BLOG VIEW  |  HEADLINE VIEW
SUBMIT NEWS  |  RSS FEED  |  SEARCH



One of the big arguments for the pro-war crowd is that we just can’t leave those Iraqis alone after invading and setting off a world of chaos. They believe that if we were to leave Iraq, the country would immediately fall apart and many people would be killed. They, of course, never address the fact that people in Iraq are dying all the time and our presence seems to be doing little to stop the violence and some have even argued that a US presence actually encourages violence because our favoritism creates more tension. I agree with the latter.

Now comes some interesting evidence that maybe the “lets keep the troop in Iraq forever” crowd is completely wrong. In September, British troops pulled out of Basra and moved to an airport near the city. Some may find the results surprising, I don’t because it makes complete sense.


Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday.

The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters.

"We thought, 'If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?'" Binns said.


Well, there you go. The British believed – and have been proven right – that having their troops patrolling only caused more violence because people were trying to kill them. They theorized that if you took out the guys everyone was trying to kill, then less people would try to attack. Pretty simple.

Iraqis now patrol the center of the city and the British rarely enter. The situation is much different in Baghdad because Basra is a Shiite city, while Baghdad is a mix of Sunni and Shiite, who have been fighting for centuries. Pulling troops out might not have the same effect as in Basra, although even the British have been surprised at the incredible drop in violence.


British officials expected a spike in such "intra-militia violence" after they pulled back from the city's center, and were surprised to find none.


The British have been in talks with the most powerful Militia in Basra, the Sadr militia, in an attempt to lure them into being part of the political process. They hope, in the end, that the militia will support the Iraqi security forces.

In other parts of the country, the US has backed the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq over Sadr, even though Sadr has stronger support among the Shiite masses. The ISCI has been losing support due to its ties with the US government and Iran, as well as a reputation for being corrupt and employing death squads. Basically, the US backed the wrong horse and the British example is the way to go for peace. But it is not surprising because the ISCI represents upper class Shiites, while Sadr represents the lower class. We know who the US always chooses in that situation.


As long as the U.S. remains in Iraq, its alliance with ISCI will help entrench the party in the country’s governing, security and intelligence institutions. Its only true challenger remains the Sadr militia, which despite its ruffian credentials and bloody role in sectarian reprisals enjoys broad support among Shiite masses. Their rivalry now takes the form of a class struggle between the Shiite merchant elite of Baghdad and the holy cities, represented by ISCI and the Shiite urban underclass.

This struggle, more than the sectarian conflict or confrontation between Anbari sheikhs and al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters, is likely to shape the country’s future. The most plausible scenario is a protracted struggle for power between these two movements, marked perhaps by temporary alliances, such as is presently in force.


Unlike the British, we have selectively chosen the weakest and least popular of the two forces. In the end, it simply won’t work. The best solution would be to engage both Shiite groups, instead of picking a side. The worst solution is to back the group that does not have the support of the street and create even more resentment between the organizations. Right now the two forces have called a truce to fight the surge.

Of course, none of this takes into account the Sunnis, which the US has been arming to fight al Qaeda. That is also pissing off the Shiites. Each day our policies are creating more and more tension and anger and we are throwing extra weapons in as a bonus. Ugh. Acceptance and negotiation or willful ignorance with force? It sounds like we have taken a completely different approach than the British.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

CyberEdZ

CyberEdZ

United Kingdom
January 2005

NOV 20, 2007 06:55 PM

Zarth said:

CyberEdZ said:
I don't remember the Canadians having much to do with the 'cobbling together' of Iraq. Oh, you've seen your error. Pity I spotted it before you had a chance to correct it, eh ??


Yeah. I'm so mortified.


So much so, in fact, that you utterly failed to address my main points in the post above.

Zarth said:

CyberEdZ said:
And I believe photoline's argument is that the insurgency would end when the occupation did. No mention of a cessation of hostilities, just of the insurgency. It may indeed be replaced by a civil war, but that does not negate the validity of his argument. Perhaps in future you could stick to arguing about what we actually write, rather than what you think we did.


That's just semantic quibbling, and you know it. Going by your interpretation, what he said would actually have been entirely meaningless.


As, indeed, is your argument, that seems to run along the lines of, "Well, we f**ked up this country so bad it needs us to stay here and f**k it up some more".

