Iraq Civil War inevitable?

We're constantly told the US and UK armed forces must stay in Iraq to stop the country sliding into a civil war.

Now, if the Shia had risen up of their own accord and had ousted Saddam from power, wouldn't Iraq have most likely slipped into civil war anyway? I couldn't imagine the Sunnis going quietly into the night.

Therefore for me, this reason for why we must remain in Iraq is redundant because it would have been a natural consequence. Our being there just makes it worse.

You never know, miracles can happen. It is the season of miracles. Lets hope one can happen here and the people of Iraq can see the benefits of using your voice instead of a gun, like in all democracies. I'm not makin a predicion or anything because of the unpredictable nature of the country right now. I guess well see.

Originally posted by uknumpty
We're constantly told the US and UK armed forces must stay in Iraq to stop the country sliding into a civil war.

Now, if the Shia had risen up of their own accord and had ousted Saddam from power, wouldn't Iraq have most likely slipped into civil war anyway? I couldn't imagine the Sunnis going quietly into the night.

Therefore for me, this reason for why we must remain in Iraq is redundant because it would have been a natural consequence. Our being there just makes it worse.

Yes theres now been hundreds of Terror attacks aimed at Turning faction on Faction but as the Iraqi security forces grow the chance of civil wars shrinks each day.

Civil war= Inevitable

I don't think an Iraqi Civil War is inevitable, there are certain outside forces and ethnic groups that may want that, these are the same people currently trying to accomplish this by selective bombing in Iraq. However, if Iraq is able to form a strong central government who is able to enforce its laws and regulations, the chances of a Civil War will diminish substantially in my opinion.

Therefore for me, this reason for why we must remain in Iraq is redundant because it would have been a natural consequence. Our being there just makes it worse.

I don't understand this logic, just because something is likely to happen does not mean it should, or that its right, if our presence there is preventing such a thing then what's the problem?


[edit on 9-1-2006 by WestPoint23]

The civil war or war between tribes is already going on for some time, all you have to do is listen to the Shiites blaming Sunnis for killings and vice versa.

If you take notice of the people that are turning in numbers to be part of the military and police they are mostly Shiites because they are in power.

So saying that is only insurgency going on and terrorist killing civilians is an understatement when the Shiites and Sunnis has been clearly blaming each other.

Occurs everything in Iraq is just fine.

Marge that’s not what I was implying, the Shiites want revenge for the 30+ years they endured under Saddam and the Sunni dominated government, the Sunnis want things to be the way they were so they are doing everything possible to disrupt the current process. Both side are in the wrong, and should not be fighting each other. But like I said before once a strong central government is in place those that want to disrupt the majority of the country will eventually be quieted.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But like I said before once a strong central government is in place those that want to disrupt the majority of the country will eventually be quieted.

No so fast still is the conflict that will arise when the one in power be reminded that the Kurds has taken the rich oil lands of the north and has created their own government.

Do you think that the rest of Iraq will allowed this to happen?

No sir, read and get inform of what is going on is more that meets the eye.

Kurdish people are planning a referendum for an independent state and their votes do not include any Shiites or Sunnis.

And neither they are asking the US for their opinion. They has been waiting for the turn around of the last elections and they were not very happy with the results because they felt that the elections giving the Shiites majority rule was a fraud.

NO, Iraq is still far from a peaceful nation, to many groups and oil to govern the power is to great and the risk are to high.

Well, we will just have to wait and see, I don't believe the Kurds will secede and form Kurdistan. I do think however that the Kurds along with the Shiites will move forward and form a government that is influenced by them more then it is by the Sunnis.

Funny that the safest place in Iraq is the lands that the Kurds have appropriated.

To tell you the true they will never give up the lands and they will become their own nation.

I don't blame then at all.

But we have to understand that Iraq is not a nation of one group and liberation means equality for all.

The Sunnis even had been seeking the Kurds to help with their cause.

I wonder what is going to come out of all these.

If the Shiites goes after the Kurds I bet the Sunnis will side with the Kurds against the Shiites.

Many scenarios can be made of all this.

Many scenarios can be made of all this.

Exactly, so don't post in absolutes because neither you nor I know with absolute certainly what will happen. I’m just stating what I think the most likely thing to happen is.

First of all are not absolutes but the realities that you don’t see in the media or coming from the horse’s mouth.

So far everything I knew about the invasion and liberation of Iraq and the repercussions of it has prove true, because I know about the history of that country.

Each group Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are made of various tribes that are led by religious leaders depending of the zone they live in.

When US claim “Iraqi” people it very conveniently keeps out the fact that these people are many groups together.

And they do not necessarily agree with each other even if they belong to same tribes they do not follow the same leaders.

I bet Mr. Bush forgot to get a class in Iraqi and middle east history before he decided to play war with the lifehood of another race and another country.

Originally posted by marg6043
I bet Mr. Bush forgot to get a class in Iraqi and middle east history before he decided to play war with the lifehood of another race and another country.

Now thats funny, if not ironic, because I was about to ask you when you had your class in Iraqi and Middle East History, Marg.

At any rate, Bush needs no classes in such, that is what the administration advisors and foreign policy planners are paid for and to do.







seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

At any rate, Bush needs no classes in such, that is what the administration advisors and foreign policy planners are paid for and to do.
seekerof

No wonder our country and the war in Iraq is going down the hill.

Darn any well informed person could have done a better job than they did.

I would have done it for free. and our soldiers and thousands of civilians would have been alive today.

What a pity.

BTW I spend a good portion of my life to keep myself informed and my brain in good shape. The day you stop learning is the day that your brain will die.

And yes I stand by my original point of view. . . Iraq is under a civil war as we speak or rather . . . . post.

