Iraq Unravelling...Again

[AstroProdigy]

Now I wish I posted here about how stupid the notion of the troop surge working was months ago when I saw what was really happening, but I guess nows good enough.

 

One Part of the Lie That's Now Unfolding

Maliki, our militia leader of choice in Iraq, didn't have the foresight nor the military know how required to realize a militia equipped with fancy American weapons couldn't do anything if it didn't want to fight an enemy composed of its own brothers whereas that enemy has plenty of morale fighting what it sees as an American puppet regime.

 

The ceasefire Sadr ordered months back, which is what was actually responsible for the decline in violence along with the Awakening Councils, only made it seem as though Bush could win the war. I guess that suits Bush because it's given him at least a year to delay any action on troop withdrawals without actually accomplishing anything in the long run.

 

It turns out all the time that Sadr's been holding off on fighting the occupiers he's been building legitimacy among large segments of the Iraqi Shiite population using Hezbollah inspired humanitarian tactics. On the surface, for the short term at least, it seemed as though Sadr was doing this out of fear of the troop surge and it was an American victory, but anyone who bothers to look past what mainstream news tells them could see he was merely biding his time and building legitimacy until America or Iraqis on America's side screwed up. That came with the Basra offensive in which overconfident Maliki thought he could defeat an insurgency using brute force when even America's much better trained military couldn't do.

 

The result is Maliki humiliated in the eyes of Iraqi Shiites as a weak military leader and Sadr looking strong. Sadr ended the fight before the Americans could join in with their massive air power and real military where his militia could actually take serious damage. He did what an insurgency leader should do in asymmetric warfare while at the same time looking like the good guy among Shiites for stopping the fighting even though he was trouncing Maliki's militia, the Iraqi Amy, to spare bloodshed. The "defining moment" that Bush talked about, which is impossible in an insurgency because that doesn't involve major battles, was actually a humiliation for American supported Maliki while at the same time strengthening both Sadr in the eyes of Iraqi Shiites as well as Iran, which ended up mediating the ceasefire afterwards and gained prestige as the neutral party which America from day one refused to be.

Edited April 20, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[FMBI]

I'm sorry, Astro, but this has been in the (far-left) news for months now, and even non-left sociologists and anthropologists have been calling this.

 

Late news arrival imo.

 

As I said to a friend on Continuum (who is extremely into politics), I just pray that the thing will really blow up in our faces before the elections, because, bad as that would be, it would also ensure that McCain won't get elected (not just because of the 100 years thing - actually, mostly because he would take us on even more adventures, instead of finally drawing a line in the proverbial sand). If we can keep him out, it'll still be a disaster, but at least we'll learn something from it, instead of just pumping in even more troops, and meanwhile getting ready to invade central asia and north africa.

[AstroProdigy]

Yeah that's why I wish I had said it here months ago, but haven't been posting here in a while.

 

I just want someone like Aileron, ThunderJam, or Confess to come on and disagree with me so I can bring this back up in their faces later on when it actually happens.

[Aileron]

Okay, I'll bite.

 

First off, if the system is set up such that Al Sadr gains power by humanitarianism, and Iran gains power by organizing a ceasefire, its a step in the right direction. Neither party is being altruistic, but the fact that they are being rewarded by those things is good.

 

Maliki was testing the water. Obviously he needs to re-tool his military leadership, but he had no way of knowing that until he tested it. We almost needed him to lose that battle in order to win the war.

 

 

 

I mean, it is like a Chess match in a lot of ways, and something that politicians cannot say is that sometimes you need to sacrifice in order to win.

 

 

 

Oh, and ALL sociologists are left wing.

[AstroProdigy]

Hezbollah has gained overwhelming solidarity among Shiites in Lebanon using humanitarian methods. Does that make it a step in the right direction? It only makes their hand stronger when they fight against us and in asymmetrical warfare the side that gets the support of the people is impossible to beat militarily, short of genocide. There's no special system that's set up to give Sadr power only through humanitarianism. It's only human nature that allows this to work. In an impoverished country people support the side that feeds them not the one that rapes their wealth.

 

Maliki wasn't testing the waters. He was attacking headfirst in hopes of consolidating his power and failed miserably. If he had been doing something intelligent he would have told the US he was doing it before the last minute. He'll never win the hearts and minds of the people by fighting against those very same people. The reason so many people deserted was because they were being ordered to attack their own people.

