Is this what we should do? Or should we make a parking lot out of the place?
 

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...&Cr=iraq&Cr1=#


Annan offers UN help to end fighting in Iraqi holy city of Najaf

13 August 2004 – United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today offered the world body's help to end the current fighting in Iraq, particularly in the holy Shiite Muslim city of Najaf.

"The Secretary-General reiterates his appeal to all concerned to show the utmost restraint in these difficult circumstances," a statement issued by his spokesman said. "The Secretary-General has made clear his position that force should always be a last resort. The United Nations is dedicated to the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes."

It added that Mr. Annan continued to attach great importance to the establishment of the widest possible consensus among Iraqis in support of a peaceful political transition.

"The United Nations remains committed to doing everything possible to assist the Iraqi people to that end, and stands ready to extend its facilitating role in helping to resolve the current crisis, if this would be helpful," the statement declared.

It said Mr. Annan was “deeply saddened” by the violence and “especially concerned” about reports on the condition of Said Moqtada Al-Sadr – a Shiite Muslim cleric leading his militia in the fight against United States and Iraqi interim Government forces in Najaf, who was wounded according to some reports.

"The Secretary-General believes that all of us want to see Iraq become a civil society, based on the rule of law. The dismantling of all militias would be an important step in that direction," it concluded.


I say, Make it a Parking Lot!

Re: Is this what we should do? Or should we make a parking lot out of the place?
 

Do you prefer it be made from concrete like your brain or asphalt like your heart?

that shour added a lot to this thread how about you actually state your opinion and some comments

personally i feel that they are going to want appease these people. this has never worked in the past and won't work now especially dealing with religous extremists who should have no say in government policy or actions.

Oh, you mean like the original poster's opinion and only comment that he advocates turning Najaf into a parking lot?

How about this for an opinion:

Members of this board are of Iraqi descent. Have some respect for us before posting trollish shit like that and expecting any kind of meaningful discussion of the situation to ensue.

In WW2, alot of people of German decent fought for the USA and we made a parking lot of the Third Reich(Germany). Also Japanese Americans did fight for the USA, though not in the Pacific., we made a parking lot out of the Land of the rising sun.
To make it simple. We won the War!!!!!
Are there many people of Iraqi decent in the armed forces of the USA?

yeah, there are people of Iraqi descent in the armed forces of the U.S., but you missed the point--there are people on this board who have family living in Iraq. For all you know, and I've said enough on this matter, you might be speaking to someone who has loved ones in najaf who obviously doesn't appreciate your hateful comment.

Keep the UN out of Iraq until election time.

As far as parking goes, Saudi Arabia has better location.

I think I've missed the boat on a phrase. By "Making it into a parking lot" I always took it to mean it would serve the best purpose if it actually was a parking lot. Do you actually mean, like, carpet bombing the place, leveling the structures, leaving not one stone standing on top of another stone, that sort of thing?

No more personal attacks. This thread didn't start well, and it still isn't going well. I'm checking back soon, and if it hasn't improved, it's being closed.

They mean flattening it.

Ok, in that case...

While I can't fully defend Dresden, the fact is that WW2 was a war for national survival, whereas Najaf/Iraq is local armed resistance to occupational forces. You can't punish a populace for the actions of a small portion of that populace, that's something Saddam Hussein would have done. As it stands, (I'm sure my hindsight will be 20/20 and my opinions will change on this sooner or later) it looks like negotiations in Najaf are what both al-Sadr and the American military heads want right now, and Annan is, to me, a very welcome participant in such talks.

The UN's longstanding goal is to prevent bloodshed in general, and both sides in Najaf seem to be wanting to end bloodshed at the moment, so it's only natural that Kofi come in.

We already have enough parking lots. I see no reason to abandon attempts at a peaceful solution. Carpet bombing a city may have been a viable option in wars past, but it's not in this one.

This is a war where we are trying to convince people that we are the good guys. We are trying to convince them that they are better off without Hussein. We are, if you will, trying to win their "hearts and minds." I really don't think that indiscriminately killing thousands of Iraqi civilians is a good way to accomplish that.

