"What the surge really proves is that ethnic cleansing works. Baghdad was a city of roughly 65% Sunnis. Now it is nearly 75% Shiites. Most of the million or so Iraqis who have been killed in the conflict, and most of the 4 million who are either internally displaced or have become refugees, are probably Sunnis. This is an important point and one that Americans should understand. The surge was created to disguise what was really taking place on the ground; ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. No one disputes this. The Sunnis have been effectively purged from the capital. That’s not a “political solution”. It is a war crime.
More important, the United States military has helped the Shiites win their war against the Sunnis. The Shiites control Baghdad now; the Sunnis will never get it back. That is why they are moving on to the next phase of their strategy, which is to demand that the foreign troops leave. So, at least in one respect the surge has worked; it has helped the Shiites and their allies in Tehran win the war. Bush has helped to strengthen Ahmadinejad. Was that the objective?"
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"What the surge really proves is that ethnic cleansing works. Baghdad was a city of roughly 65% Sunnis. Now it is nearly 75% Shiites. Most of the million or so Iraqis who have been killed in the conflict, and most of the 4 million who are either internally displaced or have become refugees, are probably Sunnis. This is an important point and one that Americans should understand. The surge was created to disguise what was really taking place on the ground; ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. No one disputes this.
[/quote]
So basically “Americans SHOULD understand”, and “NO ONE disputes” that most of the Iraqis who are dead or moved out are “probably” Sunnis? Wow. Aren’t the Sunni’s in the minority anyway? Is it possible that the demographic shift is caused by Shiites moving back into an area where they were previously persecuted?
[quote]“The conflict is really Saddamists versus anti-Saddamists. Unfortunately it took the form of the Sunnis, the old Saddamists, fighting the Shi’ites who come to be, unfortunately, pro-Iranian,” he noted.
[quote]Sunni Muslims comprise about eighty-five percent (85%) of all Muslims. Nations with Sunni majority include Egypt, Saudi Arabia and most other Arab nations, as well as non-Arab Turkey and Afghanistan. Most Palestinian Muslims are Sunni as well.
Shiite Muslims are fifteen percent (15%) the second-largest sect. Iran is the only nation with an overwhelming Shiite majority. Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain also have large Shiite communities.
Sounds to me like the previous inequalities are fixing themselves. And couching the argument within the context of the surge as if US soldiers are singling out terrorists based upon the exact nuance of their religious belief strikes me as intellectually dishonest.
[quote]MrRezister wrote:
So basically “Americans SHOULD understand”, and “NO ONE disputes” that most of the Iraqis who are dead or moved out are “probably” Sunnis? Wow. Aren’t the Sunni’s in the minority anyway? Is it possible that the demographic shift is caused by Shiites moving back into an area where they were previously persecuted? [/quote]
Good point. But you have to consider the fact that Ba’athists and Al-Qaeda for example are Sunnis. Americans have clearly concentrated on those. Most bombings and bad-ass violence was in Sunni areas. Besides, Shi’ites developed quite a hatred for their oppressors which doesn’t necessarily go both ways in post-2003 Iraq.
So, I’d say “probably” too.
Again, very good point. And considering all they’ve endured at the hands of the Sunnites, the Shi’ites are being gentlemen about it. Iran is reclaiming its natural position as a regional power. HH’s point stands. The biggest winners in all this is Iran.
I doubt the US would be so riled up at Al-Sadr had he not been a Shi’ite. Your point would make sense if soldiers were acting on their own, and there was no chain of command that goes all the way up to the politicians. And politics is inextricable from religion in that region of the world.
Besides, it was Sunnis (Wahabis in particular) that attacked America. Chances are that this is taken into consideration.
Only a lobotomized person would believe the propaganda of a safer Baghdad.
That goes for most of Iraq, of course.
