Iraq, think about it.

So Glad

What is America still doing there? We agree the invasion was illegal, their cactics (torture, white phospherous) are either illegal or inhumane and that they have not found WMDs or any significant evidence that Saddam was ever a threat to the world.

Why does noone ever think of Iraq anymore? It's never ever on the news anymore and noone raises questions over why America are still there. It just floors me.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

What is America still doing there? We agree the invasion was illegal, their cactics (torture, white phospherous) are either illegal or inhumane and that they have not found WMDs or any significant evidence that Saddam was ever a threat to the world.

Why does noone ever think of Iraq anymore? It's never ever on the news anymore and noone raises questions over why America are still there. It just floors me.

America's still there because Iraq is descending into chaos and civil war with them there, and it would only get worse if they left.

As for it's never in the news,

4 Americans are being courtmarshalled for the murder and rape of 14 year old child a crime which has forced the Iraq Prime Minister to condemn US soliders immunity from the Iraqi courts.

70 Americans have been killed so far this month.

Blair has announced British troops may pull out with the next year/year and 1/2.

James Baker and the Republican party are claiming that Iraq has been a disaster.

I got all this from one newspaper that I read over lunch.

"Iraq, Think about it"

Just think about the country, So Glad? Or think what about it?

Akrasia

Diogenes wrote:

America's still there because Iraq is descending into chaos and civil war with them there, and it would only get worse if they left.

Iraq is already in chaos, there already is a civil war, And america is making things worse by being there.

Dave!

Today Bush accepted that there may be parallels between Iraq and Vietnam...

(google news search)

Diogenes

Akrasia wrote:

Iraq is already in chaos, there already is a civil war, And america is making things worse by being there.

So they should just pull out?

Look I'm no Neo Con hawk, I marched in opposition to the war, but the situation has reached a tipping point that the Iraqi army could not cope without US support.

The situation is already beyond desperate, but if you're going to suggest that it's going to be improved by the US leaving you're sadly mistaken.

There needs to be some alternative peacekeeping force in the country for years to come, and I cannot see any country volunteering to bring their soldiers into that ****hole. Some republicans have even suggested for a peacekeeping force which is composed in part of Iranian and Syrian should be involved. The White house has of course rejected this suggestion.

Its reaching a desperate level if republicans are turning the Iran for help.

Goodshape

Diogenes wrote:

The situation is already beyond desperate, but if you're going to suggest that it's going to be improved by the US leaving you're sadly mistaken.

How do you know this? And what's your criteria for improvement?

Not trying to be smart here, honest question : are the various fighting factions in Iraq engaged in a free-for-all, or are they (or most of them) united in fighting the occupation?

mike65

If the US pulled the plug, the Kurds would bail out in seconds as they have oil. The Sunnis would try to subsume them (and succeed through sheer numbers). One can only imagine Iran would move quickly in the south to bolster thier influence with the Iraqi Shia population.

Hey presto - civil/ethnic war across the country and possibly the collapse of the unitary state. Though very hard to know the ultimate fate of that county lets face it, there are any number of possibilities none of them good.

Mike.

Rebeller

Diogenes wrote:

The situation is already beyond desperate, but if you're going to suggest that it's going to be improved by the US leaving you're sadly mistaken

There have been suggestions of links between the supposed death squads operating within Iraq and both the current Iraqi administration and their CIA/US handlers.

The US aim is to have Iraq broken up into 3 distinct states (Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd) to prevent the emergence of any strong nationalistic unifying power that may decide to oppose US interests in the region.

Iraq is not a sectarian society. Tribal yes, but definitely not sectarian. Intermarrying between Shi'ites and Sunnis is common or used to be in the years before the US crusade.

Remove the US from the equation and I can guarantee that all parties involved will quickly come to a reasonable, lasting settlement.

So I disagree with the assertion that the presence of the US is now a necessary evil.

Akrasia

Diogenes wrote:

So they should just pull out?

If their persence is making things worse, then yes they should.

There will still be a civil war, but that is inevitable now.America's presence is just getting in the way of whatever the post civil war outcome will be (it could be that Iraq seperates into 3 countries according to their ethnicity, or it could be something completely different, But the continuing hostile occupation is just prolonging the period of unrest and delaying the eventual resolution.

