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.

 

Iraq Shi'ites hammer home autonomy demands

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   
NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Shi'ite Islamist leaders hammered home demands for an autonomous federal state for their people across oil-rich southern Iraq on Thursday, four days before a deadline for agreeing a new constitution





Minority Sunni Arab leaders, as well as a spokesman for the Shi'ite-led coalition government, rejected the idea and it was unclear whether the split would hold up delivery of a draft text that Washington hopes can help quell the Sunni insurgency.

At an impassioned mass rally in Najaf, heartland of Shi'ite Islam, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution Abdul Aziz al-Hakim turned up the pressure on his opponents from ethnic and religious minorities as the head of his party's military wing derided central government in Baghdad.

"Regarding federalism, we think that it is necessary to form one entire region in the south," said Hakim, leader of SCIRI, and a powerful force in the coalition that came to power in January's election, secured by U.S. military occupation.

"Federalism has to be in all of Iraq. They are trying to prevent the Shi'ites from enjoying their own federalism," said Hadi al-Amery, head of the Badr movement, a militia organization formed by SCIRI when it was fighting Saddam from Iranian exile.

"We have to persist in forming one region in the south or else we will regret it. What have we got from the central government except death?," Amery said, recalling the decades of oppression many southern Shi'ites have suffered at the hands of successive colonial and post-colonial rules in Baghdad.

Source:
Reuters

...And the Start of a Civil War is Already Visible in Iraq Today.

First Shia against Sunni Muslims - and then Kurds against Arabs.

Mission Accomplished Ey George?




posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Mission Acomplished indeed!

Iraq was always going to be a problem. We Brits in our heady colonial days formed the country and as a result of our idiocy created nearly every problem in the middle east that there is today. Talk about reaping the fruits....

Seriously, its gonna be a struggle to hold Iraq together. The Kurds in the north practically have their own oil rich state. They hate the Sunnis (well the Sunni arabs). The Shias dominate the south and have lots of oil. They also hate the Sunni arabs. And then you have the Sunni triangle and they hate everyone. Its just one big cycle of hate. Good luck to the new Iraqi administration, they are going to need it.

One thing that I have to ask is how much pressure is Iran putting on the Shias. Bear in mind Iran would love to have another friendly Shia state as a neighbour, especially one that is rich in oil. I bet they would love their own puppet regime in the south of Iraq.

As regards to the civil war claim, I think that that would have already happened by now if it were going to. The Shia political leadership are smart. They have their own Shia government and are extending their power throughout Iraq in legitimate means i.e. elections and despite horrific provication we have yet to see the Shias rise up in a popular revolution. They are simply biding their time. Once the Americans have left and the new Shia dominated army is up and running, then I belive it will be payback time and the governemnt will be able to justify anything that happens as an internal struggle, kind of like what Putin is doing to the Chechens. (That is if they choose to get payback, they may decide that the time for fighting is over and actually try and make Iraq a nice place to live, god forbid)

[edit on 11-8-2005 by enslaved83]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Yep, Iraq is Falling Apart and Bush is already preparing for a New war with Iran. I wonder what will happen on the Elections held in October. I have stated this Fact about all 3 Sides Pulling the Country apart Several Times - but most of these Times, people here just Laughed and talked about how Iraq is involved in War against Terrorists, not involved in early stages of a Civil War - a war that will break this country into 3 sides.

The problem will soon arise with the "Kurdish Question" - Turkey will NEVER allow Kurdistan to be formed, for that means that they will have to give away a part of their own lands.

So the Iraq Conflict is FAR From over.

But maybe that was the Orignal Neo-Con plan in the first place, sounds very reasonable - create an endless war scenario in the Middle East, which would Require Non-Stop US Military Presence.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Looks like a typical Bush-Bashing thread from Souljah.

Theres one way to solve this problem and its to split Iraq into (3) nations....kurdish, Shiite and Sunni.

If Turkey does not like the Kurds...too bad. They stabbed us in the back by not letting the 3rd ID attack from the North.

Maximu§



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
You are right Souljah, looks like civil war in Iraq. The forgien fighters (Syria, Iran, Saudi) tactic of causing civil unrest has worked. Despite the Wests efforts the Muslim extremists have been successful in applying their agenda of destroying Iraq to further their goal of caliph. Sharia will prevail soon.

