a bj in the oval office.

You still have a burr up your backside about Clinton. Get over it! I'd rather he do it to an intern than to the country!

ddrane2115 said:
if the person is rep, you dont like it or them

Once again the pot calling the kettle black. You hate the dems more than you accuse Don of hating the republicans. Do not accuse others of things that you so blatenly do yourself.
Bone

Junkman · Feb 23, 2006

beds said:
But the whole read on the region was wrong. The proud, muslim community was never going to embrace the coalition as saviors. The guerilla warfare tactics have been successful in that region forever and as recently as Russia in Afghanistan. Thinking that there would be a battle royale with Hussein's army either surrendering or dying was probably naive as well. I still dont think all is lost in the region. Create a Sunni Palestine with the west of Iraq and a larger Iran or Shiite portion of Iraq and give the north to Turkey

You have to be kidding!!!!!!! There is no way that Iraq can be divided up like this. Even if it could, it wouldn't work. You have to do nothing more than to look at the history of the region over the last 100 years to realize that if it didn't have a dictatorship running the country, then it didn't last very long. The last "benevolent" dictatorship was that of Iran. The Shaw was more forgiving than the present government and allowed freedom of religion and freedom from religion. He also allowed free education. Iran was moving more toward democracy than any other country in that part of the world at the time that the "rebels" kicked him out of power and took over the country. These are the people that violated International law and took over our Embassy for who remembers how long.... Look at the Iran now, they are the biggest threat to world security now.
Giving any part of Iraq to Turkey will not work out. If anything, a portion of Turkey that is dominated by the Kurds should be annexed by Iraq and then a separate and independent country should be formed. The Kurds will govern themselves and do it right. They have proved this over the last 10 or 12 years, and they will also be one of our closest allies in the area. It is hard to believe that Iraq is the original seat of civilization in the ancient world. How things have changed.....

TOMLESCOEQUIP · Feb 23, 2006

"It is hard to believe that Iraq is the original seat of civilization in the ancient world. How things have changed....." Absolutely NOTHING has changed in that region in over 2000 years ! They're still brutally killing each other daily in the name of religion as they were then. The only thing I see changing is that the killing is now expanding to the entire world.

ddrane2115 · Feb 24, 2006

OkeeDon said:
Bullshit. You're wrong about your so-called "facts" about me, so it has to be a false judgement, not fact. Before you try to weasel out of it, you should take into consideration that you don't know me, you can't possibly know what any "facts" are about me, and any opinion you have formed about me is colored by your own negative personality.

All I have been able to tell about you is that you think Clinton is the only person to ever do a good job, and Bush is the worst ever.............and you seem to put party affiliation as a reason.

ddrane2115 · Feb 24, 2006

BoneheadNW said:
That is B.S. You did it in your last post!

You still have a burr up your backside about Clinton. Get over it! I'd rather he do it to an intern than to the country!

Once again the pot calling the kettle black. You hate the dems more than you accuse Don of hating the republicans. Do not accuse others of things that you so blatenly do yourself.
Bone

No, I did not judge, to judge I would have had to state a personal feeling, I stated the obvious by his posts.

I could not care less about Clinton. I dont like alot of what our government does, and Bush is part of that. I have some tendancies toward the Robin Williams thing on all of this. Come home, defend us here and blow the hell out of anyone that comes in our part of the world.

I dont hate dems, NEVER, until this post have I sided one or the other. If you are democrat, fine. Does not mean that I dont like you............my inlaws would be a fine fit with Don on Bush and republicans.........we dont talk about it

Taking this one step further, I wish the "parties" where abolished, you got elected on your OWN merits, money and plans for the country. My bet is that these millionaires would not be so willing to run if they spent THEIR money to get a 400K a year job.

AndyM · Feb 24, 2006

ddrane2115 said:
All I have been able to tell about you is that you think Clinton is the only person to ever do a good job, and Bush is the worst ever.............and you seem to put party affiliation as a reason.

Party affiliation has nothing to do with it... I'm a registered Republican, and I think Bush is doing one boneheaded thing after another (no offense to Bonehead).

Sad to say, I voted for him thinking he was not a good choice, but still better than the other guy. Are these the best two people we can come up with?

HGM · Feb 24, 2006

AndyM said:
Party affiliation has nothing to do with it... I'm a registered Republican, and I think Bush is doing one boneheaded thing after another (no offense to Bonehead).