If Saddam had been dethroned by a peaceful, internal, political movement then the break-up of Iraq along tribal lines would have almost certainly been the outcome - as you allude to, it was merely a convenient formation to allow easier British rule. The fact you began the break-up with violence is what has caused the continuing escalation of needless murder.

Mike Huckabee for President !!

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Intercourse, PA
January 2006

NOV 20, 2007 07:00 PM

CyberEdZ said:

RudieCantFail said:

CyberEdZ said:
...we don't need fictional Hollywood blockbusters to tell us (yes, I'm implying you do).



Then you're sorely mistaken. American students are taught about the Second World War in our schools. We also have television programs and museums as you do which teach us about the conflict. We also have grandparents who served in the military during the time, as well as survivors of the Holocaust who relay to their descendants the horrors and the triumphs of that conflict.

I'll concede that the Second World War didn't affect the American civilian populace as deeply as it did the British, as we were not subjected to physical attack as the UK was (though that fear was omni-present in the American psyche at the time). However to say the American populace is ignorant of the sacrifices made in World War II, of both our troops as well as the other Allies, is a fallacy, and I'll kindly thank you to get down from your high horse.


Really ?? Hmm. I was merely going by the word of my friends Emily (a US teacher with whom I shared a flat in Prague) and Gita - neither of them put much store in the history lessons taught in the schools they attended, and it was their assertion that most Americans learn such things from the movies. I guess you must have enjoyed a better education than them, eh ??



Either that or they chose not to take advantage of the educational materials and opportunities available to them on the subject. I would argue that the fact that movies, fictional television programs, and documentaries are still being made for US consumption is evidence that it is a topic which we are still concerned about. For every American that goes to see Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan and leaves the theater without thinking anymore on the subject, there is at least one that leaves who has his or her interest piqued and will seek out non-fictional literature and programs, or visit a museum such as the National Holocaust Museum.

Zarth

Zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

NOV 20, 2007 07:01 PM

CyberEdZ said:
So much so, in fact, that you utterly failed to address my main points in the post above.


The part where you shouted, "Look at me, I'm a troll!"

No, I spotted that.

CyberEdZ said:

Zarth said:

CyberEdZ said:
And I believe photoline's argument is that the insurgency would end when the occupation did. No mention of a cessation of hostilities, just of the insurgency. It may indeed be replaced by a civil war, but that does not negate the validity of his argument. Perhaps in future you could stick to arguing about what we actually write, rather than what you think we did.


That's just semantic quibbling, and you know it. Going by your interpretation, what he said would actually have been entirely meaningless.


As, indeed, is your argument, that seems to run along the lines of, "Well, we f**ked up this country so bad it needs us to stay here and f**k it up some more".


Show me where I've said any such thing, ever. Seriously, I'd be fascinated.

CyberEdZ said:
If Saddam had been dethroned by a peaceful, internal, political movement then the break-up of Iraq along tribal lines would have almost certainly been the outcome - as you allude to, it was merely a convenient formation to allow easier British rule. The fact you began the break-up with violence is what has caused the continuing escalation of needless murder.


So, in other words, you agree with me.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

NOV 20, 2007 07:06 PM

CyberEdZ said:

RudieCantFail said:

CyberEdZ said:
...we don't need fictional Hollywood blockbusters to tell us (yes, I'm implying you do).



Then you're sorely mistaken. American students are taught about the Second World War in our schools. We also have television programs and museums as you do which teach us about the conflict. We also have grandparents who served in the military during the time, as well as survivors of the Holocaust who relay to their descendants the horrors and the triumphs of that conflict.

I'll concede that the Second World War didn't affect the American civilian populace as deeply as it did the British, as we were not subjected to physical attack as the UK was (though that fear was omni-present in the American psyche at the time). However to say the American populace is ignorant of the sacrifices made in World War II, of both our troops as well as the other Allies, is a fallacy, and I'll kindly thank you to get down from your high horse.


Really ?? Hmm. I was merely going by the word of my friends Emily (a US teacher with whom I shared a flat in Prague) and Gita - neither of them put much store in the history lessons taught in the schools they attended, and it was their assertion that most Americans learn such things from the movies. I guess you must have enjoyed a better education than them, eh ??



Well, they must have been pretty shitty teachers, or liars, because their statements were pure bullshit.

Chainlink

Chainlink

Christmas Island
August 2005

NOV 20, 2007 07:29 PM

CyberEdZ said:

RudieCantFail said:

CyberEdZ said:
...we don't need fictional Hollywood blockbusters to tell us (yes, I'm implying you do).