Good find Souljah, you are starting to come about and realize the truth about Iraq.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I agree with Maximus, split the country up and problem solved. It's also alot easier to deal with a people who are divided up into a smaller groups and countrys and allows us to selectively target.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Split the country up and you guarantee a series of nasty wars almost instantly. The Shia and Sunni nations would immidiately object to any border that was drawn and start fighting while Turkey would sweep into the Kurdish regions the minute the US left.

Lookat the former Yugoslavia for why this is a bad plan.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I agree with Maximus, split the country up and problem solved.

Sounds like the plan the British implemented after WW1 but it didn't work then and I don't think that's the answer now.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Slightly off-topic, but hits the mark and jest of these type topics.
Definately a good read for Souljah and skippytjc.



There is a sort of unspoken feeling, underlying the entire debate on the war, that if you favored it or favor it, you stress the good news, and if you opposed or oppose it you stress the bad. I do not find myself on either side of this false dichotomy. I think that those who supported regime change should confront the idea of defeat, and what it would mean for Iraq and America and the world, every day. It is a combat defined very much by the nature of the enemy, which one might think was so obviously and palpably evil that the very thought of its victory would make any decent person shudder. It is, moreover, a critical front in a much wider struggle against a vicious and totalitarian ideology.

It never seemed to me that there was any alternative to confronting the reality of Iraq, which was already on the verge of implosion and might, if left to rot and crash, have become to the region what the Congo is to Central Africa: a vortex of chaos and misery that would draw in opportunistic interventions from Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Bad as Iraq may look now, it is nothing to what it would have become without the steadying influence of coalition forces. None of the many blunders in postwar planning make any essential difference to that conclusion. Indeed, by drawing attention to the ruined condition of the Iraqi society and its infrastructure, they serve to reinforce the point.

How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?

Losing the Iraq War: Can the left really want us to?

Is it a matter of those who present thus, because they think that a defeat in Iraq is a defeat solely for the Bush Administration and those who backed regime change, or is it because those who think such, simply do so because they do not really give a crap about the consequences that will definately be involved if such a lose takes place? Be careful what you wish for, cause simply making a wish without placing much thought into what negative and positives can be had with such a wish, leaves one to simply either ignore those consequences that come with that wish being fulfilled or continuing to play the game of point-the-finger...
Be assured that be it in the short-term or the long-term, a defeat in Iraq will be a defeat for the West and will undoubtedly give terrorism the upper hand in the further instituting and committing of such acts in the future.




seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Thank You seekerof, this has been my point for a long long time, yet this drives it home well,



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I agree with Maximus, split the country up and problem solved.



Sounds like the plan the British implemented after WW1 but it didn't work then and I don't think that's the answer now.


its inevitable, even before the British decided to divide Iraq with Kuwait, the Arabs are pretty much divided. Islam first came Mohammed try to unite the people like the Bedouins together but in the end, tribes tradition still exist in their minds and they want to break away for different views. the Islamic empire fell. countries like the Soviet Union fell and broke apart. Iraq is no different. Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south, and Sunnis in the center. there was no Iraq back then just people in the Middle East living in different areas.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Split the country up and you guarantee a series of nasty wars almost instantly. The Shia and Sunni nations would immidiately object to any border that was drawn and start fighting while Turkey would sweep into the Kurdish regions the minute the US left.

Lookat the former Yugoslavia for why this is a bad plan.

EXACTLY!

I have SEEN this Happen right before my Eyes - how a once united Nation becomes Fragmented Overnight. Where is the Border? Ofcourse everybody has their own idea of where the Border line is running on the Map - meaning, that if somebody is "Accidently" inside this Ethnic and Religious Homogenic State and does not belong to it, he will be deported or exectued. I have seen this Genocide Scenario - things can not be resolved that Easily like LA_Maximus said: Theres one way to solve this problem and its to split Iraq into (3) nations. If that's Good or Bad you decide. But know that the Shia Majority in the South has the Oil and ofcourse the Future Kurdistan in the North with 2/3 of Iraqi Oil Reserves with capitl Kirkuk.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Iraq would be in FANTASTIC shape if it wasnt for non Iraqi terrorists trying to impose their agendas. Period.

