[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Variable

A tough task considering there are people with a vested interest in making not work, are free to infiltrate the police forces at their leisure.

There are no easy answers in Iraq. But much of this infiltration has become so, because the US has a general attitude of backing their "team" to the hilt and looking the other way when there's dodgy things going on (such as the less-than-balanced police force you describe). They did it with Saddam up until the Gulf War, they do it with countless dictators all over the Middle East and over the world. The old adage "You reap what you sow", is in full effect here.

Like who?

I agree though, the Americans are pretty hypocritical when it comes to how they measure out support for gov'ts.

Well, off the top of my head, Muqtada al-Sadr is a very popular leader, but because he's on the "wrong side", they've been trying to demonise him, attack him, and even kill him. The US only pays lip service to "freedom and democracy", but when it suits them they ride roughshod over the will of the people. It makes any such claims seem greatly disingenuous. A similar example is the Palestinian choice, Hamas.

I find that very unlikely. Just from the Shia threads here that rage on forever, slandering one side or the other. The Americans didn't create violent tensions between the two groups. It was a characteristic of Saddam's rule. He kept a lid on it though through brutal oppression.

Okay, let's say for argument's sake, we take your points, about Sunni and Shia hating one another, and violent tensions being existent pre-US-invasion, as given. Even if that is the case, the Americans are providing no security. There's thousands of American soldiers in the country and God knows how many contract killers, and yet there's still been sectarian violence. If they can't stop it when they're there in their hundreds of thousands, how is this a relevant argument against withdrawal?

You still haven't answered how things would look if they did that. It would be good for the US probably, they wouldn't be losing the money as they are now, not to mention any more American lives. But do you really think that everyone in mixed areas of Iraq would let bygones be bygones and usher in a new era of peace and stability? And if so, how?

Like I mentioned before, there are no easy answers in Iraq, but one of them has to be withdrawal of all Americans. They're exacerbating any and all problems (such as sectarianism, insurgency, governmental corruption) by their presence. With the best will in the world, total withdrawal can't take place overnight anyway, not with the numbers currently in place. But a strict timetable of properly structured withdrawal would be the sensible answer. And certainly, not troop surges, and dropping hundreds of tons of bombs, as has been taking place in the last few months!

If at the end of the timetable there's still a need for other-than-Iraqi prescence to keep the peace, a deal should be worked out with other Muslim nations preferably of a similar culture (perhaps Syria, Iran (unlikely I know), or whoever) to have a mediating presence.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

It'll look like a country free from occupation. "Oppression is worse than slaughter".

obviously the words of somebody who never lived through slaughter

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

There are no easy answers in Iraq. But much of this infiltration has become so, because the US has a general attitude of backing their "team" to the hilt and looking the other way when there's dodgy things going on (such as the less-than-balanced police force you describe). They did it with Saddam up until the Gulf War, they do it with countless dictators all over the Middle East and over the world. The old adage "You reap what you sow", is in full effect here.

The Americans have changed "teams" or accepted new members to their team many times in Iraq, in fact its happening right now, and it is the main reason why violence in Iraq right now is at less than half the level of violence that happened in july or august

Originally Posted by Jamroll

If at the end of the timetable there's still a need for other-than-Iraqi prescence to keep the peace, a deal should be worked out with other Muslim nations preferably of a similar culture (perhaps Syria, Iran (unlikely I know), or whoever) to have a mediating presence.

Iraq has forbidden neighboring countries from sending troops, because Iraqi shias would behead and incinerate Saudi troops just as the Sunnis would kidnap and torture Iranian diplomats and soldiers to death. Not only that but neighboring countries have interests that are

Also, no country in the Muslim world is willing to send troops to Iraq. America has been asking them to do it for the last 4 years, and has offered extensive bribes i'm sure. why do you think they would pay heed to the UN or whoever (without getting anything in return, no less)

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

The old adage "You reap what you sow", is in full effect here.

That's true for both sides right now. I'm not saying that Iraqis deserve to get bombed, but given the unfair stack of cards they were dealt, those groups who have not contributed to violence have little to no American presence it their parts of the country now. Sorry if that sounds 'humiliating' or 'arrogant' on my part, but it's not about that stuff, it's about leaving Iraq with the fewest lives lost.