Then you're sorely mistaken. American students are taught about the Second World War in our schools. We also have television programs and museums as you do which teach us about the conflict. We also have grandparents who served in the military during the time, as well as survivors of the Holocaust who relay to their descendants the horrors and the triumphs of that conflict.

I'll concede that the Second World War didn't affect the American civilian populace as deeply as it did the British, as we were not subjected to physical attack as the UK was (though that fear was omni-present in the American psyche at the time). However to say the American populace is ignorant of the sacrifices made in World War II, of both our troops as well as the other Allies, is a fallacy, and I'll kindly thank you to get down from your high horse.


Really ?? Hmm. I was merely going by the word of my friends Emily (a US teacher with whom I shared a flat in Prague) and Gita - neither of them put much store in the history lessons taught in the schools they attended, and it was their assertion that most Americans learn such things from the movies. I guess you must have enjoyed a better education than them, eh ??



Pffft, bigoted.

joker_

joker_

Windsor, CA
October 2005

NOV 20, 2007 08:48 PM

CyberEdZ said:

Zarth said:

CyberEdZ said:
I don't remember the Canadians having much to do with the 'cobbling together' of Iraq. Oh, you've seen your error. Pity I spotted it before you had a chance to correct it, eh ??


Yeah. I'm so mortified.


So much so, in fact, that you utterly failed to address my main points in the post above.

Zarth said:

CyberEdZ said:
And I believe photoline's argument is that the insurgency would end when the occupation did. No mention of a cessation of hostilities, just of the insurgency. It may indeed be replaced by a civil war, but that does not negate the validity of his argument. Perhaps in future you could stick to arguing about what we actually write, rather than what you think we did.


That's just semantic quibbling, and you know it. Going by your interpretation, what he said would actually have been entirely meaningless.


As, indeed, is your argument, that seems to run along the lines of, "Well, we f**ked up this country so bad it needs us to stay here and f**k it up some more".

If Saddam had been dethroned by a peaceful, internal, political movement then the break-up of Iraq along tribal lines would have almost certainly been the outcome - as you allude to, it was merely a convenient formation to allow easier British rule. The fact you began the break-up with violence is what has caused the continuing escalation of needless murder.


Mike Huckabee for President !!



You are an idiot. You're arguing with people who agree with your view in bold up there.

What site do you think you're on, little green footballs? Does this appear to be a site that would have the majority of members voting for Mike Huckabee? It doesn't matter what you've done and learned, the basic misunderstanding of the popular social views on a site like this indicates a huge dearth in reasoning ability.

Instead of trying to learn something about the people you're attempting to have discourse with you're immediately assuming they have no knowledge of what you've learned. Unaware of the fact that there are a number of people on these boards who are more educated and accomplished than you, you're spouting off at the mouth as if you "know" something.

Your bigot blinders are not impressing anyone.

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

NOV 20, 2007 09:24 PM

Zarth said:

You think you should get credit because you had to study to become bigoted?



Ha ha. Educated stupid.

Zarth

Zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

NOV 20, 2007 09:26 PM

joker_ said:

CyberEdZ said:
If Saddam had been dethroned by a peaceful, internal, political movement then the break-up of Iraq along tribal lines would have almost certainly been the outcome - as you allude to, it was merely a convenient formation to allow easier British rule. The fact you began the break-up with violence is what has caused the continuing escalation of needless murder.


Mike Huckabee for President !!


You are an idiot. You're arguing with people who agree with your view in bold up there.

What site do you think you're on, little green footballs? Does this appear to be a site that would have the majority of members voting for Mike Huckabee? It doesn't matter what you've done and learned, the basic misunderstanding of the popular social views on a site like this indicates a huge dearth in reasoning ability.

Instead of trying to learn something about the people you're attempting to have discourse with you're immediately assuming they have no knowledge of what you've learned. Unaware of the fact that there are a number of people on these boards who are more educated and accomplished than you, you're spouting off at the mouth as if you "know" something.

Your bigot blinders are not impressing anyone.


I also like the bit I took the liberty of underlining, as if those of us in the United States who opposed the war from its inception still share in some collective responsibility for it more than some (presumed) war opponent in Great Britain does. That's in step with the rest of his jingoistic ranting.

And also a sign of bigotry. Like thinking "Islam" is incompatible with "declarations" of human rights.

