Aksariya Mosque bombing pushes Iraq toward civil war

[mburbank]

What do we do if Iraq deteriorates into open civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, something it was close to prior to the attack?

What are our options?

I have no ideas on this at all. I've been pro US withdrawl for a while now, and this would only make me feel more strongly, but on the assumption that's not currently on the administrations table, what is?

The question of a possible civil war has been looming for well over a year now. Do we have any possible courses of action in place?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Our options, more importantly the options of the Iraqi people, are to dismiss this small fringe of assholes who want to provoke a civil war.

It isn't the entire Sunni sect that did this, it's a group of fundamentalists who don't give a shit about Iraq. We need to try to guard against reprisals, but it's also up to the IRAQIS to stand together, and crack down on these so-called insurgents.

[mburbank]

I agree with you, Kev, and I sure hope that's what happens, but that wasn't my question.

My question is, what do we, the united states, do if Iraq falls into sectarian civil war? This was a real possibility all along, and now it would be utterly foolish to say it isn't. We've been, oh, just a little bad at planning for scenarios we don't like in Iraq.

My question is, so we have any policy at all as to what we'll do if civil war starts?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We blame George W. Bush.

[Ant10708]

Leave Iraq?

[Abcdxxxx]

We should take it as a sign that closing the borders would have been a nifty idea from the get go...and I dunno...close the borders!? That's not a solution, but it's a start.

[Preechr]

Don't worry, Max... Just look at the Muslim riots all over the place due to those wacky cartoons. One little CARTOON offense to their God, and weeks of violent demonstrations over it. I figure blowing up God's House, no matter who did it, would be much, much worse than a few cartoons, wouldn't it? I'm sure that the Muslim community will see this as an internal problem and FINALLY start drawing lines between what is and what is not acceptable behavior in modern life. I fully expect to see those moderate, majority Muslims that were carrying those signs in protest of offensive drawings protesting actual terrorist bombimngs such as this one very shortly... and we all know what will happen when the moderate Muslim majority starts protesting terrorist violence, don't we?

That's right, baby: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by mburbank

What do we do if Iraq deteriorates into open civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, something it was close to prior to the attack?

What are our options?

I have no ideas on this at all. I've been pro US withdrawl for a while now, and this would only make me feel more strongly, but on the assumption that's not currently on the administrations table, what is?

The question of a possible civil war has been looming for well over a year now. Do we have any possible courses of action in place?

I love your liberal mentality:

"Things were bad, and I supported withdrawal... And now they are getting really bad, now we really should withdraw!"

I enjoy your desire to retreat.

Most liberals recognize that if we withdraw all of the sudden the fledgling democracy will collapse and all will have been for naught... But you support a policy of retreat.

Wat is your logic, scum fucker?

[mburbank]

So... wait.

My mentality is liberal, but mnost liberals would realize it was wrong?

Then... either my mntaility ISN'T liberal, or you can't string two sentences together without fucking up. I wonder which it is?


All the rest of you, very droll, but with the exception of abcdxxx just barely, totally ignored the question.

Gameplay it. Sunnis and Shiiites go to all out, totally predictable sectarian civil war. What do we do?

I'm not asking if they might solve it themselves, I'm not asking if it's ironic they care so much about cartoons. I'm saying we've gotten ourselves into a lot of trouble by refusing to consider bad outcomes like not being greeted with flowers. If there is open civil war, what might be a response?

Closeing the borders is good idea, but we no longer have the authority to do it. Woud we side with the Shiites because they won more votes? This is their fledgling democracy, right now, and they've already made clear that it's swell we want a unity government but it's not up to us. Crossing your fingers and hoping for the best is not a policy.

I'm asking because in the event of a civil war I cannot think of one way we are not totally fucked. I was wondering, actually wondering, if anyone had another viewpoint.

[mburbank]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq roiled with sectarian killings Thursday as government leaders sought ways to calm the nation after the bombing of an important Shiite mosque.

Across the country, more than 100 people have been killed after Wednesday's bombing of the Al-Askariya Shiite mosque -- also known as the Golden Mosque -- in Samarra.

[Pharaoh]

If a full civil war does break out I think we'll just have to side with the Shiites. The foreign jihadists that have been trying to cause a civil war will be on the Sunnis side and they should be our target. I think we should avoid killing Iraqis though.

[mburbank]

Well, why don't we just use the bullets and bombs we have that just kill all those Foreign Jihadists?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I'm asking because in the event of a civil war I cannot think of one way we are not totally fucked. I was wondering, actually wondering, if anyone had another viewpoint.

