Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[MichaeltheGreat]

What right wing morons were whinging about fantasy casualty figures?

Baghdad could have been tough, but even in the worst case I would have been surprised if US KIA got over 3,000.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

MtG,

Please understand Aggies political frame of reference.

[Ramo]

It surveyed 3,000 people, so I trust it. Done by the BBC and other western press. See page 15.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bs..._iraqsurvey.pdf

Saddam Hussein outpolls Sadr by 6:1.

It doesn't mention how the poll was taken (I imagine that it's easier to get richer coalition-friendly folks to respond than people in the slums who'd support Sadr). I also wonder about the geographic distribution. I notice that Baghdad has nearly a third (27.6%) and Ninewa has 10.6%. I only recognize a handful of the rest, but they all have to be in the South in order for the religious distribution to be representative (which I doubt's the case).

Besides, again demonstratably false. If 4.7% support Sistani, that amounts to little over a million supporters. How could he rally 400,000 (nearly half supposedly of his supporters) to the streets between Basra and Baghdad at the same time, at his whim if he were such an unpopular figure? Why are the coalition so afraid of him to the point of drastically changing their agenda, if he's so irrelevant?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
MtG,

Please understand Aggies political frame of reference.

Yeah, I figure Teddy Kennedy is a neo-con in the Aggieverse, but IIRC, the morons (mostly UN bleeding heart types and Euros) were even further left of Teddy.

[Ambro2000]

I wonder if Sadr would be more dangerous alive than dead? If US would kill or capture him it could upset more of the shi’its and make him a martyr, something that would make the situation worse. As I recall Sadr is hiding in a mosqe build by the shi’it founder Ali. Now would USA attack the building and damage or destroy parts of it I believe that would make more Shi’its to attack the invading force...

It surveyed 3,000 people, so I trust it. Done by the BBC and other western press. See page 15.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bs..._iraqsurvey.pdf

Saddam Hussein outpolls Sadr by 6:1.

I wonder how and who of the Iraqis they interviewed? And how likely they are to tell the thruth when people from the same nation as the invaders ask the questions?

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Well frankly he is no worse than a bunch of dictatorships around the world that the US is in bed with - when are we going to invade them then, huh?

Knock on wood...

Oh, BTW, if Iraqis start pummeling "coalition" forces, it's not a start of a civil war. If Iraqis start fighting each other, then it's a civil war. For now, they share a common enemy...

[The Mad Viking]

Ramo, you don't understand.

Sadr opposes the US.

Therefore, by definition, he is a "Radical Muslim Cleric."

Therefore, he can only be supported by and extreme fringe.

I am waiting for "...with links to Al-Qaeda".

.

Seriously, they probably conducted the poll by telephone. Of maybe they asked the people they invited to the Assembly...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What right wing morons were whinging about fantasy casualty figures?

Baghdad could have been tough, but even in the worst case I would have been surprised if US KIA got over 3,000.

I was talking about the hordes of military "experts" on television before the war. They said, sensibly in my view, that casualty rates would vary greatly depending on what kind of resistance the Iraqis put up. There's nothing strange or moronic about that - it's common sense.

And Iraqi casualties would have been far worse had massive street fighting started in Baghdad.

Still 3000 is a lot.

[Ambro2000]

Juan Cole doesn't know ****

http://www.juancole.com/

I think Juan Cole knows a lot. You may not agree with what he is saying, but I think he knows more than both you and me!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Yeah, I figure Teddy Kennedy is a neo-con in the Aggieverse, but IIRC, the morons (mostly UN bleeding heart types and Euros) were even further left of Teddy.

I take it you are referring to the people who don't mask their personal inadequacies by having a hard on for the military. Moreover a military made up of trigger-happy hicks who will shoot at anything that moves.

That's a badge of honour in my book.

Anyway, this is Bremer's fault. He should have left the guy's stupid paper alone.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon


I take it you are referring to the people who don't mask their personal inadequacies by having a hard on for the military. Moreover a military made up of trigger-happy hicks who will shoot at anything that moves.

Hey, it don't have to move to be a threat. Ever heard of "recon by fire?"

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Hey, it don't have to move to be a threat. Ever heard of "recon by fire?"

On a more serious note, why is it that US troops have that reputation? I've spoken with veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam and GWI and they all say they were sometimes more worried about you guys than the opposition.


Anyway, compared to Sadr, Saddam looks like a reasonable dude.

[Dinner]

Sadr doesn't have wide spread support amoung the Shi'a. Sistani does. Sadr is trying to portray himself as the great leader against the infedels hoping this will give him the leading role.

BTW Fallujah is a Sunni city and the fighting there has nothing to do with the Shi'a. The fighting in Sadr City (north-east Baghdad) does. If sadr is killed or arrested then I suspect we will see a week or two of violence followed by a tailing off period.

[joncha]

Is this the start of civil war? no.

A widening of the armed resistance to occupation? yes.

Civil war implies Shi'ites vs. Sunnis vs. Kurds (or 2 out of 3). This is Shi'ites and Sunnis vs. the occupation authorities.

Yes, it is a minority group among the Shi'ite population, but not an insignificant one by any means. And by acting "standing up" to America, Sadr will draw many more Shi'ites to him.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Keep in mind "wounded" can range from very minor wounds with the soldier back at his unit in a day to major combat wounds requiring evacuation.

And at the other end of the spectrum there is injuries beyond repair, multiple amputations, and vegetable status.