 

This isn't a chess match. A chess match would imply a conventional battle where all the pieces are out in the open and taking the king (leader) is what matters. In this case the pieces aren't out in the open and what matters most of all is the propaganda. Sadr scored a major propaganda victory and so did Iran by being the mediator and showing how much influence it really has in Iraq. Maliki got trounced and everyone saw it.

 

The response by Maliki is to do the only thing he can do to keep Sadr from taking power in a legitimate democratic election; ban Sadr's party from running in the election and say it's because he has a militia even though every power player in Iraq, including Maliki, has a militia. Shiites are growing increasingly disillusioned with things in their country and all the walls that are being built in the name of piece are also creating and maintaining slums. We had enough trouble with 5 million Sunni Arabs who will fight against us again when they get sick of our corruption. Now add to that 15 million Shiites who were before stuck in the middle on the American occupation and will increasingly want the end of the US occupation as much as the Sunni Arabs do.

 

As for Iran, of course they want a ceasefire. They're on exactly the same side in Iraq as the US is. They helped Maliki when no one else would. In fact I'd say Iran has been in effect the greatest ally we've had in both Iraq and Afghanistan and if Bush wasn't such an imperialist with his eyes on a third front we could have always used Iran to make things much easier for us. Shiites were never our natural enemies. The only reason we demonize Iran is because of things that happened a while ago. The US Emb!@#$%^&*y was attacked because we previously used that very same emb!@#$%^&*y as a staging ground to bring back Iran's democratically elected government. Iran helped us topple the Taliban and still helps bring stability to western Afghanistan. Iran was also happy to see Saddam be toppled and would have gladly helped us bring stability to Iraq. I'd say becoming allies with Iran would be the easiest way to keep Iraq from unraveling and minimizing casualties. It's too bad though since that will never happen with Bush and any future president would be committing political suicide by trying to do it. The "liberal" media has been parroting Bush's propaganda about Iran for years and the gullible public has taken it to be truth now.

Edited April 23, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aileron]

Give me a minute to make sense of this. In the first paragraph of your post, you are pointing out how Hezbollah is spreading terror, but in the last paragraph of your post, you claim Iran is our 'ally'. Considering that Iran funds Hezbollah, which of your two paragraphs is correct?

 

 

My exact point is that we know that Al Sadr is a selfish !@#$%^&* and he is only being humanitarian to build his own power. My point is that a year ago the environment in Iraq was such that the tactics he is using wouldn't have worked. Back then, if anyone tried that, a pack of gunmen from another militia would halt the aid. The current situation is an improvement upon the conditions where whoever could shoot each other the fastest was the winner. Compare it to Hezbollah if you want. Lebanon is not currently at war, so while far from ideal, for Iraq to go to the current state of affairs in Lebanon is an improvement.

 

 

Maliki was supposed to lose that fight. Obviously he wanted to win, but he was going to lose because the Iraqi National Army had never operated independently before. It wasn't tested, didn't have troops with real combat experience, and wasn't organized right. We can train them, but still they'd have to do it themselves in order to gain those things. However, that being said, losing this battle will actually have a beneficial contribution to the overall war effort. By merely engaging in battle he is correcting those management issues and strengthening his army. The next time it is deployed, the officers will be more seasoned, the effort will be better organized, and the soldiers will have more confidence in their ability to operate on their own.

 

 

Iran was viewed negatively long before Bush. Holding an emb!@#$%^&*y hostage tends to do that. I don't recall criticizing Iran for calling for a ceasefire. Its a good sign. At this point if it turns out that I'm wrong about Iran planning on taking over the world, I'd consider it a good thing.

[Aceflyer]

However, that being said, losing this battle will actually have a beneficial contribution to the overall war effort. By merely engaging in battle he is correcting those management issues and strengthening his army. The next time it is deployed, the officers will be more seasoned, the effort will be better organized, and the soldiers will have more confidence in their ability to operate on their own.

 

Actually, won't their crushing defeat at the hands of al-Sadr's militia have a negative effect on the Iraqi Army's confidence and morale?