Well, off the top of my head, Muqtada al-Sadr is a very popular leader, but because he's on the "wrong side", they've been trying to demonise him, attack him, and even kill him. The US only pays lip service to "freedom and democracy", but when it suits them they ride roughshod over the will of the people. It makes any such claims seem greatly disingenuous. A similar example is the Palestinian choice, Hamas.

I don't disagree that the US talks out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to its support of 'democracy'. But when it comes to al Sadr, let's see how well that goes over when he tries to enforce authority over the different populations that share Iraq.

Okay, let's say for argument's sake, we take your points, about Sunni and Shia hating one another, and violent tensions being existent pre-US-invasion, as given. Even if that is the case, the Americans are providing no security. There's thousands of American soldiers in the country and God knows how many contract killers, and yet there's still been sectarian violence. If they can't stop it when they're there in their hundreds of thousands, how is this a relevant argument against withdrawal?

I would have agreed with you until the troop surge proved me wrong. The Americans did provide more security, like you said they needed to, and now there's less violence.

If at the end of the timetable there's still a need for other-than-Iraqi prescence to keep the peace, a deal should be worked out with other Muslim nations preferably of a similar culture (perhaps Syria, Iran (unlikely I know), or whoever) to have a mediating presence.

The only time I've ever heard another Arab country say they'd get involved, is when the told the US that if they leave, they'll send in support for fellow Sunnis under threat from a Shia majority.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

obviously the words of somebody who never lived through slaughter

Well, if they were my own words, then I would have to concede your rebuke, and say that no, alhamdulillah, I have never lived through slaughter.

However, they are in fact words from the Holy Qur'an, the author of which is my Creator and yours.

I'm not saying that Iraqis must suffer slaughter to prove my principles right, as we on Islamica all sit comfortably in our homes typing away on our computers. But any bid for freedom, whether it be from despotic tyrants from amongst your own people, or from imperialist occupiers, requires a certain amount of striving and struggling. In the contemporary Iraqi context, this struggling and striving might result in lives lost along the way, but isn't freedom worth striving for?

Also in my view, Iraqis are being killed in the thousands anyway, as they try and go about their lives, with the imperialist boot on their necks and the sword of Iraqi gangs at their throats. If the occupiers are removed from the picture, this will relieve some of the tension, and I have full confidence that Iraqis can handle their own, however long that may take.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Well, if they were my own words, then I would have to concede your rebuke, and say that no, alhamdulillah, I have never lived through slaughter.

However, they are in fact words from the Holy Qur'an, the author of which is my Creator and yours.

I'm not saying that Iraqis must suffer slaughter to prove my principles right, as we on Islamica all sit comfortably in our homes typing away on our computers. But any bid for freedom, whether it be from despotic tyrants from amongst your own people, or from imperialist occupiers, requires a certain amount of striving and struggling. In the contemporary Iraqi context, this struggling and striving might result in lives lost along the way, but isn't freedom worth striving for?

Also in my view, Iraqis are being killed in the thousands anyway, as they try and go about their lives, with the imperialist boot on their necks and the sword of Iraqi gangs at their throats. If the occupiers are removed from the picture, this will relieve some of the tension, and I have full confidence that Iraqis can handle their own, however long that may take.

salam

do you have the sura and aya number for that line? I'd like to see its context and tafseer and so on before making anymore comments about it because I dont want to get thrown into hell over comments by some dude on the net. I have enough sins to worry about. Thanks.

the rest of what you write is all well and good, in fact I agree with most of it. Except you negate it all with the last phrase. "However long that may take" is just a nice way of saying "however many Iraqis have to die" because anything that leads to prolonged conflict or worsened conflict in Iraq means more Iraqis dying. If somebody supports the Iraqi people from a humanitarian perspective then the only outcome they should support is the one that they are convinced would result in the lowest number of Iraqis dead, hurt, displaced, etc. There are some people who would argue that if the coalition withdraws immediately and the Iraqis are allowed to fight it out or talk it out as they see fit, then this will lead to less overall harm to the Iraqi people than the alternatives. They might very well be right in that speculation

