Escalation issues: Why Iraq is ready to Blow

1. The (U.S.) forces have cordoned off the city

War is best accellerated, in vigor & brutality, when one side feels the other has desecrated thier brothers-in-arms. Those mercenaries are the "Remember the Alamo" for every jarhead & grunt on ground conducting that sweep through Falluja.

2. U.S. Bombs Mosque in Fallujah

An impetus for the other team, along the lines #1 above.
Additionally, it serves to bring the bar of perception to a new height: on the postive = no place is safe; on the negative = no place is safe. The net-net? Negative will prevail - a gurilla warfare mentality is already in play; meaning, overwhelming force is being battled... it now serves to push that to the "we've got nothing to lose" level.

3."I am a War President"
Though these boards are filled with volleys back & forth as to why/why not that's preposterous, the fact remains that the polling done by GOP operatives has determined this issue to be the one which they'll draw contrast on against their Democratic rival. Recent events have made the luster leave this pearl; getting the perception back on the positive side of the poll numbers is now an imperative.
Since it's been proven by several Republican ex-Administration members that political concerns drive policy, a plummet in the "best for our country in times of war" perception polls is unthinkable.

4
. "US resolve is unshakeable"

When you have the convergence of absolutism and the perception of "straight shooting/moral clarity", actions taken then must serve the caricature instead of reality. Bush has declared that the US resolve in Iraq remains "unshakable". His [insane] comments came after 12 US marines were killed and about 20 others injured in a major assault by Iraqi insurgents in Ramadi, west of Baghdad. SO then what's going to happen if those high numbers mentioned ( 200 in 3 days) are substantiated?

5. Military strategy 101 gets a big red F
Divide and Conquer has served every field general since the Homo erectus V. Neanderthal battles. Fighting a battle on one front is taught in the same class.

I can not see, after much searching for a positive since it involves family, how we are NOT going to sustain severely high death counts. It depresses the f*** out of me.

Yup, and we are brainwashed into believing that they are the animals, and they barbaric...

I still haven't seen any Iraqi people running their own country except for policeman...
When are we going to see a change?

Or aren't we with all the countries putting their bids in to build and construct, and take out oil? Do you think there will be importing and exporting here or do you think that it will be take take take and build build build to "help" operation "Iraqi freedom" just like our well decieve "patriot" act is??

BT, This situation depresses the fcuc out of me too.
S.

R E L I G I O N


[Edited on 8-4-2004 by sanctum]

Perhaps BT, but I think and feel that it is far more than your agreement with US's media play of "Iraq in Chaos".

Their is a hidden guiding hand behind this and I think it is Iran.
There are neglected media sources that are indicating that Moqtada al-Sadr is an Iranian agent or is working for the Iranian Intelligence, and that he is recieving 'orders', encouragement, authorization, and possible aid from Iran and others. No mention or follow-up on this by the mainstream, but then again, its political season and if it has no influence on politics, its not worth concentrating time and effort on....you know, anything remotely close to revealing the truth doesn't sell, correct?!

You have a case in Iraq, IMHO, were 'Joe' Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is using and pulling from, to his own ends and those of Iran, the Sunnis that are still loyal to Saddam and the young jobless and poor Shi'ites, who are easily swayed by 'Joe' Cleric al-Sadr.

I would like to present some articles that I feel lean to the reasoing that I have come to believe. I am sure that this will be of no consequence and is of no merit, but hey, its worth the time and the effort to me to possibly show that what is happening or transpiring in Iraq, is not solely what you make it to be:

Over a year ago, WND released an article that there was an Iranian trained army/militia in Iraq. Ironically, this was during the time that the US and Iran were having some heated discussions on Iranian involvement in Iraq.
Iranian-trained army in Iraq:
40,000 ex-POW Shiites armed, prepared for Islamic revolution

An Iranian student group known as SMCCDI reported that:
More trained "pilgrims" to enter Iraq

This from GlobalSecurity.org (which is a very good read).....:
Al-Mahdi Army / Active Religious Seminary / Al-Sadr's Group

The loyalty of many of his supporters passed to another son, Hojatoleslam Muqtada al-Sadr, a mid-level cleric about 30 years of age. Unlike his father, Muqtada had little formal religious standing to interpret the Koran, and relied for religious authority on an Iran-based Iraqi exiled cleric, Ayatollah Kazem al-Haeri. The militia wing of this movement was known as the "Mahdi Army" and was estimated as of early 2004 to consist of about 500-1000 trained combatants along with another 5,000-6,000 active participants.