If our enemies want to negotiate a peace, I'm more than willing to at least hear what they have to say.

Sigh, comments like that really irritate me. But I'll add my two cents. The Iraqi culture has to be one of the most diverse places I've ever been in the world. Look at the fact that it is literally the cradle of civilization. You are talking about destroying a city when a small minority is at fault.

To me its the same as saying, "Well the gang problem in LA is getting bad this year, lets just nuke it". It's not an appropriate situation.

However I don't also agree with the UN. In my opinion we gave Al Sadr a chance one time to back down. At one point he blatantly stated that his militia was being disbanded. The Rules of Engagement of the Coalition Forces changed to allow these people safe passage back to their homes. Obviously it didn't work. Violence isn't always the answer but it is most likely to be the most effective one here.

Which "we" are you referring to?

As for turning Najaf into a parking lot, give your head a shake, I mean come on there are innocent civilians there, and the Iraqis fighting the Americans are fighting for what they believe is right, much along the same lines as why Americans are fighting.

If people want to know why most of the world looks at the US with hatred and says they are ignorant look no further than this statement.


Flush the Johns as your avatar says? At least they have compassion for human life.

I think that people are only wanting to make it a "parking lot" cause we are tired of having to handle things with kid gloves. we can't hurt the shrine. that shrine is not worth one of our soldiers getting hurt, so yeah in some respects leveling the place, where the terrorists are holed up is not a bad idea. Loss of civilian life is not what I would want to see, so tell them all to get the hell away, and they light the place up. You think that if we were fighting here in the states they would give a shit about harming our churches, I think not.

typo's

Puh-leaze... John Kerry would sell out the Iraqi's if he thought it would get him elected. Remember he voted for the war, before he voted against it ;) .

Sorry I keep fucking up here...

Iraq is not World War 2...

This has nothing to do with John Kerry, and making comments about either candidate shows your political slant/bias. And the fighting of the war itself has little to do with George Bush, because Bush lets the generals fight the war which is how it should be.

It's time Al-Sadr finds himself in jail. We already negotiated a peace with him and he broke it. I say the Iraqis should put this guy in a jail cell.

I dont have the solution but turning it into a parking lot contains the worst logic ever in a war where we are trying to be the good guys after all is said and done.

najaf appears to be a fiasco in the making for the occupation in its various guises:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...67EB2E13B5.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/in...15IRAQ.html?hp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3565200.stm

to level the place would be the stupidest possible action--it would assure a national insurrection that would unite sunni and shia forces. there already is no coherent plan--creating a situation in which an incoherent colonial occupation has to deal with a massive insurrection that could have been avoided if only they were less cloddish...i dunno, but it would seem suicidal to do anything remotely like flattening najaf.

it is interesting to see---in the various articles above---that it appears to have been allawi who torpedoed the talks, and who seems interested in pushing toward this absurd conclusion....i do not understand what he is thinking. any ideas?

typically, to get any idea of what is going on, you have to read through multiple sources and parse things carefully--but so far as i can tell, the americans are being put (or are putting themselves) into a no-win situation here.

Leveling it would be stupid not only ethically but militarily.

Remember Stalingrad? remember Berlin? Bombing the city only gives the defenders better defensible positions, as well as entrenching the people there. People who were before neutral would be pissed about their houses being blown up, the entire Shi'ia world would be pissed about their mosque being destroyed. Suddenly you'd have thousands of new recruits.

The infrastructure needs to be preserved, so no parking lot. But I do approve of the mindset.

This isn't a colonial occupation.
They've (we all know who) been attacking US allies and interests for years, culminating in the totally unjustifiable, maniacal attack on the WTC. They are hardly an innocent, peaceful, rational indigenous people...

powerclown--they are irrelevant--iraq was not involved with them.
read excerpts of the 911 commission report: there was no iraqi involvement. but it was obvious to almost everyone who did not support the war from the outset that there was no such link.

i dont see how else to see what the americans are doing in iraq than a type of colonial occupation---but as it beside the point in this thread, substitute something else: the main point i was making is that it would be completely insane to flatten najaf. completely insane.

but i remain curious about what allawi is up to in this situation.
i would be interested in talking about that.

but not about the irrefutable evidence that diconnects iraq from 911. on that, you are simply wrong and there is nothing more to say about it.