 

Iran was viewed negatively long before Bush. Holding an emb!@#$%^&*y hostage tends to do that. I don't recall criticizing Iran for calling for a ceasefire. Its a good sign. At this point if it turns out that I'm wrong about Iran planning on taking over the world, I'd consider it a good thing.

 

Agreed about the emb!@#$%^&*y and all. But Iran taking over the world is something that is so ludicrous, I rather doubt even the Iranians have such plans.

[AstroProdigy]

Give me a minute to make sense of this. In the first paragraph of your post' date=' you are pointing out how Hezbollah is spreading terror, but in the last paragraph of your post, you claim Iran is our 'ally'. Considering that Iran funds Hezbollah, which of your two paragraphs is correct?[/quote']

There are plenty of problems with this part. First of all I never said Hezbollah was spreading terror. Second of all I only said Iran is our ally with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. Turns out that entire paragraph you wrote was made out of you making your own conclusions that are completely unrelated to what I actually said.

 

My exact point is that we know that Al Sadr is a selfish !@#$%^&* and he is only being humanitarian to build his own power. My point is that a year ago the environment in Iraq was such that the tactics he is using wouldn't have worked. Back then' date=' if anyone tried that, a pack of gunmen from another militia would halt the aid. The current situation is an improvement upon the conditions where whoever could shoot each other the fastest was the winner. Compare it to Hezbollah if you want. Lebanon is not currently at war, so while far from ideal, for Iraq to go to the current state of affairs in Lebanon is an improvement.[/quote']

Sadr is no worse than Maliki, Hakim, Talabani, or Barzani. You just want to hate him because the idea has been fed to you. A year ago Sadr couldn't be considered that big a threat. He didn't have the type of national appeal to Shiite Arabs that he does now and he couldn't even control much of what his militia did. Today is support is much broader and his militia much more disciplined. Another militia wouldn't halt the aid because those areas would then help his militia. The point is no one bothered to try to do it before Sadr. Lebanon is an entirely shattered nation. It will slowly creep closer and closer to Iranian influence just like Iraq. It may be good from a stability standpoint for those countries, but for American interests its terrible.

 

 

Maliki was supposed to lose that fight. Obviously he wanted to win' date=' but he was going to lose because the Iraqi National Army had never operated independently before. It wasn't tested, didn't have troops with real combat experience, and wasn't organized right. We can train them, but still they'd have to do it themselves in order to gain those things. However, that being said, losing this battle will actually have a beneficial contribution to the overall war effort. By merely engaging in battle he is correcting those management issues and strengthening his army. The next time it is deployed, the officers will be more seasoned, the effort will be better organized, and the soldiers will have more confidence in their ability to operate on their own.[/quote']

Do you really believe this? Maliki wanted to beat Sadr before the upcoming elections because Sadr's party would otherwise win and take power from Maliki democratically. The Iraqi National Army, or Maliki's militia for short, lost because they didn't have the morale to attack their own people for the sake of some guy who's propped up by the Americans, not because Sadr's forces were better trained. Losing to Sadr only saps more out of their morale and strengthens the morale of Sadr's forces as well as his support among the people. Please try to understand that an insurgency, like any guerrilla warfare does not operate under traditional rules of warfare. The fact that Vietnam beat the United States without winning a single battle is proof of this.

 

Iran was viewed negatively long before Bush. Holding an emb!@#$%^&*y hostage tends to do that. I don't recall criticizing Iran for calling for a ceasefire. Its a good sign. At this point if it turns out that I'm wrong about Iran planning on taking over the world' date=' I'd consider it a good thing.[/quote']

I agree Iran was viewed negatively for much longer than Bush's reign, but Bush has repeated it and had others repeat it so much as to entrench American thinking that Iran is naturally evil. Considering the fact that the American emb!@#$%^&*y was previously used to cause a coup against a democratically elected government for the sake of supporting a corrupt monarch who serves Western oil interests I can see why that very same emb!@#$%^&*y would be targeted after that monarch was overthrown. The United States was formed as a rebellion against a corrupt monarch for the sake of creating a democracy. Shame on America for losing its way!

