Split Iraq Up?
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Split Iraq Up? - 8/23/2008 2:51:21 PM
|
|
|
Admin
Posts: 62
Score: 0
Joined: 10/22/2004
Status: offline
|
Guys, based on the news today that Barak Obama picked Joseph Biden as his vice president if Obama becomes the next president, I figured I would run a new online poll about this sensitive issue to all Iraqis. I figured it would be a good topic to discuss here on the forum as well, just an idea :)
< Message edited by Admin -- 8/30/2008 10:17:07 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 8/23/2008 10:23:34 PM
|
|
|
NeoBabylonian
Posts: 149
Score: 2
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
Great idea mate, love to break our habits of being totally oblivious and uncaring about anything outside Iraq - but who can blame us with so much dying daily? It's pretty damn impressive nonetheless we still able to continue ourlives and occupy them with other stuff.
Anyway, that seems like a grea idea, and a breath of fresh air. I'd however just like to know who is Joseph Biden and what make him a sensitive matter for Iraqis?
Take care my friend. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 8/24/2008 10:21:54 AM
|
|
|
Admin
Posts: 62
Score: 0
Joined: 10/22/2004
Status: offline
|
NeoBabylonian
I was trying to find a the draft for Biden's proposal online but I wasn't able to find it, however here is a link to an article that talks about his insane idea!
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/30/asia/letter.php
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 8/25/2008 10:59:52 PM
|
|
|
NeoBabylonian
Posts: 149
Score: 2
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
Salaam bro
Reading it, and actually thinking about it instead of pinpointing all the negatives of splitting up my homeland, I must say it does not sound that insane to me to be honest - not as insane as thinking after all that's happened, Sunni and Shia will be openly willing to reconcile in the next few generations, which can take all of our lifetimes to impliment.
The way I see it is, despite all the false, sadistic and exploitatious nature of the propoganda that has been used to rip us appart from our Shia/Sunni brothers, it is undeniably prevalent. In short, Shia and Sunni in Iraq hate each other so much, that it will take at least 50 years to get back together after what happened - no matter what we more enlightened souls outside the killzone say.
Appologies if I am sounding very pesimistic, but I am only speaking from my and my family's experience. Maybe instead of having this pipedream of reuniting and re-enlightening all the Iraqis, which is practically impossible in the dreadfull conditions our country men are in inside our motherland, maybe we should actually let them have what the want. Iraqis are going to be divided if we like it or not. If Iraq isn't officially split by the Americans, the militias and terrorists will do it instead - with a lot more porr innocent souls lost.
Our main concern in my opinion at the moment is to try reducing the murder rate by as much as possible. Relying on "security crackdowns" by a sectarian government - where each member of the ruling coalition has their own militias that keep them in power and go unpunished due to the chaos - is ridiculous. It will never happen. Maliki can announce as much security Crackdown against Al Qaeda terrorsist, but his militias will remain. They will harm Sunnis, and the Sunnis turn to Al Qaeda, who feeds of hate. Recently the awakening has been outlawed and shunned. They'll have nowhere to go than Al Qaeda now because of hate and fear for survival, and Maliki again has an enemy/excuse to oppress Sunnis, and also chaos so his militia's dirty deeds go unnoticed.
We should actually constitutionalise and facilitate this split-up of Iraq. At least that way, we can regulate mass-immigration and resettlements, and afford the people as much rights and protection as we can. Otherwise they'll be displaced anyway, and we have no nowlege of how many children murdered or women raped by gangs, militias and one of the many armed groups out there. Infact, I'll be happy if there is no central government control, but three different countries altogether. Our Shia can welcome in Iran to rule them or build military bases all they want, our Sunnis can become a pro-west nation under awakening influence, like Jordan, and invite the US to build military bases to protect them from the pro-Iran Shia region, or they can choose Al Qaeda and become a new Afghanistan. And Kurdistan were always smart and united enough to look after themselves.