A handfull of Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, etc have caused this whole mess. They have built disention among the Iraqis leading to the insurgency today.

They have used the Iraqis to further goals of racism and power.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
A handfull of Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, etc have caused this whole mess.

Well you are Kind of Right - yes there is a A handfull of Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, but there is also quite ALOT of Sunni Insurgents, that refuse to Accept this Goverment and what it does. They did not go to Elections and for them this "Liberation" is really "Occupation". And if you want to see REAL Trouble, wait for the Kurdish people to start and realize their Dreams of Kurdistan....



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
And if you want to see REAL Trouble, wait for the Kurdish people to start and realize their Dreams of Kurdistan....


yep Turkey and the Sunni Insurgents dont want to see Northern Iraq become Kurdistan for it challenges their interests. too bad for them. they should not be concern about Kurdistan, they just want a home.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Sunnis Reject Proposal for Federal Iraq



Iraq's three major Sunni organizations appeared to have taken a united stand both for voting and against demands for federalism after they boycotted the Jan. 30 parliamentary elections.

"We reject it wherever it is, whether in the north or in the south, but we accept the Kurdish region as it was before the war," said Kamal Hamdoun, a Sunni member of the committee drafting the constitution

"The aim of federalism is to divide Iraq into ethnic and sectarian areas. We will cling to our stance of rejecting this," Hamdoun said.

The Kurds also have demanded federalism to maintain control over three northern provinces and want authority over Kirkuk, from which thousands of Kurds were expelled by Saddam.

Source:
MyWayNews



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I don't think the Sunnis have a choice anymore. They made a huge huge mistake in not participating in the elections. They have no power and no operatus of oppression anymore (i.e. no Republican Guard) so really the only way they were going to get anywhere was through the elections and they messed up that one. The Kurds and the Shias will do what they want and it will be up to the sunnis to either like it or lump it until the next round of election come along.

Its my opinion that the reson the Shias are tolerating the Sunni demands is becuase they would rather solve this situation politically than by force. I believe the Sunnis will accept a deal because they are probably starting to realise that several years of Insurgency has had no effect at all. Appart from killing a lot of people the situation on the ground is still the same. The US troops are still there so in that sense the Insurgency has achieved nothing. Their choice is now a stark one. Get into the political process or piss the Shia/Kurds off more which will inevitably lead to their destruction. The Shias control the new army as do the Kurds, indeed many of the most effective Iraqi fighting units at the moments have been formed from what used to be the Peshmerga while the Sunis have an ineffectual fragmented gurilla movement to call their own. (It is worth noting that many of the Iraqi units that retook Falluja were Kurdish because the US can count on them to fight and fight well). There is factional infighting in the Sunni camp between the Sadam loyalists and the Islamists who only tolerate each other because they hate the Americans more than they dispise each other. I really doubt that if it came down to it they could get organised and survive a determind push by the Shia/Kurds. (Any believe me, the Kurds can fight like lions)

I doubt the Kurds are going to create Kurdistan anyime soon for several reasons.

1) They have a lot of support from the US, who because of an aliance with Turkey will not allow this to become a reality. Oh and the talk about back stabing from Turkey is wrong. Their parliament voted not to allow US troops through the country even though that is what their president wanted. Since parliament is representive of the people they were acting in accordance with the wishes of the Turkish people and so my friends we must respect that decision. All this talk about spreading democracy, are we spreading true democracy or only democracy where people can only have a view that is in line with us? Come on people we are beter than that.

2) They have got it so good. They have got autonomy in that they pretty much do what they want. They have control of Northan Iraq and its oil so they enjoy all the perks of their own state while they have the protection of been part of the country of Iraq meaning that the Turks have no justification for attcking whatsoever.

The Iraqi resitance has been bloody and has achived nothing. The Sunnis know this, hence the fact they returned to the negotiation table. I imagine that in order to increase their leverage they are using the threat of more bloodshed as a bargining chip. The Shias are tolerating this becuase they have profited from the American invasion and probably want to end the bloodshed as soon as possible. My message to the Sunnis would be "the writing is on the wall". They are trying to forment civil war to delegitimise the new government. I wonder is this the correct course of action? In any conflict it will be them that will be destroyed and they will be destroyed quickly.



new topics




 
0

log in

join