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?

Sigh
 

:rolleyes: When will the muslims lose religion like the rest of us?

Zarqawi has also operated and has operatives in Jordan, Sudan, Saudi-Arabia, Iran and Libya. Does this mean we should also go to war in these countries to get rid of him? No. With the current mindset in the Middle East and the history and way people are raised there will always be animosity against western culture. Taking a step in the direction of disposing of a dictator and giving people an honest chance to be able to lead their country in the direction they want is worth the prices that we have paid. Everyone is saying that Iraq is a puppet government of the US. Actually being here there are quite a few restrictions that are placed on us now after the Transition of Authority that occured on June 28. While the US still advises Iraq its not to the extent that everyone thinks.

Why are people arguing over the justification for invading Iraq? This isn't a thread to discuss that.

i'm afraid that the linkage between the situation in najaf now and the justification for the war in general as a sub-topic was my fault--mea culpa---as i made an offhand characterization of the war (or two--or more...) in the course of talking about najaf and was called out on it..whence the veer. there would be an relation between how you understand the war in general and what you think should happen in najaf, i suppose--to me it seems a way to reduce complexity.

the fact of the matter, in general, have been laid out:
najaf is a significant shi'a holy site.
there is a significant shi'a opposition to the american-installed regime in iraq
this opposition has as much to do with the type of faction-manoevering that had characterized iraqi politics in general for some time as it does with the occupation itself, i think.
the question of whether there is at this point an explicitly shi'a political block in iraq, or if the shi'a population identifies itself as often in clan or other terms, i do not know.
but i assume it is in sadr's interest to try to create or expand a political block rooted in shi'a identity, and that the milita is a military instrument for doing that.
which makes the question of why sadr would be based in najaf interesting.
the worst thing the americans could do, it seems to me, is to attack/level najaf because not only would it further sadr's political interests but it would also become a lightening rod for sunni populations to mobilize as alongside the religious elements in the shi'a population on religious grounds--and this would transform iraq into a religious conflict in ways that it has not up to now been (in the real world----this has no contact with the right's seeming inability to distinguish a secular from nonsecular regime when it comes to the middle east)

the bad consequences are already unfolding for the americans on this:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...FB092237F4.htm

I didn't mean "Eye for an Eye", just pointed out that whoever leveled the World Trade Center, certainly did not give a shit whether there were innocent civilians there.
Also, nothing we do over there is going to ever make some of those people like us.

how did this war get to be about making the iraqi people "like us"?
if you really think that, then your position amounts to admitting that the americans are a colonial occupation force in iraq, and this in the strict sense.
do you really want to argue that?

Are you really willing to surrender all moral high ground to win a battle in a war that has virtually nothing to do with the WTC attacks? Why damage the buildings when we could just lob neutron bombs and install Dr. Evil as president for life?

If nothing we ever do is going to make them like us, then why are we there again? Trying to save people that don't care about us? Uhh... yeah.

And having Al-Qaeda operatives or indeed any operative in any nation doesn't automatically create cause that the country has ties or is supporting them. Al-Qaeda supposedly has operatives in the U.S., in the UK, and elsewhere around the world. Are those countries supporting them? No way in hell, but that is the similar causation being exhibited here.

I hear you, and I understand the world is pissed at the US.
But fundamentalists killed 3000 people in the US, not Russia, not France, not Britain, not Austrailia. We didn't do this to them, they did this to the US.
I'm seriously not trying to sound the right-wing, rhetorical, neo-conservative, holier-than-thou battlecry, but what the hell is to be done about this??

Will I have to look forward to some war my son will have to fight and possibly die in, in 15-20 years because of these fundamentalist maniacs?

Part of the reason U.S. citizens engender so much dislike from the rest of the world do is due to their ignorance of the global situation. All of those countries you listed, plus additional ones you haven't (e.g., Spain and Greece), have been dealing with catastrophic terrorist attacks on their home soil for over 20 years now.

Suddenly the whole world is an oyster for the taking when it finally gets enough media play to make the citizens here feel affected--but it's been going on for a long time.

Unfortunately....I would have to answer Yes at this point. We will likely STILL be fighting this "War on Terrorism " in 20 years, unless we find the forsight to at least attempt to understand the underlying cause of such incredible hatred.

I understand that they have, but there has been nothing close in history to the magnitude of death and destruction (both in a human life toll and a economic toll - $20 Billion) of 911 brought about by the fundamentalists.

The question I ask myself is what can be done to stop this from happening again, not just to America but to anyone, anywhere. As radical as invading Iraq is, the methods to which fundamentalists use to express themselves are quite extreme as well.