The West will provide each region with extremely closely monitored votes for who should initially rule them, and they'll be left to their own. The borders should be considered international borders, and any attacks from one state to another considered international aggression - and it's up to the international community to intervene, like with Russia Vs. Georgia.
Sure more bloodshed will follow within regions for control - but no matter how bad, it'll never reach the current levels of barbarity. Besides, that approach did work in the former Yugoslavia - as they aren't butchering each other like we are anymore.
We are past the point of no return brother, and our fate is that of Yugoslavia. After speaking to some friends who recently arrived from Iraq, I realise reconciliation is impossible  . The longer we hold on to that pipe-dream, the longer the current situation will continue my friend. Nothing happened in the past five years, and nothing will in the next 50 years except more deaths.
But a united Iraq is not totally ruled out. Maybe when we stop seeing each other as enemies, and truely have the will inside us to reconcile and reunite, the walls will come down just like Berlin.
Take care my friend.
< Message edited by NeoBabylonian -- 8/26/2008 12:08:41 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 8/27/2008 9:58:47 PM
|
|
|
forstier
Posts: 28
Score: 3
Joined: 2/18/2008
Status: offline
|
I am not a Biden fan – but I respect his voice in foreign affairs. His success and influence lie in not jumping to conclusions, but in seeking out advice and counsel, digesting it well, and then reaching a well supported, studied conclusion.
I think that most treaties and agreements from political leaders are great at occupying space on paper. But to the extent that they fail to represent the hearts and minds of the people they are worthless at leading to peace.
If the peoples of Iraq wish to have a great Nation, it must be important enough to the majority of them to be of one mind in that. More important perhaps than evening the score from centuries of history. From that strength and unity comes he protections from the dark side of influences from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the US.
Failing that, does a breakup into smaller states bring peace? Maybe, but not if each breakaway piece requires foreign protector. No amount of intervention can of itself establish strength. The British labored 140 years to establish democracy in India. The breakup of India and reduction to peoples more of one mind has only served to make the split the source of the most irritation between two nuclear powers since WWII.
A breakup it seems would only succeed if it
1. could guarantee the rights of minorities.
2. Do so because of the goodwill of peoples and not because of policing by foreign powers.
3. Provide a means to peacefully remove minority populations to their safest location.
A sovereign country would still not exist unless it had the resources and will to maintain civil order, respect human rights, and be sufficiently endowed to protect it’s sovereignty from neighbor states.
I think there is a great work to be done in Iraq or its parts, a work that remains mostly unstarted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 8/28/2008 8:33:25 PM
|
|
|
Muhsin65
Posts: 9
Score: 0
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline
|
forstier
I like your reply and I wanted to add that we all want the iraq we grew up to know and not the iraq today that is imposed upon us by outside forces such the united states and iran.
the only reason to divide the country into three logical region is to give the politicians who hate each other the power and money to sustain their power and prolong their influence on their territory
these warlords were created by outside financing and with them in control and a bit of hate injection between people you create an atmosphere of hate and later separation. The Biden plan embolden this separation and puts a legal framework and justification for it. This will create three times the government overhead therefore wasting money and resources and in the same time weakining the country beyond repair
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 8/29/2008 10:33:21 AM
|
|
|
Iraqi100Percent
Posts: 85
Score: 6
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: Iraq
Status: offline
|
Guys, this is a good topic. The idea of spliting Iraq into 3 regions is not new and has been circulated way before Biden announced it. I believe the reason behind making this public by Biden is to test the public and get the public including the Iraqis to think about it and what that means.
