Iraqi Resistance now controls Mosul

Ibn Iblis - what do you call "baseless cynicism"? As a Canadian, I have no obligation to wave the American flag or root for the American side of things. I grieve for every life lost, American or Iraqi, but I look at the situation quite objectively. And what I see is that the U.S. has one idea of what this war is, and the Middle East has another idea of what it is.

Otto you always make sense. I respect your opinion . True . i been to middle east and know what they are. they think that they are fighting for their country and i think that is a right for any nation. as if us americans wont do the same if we were invaded by their forces. we might be labeled as terrorist but still will fight till we die so why should we not understand thier position. Moreover, its gona be hard makeing a new gov where everyone is happy about. the shiat and sunni and kurdies each wont a peice of the cake. there is no way u can satisfy them all. Iraq qill never cool down anymore. They needed that dectator hussaiin to control things.

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
The baseless cynicism of some on this site is staggering.

Hey by any chance is your middle name Grady?

I agree that we cannot force democracy onto these people. I wish they would pattern their government around Kuwait. That would be more realistic.

But what I don't get is alot of people here seem to think this tiny insurgency is somehow representative of the entire country. They are not fighting for "their country", they are fighting to retain the power they've had for 80 years.

I mean, use your heads. Who is doing the fighting? The Sunnis. Who has the most to lose? The Sunnis.

I can't say I blame 'em. The Shi'as have been abused under the Sunni minority for a long time. They've pretty much been dhimmis, cut off from Saddam's friends in the triangle, unable to practice their religion the way they wanted to. Now rabbit becomes the hunter, and the Sunnis aren't having none of it.

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
I agree that we cannot force democracy onto these people. I wish they would pattern their government around Kuwait. That would be more realistic.

But what I don't get is alot of people here seem to think this tiny insurgency is somehow representative of the entire country. They are not fighting for "their country", they are fighting to retain the power they've had for 80 years.

I mean, use your heads. Who is doing the fighting? The Sunnis. Who has the most to lose? The Sunnis.

I can't say I blame 'em. The Shi'as have been abused under the Sunni minority for a long time. They've pretty much been dhimmis, cut off from Saddam's friends in the triangle, unable to practice their religion the way they wanted to. Now rabbit becomes the hunter, and the Sunnis aren't having none of it.

I wonder what you would say if tomorrow Shi'as start the fight.

I think it is too early for them to fight for who is gonna take control over iraq. Its not fight for ruleing Iraq. Trust me if it was that they would have stopped long time ago cuz tens of them at least are dieing every day. They have a bigger cause that drives them to die. No is so weak and being killed so much would fight for a chair. They are fighting to get the "bad" americans of the soil. I feel sorry for our soldiers who are led to war like sheeps just of bush wealthfare

A lot of what is happening in the Middle East can be traced back to the end of World War I, with the Versailles Treaty. A few statesmen decided to play country-creator and merge populations into artificial entities. That's how Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were created, that's also how Iraq was created - the British merged the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra into one state.

The sad thing is, in every case it put people together who probably didn't want to be together. Both Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have broken up, and along the same lines I wonder if Iraq can continue as a country. The similarities with Yugoslavia are unsettling: Yugoslavia was held together by the hand of a dictator, Marshal Tito. When he died, it took only ten years before all hell broke loose. Same thing happened in Za�re, now Congo-RDC, when Mobutu died. He may have been evil, but he kept the Hutu and the Tutsi from going at each other's throats for a long while. Now that Saddam Hussein isn't holding Iraq together, it's obvious that all the groups Rami mentioned want power.

And I'm not sure that the U.S. understands this - the vision is a free and democratic Iraq � la western world, but can it really take root in that context, knowing the history?

That's another reason I say that right now, the Iraqi soldiers probably don't have a strong symbol to fight for.

EDITED for syntax

[edit on 13-11-2004 by Otts]

shiats wont fight without iranian telling them to. and iran says the word then shiats will also fight against us. But iran is calm right now under the pressures it is facing lately

Do any of you critics of the Iraq freedom move remember how long it took the US to have a consitution? This is not a TV show when everything gets worked out in an hours. Patience must be a conservative thing.

Ever tried to kill cockroaches?

Horacid - again, you're expecting Iraq to go along the same lines as the U.S. for its accession to democracy, when the U.S. might not be the model. These are not Americans.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Patience must be a conservativething.

