Iraq, Shiite Armageddon, the Mahdi Army, chaos theory and the Hidden Imam

[Wezil]

So are we.

[Dinner]

I've said this since before the war and now that I've been in Iraq for a while the best possible outcome we can hope for is something along the lines of 1930's Turkey. A semi-stable democracy with a strong westernized military which is willing to step in any time the Fundies get to carried away with themselves.

[uh Clem]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
But as Doc points out quite rightly - how do you get out now?

??????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????

Ships & planes work well.

[rev]

Giancarlo's right -- we are crushing pockets of resistance. But we're also losing coalition lives in the process and pockets of resistance keep popping up to replace the ones the coalition has defeated.

Let's put it this way: we're winning the battles, but we're losing the war.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by rev
Giancarlo's right -- we are crushing pockets of resistance. But we're also losing coalition lives in the process and pockets of resistance keep popping up to replace the ones the coalition has defeated.

Let's put it this way: we're winning the battles, but we're losing the war.

People die in war. And no we are not losing the war. You people have one problem. This isn't another Vietnam. There isn't a force the size of the NVA in Iraq fighting against the coalition. FIrst off, coalition losses have been relatively light despite what the media wants to say. 600-700 Militia members from what I heard are dead. This is demoralizing those who oppose the coalition. I do not think so, rev.

This I believe is the last stand of militants against the coalition.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Hmm. I suppose it's "romantic" until one of those hundreds of fundies grabs you as a hostage and says he's going to burn you alive if your government doesn't turn tail and run. The "romanticism" kind of goes out of it at the point.

The word "romantic" does not neccesarily have positive connotations, like a "romantic dinner", or what have you. "Romantic" is used to describe something which is 'marked by feeling, rather than intellect, prefering wild nature and passion to order and proportion.' This according to the dictionary. As such it is irrational.

It is also simplistic to conflate the popular Shia uprising with the hostage takers.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Giancarlo

This I believe is the last stand of militants against the coalition.

Well maybe your authority in predicting the future kind of went out the window when you wrongfully accused the ETA for being behind the bombings in Spain, and that was not even a prediction.

[GePap]

How I would love to live in the simplistic little world you live in..wait, no, it must be a very strange place...


Can the coolition beat the snot out of any of the current militants in a slugfest? of course-they only have assualt rifles and RPGs, the US has everything.

But lets talk about Kut, which you are tounting-line of events:

Militants storm the government offices-Iraqi security forces melt away-Ukranian forces come under heavy fire and are forced to exit. A few days later the US comes, and under all reports, easily enters the town due to little if any resistance...

To Fez this is a glorious victory!

I reality, the militiamen took all the weapons, decided it was tupid to resist, and melted away. Which means they are still out there to cause trouble if an when their leadership wants it....

Yup, great victory!

And in Fallujah, a ceasefire is called when Iraqi public opinion, including the guys who are our friends and what Fezbot would call the legitimate leaders of Iraq denounce the US....

So yes Fezbot, in the bodybag count, we are way ahead..in the winning hearts and minds aspect-if the leaders of the US appointed Governing Council denounce the US, maybe you can get a clue about the man on the street?

Wait, no, that would run counter to Fezbot programing-obviously it does not compute....

[GePap]

Originally posted by rev
Giancarlo's right -- we are crushing pockets of resistance. But we're also losing coalition lives in the process and pockets of resistance keep popping up to replace the ones the coalition has defeated.

Let's put it this way: we're winning the battles, but we're losing the war.

One would hope the amdinistration would give a long hard glance at its plan to turn over power under whatever system they have right now (though they have not actually said what that is-might not even know), given the weaknesses in the transitional government, the security forces, and also has to guage the level of Shiite anger that the proposed federal system.

[rev]

Giancarlo -- so it's alright that our troops are dying because this isn't as bad as Vietnam was? And it's alright if our troops are dying because we're still killing "the terrorists" at a rate of ten times more than they kill us?

First, you attack those of us on the left claiming that we WANT our troops to die. If that argument wasn't incoherent enough, now you say that, oh, a few dead troops ain't no big deal, and we're all whining about it. Not only do we on the left want our troops to NOT DIE, but the reason we make any sort of deal out of it is because human beings are dead.