Yeah, its a pretty bleak thought, too...
Regarding the 'underlying causes' you mention, might it not be conceivable that at least some of the problem lies with the methods the fundamentalist mindset chooses to address its own problems? Do they have a right to be angry with the US and others, or are they expressing frustration and rage at their own shortcomings and failures as a society in general? As one example, this comes to mind: I wonder for instance how it must feel to the Iraqis for them to have to see one of their own, the respected Ayatollah Sistani, in a British hospital being treated for heart disease.

I think you believe their extreme methods require or justify an extreme response.

I think that their extreme methods are not very effective in terms of long-term change in their favor. But I think that, like their ineffective extreme methods, our similarly extreme (and people demonstrate their similarity by justifying one with the other--that is, some people seem to believe the US response is a just response; a response that is neither too little of severity nor is it too much.) methods will also be ineffective in the long run.

In my experience, people seem to distance themselves from extreme viewpoints and actions; conformity and stability are much less stressful than unpredictablity. I have not met anyone who condoned or supported terrorist acts.

But I think the same concepts apply when thinking about state sanctioned acts.

I don't see how state sactioned extreme behavior will engender popular support. It also seems to make us look violent and unstable to outsiders. So I don't support it as a strategy.

Alright, if we home grow crazy ass terrorists here (see Mcveigh), how in gods name can we stop them from being created overseas? I think the United States needs to re-think the entire concept of a "War on Terror". Treating the symptoms ain't gonna cure the disease.

"Treating the symptons" is a hell of a lot better then being complacent and defensive. Bring the fight to them.

"Treating the symptoms" and not curing the disease as well as being complacent and defense do exactly the same thing - a whole lot of nothing in the end.

I dont think very many people go out saying being complacent - people who choose other methods do so often willingly and actively.

And yes, indeed, much of the world doesn't like the U.S. sudden realization of fundamentalism as though it were brand new is because this has happened for centuries even millenia.

Europe has had problems with fundamentalists - from such old things as burning people at the stake for witchcraft to simply plain fundamentalism.

Islam fundamentalism isn't exactly new in many nations - Greece has seen the spread of Islam in ancient days from the Ottoman Empire for example. Spain was where much of the fighting and the Reconquest and other things were done centuries ago. England has long dealt with this often because of colonial ties in the area. Russia has long long long fought them - indeed, the USSR once held many Islamic areas that didn't exactly like their masters.

IMO the reason a 'war on terror' can never be won is that as long as people are desperate and seek to change people's minds in a big loud way, there will be those who feel their only choice is terrorism in anyway. Be it simple pipe bombs under cars, or giant truck bombs leveling buildings, or plane hijackings, bombings, whatever - so long as people are desperate and act as they do, those types of things can and will happen.

Because what's really different from a person who is desperate and goes out to shoot people to make a statement and a person who uses a bomb instead?

Good points, but the problem with terrorism leading up to 9/11 is that it was going from frustrated lone assassins and whispered conspiracies (see L. H. Oswald and Timothy McVeigh/Terry Nichols, respectively) to organizations with a large, and growing, membership (see al Qaeda). I do agree that a "war on terror" is like fighting Hydra, but al Qaeda et al. need to be dealt with. As I see it, war with Afghanistan was a step forward, war with Iraq was two steps back.

Organizations like Al-Qaeda have been around a long time - indeed, people are mistaken to believe Al-Qaeda is the only big organization out there. In many many nations, terrorist organizations have been around and have long been mistaken as just solo jobs (at least, that is the perception in America).

Nowadays people say "oh gahd it's al-qaeda" on anything when, in fact, terrorist organizations are all around in every nation. Remember the gas attacks in Japan's subway? It's not Al-Qaeda but they have their own organizations who did it.

But here's the point though: Who makes up those organizations? Those same people who would and could do those solo jobs. You don't find regular people to do terrorist jobs. You find those people who are desperate to do it.

It's those smaller people who make up the bigger organization. And there's always the though that even if you do take out leadership like Osama bin Laden and others - who were the ones who were flying the planes? Not the big leaders, the lower level ones and their scrubs who were willing to do it.

i dont think it makes sense to start thinking about these organizations at the level of the organizations themselves--rather at the trajectories that drove people to join them--linked to particular conditions, in particular spaces, with particular causes for them---and consider what might be changed or removed of these conditions. unless you do that, there will always be a war, it will always be unwinnable.

it is starting to look as if the americans are being chumped by allawi on najaf:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...A34B03946E.htm

allawi changes the rules after al-sadr had agreed to a truce earlier in the week--the americans are in a position to flatten one of the holiest shrines for the shi'a population--there was a way out, but allawi seems to want the americans to take the hit for destroying najaf.
what gives here?