Feels like a Neo-conservative thing to me.


[edit on 13-11-2004 by cstyle226]

Originally posted by persian

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
I agree that we cannot force democracy onto these people. I wish they would pattern their government around Kuwait. That would be more realistic.

But what I don't get is alot of people here seem to think this tiny insurgency is somehow representative of the entire country. They are not fighting for "their country", they are fighting to retain the power they've had for 80 years.

I mean, use your heads. Who is doing the fighting? The Sunnis. Who has the most to lose? The Sunnis.

I can't say I blame 'em. The Shi'as have been abused under the Sunni minority for a long time. They've pretty much been dhimmis, cut off from Saddam's friends in the triangle, unable to practice their religion the way they wanted to. Now rabbit becomes the hunter, and the Sunnis aren't having none of it.

I wonder what you would say if tomorrow Shi'as start the fight.

I also wonder what I would say if tomorrow a monkey flies out of my arse...

Things that make you go "hmmmmmmm"...

Originally posted by Otts
A lot of what is happening in the Middle East can be traced back to the end of World War I, with the Versailles Treaty. A few statesmen decided to play country-creator and merge populations into artificial entities. That's how Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were created, that's also how Iraq was created - the British merged the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra into one state.

The sad thing is, in every case it put people together who probably didn't want to be together. Both Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have broken up, and along the same lines I wonder if Iraq can continue as a country. The similarities with Yugoslavia are unsettling: Yugoslavia was held together by the hand of a dictator, Marshal Tito. When he died, it took only ten years before all hell broke loose. Same thing happened in Za�re, now Congo-RDC, when Mobutu died. He may have been evil, but he kept the Hutu and the Tutsi from going at each other's throats for a long while. Now that Saddam Hussein isn't holding Iraq together, it's obvious that all the groups Rami mentioned want power.

And I'm not sure that the U.S. understands this - the vision is a free and democratic Iraq � la western world, but can it really take root in that context, knowing the history?

That's another reason I say that right now, the Iraqi soldiers probably don't have a strong symbol to fight for.

EDITED for syntax

[edit on 13-11-2004 by Otts]

Very, very true.

Technically, the Kurds should have their own country. Their "territory" covers Northern Iraq, Southern Turkey, and parts of Iran and Syria.

Turkish-Kurdistan covers the Anatoli area of Turkey, which controls the flow of water by way of the Tigris and the Euphrates into the entire region.

So needless to say the Turks won't have none of that.

Anyone ever read The Coming Anarchy by Robert Kaplan? Google it. Great read.

True i agree with ur point IBLIS. but dont think that iraq unitedness (coudnt find a better word) should not be compremised.

I'm not saying we should give the Kurds their own sovereignty. Water is the "oil" of the future, and no matter who controls that region it's going to be a source of conflict.

Turkey can dam those 2 rivers for 8 months before the dams overflow.

vaild point the middle east is having a real water crisis. who ever has water will be in trouble. Actually this is one of the main reasons why israel is refusing to return Golan heights back to syria because of the water in it.

Wow. There's actual smart people on this forum.

btw, even in Canada we're starting to get worried a bit... we have LOTS of water. The province of Quebec alone has 30,000 lakes.

So yes, water will be the oil of the 21st century.

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
Wow. There's actual smart people on this forum.

Are you degrading the people that post in ATS Ib, not matter how you want to paint the picture in Iraq the situation in the middle east, be kurds, sunny and shiites Iraq belong to them and is for them to come to terms without the intervention of any US and thirsty for oil american companies, is only one reson for US to be in Iraq and is not for liberation is for the darn oil.

Iraq is swimming in it.

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
Wow. There's actual smart people on this forum.

Are you degrading the people that post in ATS Ib, not matter how you want to paint the picture in Iraq the situation in the middle east, be kurds, sunny and shiites Iraq belong to them and is for them to come to terms without the intervention of any US and thirsty for oil american companies, is only one reson for US to be in Iraq and is not for liberation is for the darn oil.

Iraq is swimming in it.

You need to sharpen up your web ettiquette. Generally when someone makes a remark followed by a "" it means he/she is not serious.

I love this war for oil argument. If we're swimming in the oil why am I paying about 60% more for gas than I was before the war started?