Originally posted by marg6043
No wonder our country and the war in Iraq is going down the hill.

Personally, I think that you are just jealous that you were not one of those informed persons you mention below.

Darn any well informed person could have done a better job than they did.

Maybe you could offer your services?

I would have done it for free.

Opps, you are offering your services.
At any rate, I highly doubt your assertions, unless of course you have a PhD in International Relations, Foreign Policy, etc, etc.

...and our soldiers and thousands of civilians would have been alive today.

Umm, no.
You are and have been simply in knee-jerk mode, but do not fear, any time the US goes to war or enters a conflict and there are 50 plus deaths, there are those within the American public that go into knee-jerk mode---it is simply a historical legacy and fact.

What a pity.

Taking into consideration what I have mentioned concerning the long and illustrious history of American public knee-jerk reactions to the loss of US servicemen lives, yes, indeed, what a pity.

BTW I spend a good portion of my life to keep myself informed and my brain in good shape. The day you stop learning is the day that your brain will die.

That is great, Marg, and I agree. Learning is a 'good' thing.

And yes I stand by my original point of view. . . Iraq is under a civil war as we speak or rather . . . . post.

Maybe, maybe not.
It took Saddam and 500,000 troops to quash, suppress, and keep the lid on the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds and their inherent ideological and religious differences, whereas the US and Coalition is trying to do it with 135,000+. As such, the notion of civil war is unoffical and certainly under subjective discussion in this thread; the objective reality of such has yet to be adequately determined.






seekerof

Seekerof US and president Bush will never come public and say that is a civil war going on and you know that.

It sounds better to said that "The isurgency and the Terrorist" are killing civilians.

But that is exactly what is going on.

Regardless of the spin coming from the white house different groups in Iraq has put their borders and had claimed lands within those borders.

The Islamic and secular has taking their rightful places around the populations something that was not permitted during Saddam’s rule do to him keeping the religious leaders on house arrest to avoid conflict.

Even pentagon officials warned about all this, including retired former senior-level Pentagon staffer, Lieutenant-Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski back in 2004.

Because the Bush administration has been to busy putting a government in place in that country to suit its needs.

Do you know that the Sunnis were in power in Iraq since the Ottoman Empire? they were the ruling class.

Iraq is riddle by political assassinations and assassinations attempt targeting the now in power Shiites but what you heard in the news is just the old say of Insurgents and Terrorist attacks conveniently hiding the real attacks and the reasons for the attacks.

The old tribal rivalries are in a high gear due to the liberations and retributions and they will be ongoing regardless of what US said or what the selected Shiite government will do.

The bush administration has gone through a hart time trying to sell the Al-qaida link to all the problems related to insurgency in Iraq.

Sunnis will never allow the Shiites to rule or be dominated by them.

No matter how hasty the Bush administration has been in choosing a government to stabilized Iraq and blaming the problems on “terrorist groups” the fact is that the rivalries and fights will happen with US in Iraq or out of Iraq.

Wait and see when Bush will eventually blame the civil war and the Islamic law differences between groups to come out clean at the end.

By that time it will be borders within Iraq and The Kurds are going to get the best deal of all this.

Originally posted by marg6043
No so fast still is the conflict that will arise when the one in power be reminded that the Kurds has taken the rich oil lands of the north and has created their own government.

Do you think that the rest of Iraq will allowed this to happen?

Kurdish people are planning a referendum for an independent state and their votes do not include any Shiites or Sunnis.

And neither they are asking the US for their opinion. They has been waiting for the turn around of the last elections and they were not very happy with the results because they felt that the elections giving the Shiites majority rule was a fraud.

I don't know how anybody could realistically expect the Shiites not to win majority rule, given that they are the majority of the population. So it seems to me that the allegations and protests were set up to happen far before the elections were held.

Sort of how the Dem's denounce Bush's SCOTUS nominations before he even announces who they are.

I tell you what, I guess all the years that the Shiites and Kurds were oppress is paying now.

But while the Kurds are building a new state and staying away from the conflicts in the rest of Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites are going to be all over each other.

Now, has you seen the map that the Kurds are showing as their territory it does not only cover the northern areas but all the way along the Iran border to the gulf.

I believe that used to be their lands of rule before the British divided the whole area.

Iraq Violence May Provoke Shiite Backlash
Associated Press | January 07, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A spree of bloodshed that killed nearly 200 people in two days, including 11 U.S. troops, threatened to provoke a backlash from Shiite militias. Iraq's largest religious group rallied thousands Friday against what it claimed was American backing for some Sunni Arab politicians they say have supported insurgents.

Military officials announced the deaths of six more U.S. troops in the recent violence that has swept Iraq, bringing to 11 the number of Americans killed on the same day.
Military.com

If the US can't provide security, local groups, neighborhood watches if you will, will. When everybody is providing their own security, along tribal lines, conflicts are going to occur. If only through miscommunication.

In Iraq, there is a large distrust for the protectors. The British soldiers with a carload of explosives, no matter how noble their intentions, are going to be looked upon distrust. There is no rule of law. No one is in control, so everyone is fighting to gain control. That is going to create conflicts.

Even if Saddam planned 9/11 himself, there is no justification for such a premature ejaculation of US troops, without any clue what to do when our seed was planted, or such an ignorant idea of us being greeted with 'flowers and candy'.

Originally posted by curme
Even if Saddam planned 9/11 himself, there is no justification for such a premature ejaculation of US troops, without any clue what to do when our seed was planted, or such an ignorant idea of us being greeted with 'flowers and candy'.

So if before we sent troops to Afghanistan in response to 9/11, you wouldnt support it because American troops would face a possible hostile population or group, right? Why do we send troops in with guns and body armor?