They might not have been directly involved in 9/11, but Iraq was actively supporting (and rewarding) international terrorism - directed at the US and its allies - for years. They were actively seeking WMD. They were a threat to the region, and to the US.

They weren't harmless, innocent African Congo pygmies hunting for their dinner in the forest. Im saying that this 'colonial occupation' cannot be compared to past examples of legitimate colonial occupation. I don't believe the current situation in Iraq is an example of colonial occupation at all.

I remember watching an interview of Allawi where he mentioned that he was going to take care of the insurgent situation "Iraqi-style", that is, with an iron fist and opposite the way the Americans - overly sensitive to political fallout - balked in Fallujah.

They might not have been directly involved in 9/11, but Iraq was actively supporting (and rewarding) international terrorism - directed at the US and its allies - for years. They were actively seeking WMD. They were a threat to the region, and to the US.

reply: none of these has turned out to be accurate.


They weren't harmless, innocent African Congo pygmies hunting for their dinner in the forest. Im saying that this 'colonial occupation' cannot be compared to past examples of legitimate colonial occupation. I don't believe the current situation in Iraq is an example of colonial occupation at all.

reply: what exactly is a "legitimate colonial occupation"?

I remember watching an interview of Allawi where he mentioned that he was going to take care of the insurgent situation "Iraqi-style", that is, with an iron fist and opposite the way the Americans - overly sensitive to political fallout - balked in Fallujah. [/QUOTE]

if the americans flatten najaf, they will engender a far worse political situation than they already find themselves in. if the iraqis "government" forces do it, the situation will end up in the same place because no-one os fooled by what props that "government" up---the curious thing to me remains allawi's apparent decision to torpedo truce talks when it appeared that they had almost worked--this is more obvious in the al-jazeera and bbc stories above than in the ny times.

i cannot see why he would have done it. i do not understand--again--by what logic it makes any sense to level najaf--or do anything close to that.

sorry about typographic confusion--havent quite figured out the quoting mechanism.....

innocent civilians in Najaf, how about the innocent citizens in the World Trade Center on 9/11?

So it's now eye for an eye?

Please, the reasoning goes in a circle - when someone counters your point, you bring up something that had nothign to do with it, and is irrelevant.
(this would apply to everyone)

And anyways, militarily, it would be stupid. Politically, it would be stupid. Ethically, it would be stupid.

Conclusion? It would be stupid.

And we're not fighting World War II here, unless you suddenly believe the situation has changed to that?

And I think most generals and military officials learned from World War II that carpet bombing cities does little if their means of production are still around and they have a reason (or fear) to fight.

An eye for an eye like Zeld2.0 said, do you think that might escalate the kidnappings and beheadings again? I do.

The innocent civillians in the WTC weren't attacked by a military force in the traditional sense, they were attacked by a terrorist organization who has no rules of engagement to abide by. America is supposed to be a civilized nation and have higher morale values than to kill innocent civillians just to rid a town of insurgents. Although this war might just prove otherwise.

The idea is that we're better than them. Like you said, innocent civilians in Najaf. In fact, why don't I just ask this: Do you feel that it would be OK, even condoned, to go out of our way to kill innocent civilians?

To counter roachboy, then in general:
I would suggest a re-reading of the 9/11 Commission Report, Chp. 10, pp. 334-337.
True colonialism would be a situation of foreign exploitation of culture, science, government, resources, society, etc...Popular elections are due in January as well, barring interference.

I don't believe it is actually anyone's plan to level Najaf, ala Hiroshima. I believe the official objective is to stop the insurgency, stop Sadr from encouraging lawlessness, and in the process leaving the infrastructure standing.