You know what else would suck? Herpes. I'm pretty sure that if I got herpes, it would not be pleasant. But clearly, had I planned better, and taken better precautions, I probably could've avoided the whole unpleasant mess.

WHAT IS YOUR HERPES PLAN, MAX!!?

Max, you seem upset that nobody has a contingency plan mapped out for you, as if there's any fool proof plan for religious civil war. You know what will probably happen? Our troops will probably have to kill people, and we'll probably have to step in and quell the damn thing. We'll probably end up siding with the government, which is yes, represented mostly by Shiites.

But I think Preechr's slightly ironic post still makes a good point. What sort of plan can we possibly make, if the people themselves can't play like big boys and girls??? A small group of radical idiots is trying to incite civil war, and IT'S WORKING!

My stupid ass thought it might open the eyes for some muslims, that it would show them how desperate and hateful these so-called insurgents are. Maybe they would view this as a despicable act by a desperate group of radicals.

Nope. This is clearly the fault of the Sunnis. Or America. Or Israel. I'm betting on Israel.

Where's Uncle Saddam when you need him?

[Cosmo Electrolux]

on a hunger strike in a jail cell....I'm beginning to wonder if the Iraqi people had what they deserved with Saddam... :/

[mburbank]

Don't be a doofus Kevin.

Me getting Herpes is A.) FAR more unlikely than civil war in Iraq and B.) Won't kill thousands of people or potentially destabilize the world.

You're quite right, I don't have an immediatte pln for what to do in the highly unlikely but possible event I get Herpes. If I fail to see the paralell between my health STDwise which even theoretically could only affect a handful of people and the foreign policy of the most powerful nation on earth during a time of war, forgive me.

Do you suppose when planning for the War in Iraq, some general said "Preident Bush, I;d like to propse we make some sort of plan for our actions if we are not, in fact, greeted as Liberals?" and the President said "GEE GENERAL, WHAT'S YOUR PLAN IF YOU GET HERPES"?

I seriously expect more rigour from you.

It is not impossible to make a plan in advance of a situation. It can actually be done. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about it or would care to hazzard a guess, and in fact you have, side with the Shiites.

I'm not sure wether you meant act on their behalf, who's conytrol we'd pretend to be under or if you meant we should reoccupy Iraq, since you were too busy posing your brilliant Max with Herpes analogy.

My plan would be to get out. I think we've made this just about as bad as we can. Militarily propping up they Shiites as they extinguish the Sunnis or hopping like hell we can get them to deal with them after a civil war better than they are before hand (and I'm not even saying they are dealable with) seems like a recipe for killing a lot of people and gaining nothing. I'm not aware that any foreign policy expert thinks tht in a war between Sunnis and Shiites that we did not participate in, Al Quaeda would gin control of Iraq.

Now you may not like my plan, and you don't have to, and it's not as if it's anything more than talk anyway since the chances of this administrationb doing something I'd agree with are less than my chances of getting Herpes. But it's a damn sight better than saying "I don't see any reason to think about this potentially disasterous state of affairs unless it actually happens. That's how we got into this mess.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Do you suppose when planning for the War in Iraq, some general said "Preident Bush, I;d like to propse we make some sort of plan for our actions if we are not, in fact, greeted as Liberals?" and the President said "GEE GENERAL, WHAT'S YOUR PLAN IF YOU GET HERPES"?

Max, how many people in Iraq hate our presence there? How many people blew up that mosque yesterday? How many people are going to initiate this great, impending civil war you've predicted?

How many guys blew it up? Two? How many Iraqis are taking to the "Arab street" and acting like fools, while simultaneously blaming us somehow?

Contrast that with how many people turned out to vote in the elections. Democracy and natiomn building is a messy business. Does it bother me that this administration often acts like a giant ostrich? Sure. But I personally never had any misconceptions about whether or not this would be easy. It won't be. We invaded a nation that knew nothing else but tyranny and oppression. We toppled a dictator, and basically threw republican government at people who have never been seriously asked to care about their country.


Should there be a plan for every time a small group of Islamic radicals try to incite riots and violence? I see this attack as a sign of desperation. They can't fight the U.S. head on, they can't even do a very good job at guerilla warfare, so now they're going to pander to the religious and regional sensitivities of Iraq. Which also says to me that they would rather see a splintered, chaotic Iraq than a democratic Iraq.

This seems pretty obvious to me, and it seems pretty obvious to even some Iraqis. This was an attempt by a minority of lunatics to turn Iraqi angainst Iraqi, and it worked. What should the plan be?

My plan would be to get out.

BRILLIANT!!!

First you say we nee to have a plan to deal with this, because it will destabilize the middle east. THEN you say we should pull out, because we've already destabilized the middle east. Sounds great!