Sad to say, I voted for him thinking he was not a good choice, but still better than the other guy. Are these the best two people we can come up with?[/QUOTE]

I dont see all the boneheadeaded things, myself.. I think with the issues he has faced in his term, he has done a decent job.. Not the best, had some shortcomings, but still decent IMO.. My favorite line in this whole thread is the last one.. Why is it that there are less and less choices every year.. I seem remember seeing 4 candidates in the past, that should be a minimum.

Did you guys see the State of The Union address?? Again, I thought he did prety well, but the whole thing was absoloutly rediculous... It looked like a game show with the Rep's on one side and the Dem's on the other.. Their sole purpose was to boo the other side at every opportunity.. There was very little substanse to the Dem's objections, simply to boo and oppose anything comming out of his mouth.. That has been their way since Bush took office.. I find it ironic that many of the "major" "boneheaded" things he has done are no different than other presidents have done, but since he is who he is, he gets slammed for it... For example, Carter used his right to phone tapping when he was in office, but that was ok, no big deal... Bush did it in the interest of protecting the country and everyone comes unglued thinking that he wants to hear about you flirting with your neighbors wife... Get a grip(not dirrected at anyone here, just a burst)... There is a serious problem with double standards here in this country.. If that were to stop and the parties would learn to work together on things they agree on, we might get somewhere.. Its just gotten to the point where childish tendancies have overcome importance of the office..

bczoom · Feb 24, 2006

Easy guys....

Some of the posts are bordering on personal attacks.

Let's discuss/debate the issue(s) posted and not the poster.

Thanks

beds · Feb 24, 2006

Junkman said:
You have to be kidding!!!!!!! There is no way that Iraq can be divided up like this. Even if it could, it wouldn't work. You have to do nothing more than to look at the history of the region over the last 100 years to realize that if it didn't have a dictatorship running the country, then it didn't last very long. The last "benevolent" dictatorship was that of Iran. The Shaw was more forgiving than the present government and allowed freedom of religion and freedom from religion. He also allowed free education. Iran was moving more toward democracy than any other country in that part of the world at the time that the "rebels" kicked him out of power and took over the country. These are the people that violated International law and took over our Embassy for who remembers how long.... Look at the Iran now, they are the biggest threat to world security now.
Giving any part of Iraq to Turkey will not work out. If anything, a portion of Turkey that is dominated by the Kurds should be annexed by Iraq and then a separate and independent country should be formed. The Kurds will govern themselves and do it right. They have proved this over the last 10 or 12 years, and they will also be one of our closest allies in the area. It is hard to believe that Iraq is the original seat of civilization in the ancient world. How things have changed.....

Let's say there is going to be a civil war in Iraq. Let's also say that there's already a shiite state next door and there is likely going to be a sunni state in the other direction. I don't see where the flaw in this reasoning is coming from. Create a separate kurdish state, sunni state and shiite state, then, and realize that the lines between Turkey/Kurdia, Sunniraq/Palestine and Shiiraq/Iran will be fuzzy.

riptides · Feb 24, 2006

Only Sadaam kept them from killing each other. And he effectivley took out the leadership that could stand up in this time of crisis.

I think it is time to bolt, and perhaps it is time for the Iraqi people themselves to turn to their religion. Their government seems to have not the stamina nor strength to impose order and civility.

OkeeDon · Feb 24, 2006

ddrane2115 said:
No, I did not judge, to judge I would have had to state a personal feeling, I stated the obvious by his posts.

ddrane2115 said:
All I have been able to tell about you is that you think Clinton is the only person to ever do a good job, and Bush is the worst ever.............and you seem to put party affiliation as a reason.

No, you stated your interpretation of what I said in my posts. I have never said that Clinton was "the only person to ever do a good job", and I have never implied that party affiliation was the reason. You're putting words in my mouth and calling them facts. You're entitled to your opinion of me, but you cannot call it a fact.

jdwilson44 · Feb 24, 2006

beds said:
Let's say there is going to be a civil war in Iraq. Let's also say that there's already a shiite state next door and there is likely going to be a sunni state in the other direction. I don't see where the flaw in this reasoning is coming from. Create a separate kurdish state, sunni state and shiite state, then, and realize that the lines between Turkey/Kurdia, Sunniraq/Palestine and Shiiraq/Iran will be fuzzy.

