Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
walker

The Iraq thread 4

Recommended Posts

There is some kind of horrible, horrible irony in the fact that less people would have died if everyone would have stayed calm and a single bomb would have gone off. sad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my God, that's terrible.....I saw this on the news when I was in the library and it made me feel so sick. Imagine being in that crowd? Apparently the iron railings collapsed and hundreds fell into the river and drowned.....shit, that's horrible....poor bloody Shias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]You don´t have to be a genius to see that the US are very selective on their liked and non-liked media presence in Iraq.

The fact that more journalists have died in Iraq up to today than over the whole Vietnam war could also give a hint.

But hell yeah, we´re investigating, right ?  

http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3

Click on each of those names. I see majority were not killed by coalition forces. Go to International Federation of Journalists website for they call for action on this issue. You might like IFJ's site because they agree with Annan.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah definately....

I think Steven Vincent and Ahmad Adam would disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I have a really bad feeling this war in Iraq is going to be an even greater humanitarian catastrophe than Vietnam. It may not be quite as tough for American soldiers getting killed because it's a completely different environment that makes guerilla war more difficult, but I have the feeling more civilians are going to get killed; it's more of a racial war than ideological that means civilians are going to get targetted; very understandably the Shias aren't going to be able to take this shit from Sunni militants much longer, and I have the feeling Sunnis living in Baghdad or Shia-majority areas are going to find themselves getting targetted and killed fairly soon if these bastards don't stop targetting civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq was kept together by force when Saddam was running it. unless were willings to put him or somebody similar back in control, i think that country is just going to have to be divided up into 3 different smaller nations. would be a step up from a civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]would be a step up from a civil war.

Hold on a sec. We´re not playing a board game here.

IF Iraq would break apart it would be a snack for it´s neighbouring countries who certainly would have a certain interest in their goods (oil, oil, oil)

This is no option, this is the worst to be feared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's more of a racial war than ideological

I beg to differ. There may be sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shi'a, but Wahabis abhor Shi'as and would readily kill them at every oppertunity. And it's not just Shi'as, it's anyone who would even hint at disagreeing with them.

Anyway, this article is a good read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]would be a step up from a civil war.

Hold on a sec. We´re not playing a board game here.

IF Iraq would break apart it would be a snack for it´s neighbouring countries who certainly would have a certain interest in their goods (oil, oil, oil)  

This is no option, this is the worst to be feared.

I say if they cant learn to live by themselves then separate them thats the only way to keep peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Iran or Saudi-arabia would try to seize iraq's oil reserves in order to monopolize oil resources you can expect total and utter warfare. Not just some colonial bushwar with some fancy bullshit excuses but a real all-out war involving everything at west's disposal.

Not that west only would go apeshit over that.. WW3 anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, after a separation you could probably count days before an Iranian anschluss of the Shia regions in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, after a separation you could probably count days before an Iranian anschluss of the Shia regions in Iraq.

How are you and Balschoiw reaching such a conclusion?  I haven't seen any evidence for this.

- Turkey doesn't want more Kurds and would completely destroy all its EU membership hopes if it attacked the north.

- The US would love it if Syria made a move on Sunni Ba'athist Iraq.  Goodbye Damascus with the UN's blessings.

- The last thing Saudi Arabia or Kuwait would want is dominion over any secular Ba'athist strongholds, whether Sunni or not.

- Iran successfully fought off Iraq in a bloody 8-year struggle to hold on to it's Khuzestan province.  They've never stated any territorial ambitions beyond holding on to what they've got.

So I certainly don't see such invasions as being foregone conclusions.   confused_o.gif

The greatest threat to a breakup would be internal from the Sunnis who would be left with very little oil. They are even opposing any steps towards federalism out of fear that they will lose resource revenue. And this is another reason their neighbours would not be very keen on adopting them if they become orphaned in a break up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I certainly don't see such invasions as being foregone conclusions.   confused_o.gif

Who's talking about invasion? I'm talking about a fully voluntary integration into Iran. It's the Iraqi Shiites who would primarily want to join Iran. They don't have a national identity, but they do have a religious one. Going home to papa is the natural choice - far better than to stay alone next to those Sunnis whose oil wells you've just annexed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I certainly don't see such invasions as being foregone conclusions.   confused_o.gif

Who's talking about invasion? I'm talking about a fully voluntary integration into Iran.

Certainly Bals was talking about invasion.  And, if by "Anschluss" you meant the Austrian Anschluss of 1938, then so were you.  Afterall, Hiltler threatened to invade Austria if its president didn't hand the Austrian government over to the Nazi party.  And even after the Nazis took over, Hitler still had to forge a telegram from them inviting Germany to invade.  Hardly voluntary.

It's the Iraqi Shiites who would primarily want to join Iran. They don't have a national identity, but they do have a religious one. Going home to papa is the natural choice - far better than to stay alone next to those Sunnis whose oil wells you've just annexed.