It seems like, for the time being, we'll just have to wait for the situation to reveal itself. There is talk from Sadr's people of the ceasefire being a 'smoke-screen' by Allawi for some other hidden, 'conspiratorial' purpose. I've also read the ceasefire having something to do with a covert operation on the part of the Americans, and involving the Iranians.

-----------------------------------------
update -
Iraqi Troops to Take Lead In Fighting Sadr's Forces

The Iraqi army - not the Americans - are preparing to battle the insurgents in Najaf...
This is a showdown between Allawi & Sadr over the future of Iraq.
My money's on Allawi.

Again, you are ignorantly and baselessly linking Iraq to 9/11. The 9/11 Commission has found no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11.

But there is evidence proving the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq. The point being asserted is that, Al Qaeda is actively operating in Iraq.

Ok... now what? No seriously: Now... what?

All I got refuting the "none of these has turned out to be accurate" is a statement of "theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center." This, in turn, points to footnote 73, which states "DOD memo, Wolfowitz to Rumsfeld, "Preventing More Events," Sept. 17, 2001. We review contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda in chapter 2. We have found no credible evidence to support theories of Iraqi government involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing. Wolfowitz added in his memo that he had attempted in June to get the CIA to explore these theories."

Essentially page 334-337 talks of some concerns in the week after 9/11/2001 that Iraq was involved. But nothing came of that. It also has no statements concerning WMD attainment, or attainment attempts. The only region that these pages state Saddam were a threat to was Iraq, in which some concerns were expressed over north and south military operations against the no-fly zones.

So... now what?

A. We, and by we, I mean the citizens of the United States of America, are better than that. And, quite frankly, I resent the insinuation of anything contrary to that point.

B. Iraq was not involved in the attacks on 9/11/01.


The argument could be made tha Al Qaeda is actively operating in the United States. Should we attack, and level, Cleveland?

The arguement could be made, and is obviously true. However, it's all in a different context.

I fail to see how. However, I am open minded, and would be very interested to hear your explaination of how attacking Iraq, because Al Qaeda is actively operating there, is any different than attacking our own cities for the exact same reason. Sadam was undeniably an evil ass, yet he never sanctioned, or at least there is no evidence to support that he sanctioned, Al Quaeda.

He aided Al Zarqawi, a senior Al Qaeda operative. But that's not the point I made by the context comment. Al Qaeda is actively engaged in Iraq, they aren't here in Clevland. We are in a position to do something about it right now there, not so much the case here. And for the record I wasn't implicating that as justification to carpet bomb Najaf or any other Iraqi city, I hope for my sake that I didn't imply that or directly say it.

Perhaps not, but that's what I infered from your comment. It could be a simple case of your original post being "positioned" among other posts where it could be misread, or misconstrued. Regardless...it's late, and I'm willing to let this drop. Lest I end up having to send myself a strongly worded warning. ;) Agreed?

*extends hand*

Yup, leveling it is a great idea. Look at how effective the leveling of the wtc was at forcing the infidels to submit to fundamentalism. wooohooo!! vicious cycles are funny :o

The popular gist of the situation of Saddam & WMD (Pre-Iraq War), as you know, was the possibility of a openly hostile dictator like Hussein selling his WMD to terrorists, or maybe a friend of a terrorist, or maybe the cousin of a friend of a terrorist, etc...then what? Is the possibility of a terrorist WMD attack cause for alarm? Is it reasonable to expect that such a thing will happen? Is the world supposed to wait for something to happen? What is the world supposed to do about terrorists with WMD? The 'problem' with 9/11 is that now ANYTHING is possible. The worst case scenario that one can think of, because of 9/11, is now in the realm of possibility. Maybe the US is over-reacting to those attacks, but maybe not.

Okay....so the rational is to eliminate any possible source of threat to our United States. Understood. Regardless of the impossible nature of this directive, is the fundamental hypocracy created by its very existance. When the context is changed to the viewpoint of an outside entity(read the rest of the world) the threat BECOMES the United States. We are on the cusp of making ouselves a rougue nation through invasion, and retaliation tactics. Is this truly a direction of progress, or does it lead down a road we may wish to avoid.....that is the question we need to answer, is it not?