Look I'm no Neo Con hawk, I marched in opposition to the war, but the situation has reached a tipping point that the Iraqi army could not cope without US support.

The Iraqi Army could never cope without American support. It was disbanded straight after the war and and the U.S. attempts at building a pro western army has failed miserably. The U.S. army can't cope either by the way, they're not stopping violence, they're just adding to it.

The situation is already beyond desperate, but if you're going to suggest that it's going to be improved by the US leaving you're sadly mistaken.

What do you suggest the Occupying army can achieve? Staying the course has been an unmitigated disaster, it's time to withdraw.

Akrasia

Goodshape wrote:

How do you know this? And what's your criteria for improvement?

Not trying to be smart here, honest question : are the various fighting factions in Iraq engaged in a free-for-all, or are they (or most of them) united in fighting the occupation?

they're united in opposing the occupation (except the Kurds, they seem to be minding their own business), but they're still fighting each other at the same time

Sparks

Rebeller wrote:

The US aim is to have Iraq broken up into 3 distinct states (Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd) to prevent the emergence of any strong nationalistic unifying power that may decide to oppose US interests in the region.

Does anyone actually think the Turks would go along with the notion of an independent Kurdistan controlling the majority of the oilfields and sitting right on the Turkish border? :rolleyes:

Akrasia

This conversation we're having right now is one of the major reasons why Invading Iraq was such a predictably and obviously bad idea!

Destabilising the region has so many potential outcomes, and pretty much all of them are bad.

wes

Sparks wrote:

Does anyone actually think the Turks would go along with the notion of an independent Kurdistan controlling the majority of the oilfields and sitting right on the Turkish border? :rolleyes:

They would invade in about 30 seconds if not faster and make things an even bigger mess.

Manic Moran

Goodshape wrote:

How do you know this? And what's your criteria for improvement?

Not trying to be smart here, honest question : are the various fighting factions in Iraq engaged in a free-for-all, or are they (or most of them) united in fighting the occupation?

Free-for-all, apparently. I've yet to finish reading my book on the issue, it's quite enlightening.

On a basic level, though, how does things like going and kidnapping a score of Shia chaps, executing them, and dropping their bodies on the street count as fighting the occupation?

NTM

Rebeller

Sparks wrote:

Does anyone actually think the Turks would go along with the notion of an independent Kurdistan controlling the majority of the oilfields and sitting right on the Turkish border? :rolleyes:

Yes, as any so-called independent tri-state solution proposed and implemented by the west would have as a requirement that any and all such states be headed by the type of puppet adminstrations favoured by the US (see various interventions in South America over the years for examples)

The Turks would also play a part. Their role would be to kick up a bit of a fuss to lead us all to believe that the "independent" Kurdish state would be a truly nationalistic entity affecting Turkish interests. However, the powers that be would act so that only those favourable to the US imperial agenda would ever hold power. The new Kurdish "State" would be neutured economically and militarily to ensure that it would never pose a threat to Turkey's or the grand master's interests.

Time and all the other Neocon media mouthpieces would publish countless stories about the "New beginning for the Kurdish people" with such headlines as "Independence at last" and "freedom from tyranny". World attention could the be diverted from Iraq as peace, freedom and justics would have finaly been achieved.

There is something extremely sinister going on in Iraq at the moment. We are being lead to believe that civil war is inevitable. Civil war is being manufactured through the actions of the US and its agents.

Destabilisation and chaos are the ultimate goal.

Ping Chow Chi

Its pretty clear that there are plenty of groups in Iraq with very different views. Some are fighting the occupation, some want to kill shia's or Sunni's, and I would imagin that there also is a fair bit of good old fashioned lawlessness thrown in. IE people killing other people for the normal mundane crime reasons you get everywhere, but in Iraq at the moment I would imagin that there is very much more of it.

I was never for the war, and I think Bush and Blair should have been thrown out of office for lying about the reasons they went to war. But, they shouldn't pull out now, I feel that that would only make things worse, if anything they should be pumping more troops into Iraq, as the numbers currently there have not seem to have brought security to the people.

Diogenes

Goodshape wrote:

How do you know this? And what's your criteria for improvement?

Whats your criteria for getting worse? How can you can a situation where steady and bloody infighting by two sides, going to be improved by the vaccum of the removal of the major military force in the region.