I'm not really convinced and have even read Shia statements to contrary.  In any case, all parties seem to agree that the oil belongs to every Iraqi no matter where it's found.  I say, as soon as they've put that in writing, then the Shia regions can engage in whatever political affiliations they like.  Take Scotland for example.  Once they'd consigned all their oil wealth to the UK they were free to go wherever they pleased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly Bals was talking about invasion.  And, if by "Anschluss" you meant the Austrian Anschluss of 1938, then so were you.  Afterall, Hiltler threatened to invade Austria if its president didn't hand the Austrian government over to the Nazi party.  And even after the Nazis took over, Hitler still had to forge a telegram from them inviting Germany to invade.  Hardly voluntary.

Well, that's a matter of historical debate - exactly how voluntary it was. It's exactly because of the vagueness of the term that I used it. I have no idea really specifically what form an Iranian annexation of Shia Iraq would take form, just that both parties would probably be more than willing for it to happen.

Quote[/b] ]
It's the Iraqi Shiites who would primarily want to join Iran. They don't have a national identity, but they do have a religious one. Going home to papa is the natural choice - far better than to stay alone next to those Sunnis whose oil wells you've just annexed.

I'm not really convinced and have even read Shia statements to contrary. In any case, all parties seem to agree that the oil belongs to every Iraqi no matter where it's found. I say, as soon as they've put that in writing, then the Shia regions can engage in whatever political affiliations they like. Take Scotland for example. Once they'd consigned all their oil wealth to the UK they were free to go wherever they pleased.

Not really, you should take a longer look at the proposed constitution. Sure, it states in a grand manner that Iraqi oil belongs to the people of Iraq - but then it proceeds by putting all that under provincial control. And if you look at the proposed provincial division, you'll see that it's basically the Kurds and the Shiites that get all the oil fields while the Sunni get basically nothing. It was not surprising that the proposal was entirely unacceptable to the Sunni.

As for the Shia political structure, unlike with the Sunni, there isn't really one. The political parties are thinly masked religious parties. What unites them is religion, not politics or nationality. And it is that very same factor that unites them with Iran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I certainly don't see such invasions as being foregone conclusions.   confused_o.gif

Who's talking about invasion? I'm talking about a fully voluntary integration into Iran. It's the Iraqi Shiites who would primarily want to join Iran. They don't have a national identity, but they do have a religious one. Going home to papa is the natural choice - far better than to stay alone next to those Sunnis whose oil wells you've just annexed.

So let them , if its Iran style govt/country they want they have the right to join them. Isnt this the same principle which the american states used to join up. Mutual interests and religious/cultural ties. Divide the place up just like the in the colonial days except this time do it properly , give the shite populated parts to Iran (if iraqi shites want that , have a refrendum under UN) , give Kurds there own little piece of dirt and let them be merry and destroy/kill it or whatever they want. Sunnis can have their own little area or join up with whatever country they fancy , end of problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just go ask any random turk what they think about the prospect of a Kurd state.. crazy_o.gif

However, kurds are the biggest stateless people in the world if I remember correctly. confused_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I certainly don't see such invasions as being foregone conclusions.   confused_o.gif

Who's talking about invasion? I'm talking about a fully voluntary integration into Iran. It's the Iraqi Shiites who would primarily want to join Iran. They don't have a national identity, but they do have a religious one. Going home to papa is the natural choice - far better than to stay alone next to those Sunnis whose oil wells you've just annexed.

So let them , if its Iran style govt/country they want they have the right to join them.

I don't really think so if it means walking off with what all agree is a national asset; the oil under Shia provinces.  Do you honestly believe that Saudi Arabia's predominantly Shia province of Ash Sharqiyah, home of the Saudi Aramco oil company, should be allowed to separate and take all of the province's and most of the country's oil with them?

In any case, all parties seem to agree that the oil belongs to every Iraqi no matter where it's found.  I say, as soon as they've put that in writing, then the Shia regions can engage in whatever political affiliations they like.  Take Scotland for example.  Once they'd consigned all their oil wealth to the UK they were free to go wherever they pleased.

Not really, you should take a longer look at the proposed constitution. Sure, it states in a grand manner that Iraqi oil belongs to the people of Iraq - but then it proceeds by putting all that under provincial control. And if you look at the proposed provincial division, you'll see that it's basically the Kurds and the Shiites that get all the oil fields while the Sunni get basically nothing. It was not surprising that the proposal was entirely unacceptable to the Sunni.

Why should provincial control matter?  The province of Alberta has had control of Canada's oil since it's discovery, but if Alberta would ever seek to separate then they'd leave the oil behind.  Under those circumstances they'd prefer not to separate; just as with Scotland, just as with Texas, just as with Ash Sharqiyah in Saudi Arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should provincial control matter?  The province of Alberta has had control of Canada's oil since it's discovery, but if Alberta would ever seek to separate then they'd leave the oil behind.  Under those circumstances they'd prefer not to separate; just as with Scotland, just as with Texas, just as with Ash Sharqiyah in Saudi Arabia.

