WAR: 65,000 Iraqis Flee Sectarian Violence

The Iraqi Ministry for Displacement and Migration claims that as many as 11,000 Iraqi families have been forced to leave their homes - equivalent to about 65,000 people, based on the average Iraqi family size. 5000 families are being given food and water by the Red Crescent and the United Nations is trying to secure emergency funding in the expectation that this internal refugee problem will grow.



I'd like to leave this submission without adding a personal opinion, because.. well.. I think the time for arguing over guilt is long past and it's time that these people got some true humanitarian aid. Screw the politicians, screw the oil, HELP these people.

This is the CIVIL WAR no one is talking about...

Could we have screwed this up any more if we had tried?

How sad for them...and for us...



[edit on 13-4-2006 by loam]

"Civil war" in Iraq was going on long before Saddam took government and long before the US removed him.

Btw, "civil war" is a politically charged word used by many in describing what is otherwise correctly called sectarian violence, especially in relation to Iraq and the recent Iraq war.

There is a long history of sectarian violence and warfare between the Shi'ites and Sunni Sects throughout Islamic history. In understanding that this violence between the two sects is that long standing, then certainly the use of "civil war" is certainly ambiguous in its recent political use.





seekerof

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Seekerof:

We could play this game all night long...

Say what you will, but the cause of THIS particular destabilization is of our own doing... plain and simple.


[edit on 13-4-2006 by loam]

Umm no.

Saddam surpressed the history of violence between the two Muslim sects with extreme prejudice. Hence there being a time of relative non-violence between the two sects during Saddam's reign.

If you want to blame the US for removing Saddam, thus removing the stern surppressing hand Saddam had over the two sects, preventing them from continue that long history of violence and conflict against each other, then so be it, but in doing so, you subjectively and undoubtedly ignore the long standing and undisputable history of violence between the two sects. With the removal of Saddam, the Shi'ites and Sunnis are simply picking up where they left off prior to Saddam coming to power.






seekerof

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Umm yes.

I do want to blame the US for removing Saddam.

When the solution you apply is far worse than the problem you are trying to solve, I call that stupid.

This entire fiasco places America in a weaker position...

And why do you assume I am ignoring "the long standing and indisputable history of violence between the two sects?" If there is anyone who has ignored that particular fact, it would be this incompetent administration. Otherwise there would have been a plan (any plan) after we rolled into Baghdad.

Under your logic, we shouldn't blame the incompetent doctor for killing the patient, since the patient was already sick... :shk:

My logic is sound, about as sound as yours, loam.
You warned against playing games and yet you play?

I will hold to what I have given comment to, just as I assuredly know you will hold to yours. The US removing Saddam has inadvertantly reawakened the long history of sectarian violence and conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis: simpe cause and effect.

The only fault and blame I place on the US in Iraq is that they have failed to understand or consider this, as well as play power politics among and between the two sects.




seekerof

Then to some degree, (even on the substantive issue), it appears we agree.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by loam]

I see it was too much to expect the squabbling to stop for a half hour.

Civil War vs. Sectarian Violence, Saddam vs. Bush, Historical Tensions vs. New Gripes. Meanwhile there are 65,000 refugees in Iraq, maybe 100,000 by the end of the month and who knows how many before the debate ends.

Will anything be done for these people? My guess is no, they'll be left to wander the desert or crammed into tent cities where we can watch them on the evening news, holding their dying children and fighting over a sack of rice thrown from the back of a UN truck.

End of rant. Carry on.

In all reality, too much has been made of the history of violence between the two sects, way too much. Saddam did indeed supress the Shia and gave power to the Sunni, but what Seekerof fails to note that it is this recent history, (Saddams regime), not ancient history that has fueled so much of the hostility. After all the Shia are a clear majority in the country. The Ottomans who controlled the region for 500 years before played each side off the other, favoring one and then the other in the typical divide and conquor routine. Once the weight of empire was off, like in the Balkans once Tito was gone long suppressed hostilities came to the surface BUT it is the way Saddam was removed, the lack of a solid government and ongoing resentment against the invaders (us) that fuels this civil war. And, no amount of spin from Bush or his apologists will change that fact....populations are seperating and there are now internal (and probably soon external) refugee camps, and outside countries (the U.S., Britian, Iran etc.) are meddling in their affairs. If it looks like a civil war, smells like a civil war and bleeds like a civil war, odds are it is a civil war. AND besides all that Bushes policies there are still an abysmal failure.

Originally posted by grover
but what Seekerof fails to note that it is this recent history, (Saddams regime), not ancient history that has fueled so much of the hostility. After all the Shia are a clear majority in the country.

I 'failed' to note nothing.
What I did do was continually refer to the "long history" of sectarian violence and conflict between the two sects.
I purposely did not go into covering it.
My reasoning was simply from an educational standpoint: instead of me presenting such a "long history," it encourages others to look into it themselves and discuss it....like you have in one respect, grover.

Seems my intended 'failing to note' proved successful after all, eh?
Thanks for providing that bit of sectarian violence information.

Btw:

If it looks like a civil war, smells like a civil war and bleeds like a civil war, odds are it is a civil war.

If it looks, smells, and bleeds like a long historical sectarian conflict between two sects, more than likely that is exactly what it is.





seekerof

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Yes sad thing at least before the war in Iraq regular joes in Iraq were able to coexist with no problem in neighborhood now the raising resentment of Shiites new found power against the Sunnis Elite party that had it is now targeting any Sunni even if they were not part of Saddam's elite.

I guess when you are presented with violence, poverty, unemployment the next action is to turn against your fellow citizens.

Sad.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by grover
but what Seekerof fails to note that it is this recent history, (Saddams regime), not ancient history that has fueled so much of the hostility. After all the Shia are a clear majority in the country.

I 'failed' to note nothing.
What I did do was continually refer to the "long history" of sectarian violence and conflict between the two sects.
I purposely did not go into covering it.
My reasoning was simply from an educational standpoint: instead of me presenting such a "long history," it encourages others to look into it themselves and discuss it....like you have in one respect, grover.

Seems my intended 'failing to note' proved successful after all, eh?
Thanks for providing that bit of sectarian violence information.

Btw:

If it looks like a civil war, smells like a civil war and bleeds like a civil war, odds are it is a civil war.

If it looks, smells, and bleeds like a long historical sectarian conflict between two sects, more than likely that is exactly what it is.





seekerof

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Seekerof]

(1) I didn't have to look into it, I am a student of history and know more than your average bear about the history of the region. The reglion I belong to (the Baha'i Faith) has roots in the area. What you failed to note is what I said about the sectarian violence and its sources besides a historical antipathy. But ya know not calling sectarian violence that is tearing a country apart, by what it is, a civil war, is really splitting hairs.

Yea sure wish Rummy would have thought of this, I bet some Generals warned him about this.