http://gamingtrend.com
October 23, 2014, 02:51:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Shiite cleric threatens to end militia's cease-fire  (Read 1756 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« on: April 08, 2008, 01:33:25 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.soldiers/index.html

Ive never understood this. The military invades and takes over a whole country but leaves this one shitass alone in one little city. Why haven't they gone ni and cleaned house and killed the bastard and removed the threat he poses? Aren't these radicals why the military went there in the first place?
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2008, 05:40:06 PM »

No, they aren't why we invaded.  We invaded because Saddam had WMD, then because he was really good at hiding them from UN inspectors, then because he wasn't cooperating with the UN inspectors who he was cooperating with.  Then it was about ousting a brutal dictator (despite funding other brutal dictatorships).  Then it was about freedumb and duhmockracy.  Then it was about elections.  Then it was about... um... something?  Then it was about "winning", despite there being no definition for what "winning" means.

So no, we didn't invade Iraq to get rid of Al-Sadr.
Logged
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2008, 05:54:24 PM »

It also comes to mind how dumb it is to take over a country and protect it yet give them back their oil and then buy it from them while we pay billions a week to be there. My god thats crazy stuff.
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2008, 06:02:32 PM »

That's why I continuously try telling people our being there has absolutely zero to do with what's in America's best interest, but it's an amazingly hard sell despite all the supporting evidence, and no evidence to the contrary.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2008, 06:18:46 PM »

Quote from: Daehawk on April 08, 2008, 05:54:24 PM

My god thats crazy stuff.

The world is a crazy place.

A few years ago my brothers's unit had "Mookie" and his people surrounded in a Mosque in Najaf.  They were all set to go in and take him out when a last minute truce was reached allowing him to walk out under a cease fire.  He is now home and was joking this week about how that truce is now probably going to cost hundreds of lives in the long run. 



Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2008, 07:29:35 PM »

Ya I saw on tv how when they hole up in a mosque they usually wont go after them. thats just plain silly. Blow the place apart. Guess they dont want to offend anyone. People can get shot and mortared by them by dont shoot a hole in a wall.
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2008, 08:19:24 PM »

Quote from: Daehawk on April 08, 2008, 07:29:35 PM

Ya I saw on tv how when they hole up in a mosque they usually wont go after them. thats just plain silly. Blow the place apart. Guess they dont want to offend anyone. People can get shot and mortared by them by dont shoot a hole in a wall.

We abide sanctuary of church grounds here in the USA.  Why should it be any different over there?
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2008, 08:33:40 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 08, 2008, 08:19:24 PM

Quote from: Daehawk on April 08, 2008, 07:29:35 PM

Ya I saw on tv how when they hole up in a mosque they usually wont go after them. thats just plain silly. Blow the place apart. Guess they dont want to offend anyone. People can get shot and mortared by them by dont shoot a hole in a wall.

We abide sanctuary of church grounds here in the USA.  Why should it be any different over there?

Even as far back as WWII and Vietnam the rules of engagemet concerning religious sites have been pretty consistant.  Casualties in Hue during the Vietnam war and during the Italian campaign of WWII could have been much less if the military would have had permission to destroy Catholic and Budhist holy sites. 
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Eduardo X
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2681



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2008, 08:47:18 PM »

When fighting a guerrilla war, anything that makes you look bad is a no no. Blowing up a mosque will make the US look awful, and get more people to join the guerrilla.
Logged

PSN ID: EduardoX
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2008, 11:22:49 PM »

Quote from: Daehawk on April 08, 2008, 01:33:25 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.soldiers/index.html

Ive never understood this. The military invades and takes over a whole country but leaves this one shitass alone in one little city. Why haven't they gone ni and cleaned house and killed the bastard and removed the threat he poses? Aren't these radicals why the military went there in the first place?

That post is a stunning example of a lack of understanding about Iraq.

1.  There are many, many militias in Iraq.  Most are not friendly to the US.  So it's not this one "shitass".  There are a bunch of these guys.  He just happens to control one of the largest, best equipped and powerful militias in Iraq.  Or are you actually deluded enough to think that we actually have the country under control besides this "one little city"?  He has multiple areas where his JME dominates and most are big, poor areas with very dense buildings and narrow streets.  It's the worst-case scenario for fighting for the USA.  He actually has the slums under fairly good control...without him and they'd be far more dangerous. 

2.  Muqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire has probably been the biggest advance to peace in Iraq since the invasion.  You didn't actually think "the surge" did it, did you?  It's being jeopardized by al-Maliki, who felt he needed to do something to bolster his image.  It hasn't worked.

3.  This guy carries a LOT of clout as a religious leader in Iraq.  Kill the bastard?  It'd be like killing the Pope in Rome.  Do so and you'll watch Iraq tear itself apart in the aftermath and the violence would make the 2006 Civil War look like a minor protest.  He's not nearly as radical as some.  He's actually been pretty damn reasonable and his cease-fire has been a pretty remarkable show of restraint.  Sometimes you're better with the Devil you know...

4.  This guy was one of the reasons we were able to get Al-Maliki as the Prime Minister in the first place.  Without his backing, he'd never have taken office.  But Al-Maliki hasn't done enough to prevent the JME army from being used as target practice, both by Shi'a insurgents and the US (mainly contractors).  Hence the reason why al-Sadr pulled out from the Government.  Al-Maliki is running the risk of having his entirely coalition fall apart because some of the members strongly disagree with his rhetoric against al-Sadr.  Killing him would certainly bring the al-Maliki government down at the same time #3 is happening - a general revolt.

