User Panel
Posted: 3/1/2006 7:12:20 AM EDT
Looking ugly...
Bombs in Baghdad as Saddam back in court Wed Mar 1, 2006 11:28 AM GMT Iraq Shi'ite mosque blast kills 23 By Lutfi Abu Oun and Mussab Al-Khairalla BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A car bomb killed 25 people in mainly Shi'ite east Baghdad on Wednesday, a week after the bombing of a major Shi'ite shrine sparked sectarian bloodletting that has brought Iraq to the brink of civil war. Police said the bomb, planted near a police checkpoint in the New Baghdad area, also wounded 58 people, mostly civilians. Another car bomb killed two people near a central bus station. A similar blast near a Sunni mosque caused no casualties. The attacks occurred as Saddam Hussein, charged with crimes against humanity, appeared in court for a second day this week. Prosecutors laid out documents they said linked him to the execution of Shi'ite Muslims after a 1982 assassination attempt. The former leader's trial has been overshadowed by fears that Iraq's sectarian tensions are out of control after reprisal killings that officials say have cost more than 450 lives. However, many families complain relatives have gone missing, presumed killed, and are not included in any data. Religious representatives of the once-dominant Sunni Muslim minority, accusing the Shi'ite-led government and U.S. forces of failing to halt attacks by Shi'ite militiamen, called on Sunnis to come out in force to protect their mosques. Saddam-era tanks from the new, U.S.-trained Iraqi army have deployed to protect some threatened neighbourhoods and the U.S. military says it has a rapid reaction force standing by. Shi'ite Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said he would move ahead rapidly to form a national unity government Washington has been pressing for since Sunnis took part in a December election. But signs of opposition to his leadership are emerging. The main Sunni bloc has boycotted negotiations in protest at the violence and a senior government official said on Tuesday it would take at least two months to forge a coalition, raising questions over how effectively the authorities can tackle Iraq's gravest crisis since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. VIGILANTE ACTION In some districts, residents have formed armed patrols and thrown up barricades. Sunnis fear Shi'ite militias nominally loyal to parties in the U.S.-backed interim government, while Shi'ites worry about Sunni insurgents whose past attacks have targeted Shi'ite civilians as often as U.S. or Iraqi forces. Families have fled their homes in some areas. Others say they are packed and ready to run if need be. On Tuesday, when bombs killed some 60 people in Baghdad, U.S. President George W. Bush said Iraqis faced a choice between "chaos or unity". But, with polls showing his popularity dropping among Americans, he dismissed talk of civil war. Any full-scale civil war could inflame the entire Middle East and thwart Bush's hopes of withdrawing U.S. troops. Saddam, who staged a hunger strike last month, was subdued during Wednesday's hearing, which court officials say is likely to be followed by an adjournment of several weeks. Prosecutors presented on Tuesday what they said was a death warrant signed by Saddam for 148 Shi'ite men. On Wednesday, the chief prosecutor presented more papers, which he said showed that the condemned men's trial had been a farce. He also showed aerial pictures of fields laid waste around Dujail, scene of the 1982 attempt to kill Saddam, and played an audio tape of Saddam in discussion with a Baath party official. Saddam complained about the prosecutor's behaviour and the judge's disciplining of his half-brother and co-accused, Barzan al-Tikriti. MOSQUE ATTACKS Angrily listing alleged attacks on Sunnis in a news conference broadcast live across the mostly Sunni Arab world on Al Jazeera television, a spokesman for the Muslim Clerics Association accused Shi'ites of attacking mosques, and police of attacking the home of the group's head, Harith al-Dari. "Our brothers in all areas must protect their mosques as the government has failed to do so," Abdul Salam al-Qubaisi said. There was also criticism of the government from within its own Shi'ite and Kurdish political groupings. A senior security official said he had warned of attacks on Shi'ite shrines two weeks before the destruction of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. Coalition officials criticised Jaafari's cabinet for ignoring the threat. Security chiefs say they are puzzled why the Sunni militants from al Qaeda -- the alleged perpetrators -- would spare the lives of the mosque guards, who were tied up for hours while explosives were meticulously planted before the dawn blast. Four of the Samarra shrine guards are under arrest. Militant groups have accused Shi'ite leaders of setting the explosion to justify reprisal attacks on Sunnis. (Additional reporting by Lutfi Abu Oun) http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-01T112756Z_01_MAC823461_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ.xml |
|
Well, maybe it will finally go to hell and we'll be able to wipe the slate of bad guys.
Here's hopin'. I suspect, however, that the bad guys will delay until about August so their actions will help their allies the dems during the elections. |
|
Three Iraq's.