I have also been against our invasion of Iraq since before it happened - for a number of reasons:

- the possibility of civil war
- the fact that Iraq never has attacked the United States (at least not directly)
- the money that I knew would be spent - that I thought could have been spent more wisely within this country for a better result (IE my tax dollars go for nothing)
- because of past history - there has been Sunni-Shiite violence there forever, what makes us think things are magically going to change?
- the fact that I don't think the US should have to be the worlds policeman.
- if the Iraqi people really wanted freedom they should have to fight for it - like we did, otherwise they do not appreciate it.

The problem I have with your statement about partioning the country into different states is that this is what has led to the Iraqi problem in the first place. Iraq is a construct of Britain back when they ruled the region. Historically these people never wanted to be together in the first place. The problem with breaking them up now is that making a Kurdish state would piss of the Turks because the part of Turkey near the new Kurdish state would probably want to break away. The Shiites have close ties to Iran - and might want to just join Iran (making it more of a threat than it is now), which would leave a smaller Sunni state - which might join up with Syria (which has a Baathist regime). Now you would have a bigger Iran, a bigger Syria - both would probably be pissed at each other, Israel,and the Kurds, - so we are back to square one again. Face it - the whole area is a big shithouse mess - we should have just stayed out - we should have spent the 200 billion - or 500 billion or 2 trillion or whatever this is going to cost us on becoming energy independent and defending THIS COUNTRY. Get out of the Mideast and let somebody else solve the problems instead of bleeding ourselves dry trying to solve the impossible.

OkeeDon · Feb 24, 2006

Well said.

jdwilson44 said:
Get out of the Mideast and let somebody else solve the problems instead of bleeding ourselves dry trying to solve the impossible.

Until recently, while I was against our invasion of Iraq in the first place, I took the position that we had committed ourselves, and we should continue to try to get some good result out of a bad decision.

I have now reluctantly come to the point where I agree with you; we will be bled dry if we stay there. I have been reluctant because to pull out now will be a hardship for the families of the more than 2000 brave Americans who have been killed.

Then, I remember the 55,000 who died in Vietnam, essentially for nothing, and I realize this could get as bad, or worse. I think we have to get out to save those lives that are likely to be lost in the future.

Getting out will have a price. But, our standing in the rest of the world may actually improve. It's sad that we are in this position. I cannot imagine how anyone could believe this is the "lesser of evils".

jdwilson44 · Feb 25, 2006

OkeeDon said:
Well said.
Until recently, while I was against our invasion of Iraq in the first place, I took the position that we had committed ourselves, and we should continue to try to get some good result out of a bad decision.

I have now reluctantly come to the point where I agree with you; we will be bled dry if we stay there. I have been reluctant because to pull out now will be a hardship for the families of the more than 2000 brave Americans who have been killed.

Then, I remember the 55,000 who died in Vietnam, essentially for nothing, and I realize this could get as bad, or worse. I think we have to get out to save those lives that are likely to be lost in the future.

Getting out will have a price. But, our standing in the rest of the world may actually improve. It's sad that we are in this position. I cannot imagine how anyone could believe this is the "lesser of evils".

I think the military has earned all the praise they get out of this whole Afghanistan and Iraq thing. While people back in the Vietnam era may have blamed the military the Vietnam war I have always looked at that as being ignorance on the part of the people who blamed the military for what was a civilian leadership problem. This time around people seem to be a bit smarter. From what I have read a lot of people in the military were also opposed to going into Iraq - but when the time came they did their jobs and did them well. It is somewhat comforting (to me at least) to know that there are people in our armed services who have their on straight and think more clearly than many of the so called leaders we have in the civilian goverment.

OkeeDon · Feb 25, 2006

I was so much against the Vietnam war that I would gone to jail rather than Vietnam. However, I never held it against the troops. I did blame the military leaders for their part in the Gulf of Tonkin stage act that convinced LBJ to expand the effort. I never had any respect for Gen. Westmoreland and his phoney body counts. I blamed the military leaders for the bad morale among the troops that led to extraordinarily excessive drug use and "fragging".

But, the average troop, the poor guy that was often spit upon when he returned home, I considered that terrible. They never deserved that. A lot of them were drafted. They were told to do their part, and they did it. I may have thought they were a little stupid, but I never blamed them.