However, as soon as we start saying that there has to be one particular outcome in Iraq and it should happen no matter how long it takes (in other words no matter how many Iraqis die to achieve it), then the focus is no longer humanitarian, but rather political. We are no longer just interested in the wellbeing of as many Iraqis as possible, we now support one group or one course of action and are behind that even if it may end up causing more harm than some of its alternatives. This goes for either side of the discussion not just the "withdraw-now", "anti-war", "pro-peace", "pro-jihad", "terrorist" side or whatever term you want to call it.

ws

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

salam

do you have the sura and aya number for that line? I'd like to see its context and tafseer and so on before making anymore comments about it because I dont want to get thrown into hell over comments by some dude on the net. I have enough sins to worry about. Thanks.

ws

Walaikum salam,

Inshallah, you won't "go to hell" over comments with "some dude" over the net.

I believe the phrase "oppression is worse than slaughter" is taken from Surah 2, verse 217, where the discussion took place amongst the Muslims about fighting the mushrikeen during the sacred months (during which any fighting and bloodshed was prohibited).

"They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein."

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

the rest of what you write is all well and good, in fact I agree with most of it. Except you negate it all with the last phrase. "However long that may take" is just a nice way of saying "however many Iraqis have to die" because anything that leads to prolonged conflict or worsened conflict in Iraq means more Iraqis dying. If somebody supports the Iraqi people from a humanitarian perspective then the only outcome they should support is the one that they are convinced would result in the lowest number of Iraqis dead, hurt, displaced, etc. There are some people who would argue that if the coalition withdraws immediately and the Iraqis are allowed to fight it out or talk it out as they see fit, then this will lead to less overall harm to the Iraqi people than the alternatives. They might very well be right in that speculation

However, as soon as we start saying that there has to be one particular outcome in Iraq and it should happen no matter how long it takes (in other words no matter how many Iraqis die to achieve it), then the focus is no longer humanitarian, but rather political. We are no longer just interested in the wellbeing of as many Iraqis as possible, we now support one group or one course of action and are behind that even if it may end up causing more harm than some of its alternatives. This goes for either side of the discussion not just the "withdraw-now", "anti-war", "pro-peace", "pro-jihad", "terrorist" side or whatever term you want to call it.

No, I don't think it's fair of you to say that what I meant by "however long it make take", is a nice way of saying "however many Iraqis have to die".

I meant "however long it may take". It's not a must for people to die, in order for Iraqis to fulfil the requirement "however long it may take".

Also, America would not be the great nation it is today, if its men and women had not fought for their freedom from the shackles of British imperialism. As you seem to be claiming to speak from the humanitarian perspective, would it have been more humanitarian for the Americans to be ruled and bled economically and otherwise by the British, or was it more humanitarian for them to have fought for their freedom and become a free people governing themselves?

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Walaikum salam,

Inshallah, you won't "go to hell" over comments with "some dude" over the net.

I believe the phrase "oppression is worse than slaughter" is taken from Surah 2, verse 217, where the discussion took place amongst the Muslims about fighting the mushrikeen during the sacred months (during which any fighting and bloodshed was prohibited).

"They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein."

salam

thanks. that seems to be talking about death in battle, not mass wholesale slaughter of civilian populations. The conflict in Iraq today is waged primarily by armed groups against civilian populations. You cant honestly say that its better for all those bosnians in srebrenica to be raped and massacred by the serbs than for them to remain alive within Bosnia as a state in Yugoslavia. This is the model that is occurring in Iraq every day. How do you think all the Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad were emptied (and plenty of shia villages as well)? Certainly there are better alternatives to that. I dont think that quranic aya applies here

Before you tell me that the Americans kill civilians i'll acknowledge that they do, however the US role in day to day combat in Iraq has been steadily declining over the past few months, which is why the number of American troops killed or wounded in action is so low these days. With Al-Qaeda in Iraq destroyed and the American mission a general failure that is winding down, most of the killing today on all sides of the fight is being done by Iraqis. Thats not related to the issue

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

No, I don't think it's fair of you to say that what I meant by "however long it make take", is a nice way of saying "however many Iraqis have to die".