This from the AsiaNews service:
Imam Muqtada Al-Sadr threatens to launch Intifada

Several months ago Al-Sadr visited Iran where he was warmly received by the Ayatollah Khamenei and Hashemi Rafsanjani. According to Arab sources, Khamenei probably compared Al Sadr to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, when wishing him luck in kicking out American forces in Iraq �like the Hezbollah did to Israel in Lebanon�.

More from this site, Iran Va Jahan, article:
Time to Confront Iran's Theocracy On all Fronts

On the Iraqi front, Iran�s mullahs have stepped up their campaign to increase their influence in that country. Tehran has two main objectives in Iraq: to create a client regime there and to rid itself from its Iraq-based main opposition, the Iranian Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK).

Since coming to power in 1979, the mullahs have considered Iraq the ideal springboard to export �Islamic Revolution� throughout the region. They view a pro-Tehran Iraq as a counterweight to the advancement of democracy in the Middle East. Clearly, a secular democratic Iraq would be a strategic blow to Tehran. For now, US policy makers should expect Iran to address the threat it perceives from the US in Iraq with terrorist violence.

The Tehran regime has mounted an increasingly sophisticated, multi-phased and multi-faceted campaign in Iraq. It has been flooding Iraq�s holy Shia cities with agents disguised as �pilgrims.� The mullahs have also dispatched thousands of preachers to Iraqi cities to propagate their views. They have also established dozens of quasi-political organizations under the benign pretext of humanitarianism. Local Iraqis have complained that many Iranians are paying huge sums to buy houses for Tehran�s agents who are skillfully embedding themselves in these cities. The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and the Revolutionary Guards Corps are involved in at least three broadcast streams being pumped into Iraq.

This article also:
Iran, Hezbollah support al-Sadr

Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr, the fiery Iraqi Shi'ite cleric who ordered his fanatical militia to attack coalition troops, is being supported by Iran and its terror surrogate Hezbollah, according to military sources with access to recent intelligence reports.

And lastly, this from RadioFarda:
Italian Security Report Links Moqtada Sadr To The Supreme Leader

Iraqi Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr, who is directing a widespread armed uprising against the coalition forces in Baghdad and southern Iraq, receives his orders directly from the office of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, Italian foreign intelligence organization, Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare (SISMI), a unit of the Italian defense ministry, said today in a report to the Italian parliament. The report, which prompted a call to foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi by Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini, said without political, financial and military support from the Supreme Leader, Moqtada Sadr and his al-Mahdi brigade could not have mounted their multiple, simultaneous attacks.

I do contend that some of what you mention is certainly not helping, but what I am contending, as food for thought, is that there is possibly more to this than you or the mainstream media is willing to look into or investigate. I do not believe that this is simply an uprising to get the US out of Iraq. I believe it is being manipulated by unseen others, namely Iran.


seekerof

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Seekerof]

In terms of funding for the Iran/Iraq insurgents, we should think back to the boast of bin Laden quoted in Time magazine soon after 9/11, "We have three independent networks to move our [al-Qaeda] assets around the world which all the resources of the British and Americans cannot stop".

Saddam's bank in New York, BNP Paribas, has laundered at least $10+ billion stolen from U.N. oil-for-food program through kickbacks, bribes, commissions and the sale of AXA life-insurance contracts to terrorists. The U.N.-sponsored terrorists on Iraq collect the stolen oil-for-food money only on proof of the death of their victims (e.g. Coalition soldiers and civilian hostages in Iraq or the 9/11 occupants of the World Trade Centre, Pentagon and White House).

Unless you break up al-Qaeda's dirty money, hawala and drug smuggling networks, you Americans and we, in the shrinking remains of the free world, are going to lose.

The choice of the notoriously-corrupt BNP Paribas as escrow manager for the U.N. oil-for-food program was made by just one man, Maurice Strong, Executive Assistant and invisible Gauleiter to the financially-illiterate Kofe Annan.

If you didn't know that you probably don't know what Mr. Strong has planned for you in his New World Order in which the leaders of death cults such as al-Qaeda have the role of paid assassins to take out political targets identified by revolutionnary Liberals headed by Strong's protege, Canadian prime minister, Paul Martin, the Canadian and Paul Desmarais, who controls BNP Paribas and AXA through Power Corp of Montreal, and Strong's fascist American friends David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and General Alexander Haig.
www.users.voicenet.com...

