Allawi: this is the start of civil war

IRAQ’S former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has warned that his country is facing civil war and has predicted dire consequences for Europe and America as well as the Middle East if the crisis is not resolved.

"The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq," said Allawi, a long-time ally of Washington.

In an interview with The Sunday Times last week as he visited Amman, the Jordanian capital, he said: "The policy should be of building national unity in Iraq. Without this we will most certainly slip into a civil war. We are practically in stage one of a civil war as we speak."

Allawi, a secular Shi’ite, said that Iraq had collapsed as a state and needed to be rebuilt. The only way forward, he said, was through "national unity, the building of institutions, the economy and a firm but peaceful foreign relation policy". Unless these criteria were satisfied, "the country will deteriorate".

Allawi said that he had discussed the urgency of rebuilding Iraq’s military with President George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, last year. "Bush earmarked $5.7 billion (£3.2 billion) . . . but I did not receive the money," Allawi said.

Source:
TIMES Online

Now thats what I have been saying all the time - that Iraq is on the brink of Civil War - or maybe the War has already started.

As mentioned in one of my previous posts, the Frontlines in Iraq between the fighting sides are very Clearly drawn in the Sands of the Country - but in the Cities things get more complicated.

Iraq is split - fightings wont come to an End anytime Soon.

If mister Allawi is correct, then soon we can expect an erruption of Full Scale Civil War - or maybe we are already Seeing it...

Mister Allawi said:
"Force alone will not solve the problems in Iraq. It needed to be combined with dialogue and money to ensure stability."

Well, Force is present at all Times.

Dialogue? Hell, there is almost NONE!

Money? Heh, Money is gone - "Bush earmarked $5.7 billion . . . but I did not receive the money."

If civil war takes place, then so be it.
The Iraqi people will sooner or later have to sort things among themselves anyhow, correct?

Further on in the article, this is mentioned:

However, Allawi insisted the Americans’ presence in Iraq was still required and rejected suggestions that a schedule should be drawn up for their withdrawal. “I cannot see withdrawal based on timing, but based on conditions,” he said. These would be satisfied only once Iraq “develops the capability to deal with threats”.

I found it how you selectively skirted this mention.
I can certainly understand why....





seekerof

What I find particularly interesting is that the whole "civil-war"possibility has been mentioned from the get go, yet hardly anyone entertains the idea that a revolution is actually desired. To me it would appear as if the administration were banking on a civil war. If one were to look at EVERY decision made since the "end of major combat operations", one would find mistake after mistake that "coincidentally" leads the country towards greater violence, and instabillity. Does anyone actually believe this is a coincidence?

Would a civil war be in Americas best interest? You bet your mule it would. As it stands now, Washington can not adequately explain why exactly it is building several permanent military bases in the region. Truthfully there is no explanation unless a semi-permanent to permanent presence is desired/planned.

If, and when revolution breaks out, it will galvanize everyones support for the illegal occupation. In the case of a revolution, America can then be viewed as staying for Iraqi "security", rather than our own imperial interest's.

Considering Americas blatant meddling in the affairs of soverign nations for well over 100 years now, is it really that hard to see the Iraq conflict fomented into a revolution? Have we been known to do this before? You bet your mule!!!

As for Iraq being split: Of course it is. No peoples or nation on earth is truly united. Are we however playing upon these differences to see our own goals realized? I think so. Divide and conquer is still a very useful tactic, one that we have perfected actually. Be on the watch in the next 10-20 years to find out the real story. Don't be surprised if you find CIA meddling, similar to that seen in South America.

Great post! I agree thoroughly!

I also think that a civil war would be in the best interest of Iraq. And it has already started. You gotcher freedom fighters and you gotcher insurgents (of course it depends on which side you're on as to what you call the other - they ALL think they're freedom fighters.)

I do believe I've heard rumblings of a dialogue starting, Souljah. I'll have to look it up.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You gotcher freedom fighters and you gotcher insurgents (of course it depends on which side you're on as to what you call the other - they ALL think they're freedom fighters.)

Thank you.

As for which freedom fighters/insurgents will end up being our "allies", and for how long?....God knows.

Lest we forget, once upon a time the mujahadeen (sp?) were seen as our allies, now they are "terrorist".

I suppose whichever peoples/orginization parrallels "American interest" at the time will always win out.

"God Bless the USA.......and nowhere else!!!

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Does anyone actually believe this is a coincidence?

You have voted phoenixhasrisin for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

You said it my friend....no such thing as coinkidink as far as what the U.S. done here or anywhere else for that matter - years and years of meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations.

Well said.

If Iraq goes into a civil war, then her blood is on our hands.
We now undertstand the difficulties Saddam was up against in terms of ruling his country. Poeple dying daily.

There is more bloodshed now then there was when he was under rule.
The 1000 bodies found buried or whatever it was, it nothing comparted to the body count that has been mounting trying to bring their coutry under control.