The Sunni, no US troops, but GCC troops for initial stability. Capital Baghdad. The Kurdish, US troops to ease Turkish fears. Capital Kirkuk. The Shia, US and British troops to ease Sunni fears of Iranian domination. Captial Basra. JMO. |
|
And a pretty good one. The concept of a unified "Iraq" is a British one, and not at all based on former, pre-Ottoman borders. It is either give them their own countries, or watch as they kill eachother in a civil war that will set back democracy a good 50-75 years there. |
|
|
I agree.... ANdy |
|
|
Since the beginning of this war in 2003, was there really any other likely outcome? Given the 1,000 year history of the area and different groups of people who reside there? |
|
|
Same period is when we do a lot of change overs between divisions, Im supposed to deploy sometime in the summer months. |
|
|
www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/64407.htm
|
|
|
The problem is that in parts of the country they are in neighborhoods right next to each other. The bombed mosque is in the Sunni region and I suspect the town is majority Sunni (the mosque was Shiite). There must be a couple of million Shia in Bagdhad, you really can't make a city the capitol of a Sunni state if it is half Shia. GunLvr |
|
|
You had the same basic dynamic going on in Yugoslavia. People will move. Here's the deal. IMO, you will not get rid of tribal strife unless you somehow make those tribes equal. Where they can come to each other on a roughly equal footing. |
||
|
I agree 110% . but were there in the middle of this now, and we can't leave |
||
|
The shifting and moving is already occurring. What happen last week in Iraq was Al Qaeda’s attempt to make their Tet Offensive in Iraq… the real question is are we stupid enough to do what we did in Vietnam. For those screaming “civil war” you are about 2 years to late there has been a low level civil war in Iraq for quite some time the Shiites have just not been fighting back full force. This may actually wake the Sunnis up in to the realization that they are the one who are going to suffer the worst if the situation goes south. As for a full scale “civil war” is not taking place despite the hype. www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot1mar01,0,1083415.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
|
||||
|
The problem is these tribes are not independent. For their economy to run there is no tribe which is self-sufficient. Yugoslavia is a bad example. There must be one dead person for every five who moved, and the whole thing was unnecessary. GunLvr |
|
|
Back out to a main base. Let them fight their inevitable civil war. In fact we should egg the on into it to speed up the process. OR Support the Shia and Kurds into stomping a mudhole into the Sunnis like needs to be done. The Shia and Kurds will be able to agree upon something. The Sunnis will ALWAYS be a problem until they are wiped out. |
|
|
That's why I said three Iraq's instead of three truly independent nations. You may believe the whole thing was unnecessary, I don't share your view. I think people have to feel secure in their governement, their societal position, etc, before they can come together as disperate groups. In other words, they have to want to come together. Think about this nation's founding. The 13 colonies weren't 13 states. They started as 13 sovereign units. Only when they were secure in themselves were they able to come together under the Constitution. They were also interdependent for certain things, security being one; however, I don't think we could have moved directly to the Constitution without first having the ability for the colonies to try their hands, pretty much independently, under the Articles. We have seen plenty examples, over the last 15 years, of countries that have been thrown together capriciously who have split. Some on good terms, Czechoslovakia, some on bad, Yugoslavia. You can't force people to play nice. They have to want to play nice. |
||
|
I am sunni and you offend me! Durka Durka! Allahu akbar, now I will saw off your head 'merican! Durka Jihad! |
||
|
I agree that leaving would be wrong, but in reality there is NO right answer. Why? If the general consensus is that our presence in Iraq isn't going to ultimately solve anything due to the inevitability of civil war...why stay? Why get more of our men killed? But, like you say, on the flip side, what would happen if we leave? We lose face and all the commie liberals and terrorists forever say Iraq was the second war we lost, after Vietnam. Both choices suck. There is no right answer. |
|||
|
What "inevability of civil war"?
Apart from hysterical western media reporting, all evidence is that this attempt at creating a civil war has FAILED again. The only thing the US is doing porely at is the information war. |
|
The lamp under the bushel basket
In From the Cold links to an American Enterprise Institute article by Michael Rubin who argues that the US goverment, the State Department in particular, is playing by gentleman's rules in the information war with Iran.
In From the Cold adds this comment:
Commentary In a open post session to identify ways to improve US information warfare, many Belmont commenters believed that the government was by nature incapable of doing the job. Some suggestions of private and legal information warfare activities to take up the slack included:
Just giving speeches and writing articles debunking enemy propaganda is "information warfare". The Times of London has an article describing Douglas Murray on his way to address a memorial service for Pym Fortuyn.
It might be only a slight exaggeration to say that Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq and Hirsi Ali by themselves do more information warfare damage than the whole State Department cumulatively. Private effort should definitely not be discounted. posted by wretchard at 2:46 AM | 44 comments |
||||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.