Iraq just got a lot worse

[Fi$hy]

Watching the news this morning, I came across this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4738472.stm

For those not up for reading, basically Sunni Muslim insurgents destroyed a major Shia Mosque.

Pre-Iraq war, the minority Sunni's are in control and depress the Shia's

After war, The Sunni's have been reduced to proportional representation

Obviously the ex-leaders aren't going to be happy about this, especially if the religious group they used to opress is now in a stronger political position (American style population representation)

Anyway, The more extreme Sunni's seem to be wanting to provoke some kind of civil strife/war.

We all saw the results of the Muslim cartoons, what happens when a highly-regarded religious centre gets attacked?

I fear Iraq is moving towards civil war, which will result in countless trouble let alone the U.S, U.K (and others) being trapped in the middle.

Not sure how to end this, consider this a rant of sorts, but I can't understand why some people of this world appear as to deliberatly want trouble?

Also, a question for someone a bit more informed, why would the extreme-Sunni's want a civil war? If they're the minority surely they'd loose?

 

[DeZmond]

[mod]Moved to Soap Box - seems more like a serious discussion point rather than a mere link.[/mod]

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

"but I can't understand why some people of this world appear as to deliberatly want trouble?"

You know, mate, I thought that way at first; until I saw a very thought provoking picture in the paper. I doubt Ill be able to find it, but it was a picture of a young Muslim boy who looked like he had just been attacked. He was covered in blood, there wasnt one part of his face that was skin colour.
At first I thought, 'Oh God. Another car bomb or something?' but it actually turns out the boy was carrying out a religious ritual involving causing himself pain to feel Mohammed's sacrifice or something. He repeatedly sliced and slashed and hit himself with a razor blade to feel pain. I got round to thinking, if these people are actually willing to hurt themselves, BADLY, for their religion, then maybe we underestimate how much of their heart and soul they put into it? At first I thought all this suicide bombing and death-threat rioting and blowing shit up was just war-mongering, but that picture led me to believe there IS actually a lot more to what they are doing, or at least they think so.

 

[Gopha]

Im just scared to be honest, the beggining of the last crusades has started, and we wont be able to stop it anymore...

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Oh yes we can.

AK47s, for EVERYONE!

 

[Taffy]

Oh yes we can.

AK47s, for EVERYONE!

Not hoping to stir it or sound like a moderator, but I think that comment was slightly in-appropriate. I mean, this is serious trouble. The whole Middle-East could become a battlefield, worst case scenario.

Again, don't wanna sound like a moderator, but seriously, don't make a joke of a situation like this. It just isn't funny...

 

[Pubic_Warrior]

if they do civil war our troops should be pulled out and let iraq fight it out, but there aint much us THNers can do unless they play Battlefield: iraq or something

 

[Gopha]

well i still back my furether comment, weve gone too far and now theres no going back its 1200 ad all over again, but with better weapons and crazier people, and pubic we started this mess, we cant just pull out

 

[Pubic_Warrior]

why is it our fault that shias and sunnys cant agree, if the shit hits the fan then we have to fight our way out its gona be the only way, as terrorists dont settle things by having a game of chess

 

[Gopha]

true, but we should definately do something to sort it out quickly, we cant just abandon iraq

 

[Pestcontrol]

It's "our" fault because the coalition went in and disturbed the established order. In Saddam's Iraq there was no extremism.
I'm not saying it was better under Saddam, because it wasn't, but it's the fall of his regime that has exposed old strife, and for that, the coalition that went to war is directly responsible. They went to war with the intention to leave Iraq in a better state than it was when invaded (or so i would hope), dealing with the friction between shiites and sunnis will be part of that.

Abandoning Iraq now is having it slide into chaos and emerge as another Iran, letting that happen would be a big atrocity indeed.


As for Tetsuo's comment, at least he wasn't serious about what he said.

 

[Taffy]

The other argument, of ourse, is that this was gonna happen anyway. We have nothig to do with it. 'Natural Order' in other words. In which case, I agree with Pubic, it wouldn't be our fight.

 

[Gopha]

in the classic words of dads army "were dooomed were all doomed"

 

[BiG D]

The other argument, of ourse, is that this was gonna happen anyway. We have nothig to do with it. 'Natural Order' in other words. In which case, I agree with Pubic, it wouldn't be our fight.

Interesting thought. Does that mean I can murder people because they're just going to die anyway?

 

[Macca]

If the British and American government did not go into Iraq then it would still be under Sadam. However now that they have went in there is talk of a civil war etc. So I think it was a lose lose situation either way.

I suppose the only way to look at it is: Are there going to be more lives lost in Iraq now than there would be if Sadam was still in charge?

Interesting thought. Does that mean I can murder people because they're just going to die anyway?

Big D That is really more of an ethical issue. You are saying that you could do a bad thing because a bad thing was going to happen anyway, Whereas the governments when to do a good thing (or so we hope) because a bad thing was goind to happen.

 

[Pubic_Warrior]

the coalition should just sit back and let them fight without jumping with crappy crowd control, if our bases get attacked however, we should slot them as we werent fighting so why attack us in their own little war

Does that mean I can murder people because they're just going to die anyway?

BiG D that is just like saying lets nuke iraq because they will kill themselves in this war

to be honest i dont think any person on this earth could have predicted or foreseen what a disaster iraq has become, we have troops stuck on the ground and they dont realy need all this bullshit saying that they are wrong, they only followed orders, and its so stupid that the men are getting court-marshalled for beating up iraqis that mortered their base, it is easy for us to say that it was wrong but as a man on the ground i bet it is shit scary being mortered everyday, if somebody mortered me id shoot them

 

[Taffy]

in the classic words of dads army "were dooomed were all doomed"

Good old gopha, always adding great input into a debate.
Lets start a 'completely useless things gopha has said' thread lol.
Only Jok!ng. But seriously, we should.