Not trying to be smart here, honest question : are the various fighting factions in Iraq engaged in a free-for-all, or are they (or most of them) united in fighting the occupation?

If you look at the death toil since the invasion the US troops are in the low four figures, the Iraq's are in the high six. So clearly the insurgents are more interested in fighting each other and what they represent. They are fake police check points gunning down people for having the wrong ethic background. It's becoming a major health and safety issue because of the quanity of Iraq bodies just dumped on the streets, US troops are welding sewer access points shut to stop bodies getting dumped into the cities water systems. Families cannot go to Baghdad morques because insurgents groups attack those going to pick up their dead.

Oh yeah it's a united front aganist the occupation.

Akarisa wrote:

If their persence is making things worse, then yes they should.

There will still be a civil war, but that is inevitable now.America's presence is just getting in the way of whatever the post civil war outcome will be (it could be that Iraq seperates into 3 countries according to their ethnicity, or it could be something completely different, But the continuing hostile occupation is just prolonging the period of unrest and delaying the eventual resolution.

Ah the you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs solution. Well I'm sure the men women and children who will be killed in this conflict will appreciate your laizze fairé political solution. I mean its not as if Syria, Iran, Kurdish areas of Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, or any of these countries will be bothered by a civil war, mass refugees, a need to supply the side that they feel supports their interests in the region. Nope it's like football see, the conflict cannot and will not be able to affect the stability of the region.

The Iraqi Army could never cope without American support. It was disbanded straight after the war and and the U.S. attempts at building a pro western army has failed miserably. The U.S. army can't cope either by the way, they're not stopping violence, they're just adding to it.

Again, Omlettes, eggs etc... What we just chalk this one up to experience and try and learn the lessons? Again hundreds of thousands more will die in civil war. It's why I opposed the war in the first place, this exact quagmire[/quote] would take place. Whats your response? "Well I told yis so but oh no did you listen of course not..." It's now necessary to try and work out a roadmap to sort this crap out.

What do you suggest the Occupying army can achieve? Staying the course has been an unmitigated disaster, it's time to withdraw.

And leave a vacuum? Do not what a vacuum is? It an absence of atmosphere that sucks all the atmosphere thats exposed into it. An American departure in Iraq will leave a vacuum that a civil war will live and will suck neighbouring countries into. Turkish accention into the EU? Israeli? A Kurdish rebellion in turkey supporting the rebellion? Syria?

Look part of the reason anyone with an ounce of history objected to this war, is that they saw what happened when the US when they got into Vietnam and the knock on of Cambodia. The understood the repercussions of the US's folly in invading and the horror of what would happen after they left.

No one should want another killing fields. And thats whats going to happen unless the US can use the UN to find someway to fill the vacuum.

Rebeller wrote:

There have been suggestions of links between the supposed death squads operating within Iraq and both the current Iraqi administration and their CIA/US handlers.

I'm like totally sure you like have really good likes to support that.

The US aim is to have Iraq broken up into 3 distinct states (Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd) to prevent the emergence of any strong nationalistic unifying power that may decide to oppose US interests in the region.

Then why didn't the US do this in the first place rather than create one unified state. Most insurgents would have been happy with their own Islamic state.

Iraq is not a sectarian society. Tribal yes, but definitely not sectarian. Intermarrying between Shi'ites and Sunnis is common or used to be in the years before the US crusade.

Yeah but no. Sunnis had more power under Saddam, they were his tribe, and yes while the state was more secular that was Saddam imposing his will. Seeing as there are vicisous attacks directed specifically at Sunni and ****e in large urban either A) They're tribal and not sectarian they're just indifferent to the mass cassaulties they cause among the victims who are just members of the same sect but different tribes. they're sectarian attacks.

Do you want me to google Iraq and Sectarian? Or can you provide evidence to support the above?

Manic Moran

Diogenes wrote:

Yeah but no. Sunnis had more power under Saddam, they were his tribe, and yes while the state was more secular that was Saddam imposing his will. Seeing as there are vicisous attacks directed specifically at Sunni and ****e in large urban either A) They're tribal and not sectarian they're just indifferent to the mass cassaulties they cause among the victims who are just members of the same sect but different tribes. they're sectarian attacks.