That you're advocating invading mosques again shows a stunning lack of situational awareness.  Go ahead, invade a mosque...and watch the entire Middle East rise up against us....you might as well nuke Mecca.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2008, 11:56:39 PM »

Wouldn't matter to me smile..Mecca that is.

We should just leave and let them kill themselves. Shouldn't be there in the first place.
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2008, 01:01:30 PM »

Quote from: Daehawk on April 08, 2008, 11:56:39 PM

We should just leave and let them kill themselves. Shouldn't be there in the first place.

That was my stance in March of 2003.  Unfortunately, not many people can say the same thing.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2008, 01:07:47 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on April 08, 2008, 11:22:49 PM

Quote from: Daehawk on April 08, 2008, 01:33:25 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.soldiers/index.html

Ive never understood this. The military invades and takes over a whole country but leaves this one shitass alone in one little city. Why haven't they gone ni and cleaned house and killed the bastard and removed the threat he poses? Aren't these radicals why the military went there in the first place?

That post is a stunning example of a lack of understanding about Iraq.

1.  There are many, many militias in Iraq.  Most are not friendly to the US.  So it's not this one "shitass".  There are a bunch of these guys.  He just happens to control one of the largest, best equipped and powerful militias in Iraq.  Or are you actually deluded enough to think that we actually have the country under control besides this "one little city"?  He has multiple areas where his JME dominates and most are big, poor areas with very dense buildings and narrow streets.  It's the worst-case scenario for fighting for the USA.  He actually has the slums under fairly good control...without him and they'd be far more dangerous. 

2.  Muqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire has probably been the biggest advance to peace in Iraq since the invasion.  You didn't actually think "the surge" did it, did you?  It's being jeopardized by al-Maliki, who felt he needed to do something to bolster his image.  It hasn't worked.

3.  This guy carries a LOT of clout as a religious leader in Iraq.  Kill the bastard?  It'd be like killing the Pope in Rome.  Do so and you'll watch Iraq tear itself apart in the aftermath and the violence would make the 2006 Civil War look like a minor protest.  He's not nearly as radical as some.  He's actually been pretty damn reasonable and his cease-fire has been a pretty remarkable show of restraint.  Sometimes you're better with the Devil you know...

4.  This guy was one of the reasons we were able to get Al-Maliki as the Prime Minister in the first place.  Without his backing, he'd never have taken office.  But Al-Maliki hasn't done enough to prevent the JME army from being used as target practice, both by Shi'a insurgents and the US (mainly contractors).  Hence the reason why al-Sadr pulled out from the Government.  Al-Maliki is running the risk of having his entirely coalition fall apart because some of the members strongly disagree with his rhetoric against al-Sadr.  Killing him would certainly bring the al-Maliki government down at the same time #3 is happening - a general revolt.

That you're advocating invading mosques again shows a stunning lack of situational awareness.  Go ahead, invade a mosque...and watch the entire Middle East rise up against us....you might as well nuke Mecca.

Good post.  But I do think the surge has more to do with the decreased violence than you do.  We could have probably gotten away with killing al-Sadr back in 2006.  But not now. 
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #13 on: April 11, 2008, 08:47:22 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on April 09, 2008, 01:07:47 PM

Good post.  But I do think the surge has more to do with the decreased violence than you do.  We could have probably gotten away with killing al-Sadr back in 2006.  But not now. 

One of the best sources to hear about the reality in the Middle East is Juan Cole.

The "peace" from the escalation Surge was actually a purchased one.  The Bush administration started paying these militias to... "help"... the Iraqi government... in other words to stay quiet until Bush is almost out of office.  However, the reason the surge is failing now is because the money spigot has stopped squirting out money all over the place, and the militias are now getting angry that monies promised are no longer being delivered.

And, obviously, they are angry that the underlying problems in the country have not been resolved.  Nobody could have forseen that giving money, weapons, and legitimacy to angry sectarian groups could have lead to civil unrest.  "Mistakes Were Made"... but "Lessons Were Learned"!

If we took all the money spent on Iraq and converted it to pennies, and spread it evenly over Iraq, I wonder how deep it would be?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 08:49:54 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1091


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2008, 06:55:18 AM »

Why can Saddam keep these guys under control, but US with superior military power and fund can't.
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2008, 07:00:46 AM »

Quote from: Victoria Raverna on April 14, 2008, 06:55:18 AM

Why can Saddam keep these guys under control, but US with superior military power and fund can't.


Saddam didn't have to keep these kind of people under control because when he got into power radical theocratic islam wasn't the major power it is today. As he had basic supreme control over what went on in the country while there was dissent it wasn't as curtailed to a huge degree. Comparing the two situations really doesn't work. If America had invaded in the 1970s and kept power without huge problems - occasional executions of dissidents, but not huge problems for the run of the mill plebs - we wouldn't see any huge problems like we are now.

The reason why we are seeing these issues, perhaps more than anything is that by invading and taking out the old Baathist regime wholesale we opened a power vacuum which just allowed these sorts of people to get a huge footing in - and since they were the most vocal and powerful groups opposed to the United States occupation they have grown exponentially in comparison to the smaller Baathist or secularist groups.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.119 seconds with 55 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.027s, 2q)