you see the puzzle is coming together. From the US it makes perfect sense for these reasons
- easier to manage smaller regions, less casualties
- more overhead to the government means country needs to sell more oil or borrow more from the world bank
- all three regions still have to go through the US to sell their oil therefore they are still dependent on the united states
- make sure Iraq is gone for good from the map and it's no longer a threat to Israel
- planned by republicans and executed by democrats, you can start pointing fingures at each other, both guilty but people have no other party to elect and you are forced into accepting reality and choosing between one evil or the other
from the Iraqi side
- politicians love it, more people in government over paid and do less
- political leaders have already established their political and regional power base in the south center and north
- more corruption and no accountability
- easier to rig an election when you have to deal with smaller population
- a perfect reason to ethnicly cleanse Iraq and re-draw the map
form the Iraqis, the people
- less fighting, perhaps
- at the end Iraqis will blame themselves not knowinig that this whole plan was put into actons at least 5 years ago
you see that the road blocks and concrete fences have already been implemented, the plan has been in action slowly and it's underway for the doom day when it becomes official. 3 new countries will emerge, Iran is happy, the united states is hapy, israel is happy and now let's focus on another country
as I have said before Iran doesn't care about Israel or Palestine nor Iraq. They are doing this for their own good and at the end them and Israel will end up the winners in this regional conflict. Iraq is using the Arabs and their problems to push their own agenda and use us
great topic though
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 8/29/2008 2:35:06 PM
|
|
|
NeoBabylonian
Posts: 149
Score: 2
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
Hey this website's up and running again - almost. Thanks so much for coming back too Iraqi100Percent - hopefully the more people we get, the more will be attracted.
Don't forget to thank me for being one of the first and the one who kept faith all along. You can thank me by buying me a portion of chips with lots and lots of vinegar. 
Ok, enough of my greed, yeah I really do think this is a great topic. Maybe Admin should change the name, or move it to a thread called "Split Iraq Up?" or something, maybe we'll get even more interest that way.
Anyway, I totally agree with Iraqi100Percent on than neither Iran nor the US (Israel and US are very strong allies, best to consider them and their interests as one in this case) really want what's best for Iraq. Both simply want to further their own agendas out of this. Both want political influence and oil. Everyone knows the oil in the world is badly depleating, and is starting to find alternatives. However, whoever controls the very last oil supplies will have an unrivaled bargaining chip - for a short time at least. America is trying to spread democracy. However, having the best political media networks, it can easily budge popular opinions to it's advantage.
Iran is using the cover of Islam to get it's agenda rolling, despite most Iranians' say they'll convert to Zoroastarianism if there government lets them, which it isn't to keep it's facade to the Arabs, so they seem to have at least one thing in common with us. Still Zoroastarianism is still fast spreading there. Iran wants to have influence all over the middle-East. The age of open, obvious empires is over - instead we have more covert government influences and alliances nowadays.
I believe they are now fighting it over Iraq, and both want near-exclusive influence. Iran is using the insurgency - both Sunni and Shia, and there inter-fighting and chaos - to undermine the US, and promote it's brand of "Islamism". Also in this chaos, they are able to get their puppets into our parliament - using less than democratic methods as virtuallty every one of Iraq's current leading coalition faction has it's own armed wing. The anarchy takes focus away and screens there political assassinations etc...
The US is using it's troops and also trying to increase some Arabist Sunni's political influence to counter the Maliki government. This badly failed.
I also believe that like the US voters, we Iraqis can't but have to choose the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately I don't think Iraqis can ever make an Iraq uninfluenced by other countries - even if we all reconcile, forgive and forget. We just have no chance against those outside forces, and the most realistic thing in my pesimistic opinion is biting the bullet nad choosing the lesser of two evils. In my opinion, I say that is definately the US, we have been oppressed, and cut of from the international community with sanctions, for far too long now, and anything will be better than being under the influence of an Axis of Evil country - and maybe even being labeled as one again.
Sorry this sounds very depressed, but I just don't believe we'll ever be able to do that. It's like History repeating itself from the time of the Greek-Persian and then Roman-Persian wars over the area - and interestingly the Iranian side is using the same tactics as Cyrus The Great, with the Babylonians in Iraq at the time. 