Do you want me to google Iraq and Sectarian? Or can you provide evidence to support the above?

No, the original post was quite correct on the difference between Tribal and Sectarian. When Saddam got into power, his power base was pretty much the Sunni population which had been the power base for the last several centuries. What's not as apparent is the fact that as the years progressed, Saddam became paranoid about Sunnis as well, as Sunnis were the people most likely to overthrow him: Most of his purges killed Sunni persons, not Shia or Kurds. (Those, he was a little less discriminate over). As the years progressed, his power base became more and more centered around the Tikrit region as that was his 'home tribe', and other Sunnis became more of a threat.

There are at least three different fights going on. There's the fight against the Coalition forces, there's the fight between Shia and Sunni, and there's the intra-sect fighting going on between the different groups within the same sect.

NTM

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

Free-for-all, apparently. I've yet to finish reading my book on the issue, it's quite enlightening.

On a basic level, though, how does things like going and kidnapping a score of Shia chaps, executing them, and dropping their bodies on the street count as fighting the occupation?

NTM

That is by far the best way to fight the occupation. The worse the situation gets the more likely the occupation is to end.

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote:

No, the original post was quite correct on the difference between Tribal and Sectarian. When Saddam got into power, his power base was pretty much the Sunni population which had been the power base for the last several centuries. What's not as apparent is the fact that as the years progressed, Saddam became paranoid about Sunnis as well, as Sunnis were the people most likely to overthrow him: Most of his purges killed Sunni persons, not Shia or Kurds. (Those, he was a little less discriminate over). As the years progressed, his power base became more and more centered around the Tikrit region as that was his 'home tribe', and other Sunnis became more of a threat.

There are at least three different fights going on. There's the fight against the Coalition forces, there's the fight between Shia and Sunni, and there's the intra-sect fighting going on between the different groups within the same sect.

NTM

I'm not saying that theres no tribal warfare, however the assaults on religiously significant locations IE Mosques. While I could well believe that a Mosque attack could be used by one tribe to increase tensions between ethic groups to their advantage.

I mean are you suggesting that A Sunni and Shia tribe could become allies? As I understand the situation while tribes are engaged in tit for tat infighting, insurgents are using religious differences to escalte the conflict.

Also your triad excludes the Kurds, who if a civil war breaks out, will fight their own corner viciously. And drag turkey into it.

Akrasia

Diogenes wrote:

Ah the you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs solution. Well I'm sure the men women and children who will be killed in this conflict will appreciate your laizze fairé political solution. I mean its not as if Syria, Iran, Kurdish areas of Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, or any of these countries will be bothered by a civil war, mass refugees, a need to supply the side that they feel supports their interests in the region. Nope it's like football see, the conflict cannot and will not be able to affect the stability of the region.

Look, I am not in favour of breaking any eggs, but those eggs are already broken, and at the moment, the runny yoke is just oozing everywhere and starting to go off, and the smell is going to get worse and worse as long as the U.S. insist on continuing to use all the kings horses to try and put them back together again, when they have done nothing but make the situation worse from the very beginning.

I was completely against the war from the very beginning, I was against 'staying the course' when there was low level insurgency, and I am against 'staying the course' now. America are not in a solution to fix the mess that they have created, so they should just do a vietnam and pull out before they do even more damage.

Turkey may or may not get involved (remember, they want to join the E.U. so they will probably be reluctant to be seen as beligerant in the middle east)

Again, Omlettes, eggs etc... What we just chalk this one up to experience and try and learn the lessons? Again hundreds of thousands more will die in civil war. It's why I opposed the war in the first place, this exact quagmire

would take place. Whats your response? "Well I told yis so but oh no did you listen of course not..." It's now necessary to try and work out a roadmap to sort this crap out. [/quote] Do you think the British should have stayed in Ireland to quell the civil war here for our own good?

Do you think the British should have stepped in to keep the Yankees and the confederates from fighting each other?

The war would have happened anyway as soon as the British would have left, it was inevitable, and it's not about eggs or omelettes, it's about restoring a balance to a region suffering from massive external interference for decades. Hopefully it won't be as bad as everyone is suggesting, but unless we remove the source of ignition that is hostile occupation, this conflict is going to get more and more heated until it just boils over and is completely out of control.