Ultimately, I never had to face the decision of Vietnam or jail. I was drafted, and I failed the medical.

As you said, the civilian leaders were primarily responsible for the debacle in Vietnam, and most of them came to regret it. McNamara admitted it was a mistake. It has been officially acknoledged that the Gulfd of Tonkin "attack" was faked. I was right at the time, along with many others who risked much more than me to make their case.

But, what a price. 55,000 loyal American troops dead. Tens of thousands more wounded, Hundreds of thousands who will never fully recover their psyche. Thousands still suffering from Agent Orange. A horrible price to pay for what may have been our nation's greatest mistake.

We can't go through it again. We have to acknowledge now that we cannot achieve our goals in Iraq. I hear some people say that things are better in Iraq than the media reports. Then, I hear that several oil refineries, water plants and power plants have not been rebuilt because it's too dangerous to move supplies to them. What is the truth? We may never know until it's too late.

One thing I know for sure, and that is that regardless of what the truth is, George Bush does not have a clue how to handle it.

jdwilson44 · Feb 26, 2006

I have been doing a lot of reading online lately and happened across this website which has a lot of interesting articles - about the Iraq war and other subjects. Many of the articles I have read here indicate that the war is going better than the general media would have you believe.

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18977/article_detail.asp

Here is one reason why I think the war was a mistake - there are other ways we could have defeated the terrorists - but we are spending the money that could have been used on those alternates on the war:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18976/article_detail.asp

HGM · Feb 26, 2006

OkeeDon said:
But, what a price. 55,000 loyal American troops dead. Tens of thousands more wounded, Hundreds of thousands who will never fully recover their psyche. Thousands still suffering from Agent Orange. A horrible price to pay for what may have been our nation's greatest mistake.

We can't go through it again. We have to acknowledge now that we cannot achieve our goals in Iraq. I hear some people say that things are better in Iraq than the media reports. Then, I hear that several oil refineries, water plants and power plants have not been rebuilt because it's too dangerous to move supplies to them. What is the truth? We may never know until it's too late.

One thing I know for sure, and that is that regardless of what the truth is, George Bush does not have a clue how to handle it.

Don,
I was born while my father was in Viet Nam.. The stories I have heard from my father and uncle(who were both there) allong with history books and lessons, lead me to believe it was a mistake by the government. I think we agree on that.. Now, the mistake actually came from their leaders playing political games with the troops.. They were instructed to "take that hill".. Ok, "now give it back".. Then "take that hill again", and so on and so on and so on.. The indecision of their leaders got far more troops killed than the war alone would have.. Kerry was a part of that(wonder where he got his character traits).. I know your not a fan of Kerry, just a point.. The crushing blow was the removal of troops before the job was done.. With the media there to report everything(negativity sells) the whole action was slandered, the troops came back to a country that didnt want them, and they didnt even get to accomplish what they went over there for.. The media lead the public to believe that we were just there to kill, it was a game... Its sad...The very people who thought they were doing the right thing for our country were treated like they didnt belong here anymore because they did what they were told..

Whether you like Bush, or support the war, is totally irrelevent at this point.. They must be allowed to finnish the job before they come home. Even Desert Storm ended like Viet Nam..Though it was concidered a success, we wouldnt be there now, if they were allowed to finnish then.. Media presence must be limited over there, they are not protected by our constitution there.. The troops must do what they have to to get things done..The Geneva Convention rules are going to help us loose this war, if things keep going like they are.. Why are we among the few that are held to these standards? Other countries(like Iraq) can do what they want, and they are protrayed as victoms..

OkeeDon · Feb 26, 2006

I'm sorry. Statements like "Media presence must be limited" and "The troops must do what they have to do" and "The Geneva convention rules are going to help us lose this war" are terrifyingly frightening to me.

Saddam Hussein was a member of the minority Sunni Muslims in Iraq. He could not have ruled in a democracy. He had to "do what they had to do" (kill anyone who oppposed him, using any methods) outside of any civilized rules (like the Geneva Convention), and keep it quiet (by controlling the media).

Is that really what you want us to do?

Civil war

New member

Charter Member

Charter Member

New member

Charter Member

New member

Gone Flyin'

Master of Distraction

Charter Member

Charter Member

New member

New member

New member

Extra Super Moderator

Just Plinkin Away the $$

Charter Member

Charter Member

Charter Member

New member

Super Moderator

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member