< Message edited by NeoBabylonian -- 8/29/2008 2:50:38 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 8/29/2008 2:43:16 PM
|
|
|
NeoBabylonian
Posts: 149
Score: 2
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
Talking about Republicans, here's a little thing from my YouTube Channel that might cheer you guys up (yeah I have a very silly name - but better have a silly name and be taken seriously than an intelligent name and not be taken seriously). It's from a video-game I recently bought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrbnw-ydSGE
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/1/2008 12:20:06 PM
|
|
|
Muhsin65
Posts: 9
Score: 0
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline
|
I like the video but what is Zoroastarianism ?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/1/2008 3:41:47 PM
|
|
|
NeoBabylonian
Posts: 149
Score: 2
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
Glad you liked the vid bro. 
Zoroastarianism is the old Persian religion before Islam.
Shows that the Iran's government only uses Islam as a cover to spread it's influence in the Middle-East. It is fooling us into fighting for it - thinking they are our friends/allies.
This tactic of lies and deceipt is exactly the same they used throughout history, just like where they took over babylon.
King Nabonidus (called Nabuchadnessar according to Prophet Daniel) was ruling Babylon, and helping the Assyrians fight the Persians. He spent oasis Temâ in Arabia.
The Persian King Cyrus The Great (****got) suddenly changed religion like overnight - to the Babylonian's religion, and became apparantly very strict. Both he and his son (who he left in charge of Babylon and his army) were not very religious. Cyrus spoke in the heads of the Easgila religous establishment in Babylon, persuading them he is their friend as he in now their same religion and very religious. He got them to turn against Nabonidus, and preach the people against their own king at sermons. They even helped dig channels to divert the water away from the Euphrates river and weaken Babylon's natural water barrier defence. At the New Year's festival Akitu, when the soldiers were getting bussy celbrating and getting drunk, the Babylonian traitors allowed the Persian army in and even helped them kill the Babylonian soldiers.
Cyrus went to the throne as the real kind under devine command, who liberated Babylon from the evil and corrupt Nabonidus. Years later, Babylon turned into the version described in the Holy Bible under the Achaemenid's rule.
See any similarities with today's Iraq? Funny how history repeats itself and we never learn from it.
Take care my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/1/2008 6:52:04 PM
|
|
|
Muhsin65
Posts: 9
Score: 0
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline
|
that is very interesting but if hitory teaches anything it teaches us to not to trust people other than your own
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/2/2008 10:16:09 PM
|
|
|
Angel Touch
Posts: 4
Score: 0
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
|
Splitting Iraq?
I could see splitting Iraq if the goverment was set up more like the US goverment. Each State has it's own laws and rules. Then the entire country is ruled by the President that is the federal goverment. Each state has 2 represenatives it sends to the capitol to help make laws for the goverment. Everyone in the US votes once they become 18. Men and women vote. Splitting Iraq like the US would work IF it was done like that. To devide into more of 3 countries and each with its own laws may not work in the long run as a country devided will soon fall. We would still need a president to rule over all of us. Democracy has it's own checks and balances system.
Deviding Iraq has it's pro's and con's you realy need to think it over. The US has people from all over the world and they manage to get along. I know there is a lesson there somewhere. Progress means change and change may or may not be a good thing.
The law enforcement in Iraq needs to be better trained and equiped. Then they will be better able to take care of the Iraqi People. Father is a Major with Iraqi Police and he has said many times they needed better equipment and more training.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/2/2008 10:26:38 PM
|
|
|
Angel Touch
Posts: 4
Score: 0
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
|
Who is Joe Biden ?
http://biden_senate.gov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/3/2008 10:52:51 AM
|
|
|
Iraqi100Percent
Posts: 85
Score: 6
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: Iraq
Status: offline
|
thanks Angel for the link. Here is an excert from wiki on Biden plan
Biden is a leading advocate for dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states.[28] In November 2006, Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, released a comprehensive strategy to end sectarian violence in Iraq.[29] Rather than continuing the present approach or withdrawing, the plan calls for "a third way": federalizing Iraq and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis "breathing room" in their own regions.[30] Iraq’s political leadership united in denouncing the resolution, and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad issued a statement distancing itself.[29] Senior military planners cautioned that a partition policy would require American military presence of 75,000 to 100,000 troops for years to come.[28]
I am wondering if the kurds are celebrating this, they are probably going to vote for the democratic party during the elections in Iraq later this year
the Shia will vote for Rafsangani or even Sistani, anything that ends with Ani will do.
