http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=926038

A muslim shrine was blown up & now all hell has broken loose from the hell that was already in place.

These different sects of Islam seem to have no issue with blowing up mosques & then in reprisal a wave of death execution style, but if some cartoons are published then the shit will really hit the fan.

It was one of the holiest shrines of Shia Islam that was blown up. I suspect that if St. Peters Basillica were blown up, that the Catholic Church would react with outrage, and possibly violence. Most of all, however, it is a sign of how difficult it is to try to establish a government unifying people who have many decades and even centuries of hostility toward each other.
It is not known who actually blew up the mosque. It may well have been insurgents trying to start a civil war. Unfortunately, it is all to easy to do that in the aftermath of a brutal regime that oppressed the majority of the people. Their is a hunger for revenge that hasn't yet faded. The wounds are still fresh in the minds of many Iraqis. It will take many years to rebuild and heal Iraq. Right now, the only thing unifying the factions in Iraq is distrust of the Americans. If we were to leave today, I think civil war in Iraq would be inevitable.
We opened up this can of worms when we invaded and deposed Sadaam Hussein. I think that our lack of planning for the aftermath of the war has contributed signifigantly to the current situation. It would be wonderful if the U.N. would take on a more signifigant role in rebuilding the country, but given the way that we went in that is not realistic. It will fall to the United States to try to fix this, and I am not sure that it can be done.

The depth of the quagmire encountered in the Middle East gets worse daily. Iran is going to fund Hamas? What next?

It does appear that they're on the brink of civil war.
How do we respond to this or should we?

All morning we’ve been hearing/watching both Shia and Sunni religious figures speak out against the explosions and emphasise that this is what is wanted by the enemies of Iraq- this is what they would like to achieve- divide and conquer. Extreme Shia are blaming extreme Sunnis and Iraq seems to be falling apart at the seams under foreign occupiers and local fanatics.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

It may have been fanatics, it may have been the US trying to divide and conquer. We probably will never know. It doesn't make sense for religious fanatics to do it when a muslim land is occupied by a foreign invader. Such things almost alwys cause an act of unity regardless of differences. But then again religious fanatics don't make sense.

What benefit would the US have in blowing up the shrine?

I already posted. Divide and conquer. Its one of the oldest tricks in the book. The US is hopelessly bogged down with no end in sight. They have utterly failed to even set back the Iraqi fighters.

But throw ina dash of infighting and let all the expirienced and large ones kill each other off and it will be a cake walk.

If civil war sets in, and it appears to be that way now, do we get the troops out of there or do we leave them in-country and chance another Khe Sanh or Dien Bien Phu?

I'd like to hear opinions on this.

I say we immediately secure the airport(s) and get out of there.

Keep in mind it will be millions against 138K. Not good odds.

I think if a civil war breaks out - it will be a nightmare for the US not a benefit. Our troops would be hopelessly outnumbered & would become targets too.

The Kurds would split & try to start their own state which would risk invasion by Turkey.

I don't think we can leave, as bad as it sounds I think we'd have to significantly increase the number of troops in-country.

At this stage we'd be better off giving the damn place back to Saddam! He'd get it in order within weeks

Originally posted by DrewM

I don't think we can leave, as bad as it sounds I think we'd have to significantly increase the number of troops in-country.


Based on what we know from history, our troop count would have to be increased significantly. Additionally, we would have to pull out all the stops to guarantee support, infastructure and logistics for those troops which would probably result in hundreds of thousands if not millions of dead civilians.

I'm not sure the american people would swallow that nor would the world, given we had a chance to just get out and decided not to.

It's a tough call but history repeats at our own peril.

Yes, you are probably right.

Now it won't be called "cutting and running" we simply have to pull out...

It's unlikely the imagined civil war will happen. The clerics - even Sadr are calling for calm & restraint. There will be anger in the streets but it will die down.

A civil war in Iraq doesn't really make much sense. The shia already have power & therefore don't need a civil war & the sunni's are such a minority that could never hope to win such a war. For those reasons, there is no specific gain for a civil war & it's unlikely one will ever occur.

I suspect that one of the problems we will face is Iranian "volunteers" joining the fight on the side of the Shia in Iraq. Another, is that the Kurds will declare their independence of Iraq, and Turkey will most likely get involved. A third problem is the probability of Syrian "volunteers" coming in on the side of the Sunnis. A civil war could easily become a much bigger conflict.
I must concur with the idea that pulling out is the best we can do right now. If we stay we will need to increase the troop strength greatly, perhaps to as much as 500,000 troops. The only way to do that is the draft, and that is a sure loser with the American public.

Interesting theories here...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060223_whose_bombs_were_the.htm

Iran to take over larger portions or

US+ Israel

"The division of Iraq has been recommended in a number of documents that were prepared for the Defense Department. The Rand Corporation suggested that “Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab divides should be exploited to exploit the US policy objectives in the Muslim world.” The 2004 study titled “US Strategy in the Muslim World” was to identify key cleavages and fault-lines among sectarian, ethnic, regional, and national lines to assess how these cleavages generate challenges and opportunities for the United States.” (Abdus Sattar Ghazali; thanks Liz Burbank)

This verifies that the strategy to split up Iraq has been circulating at the top levels of government from the very beginning of the occupation.

