It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abdulaziz al Hakim offer's 100,000 troops for the election

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
Sep

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   
"Apparently fed up with the inability of American and Iraqi troops to stop the violence, a leading Shiite politician offered Monday to send 100,000 of his militiamen to guard polling places for the Jan. 30 election.

Abdulaziz al Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, part of the dominant Shiite-based slate of candidates in January's elections, told journalists the offer is "part of our political and national responsibilities." He said the Badr Brigade, the Iran-backed council's armed wing, was prepared to guard Iraq's polling sites."

www.philly.com...

Do you think the US will accept this offer or not?



[edit on 20-12-2004 by Sep]




posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Really interesting how it's the Sji'ites that offer America to help make the transition in the country, Too bad That iran and america have a grudge, wich is why the american government is wary about giving the sji'tes more power in iraq.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Thats called a "Civil War Kit" in my mind. Have 100,000 armed Shiites guarding the poles? HAH!!! Instant civil war, just add bullets and watch it rise....



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Civil war Kit, RPG sold seperately


TPL

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Thats called a "Civil War Kit" in my mind. Have 100,000 armed Shiites guarding the poles? HAH!!! Instant civil war, just add bullets and watch it rise....


Agreed.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Thats called a "Civil War Kit" in my mind. Have 100,000 armed Shiites guarding the poles? HAH!!! Instant civil war, just add bullets and watch it rise....


Exactly, you are very right, finally the struggle between the majority Shiites is going to ensure their rule and supremacy in Iraq, over any other tribes.

They were under oppression with Saddam, but some forget that while they are majority in Iraq, Sunni are majority in Iran and who is going to said that they are not the ones bringing all the attacks on Baghdad in their way of helping the Sunni against their rival Shiites.

The Shiites are very friendly to US for now because they want to get their hold on the Iraqi government.

In the other hand the Kurds are as friendly as long as the US does not interfere in their pursue of authonomy, we have not seen what is going to happen next with them, that is other trouble that will built in Iraq if US decide that they will have to remind as part of Iraq as a whole, we don't hear a lot about them but they are very much alive and kicking their self proclaim territory.

Power struggle under the Iraqi son is just starting.

I thinks things are going to get very interesting when these tribes start to fight against each other for power.

[edit on 21-12-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   
The US is either being narrow minded about Iraq or simply setting them up for failure. If we would set up a confederation of autonomous provinces which only must cooperate on the most basic infrastructure I believe that the Sunni would be more likely to play ball for elections and the Kurdish problem would be answered as well. The Shi'ites may actually want control- even revenge, but too bad- they should be happy to settle for a free and fair state at last.
America's insistence on establishing western style democratic republics is not always in the best interests of the nations we are trying to "help". In Iraq we are sowing a civil war, and it wont be long at all before we reap it.

Does anybody else agree that Iraq is a poster-child for the potential benefits of conderation over federalism in violently divided nations?


Sep

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Sunni are majority in Iran and who is going to said that they are not the ones bringing all the attacks on Baghdad in their way of helping the Sunni against their rival Shiites.


That is not true. Around 90% of the Iranians are Shiites, and the man who has offered his help has lived most his life in Iran, and the army he is offering is trained by the revolutionary guards and fought against Saddam in the 80s. The Iranians are helping the Shiites and are trying to make the elections run on time, because currently the strongest party in Iraq is supported by Sistani (an Iranian) and is headed by Hakim (lived his life in Iran) and is centered around a party name the Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

[edit on 21-12-2004 by Sep]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   
do you think if you pull out of Iraq now the war on terrorism is won? have you not got the point that Iraq is just a staging step? I mean ....c'mon you might as well send the Islamists a chrismass card as well when you hand over Iraq, that is if US actually pull out ofcourse! and then wait for a "pearl harbour" before going ok mabye we have to go back





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join