 

What you fail to realize is that what matters the most in long term strategic interests isn't what the current regime thinks of America. It's what the people in those countries think. While the Saudis are American allies today, Arabs in Saudi Arabia especially hate us. That's why Persians are friendly to Americans while Arabs from Saudi Arabia do things like fly planes into the World Trade Center. Helping the Saudis fill their fat pockets while threatening the people who could be a much better ally is not only foolish; it is a sign of corruption among our own political elite.

[NBVegita]

Sorry I don't have time to read this entire topic, but to this end:

 

threatening the people who could be a much better ally

 

What makes you think these people have any interest in becoming our allies?

 

For example, if the USA extended a peace treaty (of sorts) to Iran, it would be accepted as well in Iran as an Iranian peace treaty would be welcomed in the USA.

 

For as much anti middle east sentiment there is in the US, there is double the anti west sentiment in the middle east.

[Aileron]

You know, I used to describe the War on Terror as a three-sided war between the Coalition forces, Sunnis backed up by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Shi'ites backed up by Iran. And yes, the Sunnis have caused us a lot more problems than the Shi'ites. The Shi'ites have still caused problems, and based on history, the reason for their lesser levels of hostility is not in their position, but rather their nature of hostility.

 

Sunnis and Shi'ites are like fire and ice. As you correctly noticed, Sunnis are much more likely to charge right in. Their attacks are numerous but poorly planned. However, they rarely are deterred by defeats, and have been able to conquer territory by shear willpower alone.

 

Shi'ites historically have been very patient with their conquests. The Shi'ite doctrine is more disciplined and violent than Sunni Islam. It is actually Shi'ite Islam which actually places Jihad as one of their pillars. They are also more scientific, and more likely to create a cultural tolerance to form diplomatic relations with allies, though those allies at the moment are the Non-Aligned Nations. Overall, while Shi'ites are less likely to start a war than Sunnis, they are much more likely to finish one. They are skilled in the Art of War. They usually spend several years gathering strength, then they make demands, and then strike with a single crippling blow.

 

 

 

The current action is the classic dance between Shi'ite and Sunni. The Sunni force charged right in and lost. However, the Sunnis will regroup, and attack again over and over and over until they win. You say that they will be deterred by their previous defeat, but they won't. Keep in mind Sunnis use suicide bombers.

 

 

As for Iran planning to strike: It is clear they have been gathering allies and pursuing better weapons. Already, they have an anti-west nuclear ally in North Korea. Now, Shi'ites aren't big fans of sneak attacks. They most likely would deploy their forces where they want them, and then give an ultimatum. In Iran's case, it would most likely mean getting a few nukes and some oil rich allies, and then deploying the nukes near major western cities, threatening to nuke followed by an oil embargo. While I do doubt as a demand they will try any 'convert to Islam or die' crap their Sunni brethren are so fond of, I would conjecture that their demands would be disagreeable.

[AstroProdigy]

Sorry I don't have time to read this entire topic' date=' but to this end:

 

What makes you think these people have any interest in becoming our allies?

 

For example, if the USA extended a peace treaty (of sorts) to Iran, it would be accepted as well in Iran as an Iranian peace treaty would be welcomed in the USA.

 

For as much anti middle east sentiment there is in the US, there is double the anti west sentiment in the middle east.[/quote']

Iran can't offer a peace treaty under the current conditions because the only one the US would accept would involve greatly curtailing Iranian influence and even then its iffy. It's the U.S.'s move since we are making the threats. Also anti west sentiment is strongest in the Arab countries we ally ourselves with. It's actually much lower in Iran. The people may hate our policies, but they like Americans more than some European countries do.

 

You know' date=' I used to describe the War on Terror as a three-sided war between the Coalition forces, Sunnis backed up by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Shi'ites backed up by Iran. And yes, the Sunnis have caused us a lot more problems than the Shi'ites. The Shi'ites have still caused problems, and based on history, the reason for their lesser levels of hostility is not in their position, but rather their nature of hostility.[/quote']

Shiites are acting differently due to their nature, but it's also due to their position. They have a majority in Iraq as well as Iran and the US competing to court their favor at the same time. However, as Shiites get more disenchanted with Maliki and gather behind Sadr this means there will naturally be a spike in attacks. How far this goes will be seen in the future, but the way things are going now it'll be pretty bad. Even !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inating Sadr won't work because that will turn him into a martyr and Shiites go hardcore in the martyrdom department. Their religion is literally based on martyrdom.

