THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

We may be seeing more of this; Bush's unnecessary invasion spreading instability throughout the Middle East. Al Qaeda, protected in Pakistan, must be gloating.

Quote:

Saudi clerics seek help for Iraqi Sunnis

RIYADH: A group of prominent Saudi clerics have called on Sunni Muslims around the world to mobilise against Shiites in Iraq, although a statement they issued fell short of calling for a jihad, or holy war.

The statement appearing on Saudi Islamist Web sites on Monday said Sunni Muslims were being murdered and marginalised by Shiites, backed by Iran, and the US-led forces.

Saudi Arabia, a bastion of Sunni Islam, backs the Shiite-dominated government of Nuri al-Maliki largely because it fears that sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites could lead to the break-up of its northern neighbour and spill over its borders.

"We direct this message to all concerned about Shiites in the world: the murder, torture and displacement of Sunnis ... is an outrage. We don't think you would accept to be treated like this," said the statement, dated Dec 7.

"Muslims must stand directly with our Sunni brothers in Iraq and support them by all appropriate, well-studied means ... Muslims generally should be made aware of the danger of the Shiites," it said.

"Clerics and intellectuals should not stand hands folded over what's happening to their Sunni brothers in Iraq; all occasions should be used to expose the Shiites' practices ... What has been taken by force can only be got back by force."

The statement was signed by 38 clerics and Islamic preachers, including Abdel-Rahman al-Barrak, Safar al-Hawali and Nasser al-Omar, leading figures of Saudi Arabia's hardline school of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism. Many Saudi clerics of the austere Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam dismiss Shiites as virtual heretics and the kingdom's Shiites have long complained about second class treatment.

Populist preachers who regularly appear on Saudi state television did not sign the document, which repeated fears expressed by Jordan's King Abdullah of a "Shiite crescent" stretching across the Middle East, as Iran allies with Shiites in the Arab world after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. reuters

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=2006%5C12%5C12%5Cstory_12-12-2006_pg4_8

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican wrote: Cycl, I am interested in what strategy will result in the fewest good guys killed and the most good guys free. I am not interested in what strategy will gain America the most love or the least hate.

If our soldiers are the "good guys," according to your opinion, we should bring them home immediately. As for the "most good guys free," you're thinking through your rear end. There is no way for the US with only five percent of the world population to "force" freedoms for all the good guys.

Context, Cice, context!
That remark of mine was about selecting the USA's military strategy in Iraq that will most likely result in the fewest Iraqi good guys killed and the most Iraqi good guys free.

I think it self-evident that Iraq's good guys consist of more than two-thirds the Iraq population and want to live free. We don't have to force that on them. However, if they in future--sooner or later--decide they don't want to live free, they can ask us to leave and we will leave.

0 Replies

It's also up to the 2/3ds good guys to help themselves to make themselves free. If they're unable to win the battle against 1/3d of the bad guys, what makes you think they'll ever win that battle?

That's context.

0 Replies

JERUSALEM -- Israeli officials yesterday quietly welcomed a decision by several Persian Gulf states to consider a nuclear energy program as evidence the region's Sunni Arab governments are becoming more open in their opposition to a common enemy -- Iran.
While historically hostile to any step that could lead to an "Islamic" nuclear bomb, Israelis are weighing that risk against the possibility of an implicit alliance with neighboring Sunni Arab states that share their concerns about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Shi'ite Iran.
The Washington Times reported yesterday that Sunni-Shi'ite fighting in Iraq is already spilling over into the region, with elements in Saudi Arabia and Iran offering financial and other backing to competing Iraqi factions.
Leaders of six Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, ordered a feasibility study of a joint atomic energy program Sunday at the conclusion of a two-day summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in Riyadh.
The oil-rich countries, all predominantly Sunni Arab states, made it clear that their declaration was intended to prod the West into stopping Shi'ite Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.
In Jerusalem, where authorities see an unspoken alliance taking shape between Israel and some Sunni states, officials said yesterday they viewed "positively" the increasing pressure from the Gulf states.
"This move is directed against Iran," an official who requested anonymity told the Jerusalem Post. "In the past, these states only talked about the Iranian nuclear issue using code words, but now they are coming out of the closet in a big way, and this is an example."
That assessment was echoed by Abdelaziz Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. "They are trying to say that if the Iranian program continues, [the West] will oblige us to become nuclear-capable too."
The GCC is made up of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. Its statement said the GCC had commissioned a study "to set up a common program in the area of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."
Iran also insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but it is widely assumed to be seeking nuclear weapons. Israeli officials say that non-Gulf Sunni nations, like Egypt and Jordan, share the GCC's concerns about Iran's nuclear program.
Israel has felt increasingly exposed to the Iranian nuclear threat as Europe and even the United States appear to be stepping back from a confrontation with Tehran, whose leaders have called for Israel's destruction. But it has been able to draw some comfort from the convergence of interests with the Sunni states, which are alarmed by the rise of a powerful Shi'ite "crescent" running from Iran through Iraq to the Hezbollah stronghold in southern Lebanon.
During last summer's Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal termed the Hezbollah attack that sparked it a "reckless adventure," and a senior Saudi cleric issued a religious edict condemning the Iranian-backed Shi'ite group.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

... At this point it is my opinion the best course of action is to pull our troops out as soon as possible and get out of the way. Allowing the Iraqi's decide between peace and stability and slaughter.

