It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Who stands to gain from Iraq in civil war?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by kojac

I must of missed something.....When have they killed loads of Iraqi muslims?

I dont know maybe during the near decade long bloody Iran-Iraq war (1980–1988 )

Even Iran acknowledged that nearly 300,000 people died in the war; estimates of the Iraqi dead range from 160,000 to 240,000. Iraq suffered an estimated 375,000 casualties

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:54 PM
The quick answer is no one, especially in the Middle East. It appears every time that an actual civil war is contested in that region (such as Afghanistan and Lebanon), the entire state becomes so exhausted with the intra-fighting that a foreign source of power comes and takes over, with that particular country in question “rolling-over” and accepting that new foreign power for a time just because they a so fatigued with fighting each other. These countries always seem to become enveloped into a hole that acts more like an abyss, with no form of progress in sight or of getting out.

The only thing that a civil war will “accomplish” will be to just almost formalize a fractionalizing force in the Islamic world into camps consisting of Sunni, Shias, and those that just want to live by there own accord (Kurds the example here) or of their grander schemes (such as al-Qaeda and their hopes for an unified Islamic Super State). A physical and defined flashpoint border will be erected so we can sorta see where one begins and the other ends, and it will be a major point of contention for all, albeit different degrees of ideology will be the major drive.

If it does occur, the “Iraqi” civil war will pick up where Iran and the Gulf States left off with the Iraq-Iran war. The same set up will be as was then ; The Iranian ideology wanting to break out of its’ Iranian borders and export it throughout the Muslim world, shaping in its’ own image while the Gulf states will act perilously to contain Iran and uphold there power structure and assets that allow them continued power. The only difference here is that there will be a few more players as we have already seen in Iraq from Chechens and Al-Qaeda, etc fighting for there vision, all globally.

And for the more conspiracy minded, you can play with the notion that this will defiantly divide the Islamic world, where they will not be in solidarity and brotherhood, but rather it will be a global “jihad” against each other; also know as divide and conquer. While they are killing themselves, I’ll bet on anything the West and even The Asiatic East will try and take advantage of this situation to there benefit.

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:32 PM
Everyone is assuming one of three things: External actors (Iran, Russia, China, etc.) want civil war in Iraq to maintain or increase their regional influence, wealth, and power, certain U.S. forces at work seek civil war in Iraq to maintain or increase their regional influence, wealth, and power, or certain individuals or groups inside Iraq itself seek civil war to maintain or increase their local influence, wealth, and power.

What if none of those people/groups want civil war? What if they all want exactly what they say they want, but those aspirations are being manipulated and played off of one another to achieve wholly separate goals, possibly including said civil war?

Suppose for a moment that the goal is not a firm grip on the region, its wealth and resources, or the continued power of one of the principle actors. Suppose that the goal is utter and complete chaos throughout the region as an attempt to provoke a “clash of civilizations” type scenario. Now, clearly U.S. hegemony would benefit from long term stability – not chaos - in the region as a whole, even if the war in Iraq was a calculated and temporary loss of stability toward that eventual end, so that counts them out (in this hypothetical scenario, that is). Russia and China, likewise, would be pretty concerned about total instability in the region, particularly with U.S. forces present and their own nowhere to be seen, so they wouldn’t willingly promote that. Iran might want to garner influence over Iraq, but also wants that to coincide with retaining stability and control in their own country, not total chaos throughout the entire region, which would include Iran. Osama bin Laden, likewise, wants the region to unite behind his cause, not tear itself to pieces.

The questions I would pose are these: Who does that leave, how would one go about provoking a wider regional war beyond just Iraq and Iran, who would that benefit, who has the geopolitical understanding and intelligence necessary to anticipate and manipulate each of the principle actors' motivations and decisions, and what would the immediate reactions and involvements of each of the principle actors to a region-wide conflict likely be?

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:49 PM
In response to my question of whether Iran would destroy one of their own most sacred sites to futher inflame sectarian violence, you replied...

Iran has already proved they have no problem killing loads of Iraqi muslims both sunni and shiite.

When asking at what stage did they show they had no problem killing loads of muslims both sunni and referance as proof of apparent espionage, to the Iran-Iraq war.

I'm sure your aware that Iran was defending it's borders within this war, and was NOT the agressor.

So in my opinion, to firstly state that Iran "have no problems" killing Muslims when in fact they were defending themselves from invasion is misleading.

I am not convinced Iran is NOt behind this...But useing the Iran/Iraq war as evidence as to Irans bad intentions seems baseless.

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:41 AM
I agree with ShadowX all the way on this one so far. But nobody's mentioned Israel. Iraq's population is about 60% Shiite. These people are fundamentalist Muslims; in fact they are exactly the same sort of Muslims as most of the Iranians.
I think a successful outcome would make the country powerful (well just look at their oil) and I think this could threaten Israel (especially if the will of Muslim fundamentalists is expressed in a democracy). Yep democracy could be a far greater deliver of religious fundamentalism than any dictator (who by definition probably knows he's damned in hell if it exists).

But now Iraqis are fighting each tooth and nail there is little prospect of the country becoming successful (let alone representative of the Islamic will). The "worst Israel" alternative is: successful, powerful and representative of the Islamic will.

Iran could benefit from a democratic Iraq but only if its people can be fundamentalists with a government free of American-western puppets. Personally I find it hard knowing whether their leaders are believing or using religion; but so far (in man’s history) few people who have reached the top have lived by their conscience. Right now the biggest benefit for Iran must be that the U.S is on the doorstep (and not in the house).