 

Sunnis and Shi'ites are like fire and ice. As you correctly noticed' date=' Sunnis are much more likely to charge right in. Their attacks are numerous but poorly planned. However, they rarely are deterred by defeats, and have been able to conquer territory by shear willpower alone.

 

Shi'ites historically have been very patient with their conquests. The Shi'ite doctrine is more disciplined and violent than Sunni Islam. It is actually Shi'ite Islam which actually places Jihad as one of their pillars. They are also more scientific, and more likely to create a cultural tolerance to form diplomatic relations with allies, though those allies at the moment are the Non-Aligned Nations. Overall, while Shi'ites are less likely to start a war than Sunnis, they are much more likely to finish one. They are skilled in the Art of War. They usually spend several years gathering strength, then they make demands, and then strike with a single crippling blow.[/quote']

Not bad. Not bad.

 

The current action is the classic dance between Shi'ite and Sunni. The Sunni force charged right in and lost. However' date=' the Sunnis will regroup, and attack again over and over and over until they win. You say that they will be deterred by their previous defeat, but they won't. Keep in mind Sunnis use suicide bombers.[/quote']

I don't think Sunnis will be deterred. They just want to drive out Al Qaeda because they see them as too brutal in the way they fight the west. As soon as that's done or as soon as Al Qaeda makes a deal with them they'll turn the guns we provided them with right on us and the Shiites.

 

As for Iran planning to strike: It is clear they have been gathering allies and pursuing better weapons. Already' date=' they have an anti-west nuclear ally in North Korea. Now, Shi'ites aren't big fans of sneak attacks. They most likely would deploy their forces where they want them, and then give an ultimatum. In Iran's case, it would most likely mean getting a few nukes and some oil rich allies, and then deploying the nukes near major western cities, threatening to nuke followed by an oil embargo. While I do doubt as a demand they will try any 'convert to Islam or die' crap their Sunni brethren are so fond of, I would conjecture that their demands would be disagreeable.[/quote']

I find this to be pretty paranoid. Iran doesn't need to deploy nukes near major western cities. They just need to have them so they could deter a US or Israeli attack while using their influence with Shiites and some Sunni groups to extend their influence. Also, Iran is hardly capable of an oil embargo. Countries like Venezuela might like cooperating with Iran, but they won't damage their own economies to further Iranian interests.

Edited April 26, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aileron]

Well, I learned something relevant that you didn't seem fit to mention. The name of Al Sadr's militia is "the Mahdi Army". That might not sound like much, but there are certain names which brazenly highlights a group's intentions. For instance if a group were named "Hitler's Soup Kitchen", it would be clear the goal of that group would be something nazi-related. The Mahdi is one of those type of names.

 

 

The Mahdi was the twelfth imam, commonly referred to as the "hidden imam". The Mahdi has no past accomplishments, and is only respected out of things he is prophesied to do in the future. The Mahdi was a prince who would have inherited total authority over the Muslim people, except that he fell into a well when he was twelve years old. Now, according to some Shi'ites, the Mahdi isn't dead, but rather hidden, and will return to rule over the Muslim people, and then subsequently conquer the world and force all to accept Islam. There are a lot of kings who are supposed to return, but the difference here is that the condition for that return in this case is that the Mahdi is supposed to show up after a period of hardship caused by war. Note that apparently World War II didn't cause enough hardship for this to happen, so we are talking about a BIG war.

 

The fact that they name themselves after a future and not a past figure, makes it entirely different than if it were named "Muhammad's Army". If so, the name would be such to respect that person's past accomplishments. Instead it is based upon a futuristic person with no past accomplishments, implying that they named their army because they have an intention for it.

 

For them to name themselves after this particular figure implies that they plan that if and when the Mahdi is resurrected, that they intend to be the army waiting for him to command in his post-apocalyptic world conquest. That in turn implies that they are expecting said apocalypse to occur some time in the near future. Now, either they've fallen for that Mayan calendar bs, or they think they have inside information that the apocalypse is to occur soon.