The ultimate rationalization for this war and it’s following chaos (“if we didn’t do it, Saddam would have killed even more”) is baseless and only imaginable because some people desperately want to dream of a second good war and preventing another (this time) virtual genocide, which they now fuel themself, ironically.
That’s also the reason the term islamofascists is such a likable propaganda tool. It invokes a nimbus of evil superpowers which must be stopped at all costs.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’ve always wondered why GW wanted to replace Sunni with Shia. Aren’t the Shia allied with the Iranians? Are we all being played? [/quote]
Before we invaded GW didn’t know there was difference between Shia and Sunni.
[quote]
Seems like all we got out of this whole thing was $4 gas and a trillion (or two) in debt, along with a lot of dead and mangled people. [/quote]
Before the invasion Iraq had sanction placed upon it by the UN. Part of the sanctions was to limit the amount of oil that Iraq could sell to one million barrels a day. Today they are pumping close to three million barrels a day.
The reason why we are paying $4 a gallon is because the Chinese automobile market has been expanded by 80% last year and the Indian market is also expanding.
If we were to take the extra two million barrels a day the Iraqis are now free to sell off of the world oil market we would now be in an even worse situation. And the problems we are having now we would have had a few years sooner.
So your point makes no sense.
A trillion or two? It sounds like you aren’t very sure of your figures and you are just exagerating. I also doubt that you have taken into consideration how much it would have cost us to keep the Iraqi oil production restricted for the last five years and how much it would have cost to extend that restriction into the future in the face of the rising worldwide demand.
The bottom line is this is not as cut and dry as you are trying to make it.
[quote]
I wish we would stay in our country and not get involved with all this kind of crap.[/quote]
We live in an increasingly interconnected world where the US is not the only wealthy country. You had better get used to it because the world is not going to go away and America is not immune from the rest of the worlds problems.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I’ve always wondered why GW wanted to replace Sunni with Shia. Aren’t the Shia allied with the Iranians? Are we all being played?
Before we invaded GW didn’t know there was difference between Shia and Sunni.
Seems like all we got out of this whole thing was $4 gas and a trillion (or two) in debt, along with a lot of dead and mangled people.
Before the invasion Iraq had sanction placed upon it by the UN. Part of the sanctions was to limit the amount of oil that Iraq could sell to one million barrels a day. Today they are pumping close to three million barrels a day.
The reason why we are paying $4 a gallon is because the Chinese automobile market has been expanded by 80% last year and the Indian market is also expanding.
If we were to take the extra two million barrels a day the Iraqis are now free to sell off of the world oil market we would now be in an even worse situation. And the problems we are having now we would have had a few years sooner.
So your point makes no sense.
A trillion or two? It sounds like you aren’t very sure of your figures and you are just exagerating. I also doubt that you have taken into consideration how much it would have cost us to keep the Iraqi oil production restricted for the last five years and how much it would have cost to extend that restriction into the future in the face of the rising worldwide demand.
The bottom line is this is not as cut and dry as you are trying to make it.
I wish we would stay in our country and not get involved with all this kind of crap.
We live in an increasingly interconnected world where the US is not the only wealthy country. You had better get used to it because the world is not going to go away and America is not immune from the rest of the worlds problems. [/quote]
I doubt the US would be so riled up at Al-Sadr had he not been a Shi’ite. Your point would make sense if soldiers were acting on their own, and there was no chain of command that goes all the way up to the politicians. And politics is inextricable from religion in that region of the world.
Besides, it was Sunnis (Wahabis in particular) that attacked America. Chances are that this is taken into consideration. [/quote]
I see what you mean Lixy, but I believe that’s pretty feeble evidence upon which to base an accusation that amounts to genocide against Sunnis. If the problem areas tend to have a majority Sunni population, then it only stands to reason that the Sunnis will be affected to a greater degree by any intervention in those areas.
This is another perfect example of how self-policing would be a benefit to the people of Iraq. Once the population has figured out that it’s in their best interest to rout out all the extremists instead of sitting around blaming the Americans, the problem begins to fix itself. That’s why the extremists target civilians, they have to keep them scared to act, afraid to join the Police or Army.