Your anti-american bias is showing, again.

Al-Sadr broke the agreement by refusing to disband his militia. He also expressed his desire for 'martyrdom or victory' subsequent to the ultimatum. It seems he still has a chance to give up, as Allawi awaits his final word.

I would think that whatever the Americans do at this point will be characterized by Al-Jazeera in the worst light possible.

powerclown: "anti-american biais"? because of the many articles i could have cited here, i happened to choose one from al jazeera?

would the same information be better this way?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...286368,00.html

or this way, with the ambiguities of the situation all pinned back on al-sadr?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/in...D-IRAQ.html?hp

take your pick, it all comes to the same thing.

this is a kind of complicated situation facing the americans in najaf at the moment--i still think that going into the shrine would be a fiasco for everyone. i think that the americans are being manipulated into taking the fall for allawi's political ambitions--if you have a counter argument rooted in the facts of the situation, then make it--i would be interested in reading it.

but if opposing the war from the outset and continuiing to think it a sad, brutal farce makes me anti-american, then so be it.
but throwing around that label makes you kinda foxnews, powerclown, and frankly i think that is worse.

but enough of this--post a counter interpretation and muster some sources and we'll see what's there.

Can't do much in this situation except let the iraqi's handle it themselves. I only wonder why if the shrine is so important the other iraqi's dont get more upset about radicals using it as a bunker. Bringing their weapons inside and probably firing from inside. How holy can they possibly consider it when they're shooting at people trying to kill them from the shrine. They'll get up in arms if a bullet puts a chip in the paint but its a perfectly fine location to kill people from.

At the very least, "it is starting to look as if the americans are being chumped by allawi on najaf" is a pretty inflammatory statement and an editorialization of the situation, on your part. The link from al-Jazeera was an ironic touch, as well.

I don't see the situation as the Americans being 'chumped'. I see it as them going out of their way to respect the shrine, and follow the Iraqi's lead. Its a tough enough situation as it is - they are damned if they do or don't. The "Fallujah Brigade" that the Americans set up in that city as a show of respect and deference has blown up in their face, and is now being disbanded due to Iraqi corruption and the kidnapping and murder (by insurgents) of a respected police chief. Expect renewed fighting there soon.

The fact that the shrine in Najaf is being violated by a group of lying, cowardly, power-seeking, pseudo-religious scumbags - who hide behind and defile their own religious structures - says much about what they are. The fact that the Americans haven't already levelled the place says something, as well.

powerclown:
how do you know that these are "pseudo-religious" folk?
you know any of them?
al-sadr is an imam for fucks sake....
and you cannot be surprised to find elements within the shi'a population finding it expedient to mobilize on religious grounds--wherein lies the problem, of course. but i said this a bunch of times above.

that aside, today things are shifting again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/in...D-IRAQ.html?hp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...287251,00.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...F98CCFB299.htm

it is the conflicting reports business that interests me.
but there is nothing to be done except wait a bit and see what happens.

Man, you said a mouthful there...

al-Sadr is to religion, as Boy George is to music.
The posterboy for the theory of separation of church and state.

again, what positions you as qualified to speak about al-sadr's religious committments exactly?
seriously, fill me in--i have some questions for you if you know what you are talking about.

No, Im not an expert on Sadr, the faith he follows, or his family history.

From what I understand, he's a relatively low-level cleric who used his ayatollah father's popularity (and martyrdom) to amass a lawless, illegitimate militia, then went about killing off his rivals in ensuing power struggles. What makes him the more loathsome in my eyes is the fact that he's doing all his power plays under the guise of religion, a la the insane fundamentalist mullahs in Iran. As far as Im concerned, he less a holy man than an outright criminal.

So I've thought about this and I have finally found a reasonable comparison, we all remember Agent Orange from the Vietnam war, it defoliated the jungle and in a round about way turned it into a parking lot. Here's a site if you need more info. on AO:http://www.lewispublishing.com/orange.htm
another
http://www1.va.gov/agentorange/
and another
http://www.lyghtforce.com/Homeopathy...ie_orange.html

Now I know this is not the same as the Shrine in Najaf, but if you are talking about American blunders well turning Najaf into a parking lot would rank right up there with the Americans spraying AO on the jungles, but also on their OWN troops who were in the jungles. Has America not learned it's lesson yet?

If more links are needed I have many in waiting.