The sunna will of cource vote for Saddam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/3/2008 12:46:28 PM
|
|
|
NeoBabylonian
Posts: 149
Score: 2
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
Angle Touch: Hi, welcome to the site - I never read anything from you before, so I'm assuming your new here. Welcome again, and thanks for joining.
Before, I was the biggest advocate on this site of better arming and training of the Iraqi Police and Army, but now to be honest I gave up hope on that. I mean on the streets of Iraq the police are armed with RPG-7's and PK's as it is, which is ridiculous for even SWAT Teams or armed police groups. The sense behind it is being as well armed as the insurgents, but for God's sake, police with rocket launchers? I think the government is trying to shallowly show that Iraq indeed is under control, and there is no need for Martial Law - and the police are on their own able to look after Iraq like any other country in the world (despite being armed with rocket launchers and still not winning). They are just trying to get the Americans out to make room for the Iranians.
Here in the UK, all the police are unarmed with firearms - just batons, tasers and whatnot - only specialist armed response units (out equivalent to the US SWAT Teams) have guns. However, 2/3 police officers undergo full military basic training, many with specialisations later on, before joining the police. My point is I think we should disband the police - who are already armed like soldiers, except for the advantages of proper uniform or gear, and retrain them all as soldiers. Later when Iraq does finaaly calm down, and the most of our troubles become some idiot throwing a brick through your window (rather than a grenade) and shouting "Ibin something or another" at you, then will we need police, which can come from former soldiers. Till then Martial Law is the only solution. The Maliki's government's pathetic attempts to show all's well are fooling no one, just costing lives worth a million times his pathetic, useless existance.
My logic, is as long as this government stays, all Iraq will remain a messed-up quagmire the world and his wife are trying to exploit. At least with a Kurd state and a Sunni state, his complete rule is challanged, and if they want to achieve anything, they must negotiate - rather than get their armed wings to slaughter any opposition, while no-one knows or cares anymore.
Each is responsible for their own land - and we wont get otherwise usefull achievements like those of Iraqi Awakening undone by Maliki disbanding them - not wanting any Sunni presence that's not Al Qaeda and undermines his excuses for targeting them not his own private armies.
And as someone said about splitting Iraq up making us poorer by more money going into corrupt bureaucrats - that is already happening. Normal people are not seeing a penny out of all the foriegn aid and Iraq's wealth - it is all going into the pockets of Malkik and the government who are spending more on their armed wings (Jaish Al Mahdi/Pishmarga) than the official Security Forces. At least then, each will expose the other's corruption out of competition.
Iraqi100Percent: LMAO at Sunnis choosing Saddam and Shia anyone ending with ani!
But at least if we split Iraq up, each of those rivals will get a voice in their districts at least. For example, the Sunni wont feel unrepresented and anatagonised by an oppressive regime and resort to terror, further perpetuating the vicious cycle of ethnic/sectarian hate and Maliki's Quagmire effect to hide his Militia's assassinations. Then what excuse will Maliki have to not target the militias? There will be virtually no Sunnis to cause terror - and Maliki wont have an excuse to not do something with his militias.
I think will happen is the Shia militias will be absorbed into the army of Shia country, Sunni awakening militias into Sunni country and the smart Kurds already managed to absorb the Pishmarga into their regulars. At least that way it'll all be official, and someone will have to answer for every faction's trouble-making.