My post is dealing with the end result, not the under pinnings .

I always thought an Iranian bent to agitation was obvious. The cross sect love fest going on now was long preceeded by same sect cross country sweetness.
Joe Ayatollah vs. Sistanti "the Don" Ayatollah is not going to be a big win for Joe.
the net-net of getting militia in the streets battling the occupiers is a benefit to all want a certain course of action, be they Iraqi or Iranian.

BT, I know you don't agree with the U.S. being in Iraq in the first place - thats a given. I also know as you see continued fighting going on that you feel depressed and that your views on going in the first place seem bolstered - thats a given.

All that said I'm concerned too, I just happen to not agree with your political take on things.

The Iranians see our presence and effort to make Iraq a free country as a direct threat to maintaining their theocracy, this is part and parcel of the long term strategy of the current administration in my opinion.

You mentioned the doctrine of divide and conquer, the persians and arabs have no love lost between them after millenia of warfare, even though a shared religion would be the obvious answer for Iranian support, I don't believe that to be true. Iraq has always been a "problem" for Iran.
The Iranians see a chance to both stop western influence in the area, but also a chance to divide Iraq into its ethnic and religious parts, allowing them to divide and conquer the whole country.

The majority of people in Iraq are not much different than us in the respect that they just want to feed, educate and have a comfortable home for their family, they don't want fighting to continue.

Unfortunatly an element comprising 15-20% of the population along with support from many nations opposed to Iraq becoming a free country will not allow peace to happen. Chief among them is Iran.

This report from MEMRI is an eye opener in that it provides an insight to just whom is causing much of the recent bloodshed,
Irans role in recent uprising

A snippit from Memri,
"The source indicated that elements of the Al-Quds Army and the Revolutionary Guard Intelligence lead many of the operations directed against the coalition forces. These elements are also leading a campaign against the senior Shi'a clerics such as the Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, Hussein Al-Sadr [Muqtada's uncle], Ishaq Al-Fayadh and others because of their opposition to the concept of "the Rule of the Jurist" [Wilayat Al-Faqih] which is Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's style of government."

I understand you place blame on the Bush administration for having us there, but it would be refreshing for blame to also be placed on countries guilty of further instigation and recent bloodshed, not allowing peace to take hold.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Perhaps BT, but I think and feel that it is far more than your agreement with US's media play of "Iraq in Chaos".

Their is a hidden guiding hand behind this and I think it is Iran.
There are neglected media sources that are indicating that Moqtada al-Sadr is an Iranian agent or is working for the Iranian Intelligence, and that he is recieving 'orders', encouragement, authorization, and possible aid from Iran and others. No mention or follow-up on this by the mainstream, but then again, its political season and if it has no influence on politics, its not worth concentrating time and effort on....you know, anything remotely close to revealing the truth doesn't sell, correct?!

You have a case in Iraq, IMHO, were 'Joe' Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is using and pulling from, to his own ends and those of Iran, the Sunnis that are still loyal to Saddam and the young jobless and poor Shi'ites, who are easily swayed by 'Joe' Cleric al-Sadr.

I would like to present some articles that I feel lean to the reasoing that I have come to believe. I am sure that this will be of no consequence and is of no merit, but hey, its worth the time and the effort to me to possibly show that what is happening or transpiring in Iraq, is not solely what you make it to be:

Over a year ago, WND released an article that there was an Iranian trained army/militia in Iraq. Ironically, this was during the time that the US and Iran were having some heated discussions on Iranian involvement in Iraq.
Iranian-trained army in Iraq:
40,000 ex-POW Shiites armed, prepared for Islamic revolution

An Iranian student group known as SMCCDI reported that:
More trained "pilgrims" to enter Iraq

This from GlobalSecurity.org (which is a very good read).....:
Al-Mahdi Army / Active Religious Seminary / Al-Sadr's Group

The loyalty of many of his supporters passed to another son, Hojatoleslam Muqtada al-Sadr, a mid-level cleric about 30 years of age. Unlike his father, Muqtada had little formal religious standing to interpret the Koran, and relied for religious authority on an Iran-based Iraqi exiled cleric, Ayatollah Kazem al-Haeri. The militia wing of this movement was known as the "Mahdi Army" and was estimated as of early 2004 to consist of about 500-1000 trained combatants along with another 5,000-6,000 active participants.