And leave a vacuum? Do not what a vacuum is? It an absence of atmosphere that sucks all the atmosphere thats exposed into it. An American departure in Iraq will leave a vacuum that a civil war will live and will suck neighbouring countries into. Turkish accention into the EU? Israeli? A Kurdish rebellion in turkey supporting the rebellion? Syria?

Look part of the reason anyone with an ounce of history objected to this war, is that they saw what happened when the US when they got into Vietnam and the knock on of Cambodia. The understood the repercussions of the US's folly in invading and the horror of what would happen after they left.

What happened in Cambodia is because the U.S. extended it's war into that country in a desperate attempt to achieve it's military aims in Vietnam. They murdered countless Cambodians and paved the way for the Khmer Rouge. These deaths can be traced to a stubborn refusal of the U.S. military and politicians to admit defeat in Vietnam (their claims were much the same as the 'stay the course' claims we are hearing about in Iraq). The destabilisation of Cambodia was a result of U.S. military policy and their clandestine activities.

No one should want another killing fields. And thats whats going to happen unless the US can use the UN to find someway to fill the vacuum.

the lesson should be that the U.S. shouldn't interfere so much in the internal affairs of other countries to create that vacuum in the first place. The vacuum only exists because of an artificial pump sucking power away from where it would have been if there was no interference from the west, so that if the west ever stops interfering, it will spring back to an extremist who will claim victory for expelling the U.S. invaders.

Diogenes

Frederico wrote:

That is by far the best way to fight the occupation. The worse the situation gets the more likely the occupation is to end.

Um er no the US troops are isolated from the Iraq population unless they're own patrol.

Iraqs killing Iraqs doesn't make the job any worse.

The fact that the Iraqi death toil is rarly recorded and rarly reported. The US media is more concerned with the fact that 70 soldiers are dead this month, over the fact that the 650,000 Iraqi's are dead since Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The US military are indifferent to Iraqi casaulties up to point. The slaughter is sectarian point scoring at a horrifying degree. They make the Shankhill butchers look like rank amateurs.

Manic Moran

Diogenes wrote:

Um er no the US troops are isolated from the Iraq population unless they're own patrol.

No, I see where he's going. Assuming his theory is correct, Akrasia, for example, is a perfect success. The target, in that case, isn't the US troops, or the Iraqi people. It's everyone outside. The idea is to get them so appalled at the situation that they want to pull the troops out. The dead US or Iraqis are incidental to the end goal.

NTM

Manic Moran

Diogenes wrote:

I mean are you suggesting that A Sunni and Shia tribe could become allies?

No, but they could both operate against a third group because they both happened to have gripes against them. For example, let's say you have three groups. Sunni A, Sunni B, and Shia C. A might not have any particular gripe with Shia, but may have issue with B. B might dislike both A for tribal reasons, and C for religious reasons. C might not have an issue with anyone who doesn't attack them. So A is fighting B, B is fighting A, B also attacks C, who sees both A and B as aggrssors (after all, they're both Sunni, and it was a religious attack), and so both B and C are attacking A, though A and C definitely are not allies.

As I understand the situation while tribes are engaged in tit for tat infighting, insurgents are using religious differences to escalte the conflict.

Yes.

Also your triad excludes the Kurds, who if a civil war breaks out, will fight their own corner viciously. And drag turkey into it.

Yes, but so far they're quite peaceful and prosperous. Much to the strong dislike of the people in the rest of the country who can't figure out how the 'untermenschen' (to use a German term) are managing to be so successful and peaceful.

NTM

Frederico

Diogenes wrote:

Um er no the US troops are isolated from the Iraq population unless they're own patrol.

Iraqs killing Iraqs doesn't make the job any worse.

The fact that the Iraqi death toil is rarly recorded and rarly reported. The US media is more concerned with the fact that 70 soldiers are dead this month, over the fact that the 650,000 Iraqi's are dead since Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The US military are indifferent to Iraqi casaulties up to point. The slaughter is sectarian point scoring at a horrifying degree. They make the Shankhill butchers look like rank amateurs.

A civil war would definitely make the US pull out. Taking the Americans head on (e.g. Fallujah) has a slow grinding effect, you loose alot of men and America can just about handle the casualties.