Also like I said, people are already being internally displced into seperate sectarian pleace. This is happening under horrendous conditions, so at least by making it official, there will be international observation, support and regulation when this is officially facilitated.
Take care my friends, and hopefully peace for Iraq one day.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/3/2008 11:10:34 PM
|
|
|
SoggyMilk
Posts: 7
Score: 0
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
|
I dont' know about this "Splitting Up Iraq" thing.
I mean, if most of the problems were based on ethnicities intermingling, and causing problems with each other, because of hatred of each other, then..... sure, why not?
But that's not the problem.
The problem is, that in most areas (that I go to), electricity is not continuitous, and clean water is based upon chance.
Instead of focusing on " 3 Ethnic States ", they should focus on getting the basic necessities made readily available for the masses. Make sure that it's stable, and make sure that it's continuous. While we're at it, how about getting rid of the tribal links that plague politics? You give the government of Iraq money, it doesn't trickle down to the lowest man, no. It trickles down into a tribal/family line, and stays there, leaving the few with money, and many without it. And what about the corruption which is prevalent in the government? Seriously, there's more things that need to be fixed which can save LIVES, and put some brakes on the fighting, try solving those problems first. Only after that should you focus on other trivial aspects, such as which color the street median's going to be, or what color the drapes in the Embassy is going to be. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/3/2008 11:39:26 PM
|
|
|
Iraqi100Percent
Posts: 85
Score: 6
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: Iraq
Status: offline
|
Why is it ok for the united states to be united after their civil war and in Iraq we are told by occupiers that we are being split into 3 peices and we have citizens welcoming the plan. Why is it backwards when it comes to Iraq and it's ok for other countries to decide how we live. So what? we let the british draw our boarders and now we ask the americans to redraw these corders to make more countries out of the country that the british gave us? for Gods sake we had a country before the british write in english and before the mayflower reached america!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/4/2008 9:43:54 AM
|
|
|
NeoBabylonian
Posts: 149
Score: 2
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
SoggyMilk: I can't agree with you any more bro, but the thing which seems to be the biggest problem - or rather the excuse of the coalition is the violence. "We can't give poor Joe Mo Somebody electricity and water if there are goons with AK and rockets sawrming around the neighbourhood fighting with one another and authorities". What I personally was hoping was maybe these factions officially being seperated might deny them excuses of continued violence - Maliki will have to admit that it is not only Al Qaeda that's terrorising the country - but his government's private army. The Sunni tribes will be forced to give up there dumb victimisation mentality as an excuse to fight, and realise some really are puppets of Al Qaeda amongst them.
Iraqi100Percent: Very true, and very well said bro - I truely respect and admire your pride and love for Iraq. However, again I'd just like to explain my logic (if there is any ). In the US civil war - there were just two sides, Yankees and Confederates fighting over slavery or something. They engaged in relatively open warfare, each leader leading his army and the Yankees thankfully won. In Iraq, it's a totally different - messed up beyond most people's understanding even. As I see it, a puppet coalition with armed wings for each faction is ruling - with Iran influencing both. Sunni terrorists use victim mentality to blow up car bombs in the middle of cities killing horrendous amounts of people, and the Kurds intigrated the racist Pishmarga into there official wing of Iraqi army and is engaged in forced evictions of Arabs and Turkmen for ethnic cleansing of some cities (which happen to be oil-rich).
All the while Iran is arming both Sunnis and Shia (Iran-made G3's in Ar Ramadi), and using the violence to futher it's agenda. US is refusing to do any reconstruction as long as there is violence, and in the rare occasions they force Maliki to fight his militias (such as Basrah Dec 2007) we miserably loose and end up with more Iranian involvement.