I meant "however long it may take". It's not a must for people to die, in order for Iraqis to fulfil the requirement "however long it may take".

Even if you didn't mean it that way, that's the way it would likely happen... based on past actions by various parties.

Also, America would not be the great nation it is today, if its men and women had not fought for their freedom from the shackles of British imperialism. As you seem to be claiming to speak from the humanitarian perspective, would it have been more humanitarian for the Americans to be ruled and bled economically and otherwise by the British, or was it more humanitarian for them to have fought for their freedom and become a free people governing themselves?

Americans weren't being bled economically by the British back then, the whole escalation of the revolution was a combination of misunderstandings and sensationalism. (despite what movies like The Patriot will have you believe). But that's really a separate issue, it has nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq right now.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

No, I don't think it's fair of you to say that what I meant by "however long it make take", is a nice way of saying "however many Iraqis have to die".

I meant "however long it may take". It's not a must for people to die, in order for Iraqis to fulfil the requirement "however long it may take".

Its the same, because Iraqis are currently dying. And anything that prolongs the conflict in Iraq means that Iraqis will continue to die. The presence of foreign troops in Iraq may be prolonging the conflict, but they arent the only factor doing so. There are many other ones. In fact, a variety of proposals have been put forward that would end the violence in Iraq but they always fail because one side or another kills them because they are committed to continue the fight for "however long it may take" for them to win it, regardless of how many of their own people have to die in order to make that happen.

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Also, America would not be the great nation it is today, if its men and women had not fought for their freedom from the shackles of British imperialism. As you seem to be claiming to speak from the humanitarian perspective, would it have been more humanitarian for the Americans to be ruled and bled economically and otherwise by the British, or was it more humanitarian for them to have fought for their freedom and become a free people governing themselves?

You raise a good point. Looking at it strictly from the perspective of harm to human beings and their livelihoods and so on, I think in the immediate, short, and intermediate term the American revolution probably would have been easily predicted to lead to more death and destruction and harm to Americans than continuing to live under British imperialism. I dont know which outcome I would have supported if I had been alive back then. But if I cared about the American colonists and wanted the least harm to come to them then theres a good chance I would have wanted to avoid war. Its also impossible to speculate on how things would have turned out over a history of over 200 years if the American revolution had never happened. Who knows whether things would have ended up better or worse for Americans as a whole, this isnt something that can be predicted.

Sometimes, however, its clear that revolution really will almost certainly create alot more benefit for alot more people than the amount of harm it generates. Look at the South African revolt against apartheid or the first Palestinian intifada as good examples (and there are various others)

Also, its important to gain a perspective on this point you are making. Yes, America is awesome. The USA sent men to the moon and is in control of the world economy (for now) and blew up Japan with atom bombs and so on, and all of this came out of the founding of this nation through the American revolution. But for every American revolution in this world, theres a soviet revolution, and a cambodian revolution, and a Korean revolution, and a Cuban revolution, and an Egyptian revolution, and a Hutu revolt and so on. In fact, I'd probably say that history has shown that violent explosive revolutions and revolts tend to be incredibly destructive to societies much more often than they are beneficial and productive. And judging by the fact that Iraq is currently locked in inter-Iraqi ethnic and sectarian mass murder that has claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions, and that the Iraqi national flag is forbidden from being flown over public buildings in several Iraqi provinces, and that there are at least 4 independent Iraqi military organizations operating within Iraq, its much more likely that if Iraq is just allowed to continue along its present course (with or without occupation) it will end up much more like Yugoslavia or Cambodia than like the United States or Venezuela or even France

ws

[MuslimZ]

I love how everyone suddenly becomes an expert on a political situation whose only tie they have is that of faith. Unless you have direct connections to those Iraqis who are currently trying to bring peace to their land; overthrow the corruption, and return stability to the region; your talk is pure conjecture and emotion. Your assumptions and conspiracies, no matter how well-intended they may be, are just that... assumptions. Just because you share the bond of faith (which, undoubtedly, is a tremendous one) does not entitle you to make judgements and declarations on behalf of a people whom you have no direct connection to whatsoever. I trust the word of those who toil silently on the streets... not the ones shouting from their armchairs.