 

Also note that the catalyst in this particular prophecy is war, an entirely human-made event. Also note that the prophesy doesn't specify by whom the war is caused. There are some Shi'ites who honestly have the plan to get nukes, use the nukes, the resulting suffering causing the resurrection of the Mahdi, and then follow the Mahdi in some great globe conquering Jihad. These people are radicals who as far as I know don't have posts in any current Shi'ite government, but they do have their ties to the insiders of the Khomeini revolutionaries who made modern Iran.

 

 

May the atheists here also note that none of the prophesy has to be true for these people to be dangerous. The very fact that they believe they can make the world a better place by dropping nukes is dangerous in and of itself.

 

 

I know the fact that Al-Sadr named his militia in such a way implies a lot but factually proves little. We shouldn't be paranoid. One the other hand, we shouldn't be trying to become buddy-buddy with those people. Just because they may hate Al Queda today doesn't mean they can't be our enemies tomorrow.

[AstroProdigy]

Oops I forgot to use the term "Mahdi Army" when referring to Sadr's militia. I'm sure it's all linked to a big conspiracy by me to hide the Shiite religion from you. You sure got me!

 

Christians believe in their own version of the end times where their own leader will descend from heaven and convert the nonbelievers. They also believe this will come after great war caused by the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state. For that reason most evangelicals are unquestioning supporters of Israel even if Israel were to kill all the Palestinians. They hope for the end of the world so when they see the US causing trouble in the Middle East all they see is "Jesus is coming" and they're going to get lifted up to heaven. Not that apparently WW2 didn't cause enough hardship for this to happen, so we are talking about a BIG war.

 

The fact that they hope for turmoil means they're not just like regular Christians who don't waste their time with that crap.

 

May the atheists here also note that none of the prophecy has to be true for these people to be dangerous. The very fact they believe they can make the world a better place by supporting Israel and pushing countries around to create the promised WW3 is dangerous in and of itself.

 

I know the fact that Evangelicals talk in such a way about the end times implies a lot but factually proves little. We shouldn't be paranoid. On the other hand, we shouldn't be trying to become buddy-buddy with those people. Just because they may live in our democratic system today doesn't mean they can't try to destroy it to create more problems tomorrow.

 

P.S. Sadr has much fewer and weaker links to Khomeini than people like Maliki and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council do. In fact Sadr's plan for Iraq and Iran's plan for Iraq are very different whereas Maliki and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council would like to see an Iraq very similar to the one Iran wants. The fact that Sadr gets some support from Iran is because Iran puts its money on all the horses in Iraq other than Al Qaeda because they actually know what they're doing. I've got a feeling that no matter how many times I say this you'll never actually figure it out though.

Edited May 1, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aileron]

I thought I addressed that argument before you wrote it, but you didn't pick up those details. Yes, Jesus is a figure believed to return, but he also has accomplished things in the past. The nearest Islamic equivalent to Jesus would be Muhammad, and there is no Christian equivalent to the Mahdi. Also, the conditions for Jesus to return are not man-made. Also, to my knowledge there is no military organization which has killed people, which is named 'Jesus' army'. If there were, you would have no problem accepting the analysis that said group would be fanatical, but when a Shi'ite group is named after the Mahdi, you question it.

 

I know there is a common similarity of a king returning to Earth, but other than that the Christian version and the Shi'ite version are different. One intends to rule the world in peace, while the other intends to rule by conquest. One has a resume of doing the impossible, the other was last a teenager with a powerful dad. One will keep the nations as they are, the other will form an empire. One will be God viewing us as equals, the other would be a man viewing us as subjugates. This is not just me being propagandistic. The Islamic world never developed an idea of separation of church and state, nor democracy, nor any idea of harmony in foreign affairs. Their notion of paradise is to literally follow some prince with no claim to fame other than heredity in some great war to create a world-wide theocratic dictatorship. Thus, their idea of a perfect world is entirely different than ours.

 

Yes, there is one similarity, both religions involve the return of a king. Beyond that one detail there are no additional similarities in neither the doctrines nor in the behavior of the participants of the doctrines. I know in your 'apple is orange' mindset you can't see the difference, but to the rest of us, its there.

 

 

Also, I wasn't accusing you of leaving that info out. I meant to point out that most people don't know of its significance and you probably overlooked it. I myself overlooked it twice over before catching that.