I really can't see any way out of this my friend, so that's why I'm supporting the division. In principle, I totally back you that it's wrong, but what other options do we have? It's like a last resort. Kicking Maliki and his Warlord companions and replacing them with secular politicians will never work - the Shia wont let it ever happen after Saddam, and Sunni wont ever be happy with the status quo. More Sunni representation via more voting will never happen thanks to the antics of the militias, and the Kurds will never be happy for thousands of years till they get their own country, just like before the Arabs arrived.
I'll totally support any other feasible fix to this other than splitting Iraq up, but I really can't see any.
Take care guys.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/8/2008 3:06:34 AM
|
|
|
SoggyMilk
Posts: 7
Score: 0
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
|
But Neo, that's the truth. We really can't go about giving out money, or helping people out if it's going to come right back around and bite us in the ass. Let me give you an example:
I buy a generator for a neighborhood, appoint someone to man it, refuel it, and maintain it, and then 2 weeks later and IED goes off in the same neighborhood, hitting one of my vehicles.
I really can't do anything to help anyone in Iraq untill the violence stops, because I refuse to be used. I refuse to extend a helping hand to the innocents in the mulhallas when they allow Foreign Fighters and Jaysh Al Mahdi to come in, and stage battles in their neighborhoods. Show me that you want to get rid of those ****s, and I'll do my best to do what I can to help, because I KNOW the government of Iraq is a P.O.S. farce.
In the months that I've been here, there's been buildings that in the States, would've been finished in abtou 3-4 months. The bridge on Highway 1 isn't even finished! It just stays there in the half-built state, and it's been there since I came to Iraq.
My point, is this...
I want to help, because that's a part of my personality. I take pride in helping people, and making them feel better. But I can't help when I'm afraid for my life, and have to fight.
And what's this about Maliki's private militia?
I never even heard about this before.
baghdadmylove: I know how you feel about innocent people being killed. And I won't lie, there's been situations where crimes have been committed and innocent people killed. Just look at Haditha. But it's occured on both sides. I'm generalizing (in regards to what I consider terrorists) here, but look at 9/11, 2000+ innocents killed in one strike.
I've never took a look at a civillian and shot at them. If I ever fired my weapon, it was because there was an enemy combatant, and he was trying to kill me, or another person in my group. But even with all this, innocent people do get killed, but that's a part of war, and a part of fighting.... That people get killed. Innocent or not.
I don't know what you mean by America being in charge of Iraq... If you care to expand on that, I'd appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/8/2008 11:29:24 AM
|
|
|
NeoBabylonian
Posts: 149
Score: 2
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
Soggy Milk: I do totally agree with you man, and I can't blame you to an extent. However, you must also apprectiate how it's a vicious cycle. The Iraqi civilians are helping terrorists more and more because they see them as hope to improve their lives. They see since the Americans came, nothing has changed - infact things got worse. They see a foriegn army come invade their country, disrespect their people, like those sick torture pics, antagonise them all by treating them all as suspects and use them almost as human shields (US Hummers rarely exceed 40mph on the highways, and force all cars to stay a distance behind to keep themselves safe from carbombs. However, traffic builds up behind, and a suicide car bomb scumbag who can't care less who he kills wont hesistate to blow that whole traffic jam and kill most people). And while they are living in hell, US soldiers live in air-coned baracks skateboarding and sunbathing in the desert. From that perspective, it looks more like colonisation than liberation if that makes sense.
Then there are those self-styled freedom-fighters like the Wolverines in that film Red Dawn, who promise to drive the Americans out and give them a better life - as oppressive as it may seem, they'll get some safety. Hope you can see how people will make those mistakes, as i am sure they'll do in the US if the same happened to you. Now, for that, you refiuse to help, so they see it as punishment and support the militias more, and the cycle continues.
That's why I believe the best hope for Iraq is to cut that cycle ASAP. The biggest obsticle is the Iraq government, and the second is the US's tolerance of them. Malkik's Private Army like I said is what I refer to the armed wings of the Iraq's ruling coalition government. Each political party got an armed wing AKA militia, who do the less democratic things to keep them in power. Furthermore, the governmental wing vetoes any action against there colleagues. Like the cancers they are, they also replaced all the previous professionals in circles of governments with people of their parties - so the whole administration is bent, dirty, corrupt and above all, completely impotent at what they do.