For the record, of course, I'm not of the persuasion that liberal democracy can (or even necessarily should) be transplanted into the present Middle East, especially by force. Liberal democracy required centuries and a great deal of bloodshed to evolve in the West, and it remains exceptionally fragile (and bigotry doesn't help sustain it) even here. It's not a particularly "natural" form of government, looking at the historical or anthropological record, and it's a mistake to believe otherwise.

It is, of course, the form of government most consistent with maintaining the accountability of authority, and for that reason alone is therefore the most desirable, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, just because democracy is the best form of government it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a good one.

But the reasons that it can't be imposed wholesale upon populations to which it is alien have less to do with theology than with culture and ideology. The former changes and the latter may be challenged. Seventy years ago, one might have observed that European culture was essentially incompatible with democracy and human rights. And seventy years ago, one would have been largely right. And it wasn't because of "Islam" then, either.

Also for the record, my comments to photoline were about pointing out how naive it would be to expect a withdrawal to produce an effusion of peace and rainbows and puppies in a free Iraq. I said bupkis about whether or not a withdrawal should occur.

soulcompromise

soulcompromise

I'm lost
November 2006

NOV 20, 2007 10:24 PM

I think we have to give them enough time to set up a government that isn't dependent on their religious views. That's been a way of life their and in their government religion sunni shi'ite etc means everything. There are way more shi'ites than sunnis or is it the other way around) and they don't have an electoral system or bicameral legislature. So when one is in power the oher freaks out and kills everybody. As humorous as this may sound it means that we are obligated to help police the situation until their forces have the training and other necessary objectives completed so that they can stop the war and we can go home.

Zarth

Zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

NOV 20, 2007 10:47 PM

And the caricature of the ignorant but earnest American with the bigot was arguing in his imagination makes an appearance in fact.

Yay.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

NOV 21, 2007 01:49 AM

CyberEdZ said:
Yes, I know many muslims (mera nam Eddie hey).


You know, if you intend to impress us with your deep knowledge of Islam by posting a sentence in Hindi/Urdu, you might try actually spelling the words right.

Ascanius

Ascanius

South Royalton, VT
October 2006

NOV 21, 2007 04:21 AM

CyberEdZ said:

RudieCantFail said:

CyberEdZ said:
...we don't need fictional Hollywood blockbusters to tell us (yes, I'm implying you do).



Then you're sorely mistaken. American students are taught about the Second World War in our schools. We also have television programs and museums as you do which teach us about the conflict. We also have grandparents who served in the military during the time, as well as survivors of the Holocaust who relay to their descendants the horrors and the triumphs of that conflict.

I'll concede that the Second World War didn't affect the American civilian populace as deeply as it did the British, as we were not subjected to physical attack as the UK was (though that fear was omni-present in the American psyche at the time). However to say the American populace is ignorant of the sacrifices made in World War II, of both our troops as well as the other Allies, is a fallacy, and I'll kindly thank you to get down from your high horse.


Really ?? Hmm. I was merely going by the word of my friends Emily (a US teacher with whom I shared a flat in Prague) and Gita - neither of them put much store in the history lessons taught in the schools they attended, and it was their assertion that most Americans learn such things from the movies. I guess you must have enjoyed a better education than them, eh ??



My education was good enough to teach me not to accept the unsubstantiated claims two people make about an entire nation. Oh, and that Scots can't do anything but get drunk and fight at football matches. Seriously, my Scottish friend Garry told me that, so it's got to be true, right? I mean, Garry and I lived together for like two months, so he must have been right.

Zarth

Zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

NOV 21, 2007 06:18 AM

mingol said:

CyberEdZ said:
Yes, I know many muslims (mera nam Eddie hey).


You know, if you intend to impress us with your deep knowledge of Islam by posting a sentence in Hindi/Urdu, you might try actually spelling the words right.


Didn't you know Islam is incompatible with declarations of correct spelling?

I didn't start out believing that - few fresh faced grammar-school students do. I came to that conclusion after years of study and reflection.

wereduck

wereduck

I'm lost
July 2007

NOV 21, 2007 06:29 AM

joker_ said:

CyberEdZ said:

Zarth said:

CyberEdZ said:
I don't remember the Canadians having much to do with the 'cobbling together' of Iraq. Oh, you've seen your error. Pity I spotted it before you had a chance to correct it, eh ??


Yeah. I'm so mortified.


So much so, in fact, that you utterly failed to address my main points in the post above.