This from the AsiaNews service:
Imam Muqtada Al-Sadr threatens to launch Intifada

Several months ago Al-Sadr visited Iran where he was warmly received by the Ayatollah Khamenei and Hashemi Rafsanjani. According to Arab sources, Khamenei probably compared Al Sadr to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, when wishing him luck in kicking out American forces in Iraq �like the Hezbollah did to Israel in Lebanon�.

More from this site, Iran Va Jahan, article:
Time to Confront Iran's Theocracy On all Fronts

On the Iraqi front, Iran�s mullahs have stepped up their campaign to increase their influence in that country. Tehran has two main objectives in Iraq: to create a client regime there and to rid itself from its Iraq-based main opposition, the Iranian Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK).

Since coming to power in 1979, the mullahs have considered Iraq the ideal springboard to export �Islamic Revolution� throughout the region. They view a pro-Tehran Iraq as a counterweight to the advancement of democracy in the Middle East. Clearly, a secular democratic Iraq would be a strategic blow to Tehran. For now, US policy makers should expect Iran to address the threat it perceives from the US in Iraq with terrorist violence.

The Tehran regime has mounted an increasingly sophisticated, multi-phased and multi-faceted campaign in Iraq. It has been flooding Iraq�s holy Shia cities with agents disguised as �pilgrims.� The mullahs have also dispatched thousands of preachers to Iraqi cities to propagate their views. They have also established dozens of quasi-political organizations under the benign pretext of humanitarianism. Local Iraqis have complained that many Iranians are paying huge sums to buy houses for Tehran�s agents who are skillfully embedding themselves in these cities. The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and the Revolutionary Guards Corps are involved in at least three broadcast streams being pumped into Iraq.

This article also:
Iran, Hezbollah support al-Sadr

Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr, the fiery Iraqi Shi'ite cleric who ordered his fanatical militia to attack coalition troops, is being supported by Iran and its terror surrogate Hezbollah, according to military sources with access to recent intelligence reports.

And lastly, this from RadioFarda:
Italian Security Report Links Moqtada Sadr To The Supreme Leader

Iraqi Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr, who is directing a widespread armed uprising against the coalition forces in Baghdad and southern Iraq, receives his orders directly from the office of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, Italian foreign intelligence organization, Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare (SISMI), a unit of the Italian defense ministry, said today in a report to the Italian parliament. The report, which prompted a call to foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi by Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini, said without political, financial and military support from the Supreme Leader, Moqtada Sadr and his al-Mahdi brigade could not have mounted their multiple, simultaneous attacks.

I do contend that some of what you mention is certainly not helping, but what I am contending, as food for thought, is that there is possibly more to this than you or the mainstream media is willing to look into or investigate. I do not believe that this is simply an uprising to get the US out of Iraq. I believe it is being manipulated by unseen others, namely Iran.


seekerof

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Seekerof]

Fox news did refer to involvement by Iran yesterday.

As I mentioned in an earlier reply to Seek's post, I do believe regional fundie faction are at work instigating much of what's going on.
I am "depressed" about it because sound military planning was backseated to political expediency going into Iraq, and has continued along those lines since arriving.
Iran was fast becoming the showcase of sound capitalistic & democratic reform over fundie thocracy rule:
President Khatami won by 70% on a reformist platform - what other reginonal country was mandateing prenatial care, allowing vasectomiys & abortions, had ther version of Victoria's Secret & McDonalds?
The full pass off to Iranian manipulation is a big stretch - these are factions that are clearly personas- non grata in Iran trying to piggyback a piece in Iraq.
The Iraqi escalation is due to

- Coalition brutality

- Coalition inaccuracy

- Coalition lack of planning

It only up until recently that America recanted it's "They'll be signing in the streets for their Liberatiors" pipedream.

From BT's post
posted on 11-4-2004 at 05:02 Post Number: 469712 quote
Phoenix, I agree...........

Phoenix picks self off the floor and regains composure


BT, thanks for aknowledging Iranian interference. The take on Iranian internal politics needs work though.

To call the recent round of elections in Iran reformist is to call the Bush administration progressive here, both prepositions are false. Several thousand candidates that actually stood for reform and a step away from theocratic rule in Iran were not allowed to run in the election by the clerics. That caused rioting and protest in many cities of Iran.

Major media reports on the internal situation in Iran are sparse at best, but many blog sites where people from Iran are posting shows that the current party in control is not popular at all, many instances of protest violently put down are cited by these bloggers, Soon the media will not be able to ignore the story as they have done so far.