If they can keep the civilians paralyzed with fear then the extremists basically WIN because the civilians, caught in the middle of the fighting will continue to become victims of BOTH the extremists and the Americans. And it’s much easier to blame the Americans if your house gets blown up, because the other guys will gladly murder your whole family if you dare speak out.
Really, if there’s any evidence that the chain of command is targeting specific areas ONLY because it is dominated by one faction, rather than because it is a hotspot of activity, I would be pretty surprised. Not that I don’t think it’s possible, it just wouldn’t make a lot of sense strategically, and I doubt that there are enough people with enough to gain from the continuation of this war that they would be able to conspire in that direction without getting shot down. Wow, that was a terribly-constructed sentence…
[quote]MrRezister wrote:
I see what you mean Lixy, but I believe that’s pretty feeble evidence upon which to base an accusation that amounts to genocide against Sunnis. [/quote]
True that. However, the point I addressed was about the numbers of Sunnis vs. Shi’ites stiffs and refugees.
Nobody’s saying it’s a genocide.
My point exactly. And that’s exactly what your first post seemed to be challenging.
We wouldn’t be having this discussion had Washington not decided to do away with body counts.
Agreed. Most Iraqis are more interested in surviving though. Opportunism is more rampant than ever. Tribalism and religious conflicts aren’t helping much either.
But it was all clear from the very beginning.
This, in my opinion, is another perfect example of how the US shouldn’t be going around invading countries.
The population figured that out long ago. But extremists (by definition, a tiny minority) are not really the problem. It’s the refusal of significant population blocs to accept involvement in the political process as long as the foreign troops are there. And I can’t say that I blame them.
After all, this was a textbook war of aggression. Your military went out of its way to attack and invade a country that represented no threat to it. Why shouldn’t blame Americans? Clearly, Iraq is where it’s at because of American belligerence and the gullibility of Americans.
Had you and your representatives been more critical of Bush’s “evidence”, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
By and large, Iraqis got screwed in yet another military adventure of the world’s sole hyperpower. You can’t possibly expect that they do not blame the US of A.
In the context of Iraq, the word “extremists” should not be used. I suspect it’s used purposefully to amalgamate movements like Al-Sadr’s with groups such as Al-Qaeda.
So make sure you differentiate between them if you want to take this discussion any further.
Again, the situation is more complicated than that.
People are blaming the Americans because they knowingly caused this clusterfsck. People are blaming the US because it’s a power-hungry entity that’s unscrupulously trying to have as many overseas strategic military bases as possible.
That’s the crux of the issue.
Communists were a faction.
Agreed. I never said there was any kind of conspiracy. The truth is out for all to see. I just don’t think you’re one of those who believed Iraq represented a genuine danger to the US either.
People are blaming the Americans because they knowingly caused this clusterfsck. People are blaming the US because it’s a power-hungry entity that’s unscrupulously trying to have as many overseas strategic military bases as possible.
[/quote]
Why does it bother you if we have bases over seas? Most of the nations in which we have bases gave us permission to be there or we would not be there…example Uzbekistan.
People are blaming the Americans because they knowingly caused this clusterfsck. People are blaming the US because it’s a power-hungry entity that’s unscrupulously trying to have as many overseas strategic military bases as possible.
Why does it bother you if we have bases over seas? Most of the nations in which we have bases gave us permission to be there or we would not be there…example Uzbekistan.[/quote]
[quote]lixy wrote:
In the context of Iraq, the word “extremists” should not be used. I suspect it’s used purposefully to amalgamate movements like Al-Sadr’s with groups such as Al-Qaeda.
[/quote]
So, would you classify Al-Sadr’s group as Islamist? Please explain the difference between Islamist Extremists such as al-Qaeda and the Mahdi Militia?