 

I didn't mention the radicals' ties to the Khomeini revolutionaries as a criticism. I was trying to point out that these particular nuts are close to Iran's base of power. Plenty of countries have nuts. The point is that these nuts actually have ears who listen to them in the Iranian government.

[AstroProdigy]

but he also has accomplished things in the past

This is essentially irrelevant especially since Shia Islam has much more than the Mahdi to do with. Also, so many armies have killed in the name of Jesus. They may not have the name Jesus, but they've had Christian names before and then used that to support their killings. Even those without Christian names have still done it for the sake of Christianity. Your name specific argument is something you're using because you don't have a real argument for your claim of the substance of the Mahdi Army when compared to other organizations.

 

I think you need to learn your Islam better when it comes to the return of the Mahdi as compared to the return of Jesus. The second coming of the Mahdi actually has a lot of similarity to the second coming of Jesus especially considering Islam believes Jesus will come with the Mahdi and uses other Christian theological ideas like the anti-Christ. The Mahdi will fight against the anti-Christ according to Islam. Also, different Christians have different views of what the end times will bring and although you may think one way other Christians think another. I think that's the best way to explain some of the ways you think Christians are different in their beliefs since I know of other versions that are quite similar such as your belief that countries will remain when Jesus comes.

 

You want to see all the differences between Christianity and Islam and ignore the similarities because you are a Christian. White people want to see the differences between them and black people because they are white. A dog could see the ways people of different races are almost exactly the same and likewise I can see how similar Christianity and Islam are. Islam is based on Christianity and not the other way around so you shouldn't feel threatened by similarities.

 

I understand the significance of the word they used to describe their militia, but people use words to define themselves for propaganda purposes all the time.

 

The Sadr and Iran cooperate out of convenience. The same goes for Iran and Russia. They aren't natural allies because Sadr doesn't want to see Iran influencing Iraq while Iran obviously does. That's why I have to keep bringing up the fact that Iran and the US are both betting on Maliki in Iraq, but the difference between us is Iran is also pragmatic and puts its money on all the horses in Iraq (other than Al Qaeda) whereas the US seems to only be capable of dealing in absolutes. Sadr isn't a nut either. He's a pragmatic person and has gotten where he is today by playing things smart, not by being a nut.

 

There's a reason he's seen as a hero in Iraq. While Maliki and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council fled from Saddam (rightfully so) and spent a decades completely disconnected from the people of Iraq and their needs, Sadr and his family stayed. As a result his father, 2 of his brothers and his father in law were all killed by Saddam. That type of martyrdom strikes a huge chord among Shiites. That's why if Sadr were to be killed the result would be an insurgency that makes this one look like easy. Sadr staying is also why he has an easier time of appealing to Shiites because he was never disconnected from them. I'm not saying Sadr is a hero; far from it actually. None of the leaders in Iraq are heroes. They're all essentially militia leaders vying for power.

[Aileron]

I'm not saying similarities don't exist. I'm stating that you are exaggerating the similarities while diminishing the differences.

 

Well, if Al Sadr isn't a nut, then Iraq can't unravel. If so, Sadr and Maliki would eventually form a working relationship.

[AstroProdigy]

Well you're trying to draw clear distinctions that supposedly justify considering the intent of Shiites as being completely different as Christians when they use religious terms.

 

Why can't Iraq unravel? Who benefits from the situation in Iraq today. Two rational players can easily be adversaries especially since they have opposing views of what their country should be. If Sadr is never going to be allowed into the fold in Iraq what else do you expect to happen?

Edited May 5, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aileron]

Two rational adversaries will always form a truce after rattling the sabers a bit, unless in a situation of dire need.

 

It is true that very few wars in history ended by treaty. However, that is because very few wars had rational leadership on both sides. Note, the condition is 'both'. If either of the two parties are irrational, then the rationality of the other one isn't enough.

[AstroProdigy]

Two rational adversaries will always form a truce after rattling the sabers a bit, unless in a situation of dire need.

 

It is true that very few wars in history ended by treaty. However, that is because very few wars had rational leadership on both sides. Note, the condition is 'both'. If either of the two parties are irrational, then the rationality of the other one isn't enough.

 

Not if one side it could destroy the other with fancy American guns.