That's why the Iraq army lost humilitaingly against the Mahdi militia, and now their representatives in government are accusing the Awakening Councils - who were fighting Al Qaeda - of being Al Qaeda and disbanding them. Al Qaeda will again thrive, so the majority Iran-controlled government can start fighting them and not have to deal with their militias.
In my honest opinion, the longer this goes on, the more it plays into Iran's hands, who will show the US is useless, as well as increasing their presence right under your noses.
Anyway, sorry for this massive rant, but I think there's only ever two ways to break this cycle.
Either attack Iran, take out their government or at least show them their involvement in Iraq is unappreciated by both the US and Iraqis, sack Maliki's government or start backing a more secular nationalist government. Not only is this utterly impossible, thanks to that tard Bush's provocation with Russia, whose Iran's allie. It will be impossible to go to war with Iran without Russia's support somehwhat, or they might get involved too. Also what do we do when Iran's government falls? Hope we already learnt that replacing one extreme with the very opposite extreme will always come bite us in the ass. Replacing Soviet government in Afghanistan with extreem opposite - the Taliban didn't work. Replacing Saddam's Secular Arabist rule with extreme religious pro-Iran government didn't work in Iraq, so replacing the Ayatollahs with Hitler-worshipping self-style Aryan Supremacist anti-Islamists wont work with iran either.
In the very unlikely event that this option is feasibile, we'll get an almost completely pro-west, democratic Mid-East.
Other option is split Iraq up. That way, at best we'll get a pro-West Sunni Awakening-ruled state, a pro-West Kurd State, and a pro-Iran Shia state.
At worst is a pro-Al Qaida Sunni State, Pro-Russia commie Kurd state, and a Shia state absorbed into Iran.
This option is actually possible unlike the other, and at least we'll get no worse result if we leave it at the status quo - plinking away at Iran and it's militias and Al Qaeda while they fight one another.
Take Care bro, and sorry again for the massive rant.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/12/2008 5:28:51 PM
|
|
|
baghdadmylove
Posts: 3
Score: 0
Joined: 9/6/2008
Status: offline
|
SoggyMilk: I meant that America is trying to be in control of everything in Iraq....I mean on the news they always say how President Bush isn't sure what to do about a certain situation in Iraq. Why should he make the decision when it isn't his country? The thing is that he shouldn't be given the chance to think that he has control of the people over there because that is what everyone wants.....control of the world in a way. I know I sound confused but it's kind of simple really. I hope you understand my views.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: new website poll - 9/13/2008 7:05:50 AM
|
|
|
NeoBabylonian
Posts: 149
Score: 2
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
baghdadmylove: I totally agree with you there, and welcome to the site - sorry for forgetting to welcome you from your first post. I'm very happy we're getting new members after so long. Again thanks for joining in and posting, and welcome.
Anyway, yes, Iraq should be more independent and run by it's people, however, despite being the complete retard puppet he is, George Bush is in my opinion better runing Iraq than Maliki. Frankly, we need somesort of American intervention to balance the power, otherwise the current adminstration - a ruthless puppet to Iranian interests - will damage Iraq much more than it is already being.
As I see it, he is either completely impotent and unable - or more sinister, unwilling - to reduce the violence in Iraq. As long as there is violence, the crimes of his cronies which ensure he remains in power by silencing desenting voices will continue. Also corruption and there theft of billions of our money will continue, because no one cares about those when 50 people die everyday. Also, their friend Iran is happy the US is being undermined.
Hope that makes sense lol. That's just my take on it, I believe if the Iraqi government was able to run Iraq, they would have at least redused the terrorism now.
Take care.
|
|
|
|
| |
Main Page
Log In
Register
Printable Version