It is our duty as a more and ethical country, to fix what we messed up.
We looked for WMDS and found none. We built the largest US embassy of all in Iraq. And we put in 14 or so military bases. And then peoplel want a schedule to pull out?

Democarcy is one thing. Death, Civil war, and carnage is another.
The Iraqis have had their world turned upside down, and because we felt it our duty to free them, then so be it....free them. Aftrer all...freedom isnt free now is it. I can use all the damm cliches here.

Im insulted as an Amercican when people say let them kill themselves and let them finish it themselves after the debacle of entering Iraq and the lies we used to get in there.

I personally am ashamed of the administration on this particular issue, but proud of the courage and the fortitude our men are demonstrating there.
Thats being an American, or Brit or whichever...Thats where the real men walk.

We have not only lead our men into harms way without a clear roadmap to peace, but we have also done this to the Iraqi people.

Allawi is right....it is the start of a civil war. Americas policy has been not to participate. What happens when you were the one who helped start it?

Im at a loss on this one for I am not an expert into all of the cultural issues there.

There has to be a way to stop a major loss of life with the current structure thats in place. It will no longer be a civil war when the US supplys arms to its interest and teh Russians and whoever else to theirs. It turns into a Viet Nam. Remember that?

It appears that Churchill was right. History indeed is going to repeat itself within a generation. Sad

Peace



[edit on 10-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
As for which freedom fighters/insurgents will end up being our "allies", and for how long?....God knows.
Lest we forget, once upon a time the mujahadeen (sp?) were seen as our allies, now they are "terrorist".

This is it.
America want a civil war in Iraq for more than one reason. Mainly because they need to no longer be the 'invading force' but the 'liberators' they have claimed to be from day one. The only way to do this is to have the fighting turn in on itself rather than at them, then they will be a force that is there to re-establish the peace.

Al-Zarqawi is their man for the job. He's responsable for most Terrorist acts which make you go .
The ones which people say 'why are Iraqi's attacking themselves?'.

He's publically stated that the mission of his group is to start a civil war in Iraq. Why? He's suppose to be fighting in Iraq because Arabs will always fight together regardless of history if it's in order to fight the 'infidels'. So why would he be blowing up Iraqi's and hoping for a Civil War when it's only going to reenforce the US position in Iraq and actually give them what they want.

Why can't Al-Zarqawi be varified by anyone but Rumsfeld who himself knows very little about this man.

No one knows who Al-Zarqawi is and his identity can't be confirmed but yet he's a parrot for US Army tatics in Iraq.

This is the whole essence of 'Al-Qeada' which is a group that doesn't exsist. If anything, Al-qeada is no more than a ideology shared amongst individual groups. This creation of Al-Qeada has been crafted so there is always a cover for any Psy-Ops that have to be done.

There's only EVER been 1 Al-Qeada group uncovered and it turned out to be a front for Mossad.

Bin Laden who is the head of Al-Qeada if you believe the Pentagon was established by the CIA, funded by American tax payers and had his Muhjadeen sponsered by America. Now when America invaded Afgahnistan in 2001, they aligned themselves with the War Lords to remove the Taliban from the villages. Most of these people simply swapped hats, that's it. They don't fight loyaly for certain groups only, they fight for who has power.
When America invaded, the Taliban was quickly disabled because most of it's members started fighting under the War Lords who had US Army backing.
Nothing has changed in Afghanistan except Taliban laws have been replaced AGAIN with War Lord rules and where is Bin Laden??

The only thing to come out of the Afghan war in response to 9/11 were two things:
1. The farce that Bin Laden has been on the run and his group disbanded all over the world, thou still under control of Bin Laden.
2. The war aligned perfectly with the Poppy season which resulted in a 2,000 ton Herion trade boost under the re-established War Lords - The Taliban had been destorying the Poppy crops because drugs are against their religion and the season prior to 9/11 had produced an all time low. The CIA/Wallstreet Drug Trade is a MAJOR funder for black budgets, it's important to them that a healthy controlled drug trade is working and Afghan Herion is a big money maker.
3. Oil Pipelines of course.

The CIA funded and established Bin Laden
The CIA funded Allawi to run Terrorists activities against Saddam, then made him Intern Prime Minster.
Now the CIA are funding Terrorist operations in Iran.

It's foolish to believe 'Terror' can be stopped with 'Terror' and 'War' and it's a flat out lie when Bush/Rumsfeld or Cheney say they 'don't deal with Terrorists'.




[edit on 11-7-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Oh come on the US was banking (yes BANKING $$$) on the fact that Iraq would desend into civil war.

Why?

Coz they can they then claim to have the "moral" obligation to stay there and police the place, while playing the "we really care" card.

In actual fact it was part of the plan to keep this war (any war) going as long as possible, they need to milk it for $$.