A similar report was produced by David Philip for the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) financed by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation a conservative think-tank with connections to the Bush administration and the American Enterprise Institute. According to Pepe Escobar:

“The plan would be ‘sold’ under the admission that the recently elected, Shi’ite dominated Jaafari government is incapable of controlling Iraq and bringing the Sunni-Arab guerillas to the negotiating table. More significantly, the plan is an exact replica of an extreme right-wing Israeli plan to balkanize Iraq—an essential part of the balkanization of the whole Middle East.”"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Also let us not forget the backlash of Iraqi government against the British thugs beating on kids and the new Abu G photos. Quite the unifier of Iraqs against the occupation. Now its over shadowed.

500 follows the al quadia line like a map.

1) He claims the US wants civil war in Iraq. But, the truth is that the USA is trying to have a multicultral government that will tolerate differernt Muslim faiths. That way a strict Sunni, Kurd or Sunni dictatorship will not form. But, Islam is such that it can not tolerate anyway but myway.

2) 500 mentions the Balkans, that is where Muslim did a superb job of dividing Yugoslavia into religious factions. They hope to do the same in Iraq so Iran can have the Shiite portion of Iraq. That would leave the Kurds with their own country and then Turkey would take that part of Iraq. I don't know what would happen to the Sunni part but things are going their way.

500 also works the Al Quadia propaganda about the British troops beating up some youths to beat on the US colation.

500 also works the Al Quadia propaganda about the British troops beating up some youths to beat on the US colation. Yeah that didn't really happen...It was all faked by Al CIAda...
:@@:
You're a nutter...

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Yeah that didn't really happen...It was all faked by Al CIAda...
:@@:
You're a nutter...

Sorry but you are the nutter.

The 60 second clip showed british troops beating Iraqi youths that were attacking their positions. The youths were there to fight the british and they lost.


I know it doesn't justify it but police in the USA get adrenline flowing and have a hard time stopping in the middle of a fight, a fight that was started by the victim.

I say you follow the Al Ciada line because that is what they obsess about. They do horrible crimes but focus on any defensive action by the collation forces.

500 only sees the little things we do instead of the horrific things the terrorist do.

I've been saying the same for a long while. 500lb is fast to jump on any action by US/British forces but completely ignores any autrocity by terrorists/insurgents.

Talk about slanted view. He takes the buscuit.

1. I have called out all terrorists in Iraq. I have nevere made any justification for killing innocent people in any form. The terrorist US military and the terrorist car bombers are the same, enemies of the people of Iraq.

You two are just pissed because I don't demonize the Iraqis fighters who only target US forces. The I advocate self-defense regardless of nationality.

Kids throwing rocks and stress is no excuse to act like savages.

I know it doesn't justify it but police in the USA get adrenline flowing and have a hard time stopping in the middle of a fight, a fight that was started by the victim. You arguments are lame. Anyone who is attacked has the right to fight back and stop the attack. This attack stopped teh second the soilders started out of the base. The Iraqi youths fled. Like I said if they wanted to scare them they could pop a few rounds into the air. Instead they decided to take out their anger and agression on innocent parties (innocent to thier rage, not stone throwing). It was nothing more then bullies taking out their anger.

20-35 year olds with guns who gang up and beat up on highschoolers are pussies plain and simple. I realy can't see how anyone could justify this.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I already posted. Divide and conquer. Its one of the oldest tricks in the book. The US is hopelessly bogged down with no end in sight. They have utterly failed to even set back the Iraqi fighters.

But throw ina dash of infighting and let all the expirienced and large ones kill each other off and it will be a cake walk.

Yes, you're correct. Add the UK into that as well.

What was the British SAS doing in Basra? (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/basr-s28.shtml)

This actually isn't a wild conspiracy theory; it was Britain's former policy in Iraq itself (as well as numerous other rebellious colonies: Ireland, Kashmir, Palestine, etc).

There have been other Iraqi revolts against imperialism before. One in the early twentieth century was a united shi'ite - sunni uprising. The only way the Brits could quell it was through divide and conquer, as well as liberal use of chemical warfare.

Only two forces have an interest in starting civil war: Al Qaeda and the US/UK occupiers.

Leave it to a Zionest to be so confident he exposes their hand...
___________________________

The eruption of civil war in Iraq would have many implications for the West. It would likely:

Invite Syrian and Iranian participation, hastening the possibility of an American confrontation with those two states, with which tensions are already high.

Terminate the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This will have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago.

Reduce coalition casualties in Iraq. As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Rather than killing American soldiers, the insurgents and foreign fighters are more focused on creating civil strife that could destabilize Iraq's political process and possibly lead to outright ethnic and religious war."

Reduce Western casualties outside Iraq. A professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Vali Nasr, notes: "Just when it looked as if Muslims across the region were putting aside their differences to unite in protest against the Danish cartoons, the attack showed that Islamic sectarianism remains the greatest challenge to peace." Put differently, when Sunni terrorists target Shiites and vice-versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt.

Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3423