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Liberal1984[/I] I agree with ShadowXIX on this one. Iraq's population is about 60% Shiite. These are exactly the same Muslims as most of the Iranians. In Iraq, Iraqis are fighting each other. Civil war. Under Geo W, there is little prospect of Iraq succeeding as a democratic, secular state.

The "worst case for Israel" alternative is a successful and powerful Shia state representing a fundamentalist Islamic will. This [Iraq] could threaten Israel especially if fundamentalism dominates Iraq, democratically. Yes democracy is far more likely to endanger Israel than any Arab dictator. So far in man’s history, few people who reach the top have lived by their religious convictions. Right now the biggest benefit for Iran must be that the U.S. is on the Iran doorstep and not in the Iran house. [Edited by Don W]

Another worst case scenario coming to pass, as orchestrated by that luminary from Crawford. Now we and the world are asked yet again to save his “chestnuts!”


posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:55 PM

Originally posted by kojac
I'm sure your aware that Iran was defending it's borders within this war, and was NOT the agressor.

Thats the offical start of the war and the truth is rarley so cut and dry

There two sides to every story.

There were numerous skirmishes along the border before the offical start of the war, Iran was bombing the border villages on the Iraqi side.

One of the bombing attacks was even on a Iraqi university I beleive

The Ayatollah Khomeini made numerous public statements before the war about exporting the revolution. Seeing that Iraq has a majority of the same type of muslims as Iran revolution where do you think he was talking about exporting it too?

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Kedgwick[/I] I'm sure your aware that Iran was defending it's borders in this war and was NOT the aggressor. [Edited by Don W]

I concur with Kojac’s recollection. Do I have Iraq/Iraq mixed with Kuwait and Iraq in thinking there was some legitimate basis for a border dispute between Iran and Iraq?

Originally posted by ShadowXIX[/I] That’s the official start . . the truth is rarely so cut and dry . . there were numerous skirmishes on the border . . Iran was bombing the border villages on the Iraqi side . . One of the attacks was on an Iraqi university I believe . . the Ayatollah Khomeini made numerous public statements about exporting the revolution. Seeing that Iraq has a [Shiite] majority as Iran where do you think he was talking about exporting it too? [Edited by Don W]

Well, ShadowXIX, that war was waged from 1980 to 1988. There were over 1 million KIAs, MIAs and WIAs in the war. The cost is estimated to have been $US1.2 T. Some call it the longest conventional war in the 20th century but I prefer to think of the fight Vietnam waged to be free of colonialism, which is called the “10,000 Days War” to be the longest. I guess the operative word is “conventional.”

Whatever was the truth on the ground in the 1980s, it is an entirely new scenario today. An undeclared preemptive strike initiated by the American President was text-book successful. Starting with a early morning “Beheading Strike” on March 18 (that failed) and ending with a “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” celebration on May 1. 2003, aboard the USS Lincoln, Which celebration turned out to be rather more than just premature.

America will soon be “CELEBRATING” the 3rd anniversary of the Second Punitive Expedition to Iraq. (The first being in 1991.) I don’t know if Geo W will be making any speeches this coming Saturday or not. Most likely he’ll be in Crawford. Way out of harms way. Cindy Sheehan stay home! Maybe VP Cheney or the OBERFUHRER will sound off? For some, the bottom line issue is, have 2,300 of our young men and women died in vain in Iraq? No pictures of returning corpses draped in flags, please. BAD for the government’s public image. BAD for the public’s morale. Dead bodies tend to raise questions. AND, WHO will be the last American to DIE in Iraq?

Looks like Geo W’s second term will go down in history. Start with his RANT against Social Security. He could not get an applause from even the hand picked audiences. Hmm? OK, Geo W has a wonderful way of passing on the next item. Harriet Meiers. She was the BEST qualified candidate, Geo W said. And there she was gone. Next item, please.

Always lurking in the background is IRAQ. Sure, the Iraqi have voted often enough to be declared DEMOCRATS. Well, with a small “d.” Sometimes we had to tell the Iraqis how to vote, but what’s new? Oops, came Hurricane Katrina. Geo W proclaimed on national tv, “Hey Mike, you’re doing a heck of a job!” Then Hurricane Rita. Then they caught Jack Abramoff. Geo W pulls a St. Peter on us, says he “DID NOT KNOW JACK ABRAMOFF.” Turns out Jack has been to Crawford on the ranch almost a DOZEN times. North Korea? Where’s that? India and the NPT? Hey, we’ll go unilateral on that one, sez Geo W. “If I say it’s ok, it’s ok!”

ASIDE. What did Richard Nixon say about Mayer Daley of Chicago in 1960? What did Al Gore say about Florida in 2000? I am from a state that until around 1970, you really did not know who won a close race. It depended more on who was still “counting” than who got the most votes. By the end of the 1970s, Kentucky had replaced all its old pull the lever down voting machines with optical scanners with a paper trail. From that day forward, Ky counted more than 1.2 million votes in an election in less than 2 hours. It is hard to STEAL an election when the returns are known in two hours after the polls close. Lesson?

RESUME. The issue now is how can the U.S. get out of Iraq without looking to the rest of the world that we are pulling a 1975 Saigon rerun? (For you youngsters, the U.S. fled Vietnam in 1975 by helicopters flying from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. Very inglorious.) Even though we have been lamely trying to claim the overthrow of Saddam justified all the misery we are putting the Iraqis through, even a Texas National Guard miscreant is finding it hard to see a silver lining in this DARK CLOUD.


new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in