Zarth said:

CyberEdZ said:
And I believe photoline's argument is that the insurgency would end when the occupation did. No mention of a cessation of hostilities, just of the insurgency. It may indeed be replaced by a civil war, but that does not negate the validity of his argument. Perhaps in future you could stick to arguing about what we actually write, rather than what you think we did.


That's just semantic quibbling, and you know it. Going by your interpretation, what he said would actually have been entirely meaningless.


As, indeed, is your argument, that seems to run along the lines of, "Well, we f**ked up this country so bad it needs us to stay here and f**k it up some more".

If Saddam had been dethroned by a peaceful, internal, political movement then the break-up of Iraq along tribal lines would have almost certainly been the outcome - as you allude to, it was merely a convenient formation to allow easier British rule. The fact you began the break-up with violence is what has caused the continuing escalation of needless murder.


Mike Huckabee for President !!



You are an idiot. You're arguing with people who agree with your view in bold up there.

What site do you think you're on, little green footballs? Does this appear to be a site that would have the majority of members voting for Mike Huckabee? It doesn't matter what you've done and learned, the basic misunderstanding of the popular social views on a site like this indicates a huge dearth in reasoning ability.

Instead of trying to learn something about the people you're attempting to have discourse with you're immediately assuming they have no knowledge of what you've learned. Unaware of the fact that there are a number of people on these boards who are more educated and accomplished than you, you're spouting off at the mouth as if you "know" something.

Your bigot blinders are not impressing anyone.



SHUSH, YOU!! He's British, therefore better than us colonists, I mean, Yanks.

He's right about our lack of education on World War II, too! No one in this country ever (EVER!!!!) learns about it, it's not like it's pounded into our heads in every American History class from elementary school all the way through college. Hitler? Mussolini? Who the fuck are those people? I have no clue, because I'm an ignorant Yank!

He's also right about Islam, too, because it's not like there are large populations of Muslims in Western society who still hold their beliefs, but aren't blowing shit up every day, those barbarians!

The only thing he was wrong about was the Mike Huckabee thing. After all, everyone on here keeps saying, "RON PAUL 2008", so what does that tell you?

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Now, because I'm American, I gotta go see who the new contestants are in "American Idol" while listening to some Toby Kieth! YEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWW!!

LostLucy

LostLucy

USA
December 2006

NOV 21, 2007 11:38 AM

CyberEdZ said:

RudieCantFail said:

CyberEdZ said:
...we don't need fictional Hollywood blockbusters to tell us (yes, I'm implying you do).



Then you're sorely mistaken. American students are taught about the Second World War in our schools. We also have television programs and museums as you do which teach us about the conflict. We also have grandparents who served in the military during the time, as well as survivors of the Holocaust who relay to their descendants the horrors and the triumphs of that conflict.

I'll concede that the Second World War didn't affect the American civilian populace as deeply as it did the British, as we were not subjected to physical attack as the UK was (though that fear was omni-present in the American psyche at the time). However to say the American populace is ignorant of the sacrifices made in World War II, of both our troops as well as the other Allies, is a fallacy, and I'll kindly thank you to get down from your high horse.


Really ?? Hmm. I was merely going by the word of my friends Emily (a US teacher with whom I shared a flat in Prague) and Gita - neither of them put much store in the history lessons taught in the schools they attended, and it was their assertion that most Americans learn such things from the movies. I guess you must have enjoyed a better education than them, eh ??



so you conclude on the N=2 that we're all ignorant?

I guess your mind is still clouded from the Queen's recent anniversary party. what a smashing gal...

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR by orbro

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR

There's like a half-hour of video here. You should do a vlog. More ...

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #74

Last Comment 4 HR

Parents who are accustomed to carrying guns around may not think anything of going into child-related... More ...

An Encounter With Jonathan Shaw's Narcisa

Last Comment 5 HR

thanx gurlz... u rrrrrule!! xx jonathan shaw and narcisa More ...

SuicideGirl: Bob

Bob

Terrible Woman's MySpace Alias Leads to Teen's Suicide.

Last Comment 20 HR

But, it's delivered poorly...really poorly. Unless, it's not a joke, in which case, it's a good place... More ...

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08 by Shalome

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08

Oh my fucking god. More ...

Filtering the Truth: Religion - Friend or Foe?

Last Comment 11/30/08

I'm just going to skip over the mass orgy that's going on and say my piece: I don't think religion is... More ...

SuicideGirls Interview: Stan Lee
SuicideGirls Interview: Laura Dern
SuicideGirls Interview: Joy Division's Peter Hook