 

Treaties are customary to traditional warfare which involves sides with similar levels of technology. In an insurgency one side would get utterly annihilated by the other because it has overwhelming technological superiority. It doesn't mean the leadership of the insurgency side isn't rational. The Ho Chi Minh was a rational leader in Vietnam, but that means nothing in forms of signing a treaty or even the US recognizing it as a war. In this case Maliki has the support of the US military which is why Sadr is fighting the way he is; not because he must be an irrational player. I suggest you take Modern Warfare 101 if it's offered where you are.

 

Don't fall for the trap that asymmetrical warfare is simply extremists. It's a response to an overwhelming technological advantage by one side which is actually the most rational decision you can make. That's a trap that the powers that be use to deceive Americans into thinking any struggle that doesn't involve battles isn't a legitimate one and since America can easily destroy almost any side in a battle because of its overwhelming technological superiority there won't be battles and thus there can be no legitimate struggles against the US!

[Aceflyer]

I think Aileron has a point. The US is willing to negotiate with al-Sadr, and in fact has done so in the past.

[FMBI]

I think Aileron has a point. The US is willing to negotiate with al-Sadr, and in fact has done so in the past.

 

The US also tried to !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inate him while pretending to hold peace talks.

 

The US is currently attacking "Sadr city" and setting up huge concrete barricades, while purposely employing "massive force" to make a point.

 

Now, this is just my opinion, but when you have a history of trying to kill someone, and when you're taking measures which say "Haha, you puny rebels can't do anything, keep on shooting", that doesn't really imply you have a desire for peace, it just implies that you're willing to play very dirty.

 

And before you say "Well, maybe the US has to play dirty in this war", consider that the war still isn't doing anything for us except speeding up an economic collapse.

[Aceflyer]

The US wasn't playing any dirtier than al-Sadr and his militia were. Less, probably, in fact.

[AstroProdigy]

The US is willing to negotiate with Sadr? Please provide proof for this claim and it'd better not be under the condition Sadr gives up his militia first and leaves himself defenseless.

[Aceflyer]

[FMBI]

Ace, the problem with that quote is that the US has historically faked diplomatic attempts before doing whatever it was planning to do anyway.

 

Note GW1, in which Bush kept upping the pressure, and ultimately made it impossible to draw down; take a look at the "diplomacy" before GW2 which has been proven to be pure BS; look at the "relations" with almost any of the left-leaning states who we overthrew in favor of right-wing dictatorships.

 

Besides, Petraeus, contrary to what the heel-licking candidates would have you believe, isn't exactly Mr. Perfect - if I had to make any statement on that, I'd say that he's just been someone they could stick in there to help hold it together and make the war more popular until the elections are over.

 

 

As Astro said, one of the main requirements of negotiation would be that Sadr would disarm. Now while that's nice to dream about, it isn't going to happen. And it shouldn't happen.

 

For all the talk about how the armed groups "threaten the stability and freedom of the Iraqis", perhaps we should remember that the #1 killer of civilians has been the US armed forces, not the people who (true or not) claim to represent those people.

 

If he did indeed disarm, then the only popular, Iran-resistant m!@#$%^&* movement in the country would collapse and the US would carry out a nice little purge of anyone related to it.

 

 

It's insane to think that that would be "good" in any way, shape, or form. I'm personally in favor of Sadr eventually becoming a civilian leader, but in the meantime, his disarming would be somewhat akin to the FRG disbanding their military in 1950.

 

 

And finally : He's riding on a popularity wave right now, he knows the US military is severely weakened, and he knows that whether the US elects a gradual-withdrawal candidate, or a stay-the-course candidate, he still wins.

 

Give me one reason that a sane human being would switch 4 Aces for a couple of a couple of 3s.

 

 

The US has everything to gain by negotiating a peace which weakens Sadr, and he has everything to gain by continuing low-level warfare, expanding and consolidating his power base, and waiting for increased pressure on the US to GTFO.

 

In essence, he'll make a tactical unofficial ceasefire (as he did before), but strategically do everything he can to expel us.

 

Meanwhile we'll try to wipe out a movement which encomp!@#$%^&*es millions of Iraqis, is well armed, and which doesn't have the disadvantage of being dependent on Iran's good will for survival (unlike our proud ARVN government), all the while asking for peace and then breaking it as soon as possible.

 

It's pointless and self-defeating, but who cares?