However since about 2004, suicide bombers have been hitting large groups of Sunni's or Shiite's/Mosques, this shows a deliberate tactics by terrorists/jihadists to spark sectarian violence in Iraq. Whilst there was no love lost between the two groups, they certainly weren't at each other's throats at the end of the war. Sectarian violence becomes self-perpetuating, a cycle of revenge.

Turn Iraq into hell (another Vietnam) and the occupiers will leave, its quite simple really.

fly_agaric

Rebeller wrote:

Remove the US from the equation and I can guarantee that all parties involved will quickly come to a reasonable, lasting settlement.

First comes the killing. A pickup in the pace of killing anyway. Don't forget that.
Let's start with any of those traiterous dogs who collaberated with the hated Occupiers. There's no one to protect them or their relatives from vengence now.
And Christians - they are always trouble-makers! Damn "Crusaders" and pawns of America! Building churches and selling booze etc.
And so on...and on.

Akrasia wrote:

unless we remove the source of ignition that is hostile occupation, this conflict is going to get more and more heated until it just boils over and is completely out of control.

huh?
If Saddam and his boys had been abducted by a bunch of aliens for an extended period of anal probing leaving a power vacuum in Iraq sans war and occupation, would things have played out differently I wonder?
The biggest problem (IMO) is that the US never completely committed to the consequences of its own stupid and arrogant decision to invade and occupy Iraq. It is much too late to do anything about that now.

Akrasia wrote:

Do you think the British should have stepped in to keep the Yankees and the confederates from fighting each other?

The war would have happened anyway as soon as the British would have left, it was inevitable

AFAIR, the US civil war didn't begin till 80 years or so after the Brits left!
If there is a civil war in Iraq when US troops leave I don't think it will take 8 bloody decades after the occupation to begin!

TerrorFirmer

Manic Moran wrote:

Yes, but so far they're quite peaceful and prosperous. Much to the strong dislike of the people in the rest of the country who can't figure out how the 'untermenschen' (to use a German term) are managing to be so successful and peaceful.

NTM

I was under the impression that very recently the Turks made it clear they were going to take a hard line against the Kurdish Insurgents who have quite frequently made terrorist attacks within Turkey if the Us and other countries do not move to provide help or relief. Granted obviously not every kurd supports such action but surely any major move against the insurgents would drag alot of the area into conflict

Mad Finn

Manic Moran wrote:

Free-for-all, apparently. I've yet to finish reading my book on the issue, it's quite enlightening.

On a basic level, though, how does things like going and kidnapping a score of Shia chaps, executing them, and dropping their bodies on the street count as fighting the occupation?

Oh you read history books? Good. Then maybe you know that when a country is occupied it unleashes barbaric forces within the population which usually manifest itself as murder, torture and civil war.

You get invaded. your country gets taken over. What do you do? Accept it and get on with your life, or resist it actively? Most people will want to do the former. So sooner or later, they come up against the conflict of loyalties which could lead them to be classified as 'collaborators'

Look at what the French did to women who dated German soldiers after the war. Look at what the Italians did to former Fascists. Look at what the IRA did to people building or rebuilding RUC barracks in Northern Ireland.

Very many of the guards and workers in Auschwitz were Poles. (It was in Poland after all) Not a few of them were Jewish. Forced into collaboration by barbaric circumstances. Would you say that Auschwitz was a case of internecine Polish strife, or would you put the blame where it belongs, at the feet of the German Nazis?

Sure there are divisions in Iraqi society. And they are being exarcebated by the invaders whose interest in Iraq is not Iraq's interest.

The British and Americans should be ashamed of themselves. And so should those who support them.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

No, I see where he's going. Assuming his theory is correct, Akrasia, for example, is a perfect success. The target, in that case, isn't the US troops, or the Iraqi people. It's everyone outside. The idea is to get them so appalled at the situation that they want to pull the troops out. The dead US or Iraqis are incidental to the end goal.

NTM

I was against this war from the very beginning because I am against empires and wars for corporate profits. I am against global hegemony. I am against the blatant lies and propaganda that accompanied this war.

Are these things that you or any other of the self described reasonable people are in favour of?

Rebeller

Diogenes wrote:

I'm like totally sure you like have really good likes to support that.