In fact alawi saying the cicil was is about to start is just him being polite. The civil war started the second Saddam was ousted and is called the "insurgency" by the western press.

[edit on 11/7/2005 by Corinthas]

Why would Bush want a civil war in Iraq? That'd sure throw a wrench into his plans to steal all of her oil! You conspiracists should at least try to get your stories straight... :shk:

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Why would Bush want a civil war in Iraq? That'd sure throw a wrench into his plans to steal all of her oil! You conspiracists should at least try to get your stories straight... :shk:

The why is explained in the post above.

Bush wants his boys to have a reason to stay there and police, that reason is the civil war. Coz he can play the humanitarian card while having an excuse to occupy the newly "liberated" country.

As I said it's all in the post above but i've made the point again nice and simple for you here.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
This is it.
America want a civil war in Iraq for more than one reason. Mainly because they need to no longer be the 'invading force' but the 'liberators' they have claimed to be from day one. The only way to do this is to have the fighting turn in on itself rather than at them, then they will be a force that is there to re-establish the peace.

Al-Zarqawi is their man for the job. He's responsable for most Terrorist acts which make you go

.
The ones which people say 'why are Iraqi's attacking themselves?'.

He's publically stated that the mission of his group is to start a civil war in Iraq. Why? He's suppose to be fighting in Iraq because Arabs will always fight together regardless of history if it's in order to fight the 'infidels'. So why would he be blowing up Iraqi's and hoping for a Civil War when it's only going to reenforce the US position in Iraq and actually give them what they want.

Why can't Al-Zarqawi be varified by anyone but Rumsfeld who himself knows very little about this man.

No one knows who Al-Zarqawi is and his identity can't be confirmed but yet he's a parrot for US Army tatics in Iraq.

This is the whole essence of 'Al-Qeada' which is a group that doesn't exsist. If anything, Al-qeada is no more than a ideology shared amongst individual groups. This creation of Al-Qeada has been crafted so there is always a cover for any Psy-Ops that have to be done.

There's only EVER been 1 Al-Qeada group uncovered and it turned out to be a front for Mossad.

Bin Laden who is the head of Al-Qeada if you believe the Pentagon was established by the CIA, funded by American tax payers and had his Muhjadeen sponsered by America. Now when America invaded Afgahnistan in 2001, they aligned themselves with the War Lords to remove the Taliban from the villages. Most of these people simply swapped hats, that's it. They don't fight loyaly for certain groups only, they fight for who has power.
When America invaded, the Taliban was quickly disabled because most of it's members started fighting under the War Lords who had US Army backing.
Nothing has changed in Afghanistan except Taliban laws have been replaced AGAIN with War Lord rules and where is Bin Laden??

The only thing to come out of the Afghan war in response to 9/11 were two things:
1. The farce that Bin Laden has been on the run and his group disbanded all over the world, thou still under control of Bin Laden.
2. The war aligned perfectly with the Poppy season which resulted in a 2,000 ton Herion trade boost under the re-established War Lords - The Taliban had been destorying the Poppy crops because drugs are against their religion and the season prior to 9/11 had produced an all time low. The CIA/Wallstreet Drug Trade is a MAJOR funder for black budgets, it's important to them that a healthy controlled drug trade is working and Afghan Herion is a big money maker.
3. Oil Pipelines of course.

The CIA funded and established Bin Laden
The CIA funded Allawi to run Terrorists activities against Saddam, then made him Intern Prime Minster.
Now the CIA are funding Terrorist operations in Iran.

It's foolish to believe 'Terror' can be stopped with 'Terror' and 'War' and it's a flat out lie when Bush/Rumsfeld or Cheney say they 'don't deal with Terrorists'.
[edit on 11-7-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

well it looks like someones doing their homework
bravo ! i can tell you have actually read a book before

i with you on this one
keep it up

Originally posted by Seekerof
If civil war takes place, then so be it.
The Iraqi people will sooner or later have to sort things among themselves anyhow, correct?

Great Liberation!

What Great Stability was Established in Iraq!

Civil wars goes hand in hand with Bush's Endless Conflict Scenario.

Yes, indeed: Why NOT create a Civil War.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Why would Bush want a civil war in Iraq? That'd sure throw a wrench into his plans to steal all of her oil! You conspiracists should at least try to get your stories straight... :shk:

As a matter of fact a civil war would allow us the extra time to be stationed there, thereby giving us more time to siphon off the oil. Oh wait that's not happening is it? It's all a "conspiracy".

news.bbc.co.uk...


I love how now-a-days whenever someone attempts to give reason or cause behind an event it is automatically a conspiracy. As if this giant world political machine just runs along by accident. You proponents of the "accidental" view of history should get your facts straight before you mock others for attempting to figure out what is really going on.

[edited for spelling]

[edit on 11-7-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

Civil war? This is the start of the end of the world. lol