Which is nobler? Wanting the troops safe (even if they're not home) or discounting the loss of their lives as being part of the war machine -- nothin' to cry over?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


Well maybe your authority in predicting the future kind of went out the window when you wrongfully accused the ETA for being behind the bombings in Spain, and that was not even a prediction.

This has nothing to do with Spain and it was logical to think ETA was behind it to disrupt elections to get the softer on terrorism Socialist party in.

"Giancarlo -- so it's alright that our troops are dying because this isn't as bad as Vietnam was? And it's alright if our troops are dying because we're still killing "the terrorists" at a rate of ten times more than they kill us?"

That's war for you. You can cry like a baby all you want about war, but it isn't going to change the basic concepts of it.

"First, you attack those of us on the left claiming that we WANT our troops to die. If that argument wasn't incoherent enough, now you say that, oh, a few dead troops ain't no big deal, and we're all whining about it. Not only do we on the left want our troops to NOT DIE, but the reason we make any sort of deal out of it is because human beings are dead."

I have respect for all troops based in Iraq and I don't want to see them dead. But if we listen to the left, more will die becuase it will end up in a disaster.

Gepap: You're pretty ****ed up. I don't think your little slander of a post deserves a reply. You don't know what you are talking about, obviously you do not look at the facts. We need to bring back 400,000 Iraqi troops that were melted away. I agree we shouldn't of dissolved the Army, instead just replace the commanders on it.

[GePap]

Oh Fezzie Wezzie-the reason you are a laughing stock is that you attack someone as "not knowing" wihout having a freaking clue about what they said-in the end, only you look like the fool.


See, the problem is, you have a serious cognative disability: you do not seem to even attempt to understand what the other person has said. There are plenty of trolls in this forum, and some people who post openly insane things-they can be dismissed as quacks, but you are unique in that you think you understand and ridicule while in fact, you can't, you don't.

I will repeat it for you-and we will see:

Since the creation of an Iraqi governing council the US has been traning Iraqi policemen to patrol the streets. In the last few weeks, I really havent heard of any Iraqi policement getting killed fighting the insurgents-why? Cause the Iraqi police hasn;t in general done anything to fight the insurgents, specially Sadr's folks. Nothing-they stand aside, let government buildings and policestations be taken over, and seem to shrug.THEY (the Iriaq police, The iraqi police, the Iraqi police, the Iraqi police, the iraqi police, the iraqi police: do I need to say it a few more time?) are the ones that melted away.

the iraqi police

[debeest]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I've said this since before the war and now that I've been in Iraq for a while the best possible outcome we can hope for is something along the lines of 1930's Turkey. A semi-stable democracy with a strong westernized military which is willing to step in any time the Fundies get to carried away with themselves.

With all respect, Oerdin, it seems to me you're saying that the best hope is a democracy, so long as the military takes over whenever a democratically elected government tries to run the country.

In fact, you're also describing a situation that's hard to differentiate from the Saddam regime.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh Fezzie Wezzie-the reason you are a laughing stock is that you attack someone as "not knowing" wihout having a freaking clue about what they said-in the end, only you look like the fool.

You really should investigate the situation before you make statements on it. I do not like that you would like to see the US fail (which is utterly despicable). Robert Baer said on Fox News today, that it is not in the interests of Sistani to have an uprising. His people would get killed and he would be worse off. He should understand that and should shut down Sadr.

See, the problem is, you have a serious cognative disability: you do not seem to even attempt to understand what the other person has said.

The other people on this issue are trolls and nothing more then trolls. I haven't seen anything from the other side on this forum that qualifies for anything more then a terrible troll.

but you are unique in that you think you understand and ridicule while in fact, you can't, you don't.

I do understand very well.

Cause the Iraqi police hasn;t in general done anything to fight the insurgents, specially Sadr's folks.

I am sure if you want to run at Kalashnikovs with a handgun... you should go join the Iraqi police. That's the reason why.

We don't need the Iraqi police that badly. We need the Iraqi Army back. All 400,000 of them (but replace the commanders). The coalition should start up paying the soldiers that were fired and give them equipment.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by debeest


With all respect, Oerdin, it seems to me you're saying that the best hope is a democracy, so long as the military takes over whenever a democratically elected government tries to run the country.

In fact, you're also describing the situation that's hard to differentiate from the Saddam regime.

The way Tunisia is operated is probably the best way for Iraq.