Back on topic, you could say that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. I agree with the War, but I hate the fact that the government lied to us. Did they seriously believe that Iraq, a place of huge poverty, is capable of making nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? C'mon, these guys are meant to be educated.

But I still agree with the War. As a democratic 'Western' coutry, we have the responsibility to help people in need. The people of Iraq were in need. I'm disgusted that the French were prepared to go as far as VETOing our decision n the UN to try and get a permit...

I'll continue this later, gotta go now lol

 

[Fi$hy]

if somebody mortered me id shoot them

Unfortunetly that attitude doesn't work too well with politics.

The problem people seem to have, is that we're not fighting a war. In my opinion the last "conventional" good vs bad war was WW2. Since then all military action has supposedly been as "peacekeeping"

What's the coalition's main role in Iraq? Peacekeeping, What does the British Army specialise in? Peacekeeping..

Unfortunetly, for stability to happen we need peace, which means crowd-control. Meaning that if my government sent troops out to a forign nation, I'd expect them to stop the civil strife.

The actual "war" part of a war, is the smallest and most irrelevent part of a conflict. The real reason for the existance of armies is to enforce change, in this case supposed lasting peace.

 

[BiG D]

Macca, you make a good point. Let me mess that metaphor around a bit:

Let's say your doctor tells you that you need surgery. (Now, there are plenty of good reasons for a doctor to recommend that, but there are also bad ones. Not really important to where I'm going with this, but I thought it was another strong parallel worth noting.) We'll say you agreed to have the sugery done, although for a more shocking ( ) story, you could say he didn't give you the choice and just started operating...
Anyway, I'm ranting. The sugery goes ok, you seem to be recovering slowly. Then suddenly, you have some life-threatening complications as a direct result of the surgery. What do you think when the doctor goes "You're on your own, buddy. You had that condition before I operated, the fact the sugery made it worse isn't my fault. I had no way of knowing that would happen." What would other people think of this doctor? Do you think anyone would want trust him after hearing about this? Should anyone trust him?

that is just like saying lets nuke iraq because they will kill themselves in this war

Not exactly, but you've got my reasoning right. That's the point I was trying to make.

we have troops stuck on the ground and they dont realy need all this bullshit saying that they are wrong

No one here is saying anything about the troops. They aren't at fault here, it's the people in charge, the people who likely have no idea just how bad it is.

its so stupid that the men are getting court-marshalled for beating up iraqis that mortered their base, it is easy for us to say that it was wrong but as a man on the ground i bet it is shit scary being mortered everyday, if somebody mortered me id shoot them

I strongly disagree with this. The soldiers need to control themselves, no matter what. That's what's supposed to separate us from the 'bad guys,' the fact that we have rules regarding how we treat other humans. If we forget these rules, and just lay a beating on anyone who surrenders, what kind of message is that sending about the kind of country we represent? More importantly, what makes us different from the terrorists in that case?

 

[Pestcontrol]

the coalition should just sit back and let them fight without jumping with crappy crowd control, if our bases get attacked however, we should slot them as we werent fighting so why attack us in their own little war

That doesn't make much sense to me. Remind me why exactly you think the troops are in Iraq?

Do you think NATO/UN troops should have sat back and watch factions eliminate eachother in Rwanda? In Bosnia?

to be honest i dont think any person on this earth could have predicted or foreseen what a disaster iraq has become, we have troops stuck on the ground and they dont realy need all this bullshit saying that they are wrong, they only followed orders, and its so stupid that the men are getting court-marshalled for beating up iraqis that mortered their base, it is easy for us to say that it was wrong but as a man on the ground i bet it is shit scary being mortered everyday, if somebody mortered me id shoot them

I think it's a very good thing if you get court-martialed for violating human rights. That might just be me though. It seems you're generalising all soldiers here. The ones that went there and fought are not in debt to any of the political decisions made about the war, they deserve respect for what they do, i agree with you there. It's entirely different if you're a sadist torturing or unnecissarily killing people, however.

If you're shit scared and think it's right to beat up or shoot anyone mortaring you, you wouldn't make a good soldier. 10 to 1 you'd end up shooting and beating innocents in your blind rage.

To be entirely honest Bush surprised me for starting the war in the first place. By then everybody knew the initial motivations were questionable, i personally thought it would cost him his reelection, but i had too much faith in democracy there.

You really are born 95 years too late.

I agree with the War, but I hate the fact that the government lied to us. Did they seriously believe that Iraq, a place of huge poverty, is capable of making nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? C'mon, these guys are meant to be educated.

Do you really believe they ever believed that? There is no such thing as an honest lie. If you think back in time before the war, the first dark clouds on the horizon were when Saddam blocked access of his facility to the UN weapons inspections, somewhere back in 1999 iirc. After some more diplomatic clashes a new inspections team led by Hans Blix was sent and they concluded Saddam's regime was not currently capable of producing any WMD's.

Guess what, they were right all along! Not that there was any reason to doubt their conclusions. The people that did had political motives for doing so.

OTOH, an extremely poor nation CAN pose a threat if it has a sufficiently determined regime. Look at North Korea, they got closer than Saddam ever did.

As for having the responsibility to help people in need, i'd agree with you there, but don't you think this help is, uhm, rather selective? Are invasions really the best way to improve people's lives in the first place? Historically they never have been.

Before dismissing France's veto as lame, be aware that of all nations outside the coalition, they have the most intense diplomatic contacts with the islamic world (and a highly experienced secret service), for a good part of it are former French colonies. If any nation in the security council could have known it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, it's France.