Unlikely, take a look at the various splits that actually have happened - the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia et al In all those cases the local resources remained local. The only really notable exception is Sevastopol where the Russians through agreement kept their naval base (although again, not shared).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should provincial control matter?  The province of Alberta has had control of Canada's oil since it's discovery, but if Alberta would ever seek to separate then they'd leave the oil behind.  Under those circumstances they'd prefer not to separate; just as with Scotland, just as with Texas, just as with Ash Sharqiyah in Saudi Arabia.

Unlikely, take a look at the various splits that actually have happened - the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia et al In all those cases the local resources remained local.

In all those cases a union of nations desolved back into their independent constituent states.  Chechnya, for instance, was not independant of Russian prior to the Soviet Union's formation and, despite their best efforts, they've been denied independance.

Canada's Alberta and Iraq's Shia provinces were never independant nations.  The only exceptions in my list are Texas, which was an independant state for 9 years and Scotland, which gave up its independance 300 years ago.  Furthermore, had the Czechs spent decades and large sums of money developing vast oil reserves in Slovakia then they might not have agreed to such a  Velvet Divorce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Certainly Bals was talking about invasion.

No, I beg to differ smile_o.gif

It does not need an invasion if there is already a wish to annex to another country like there is with shias and Iran. A separate and independant kurdish state is on noones list. In fact the US had to guarantee turkey that there will be no separate kurdish state before and during the war. This is no optional matter. It´s a no-go.

On behalve of the Sunnis: They are the anger in Iraq. They are basically the ones who feel betryed by the rest and are left without and significant ressources or influence as the former Bath party was well equipped with Sunnis. Today they have the role of a minority, an angry minority btw and unless there is significant change in Iraq´s internal affairs, it´s unlikely that they will join efforts for a united and strong Iraq with a joint power coalition.

I guess it´s quite clear now why this land was run by a dictator. Democracy, unfortunally, doesn´t seem to be able to unite the country. It´s more the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Certainly Bals was talking about invasion.

No, I beg to differ  smile_o.gif

Sorry Bals, I decoded snack time to mean invasion.

IF Iraq would break apart it would be a snack for it´s neighbouring countries...

Time to get me a new code book.   wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Who's talking about invasion? I'm talking about a fully voluntary integration into Iran. It's the Iraqi Shiites who would primarily want to join Iran. They don't have a national identity, but they do have a religious one. Going home to papa is the natural choice - far better than to stay alone next to those Sunnis whose oil wells you've just annexed.

It's indeed probably quite a nightmare for the US administration ,to only have the option to politicly support a predominantly Shia majority for stabilety reasons in Iraq ,and to see that Shia part of Iraq being heavily influenced by Iran ,While the Sunni's want nothing more than civil war and the Kurds are all to eager to go their own way to.

As i have read in my favourite weeky local political magazine ,the situation in the south are already as such that Iran arms millitia's in the south ,Even has Irani citizins among those militia's ,and some reports even mention Irani deathsquads opperating in the south.It's also said that concerning control of the region neither Brits or American's arn't much present anymore and the shia's in the South control the area mostly by own power.As for the Iraqi Shia leaders ,many of them have been in exile in Iran for years if not decade's ,and are heavily influnced by them.

The most worysome thing IMO is the political reality of sepperation of groups in Iraq ,something that seems to make Iraq as entity non-existant.The Shia have their region in the south ,the Kurds in the North ,and the Suni in the centre and West ,all groups have their own millitia's and leaders and respective millitary control of their region ,excpet for the Suni who are still largely dukeing it out with the American's.There are hopes of a federal state ,but i don't see it happen ,the civil war is lready a reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's indeed probably quite a nightmare for the US administration ,to only have the option to politicly support a predominantly Shia majority for stabilety reasons in Iraq...

Perhaps we should also look at America's edgy relationship with Iraq's Shia in light of the situation in Saudi Arabia.  

This is the Saudi province of Ash Sharqiyah:

Saudi_Arabia_-_Ash_Sharqiyah_province_locator.png

Quote[/b] ]The Eastern Province is largely Shi'ite, which makes it a very dangerous place for the ruling Sunni family to visit. Some villages are virtually no-go areas for the security forces. The reason for this is that Shi'ites in the country often live in bad conditions because Wahhabism is the State religion, and shi'ites classification as kuffar has led to the denial of certain rights for them.

Saudi Aramco, the oil producing company of the Kingdom, is based in Dhahran, which is located in the Eastern Province, and most decisions on oil policy and production are made there. Saudi Arabia's main oil and gas fields are all located in the Eastern Province, whether onshore or offshore.

We all know how Turkey fears the growth of any Kurdish national movement in Iraq.  Just imagine how the rulers of Saudi Arabia would feel if a Shia national movement got off the ground in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×