Your recommendation to leave the Iraqi good guys to be killed by the Iraqi bad guys would be too reprehensible to permit adequate description of such evil.

Iraqi good guys--more than two-thirds the population of Iraq--decided almost 2 years ago they want peace and stability, and not slaughter. There is no sign they have changed their mind. They are justifiably angry at the USA for its inadequate support of what they have already decided they want. They rightly conclude they need adequate help to get what they want. It's long past time the USA gave them that adequate help.

On the otherhand, Iraqi bad guys decided more than 17 years ago that they want slaughter, and for 11 years of that 17 they got slaughter without interference from the USA. They are still getting what they want--slaughter--but with only some interference by the USA.

How shall the Iraqi good guys get what they want without USA help to reduce the Iraq bad quys to that which the Iraq good guys can control without our help?

The USA with the approval of the Iraq government should immediately adopt the Search and Destroy strategy for conquering the Iraq bad guys.

0 Replies

Quote:

There is no sign they have changed their mind.

Sure there is - they continue to house, support, tolerate the violence.

They don't kick the violators from their society.

Take a look at the Kurdish regions of Iraq, and their relative stability. Why?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

au1929 wrote:
... At this point it is my opinion the best course of action is to pull our troops out as soon as possible and get out of the way. Allowing the Iraqi's decide between peace and stability and slaughter.

Your recommendation to leave the Iraqi good guys to be killed by the Iraqi bad guys would be too reprehensible to permit adequate description of such evil.

Iraqi good guys--more than two-thirds the population of Iraq--decided almost 2 years ago they want peace and stability, and not slaughter. There is no sign they have changed their mind. They are justifiably angry at the USA for its inadequate support of what they have already decided they want. They rightly conclude they need adequate help to get what they want. It's long past time the USA gave them that adequate help.

On the otherhand, Iraqi bad guys decided more than 17 years ago that they want slaughter, and for 11 years of that 17 they got slaughter without interference from the USA. They are still getting what they want--slaughter--but with only some interference by the USA.

How shall the Iraqi good guys get what they want without USA help to reduce the Iraq bad quys to that which the Iraq good guys can control without our help?

The USA with the approval of the Iraq government should immediately adopt the Search and Destroy strategy for conquering the Iraq bad guys.

"Search and Destroy strategy", huh? Just curious - what do you call the strategy they are employing right now?

0 Replies

He means, 'search and destroy anyone who we feel like it, without reprisal, as long as we determine there is someone bad within a 100 feet of them.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's also up to the 2/3ds good guys to help themselves to make themselves free. If they're unable to win the battle against 1/3d of the bad guys, what makes you think they'll ever win that battle?

That's context.

Yes, it's also up to the 2/3ds good guys to help themselves to make themselves free. Once the Iraq good guys with our help conquer the Iraq bad guys, they will be able to maintain their victory. They will be able to maintain their victory by removing bad guys as they develop instead of after they have developed.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
It's also up to the 2/3ds good guys to help themselves to make themselves free. If they're unable to win the battle against 1/3d of the bad guys, what makes you think they'll ever win that battle?

That's context.

Yes, it's also up to the 2/3ds good guys to help themselves to make themselves free. Once the Iraq good guys with our help conquer the Iraq bad guys, they will be able to maintain their victory. They will be able to maintain their victory by removing bad guys as they develop instead of after they have developed.

What evidence leads you to believe that this is true?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It's all common sense and math, Cyclo - it's all right there, what with the "good guys", "bad guys", and everybody split up into thirds...

0 Replies

ican wrote: Yes, it's also up to the 2/3ds good guys to help themselves to make themselves free. Once the Iraq good guys with our help conquer the Iraq bad guys, they will be able to maintain their victory. They will be able to maintain their victory by removing bad guys as they develop instead of after they have developed

Where have you been the past three years? The sectarian violence is already developed, on-going, and growing. Did you bother to see the news today about the 71 killed today?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
There is no sign they have changed their mind.

Sure there is - they continue to house, support, tolerate the violence.

They don't kick the violators from their society.

Take a look at the Kurdish regions of Iraq, and their relative stability. Why?

Cycloptichorn

The Iraq good guys and the USA in Iraq are too disorganized at the moment to kick all the bad guys from the Iraq society. The USA can help the Iraqis by reorganizing its effort in Iraq.

There are approximately 27 million Iraqis. Two-thirds, or 18 million are good guys. Only the Kurds are presently employing the Search and Destroy strategy. Of the 9 million Iraqis who are not good guys, most are not bad guys either. They are likely to join with whoever they come to think will win. Based on the rate they are killing other Iraqis, I estimate the current number of committed bad guys to probably be less than 9,000.