Jay

How can yoy be so sure that his plays are "under the guise of religion"? The man is fighting for his country, I mean come on if a foreign force was occupying your country would you just sit back and let it happen? I know what I'd be doing and sitting down would not fit the equation. Of course in your eyes he is an outright criminal because he is opposing your army, but is he a criminal, POW, or this new catageory that I still don't recognise "Unlawful Combatant"?

Terrorism is an international problem, and deserves an international solution. Only by working with allies, and by working together to produce new ones, can we fight this evil. Our current policy of isolationist aggression does nothing to bring the global community to our side, and we CANNOT survive on our own.

President Bush should accept the UN invitation, and share the burden of securing and rebuilding Iraq with the rest of the world. We need to be viewed as part of a whole, not as independent conquerers coming to develop a colony.

well, if the object is really fighting this thing called "terrorism" then the american drive to flatten najaf, surround the imam ali mosque etc. seems about the stupidest possible thing to do. because if this thing called "terrorism" is about the mobilization of people against american-style capitalism in all its guises, including military, on religious grounds, then bushworld is moving straight into a self-fulfilling cycle.
unless they prefer having "terrorism" in this form around as an enemy to justify an endless war against an invisible enemy--in which case maybe najaf is an element of the bush re-election campaign? but that seems nuts...

an update from the guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...289115,00.html

and something from al jazeera about american rockets damaging the imama ali mosque today (so the real downward spiral is at hand...)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...F398E3FA31.htm

I don't think anyone seriously believes that Najaf should be turned into glass. At the time AO was not considered to be harmful (which is hard to believe given that it was mixed with diesel fule), whereas nowadays you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks a 1000 lb pound won't hurt people.

Dropping bombs on Najaf would be disastrous, both in Iraq and abroad.

First off as far as Iraq goes, President Bush said it best ,"People seem to think because France isn't there, we don't have a coalition." He is exactly right fuck France, I can't knock them for serving their own interests, but they are definitly bastards for the way they have handled all of this. America and it's coalition can handle the situation in Iraq, and frankly I think it would be bad news bears if France or the UN showed up, they are a bunch of incompetant panty-wastes.

If fighting terrorism is the deal, then yes we do need the rest of the world. However by one way or another whether it be appeasement (Spain, Phillipines(sp)) or enabling (Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia(also South American terrorism with the cartel's) the world is doing a very shitty job. For the most part Europe has no resolve, and many people globally can't get past the naive mentality that we need to understand "where these poor souls are coming from" /turns off bleeding heart.

So all I can say is grow a sack, fill it with some balls, and take it to these assholes who want all of our white pasty honky ass'd-selves dead.

No, believe it or not, other countries have been fighting terrorism for decades, if not centuries

The Philippines have been fighting extreme muslims for decades

The Spanish have been fighting extreme muslims for centuries since its spread over a thousand years ago

Europe has fought its spread since the days of the Byzantine Empire, the Crusades, and wars against the Ottoman Empire

Fact is, it hasn't been as big of an issue because their nations haven't been as affected with it in years

Anyways, getting the entire world involved on a thing which is OUR nation's issue, not necessarily others, doesn't make much sense when your own argument is that fighting iraq is our issue, not others (when most disagreed)

Fair Enough Zeld. But at the time those would largely seem to be internal struggles, in the context of the post I was referring to "The war on Terra". Us American's have been lucky that this hasn't been an issue until now. Also I think the reference to the Ottaman/Turkish problem in Europe is off base, in the here and now America and Europe alike seem to be dealing with the same export terrorists, it's no longer an issue of internal struggle, it's the radical's Jihad.

I have the perfect solution. We should leave immediately and completely disassociate ourselves from the Iraqi government. Then completely refuse to take any part in the insuing conflict. Everything would be the same, except we wouldn't be the bad guys. Just completely ignore the middle east all together. The situation over there wouldn't improve or decline, so we might as well. Iraq is another Israel. Nothing we do will help. We should just leave.

The problem with export terrorists unlike previous attacks/invasions is that these terrorists aren't part of any specific nation.

IMO the biggest issue we have right now is that our hunt is trying to go for leaders - the problem I personally see is that going for leaders is no good if people are willing to take their place. You have to remove the supply of willing fighters and suicide bombers - and that means removing the reasons and ability for them to join.

I don't come here pretending to show solutions to this issue since this is true with ever sort of paramilitary operation/guerilla action - the Nazi's couldn't stop the French Resistance from sabotage during the Nazi occupation and their methods of stopping the Resistance from activity really only lead to more people willing to join up.