(re: US link to death squads)

This belief is based upon various reports I've read along with my own knowledge and understanding of successive American interventions throughout the world. Faced with a seemingly united front against them the US are now using standard practice in such a scenario: foment civil chaos and societal breakdown to ensure that any underlying tensions will bubble to the surface and give vent through a bloody civil war.

Diogenes wrote:

Do you want me to google Iraq and Sectarian? Or can you provide evidence to support the above?

Typing a series of words into google will always bring up a few hundred links to support any particular view. Not all such information will be valid.

If chaos was never the the intended goal in Iraq how do you explain the US failure to act to stop the widescale looting that erupted in the days following the invasion. Troops were dispatched to protect all infrastructure connected with the oil industry while looters were allowed to steal thousands of years of history from the Iraqi National museum.

The US knows it cannot win the war in Iraq. Just like in Vietnam it is determined to destroy the country to ensure that a unified nationalist regime never emerges.

Diogenes wrote:

Then why didn't the US do this in the first place rather than create one unified state. Most insurgents would have been happy with their own Islamic state.

The fact that you're using the US term 'insurgent" suggests to me that you have accepted the vile propoganda that the Bush cabal are disseminating about the situation in Iraq.

Definition of insurgent: a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.

Now, the US is not the "lawful authority" in Iraq. These so-called "insurgents" are fighting for the independence of their country.

How come in the weeks following the invasion we were told that these fighters were "Saddam loyalists", then "terrorists" and finally "insurgents"? Obfuscation, bulls**t and lies.

Language is a very powerful tool because it dictates how people understand and visualise a particular situation. The US manipulation of language (basic propaganda) is intended to paint the freedom fighters as extremist terrorists (of which I have no doubt there are many in Iraq thanks to the US meddling) and cut off any support and sympathy that those in th west may have towards their fight.

Knowing that they can't win a war when opposed by an entire nation the US is stirring up tribal and sectarian tensions to turn the fighting in on itself: divide and conquer.

A tri-state solution would never have been proposed initially as this would have suggested to the world that the invasion had nothing to do with WMD but regime change. It might also have lead Turkey to disallow use of its military bases. Now that the situation has got out of control the Turks may be persuaded to tolerate a neutered heavily controlled Kurdish "state".

We can have this armchair debate until the cows come home. The fact is that at least 700,000 people have been killed since Bush and his corrupt cabal decided to invade Iraq. This war was wrong.

Any war that will lead to the deaths of even one non-combatant is wrong. We can all preen and strut to show each other how much we know about Iraq but it doesn't take away the unavoidable reality that WAR IS WRONG.

To quote Robert Fisk: "War is the absolute failure of the human spirit".

fly_agaric

Rebeller wrote:

If chaos was never the the intended goal in Iraq how do you explain the US failure to act to stop the widescale looting that erupted in the days following the invasion.

A lack of will? Arrogance? If they really wanted to occupy Iraq, they should have committed many more troops than they did.
I think some of the US Generals were suggesting 500,000 - 3/4 million men for this AFAIR. But Rumsfeldt etc just wanted Saddam gone and knew it could be done more easily and cheaply with a far smaller army. And once Saddam is gone, the hard part is over - the Iraqis will be only to delighted to have the US military there to reorganise their country for them the way we want etc etc.

Rebeller wrote:

Language is a very powerful tool because it dictates how people understand and visualise a particular situation.

No, language reflects how people understand a situation. It reflects their thoughts. Or it may mask the truth of what people actually think if used in a distorted lying way. Propagandists can phrase things in the way they think suits their point of view (insurgents, terrorists, the resistance; martyrs, suicide bombers, homicide bombers) but shouting that down is actually up can't actually make people think that down is up.

Rebeller wrote:

These so-called "insurgents" are fighting for the independence of their country.

What country? Iraq?:)

Rebeller wrote:

Knowing that they can't win a war when opposed by an entire nation the US is stirring up tribal and sectarian tensions to turn the fighting in on itself: divide and conquer.

The old imperialists took advantage of this on occasion to help them control their colonies more easily. How exactly is the sectarian tension helping the US and the Iraqi govt. they support run Iraq more easily right now?
Your argument doesn't make sense.
The increased sectarian tension is another byproduct of the war and occupation, not something the US is deliberately instigating as part of some dastardly plan to divide and rule Iraq.