As to your point saying the main reason for insurrection in Iraq is the coalition, rather minimizing the Iranian role - hard for me to buy.

- Coalition brutality, We are quite reserved as compared to the rule of Saddam where up to 500,000 were tortured, raped and killed. We don't indiscriminately blow up places where opposition exists like Iraqi factional fighters, only after our forces have been fired on and in some cases casualties have been taken do we loosen restraint.

- Coalition inaccuracy, you'll have to elaborate on this for me, does it support your next statement by alluding to planning?, or does it mean weapons missing target? or something else altogether.

- Coalition lack of planning, This is a sticky one, if we had gone in heavy handed and taken an extreme control strategy in the first place then the accusation of the coalition being oppressors would have been made.
I think an error was made in releasing Iraqi army,Baath party members and foriegn fighters wholesale without better vetting was a mistake, the coalition erred on the side of being civil and unfortunaty made appearance of weakness in a region where that gets no respect.

BTW, I appreciate the civility and restraint you have demonstrated in your reply to my reply, it adds the possibility of healthy discourse over political invective.

Thanks, Phoenix

Here's an Iraqi poll showing their thoughts on the invasion of Iraq:

More Iraqi polls



A year after the toppling of Saddam do you think the US was right to lead the invasion of Iraq?

Yes :
28%
No :
67%
Unsure :
5%

Number of pollers : 76113





Oh and, I have no comment, i'll let leaves lie where they are.

[Edited on 12-4-2004 by TrueLies]

....first mentioned: Warfare conducted in an Urban theater is catostophic in the only two ways that it can be conducted:

1. Superior fire power - 3rd world country means 3rd world mobility, which means none. Ordinance of sufficent firepower to take out buildings will also take out neigborhoods for the most part.

2. Door to Door - Booby traps out the ying yang married to ambush central. High US casualities.

So either many dead non-combatants or many dead soldiers....no middle ground.

In disbanding the Iraqi army, Paul Bremmer gave the volatile aspect of the occupation a 500,000 man boost.
There is, comparatively, zero equal measure that the Iranian influence can exert compared to that single facet.

Phoenix: " Coalition brutality, We are quite reserved as compared to the rule of Saddam where up to 500,000 were tortured, raped and killed. We don't indiscriminately blow up places where opposition exists like Iraqi factional fighters, only after our forces have been fired on and in some cases casualties have been taken do we loosen restraint. "

Okay first off, comparing the way you treat Iraqis to the way Saddam did is a little extreme. Why not say "Hey it's not like we're gassing people like the Nazis"? Let's try to remember you're supposed to be "liberators".

There is NO restraint in the military. The US has far superior firepower and uses it every chance they get, whether it is warranted or not. How many people have been gunned down at checkpoints with their innocent families? How many wedding parties have been bombed?

"Coalition inaccuracy, you'll have to elaborate on this for me, does it support your next statement by alluding to planning?, or does it mean weapons missing target? or something else altogether."

It means, for me, that despite all its' assurances, the Pentagon and the US military don't give a flying fig how many Iraqi civilians die. Heck they don't even count them!

How many have been killed in Fallujah? I've heard anywhere between 300 and 800. CIVILIANS.

You can drop a 3000 pound bomb on a frickin DIME but it's still a 3000 pound bomb!!! Destroying everything in a 1000 metre radius, and crippling and maiming in a 3000 metre radius. Drop one of those in a residential area and you are going to have dead civilians.

And I haven't even mentioned Depleted Uranium.

" Coalition lack of planning, This is a sticky one, if we had gone in heavy handed and taken an extreme control strategy in the first place then the accusation of the coalition being oppressors would have been made. "

You didn't go in heavy-handed? How about that whole "Shock And Awe" 3 day bombing festival? Let's call that State-Sponsored Terrorism, since it was designed to terrify.


jako

Originally posted by Jakomo
Okay first off, comparing the way you treat Iraqis to the way Saddam did is a little extreme. Why not say "Hey it's not like we're gassing people like the Nazis"? Let's try to remember you're supposed to be "liberators".

It�s certainly relevant to compare what they were liberated from if you want to criticize their liberators.

Originally posted by Jakomo
There is NO restraint in the military. The US has far superior firepower and uses it every chance they get, whether it is warranted or not. How many people have been gunned down at checkpoints with their innocent families? How many wedding parties have been bombed?

Do you have actual statistics? Or are these just rhetorical questions?