0 Replies

That's an interestingly low estimate, because Al-Sadr's milita alone is estimated to have more than 60k members...

Guess most of them are 'good guys' to you

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

snood wrote:

...

"Search and Destroy strategy", huh? Just curious - what do you call the strategy they are employing right now?

I call the current strategy the Stay and Implode Strategy.

I call the strategy many here recommend the Leave and Explode Strategy.

I call the strategy I recommend (I've described this strategy several times here over the last 7 days) the Search and Destroy Strategy.

The Stay and Implode Strategy continues what we have been doing until enough Iraqis are killed to convince people a new stategy is required.

The Leave and Explode Strategy withdraws the USA from Iraq and watches Iraqis kill each other and others until enough Iraqis and others are killed to convince people a new stategy is required.

The Search and Destroy Strategy employs covert tactics to identify, kill, or capture bad guys at the risk of killing some good guys.

The Search and Destroy Strategy commences with the approval of the Iraq government. If the Iraq government were to disapprove this strategy, the USA should resort to the Leave and Explode Strategy.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican wrote: Yes, it's also up to the 2/3ds good guys to help themselves to make themselves free. Once the Iraq good guys with our help conquer the Iraq bad guys, they will be able to maintain their victory. They will be able to maintain their victory by removing bad guys as they develop instead of after they have developed

Where have you been the past three years? The sectarian violence is already developed, on-going, and growing. Did you bother to see the news today about the 71 killed today?

Yes, obviously the bad guys have already developed and are growing.

I wrote:
Once the Iraq good guys with our help conquer the Iraq bad guys, they will [then] be able to maintain their victory. They will [then] be able to maintain their victory by removing bad guys as they develop instead of after they have [already] developed.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's an interestingly low estimate, because Al-Sadr's milita alone is estimated to have more than 60k members...

Guess most of them are 'good guys' to you

Cycloptichorn

No! I think most of Sadr's militia are neither good guys or bad guys. Most of them are uncommitted guys. They don't yet help kill anyone and will eventually join with whomever they think will ultimately emerge the winner.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's also up to the 2/3ds good guys to help themselves to make themselves free. If they're unable to win the battle against 1/3d of the bad guys, what makes you think they'll ever win that battle?

That's context.

Yes, it's also up to the 2/3ds good guys to help themselves to make themselves free. Once the Iraq good guys with our help conquer the Iraq bad guys, they will be able to maintain their victory. They will be able to maintain their victory by removing bad guys as they develop instead of after they have developed.

What evidence leads you to believe that this is true?

Cycloptichorn

I think that after victory, the Iraq good guys will be able to remove new bad guys using competent police actions before the bad guys are well organized. However, for my claim to be true, Iraq borders must be kept adequately closed to new infiltrating bad guys. For that to be true, the USA must first solve the Syria-Iran bad guy sponsoring problem.

0 Replies

ican wrote: I wrote:
Once the Iraq good guys with our help conquer the Iraq bad guys, they will [then] be able to maintain their victory. They will [then] be able to maintain their victory by removing bad guys as they develop instead of after they have [already] developed.

We've been in Iraq longer than WWII, and rather than seeing progress, situations are getting worse by the day. Our "help" has exacerbated the problems, because most Arab countries now hate us. How do you think most Arabs will feel with our continued involvement in Iraq, and our support of Israel?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's an interestingly low estimate, because Al-Sadr's milita alone is estimated to have more than 60k members...

Guess most of them are 'good guys' to you

Cycloptichorn

No! I think most of Sadr's militia are neither good guys or bad guys. Most of them are uncommitted guys. They don't yet help kill anyone and will eventually join with whomever they think will ultimately emerge the winner.

Every day, 50-100 bodies are being 'found' in Iraq with bullet wounds and/or signs of torture, for some time now.

These aren't terrorists killing folks; but sectarian militias. The Sadr group and the Badr brigade are undoubtedly responsible for quite a bit of this.

Let's say that just a third of Sadr's group are 'bad guys,' guys who either have participated in attacks on civilians or support those who do; that's still 20k people to deal with right there.

And that doesn't count the sunnis, or the Terrorists...

Quote:

I think that after victory, the Iraq good guys will be able to remove new bad guys using competent police actions before the bad guys are well organized. However, for my claim to be true, Iraq borders must be kept adequately closed to new infiltrating bad guys. For that to be true, the USA must first solve the Syria-Iran bad guy sponsoring problem.

The 'bad guys' are already far more organized than the police or IA.

So, to achieve peace under your plan, we have to:

-Accurately identify dozens of thousands of 'bad guys'

-Blow up their neighborhoods, whoops, I mean houses, in the middle of the night without them finding out that we are doing such things

-Get the Iraqi Police and Army up on their feet (a herculean task, seeing as this is where many of the 'bad guys' are doing their work/getting trained for free)

-Get the Iraqi gov'ts act together so that they can provide a logistical framework for the armed forces

-Close the borders of Iraq. The huge, long, mountainous borders must be closed.

-Solve the problem with violence in Syria and Iran as well.

...

Piece o' cake, we'll have her sewed right up in no time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know