I think we've made this just about as bad as we can. Militarily propping up they Shiites as they extinguish the Sunnis or hopping like hell we can get them to deal with them after a civil war better than they are before hand (and I'm not even saying they are dealable with) seems like a recipe for killing a lot of people and gaining nothing.

We have? WE have? hang on, who walked into a religious site yesterday and blew it up in order to create a civil war??? Who's logical response to that action is to take to the streets, shoot civilians, and kill clerics???

While we're at it, who sees chopping off heads, blowing up children, and kidnapping reporters as a reasonalbe means to accomplishing a goal???

At some point, we need to start treating the Iraqis like grown ups. If they want to kill each other, doing precisely what a fringe group of terorists desire, then that's what they'll do. You're right, we absolutely didn't have a contingency plan for ignorance. If we leave, things will get better.

I'm not aware that any foreign policy expert thinks tht in a war between Sunnis and Shiites that we did not participate in, Al Quaeda would gin control of Iraq.

I'm not sure what this means here, but if you mean withdrawing from a war-torn region, divided by lack of infrastructure and religious tension won't be ripe for Islamic radicals pitching answers, then look at Afghanistan and get back to me.

If we leave, the Sunnis will walk. The Kurds will walk. The Shiites will turn to other Arab nations who want want to blow up Israel and build nukes. We are in fact the only stabilizing factor in this whole mess, and those who we are at war with know that (do Jill Carroll's captors address us or the UN???).

There is no solution to makes things easier. There's only the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do. Both will be hard, and undoubtedly messy. Leaving will not fix anything, and it will only prolong a conflict between us and radical Islamic regimes.

My plan is to side with the government that was elected in Iraq. My plan would be to encourage the rule of law over the rule of the militia. My plan would be to treat this is a crime rather than a civil war, and work with Iraqi police forces to try to A. calm the reprisals, and B. search for and arrest the "insurgents" doing these things.

Perhaps it's foolish of me to have a plan that requires some degree of reason and civility on the part of these groups, but it's still a hope.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Case in point:


http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1648535


"Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, cited Khalilzad's statement at a press conference Monday that America would not continue to support institutions run by sectarian groups with links to armed militias.

"For sure, the statements made by the ambassador were not made in a responsible way and he did not behave like an ambassador," al-Hakim told reporters. "These statements were the reason for more pressure and gave green lights to terrorist groups. And, therefore, he shares in part of the responsibility.""

Clearly, asking political parties to disarm is the cause behind this. I see now how we are only making things worse there, Max.

[mburbank]

"My plan is to side with the government that was elected in Iraq. My plan would be to encourage the rule of law over the rule of the militia. My plan would be to treat this is a crime rather than a civil war, and work with Iraqi police forces to try to A. calm the reprisals, and B. search for and arrest the "insurgents" doing these things. "
-Kevin

See? Was that such a terribly hard question to answer? I hope you have as detailed a plan worked out for if you get an STD.

"Should there be a plan for every time a small group of Islamic radicals try to incite riots and violence?"

Probably not, and if that had been the question I asked, it would have been a great answer. Do you feel that Iraq tumbling into civil war is an unlikely enough scenario that we needen't give it very much thought? 'Cause it seems that it's been a fairly reasonable possability since we threw democracy at them.

And Kevin. No, we didn't blow up the Mosque. We are nto to blame for blowing up the Mosque. We are to blame for being there, and the conditions favorable to the people who blew up the Mosque are a direct result of that mistake. What exactly have we made better in Iraq since we got there?

"we need to start treating the Iraqis like grown ups". I agree. Lets start by not helping them kill each other if that's what they are intent on doing. Lets say we don't fund them, or do it for them, or arm police forces that turn out to be death squads.

If things don't start tending toward not only a functional democracy, but one that elects a party that supports the rights of all Iraqis, at what point might we leave? Or say if things continue to get worse, how long can we stay on the idea that if we leave the worseness would be even worse? But hey, why think about or plan for ugly shit like that. We can just stay there until the mission is accomplished and we don't need to talk about how long that might take or how we might see if we're accomplishing anything or how we'd know if we were actively making things worse. And don't wonder about what to do if the elected party starts useing militias and death squads or wonder what we'll do if they start doing shit even we can't support. All we know for certain is that we can't leave. So if we can't leave, we're staying. Any thinking beyond that or about it is not the kind of thing we do.

[Abcdxxxx]

If we leave Iraq, we're leaving the door open for Iran to slide on in.
You can also kiss the possibility of a free lebanon good bye... and you can bet for sure that the situation in Nigeria, and other regions we don't associate with Iraq, will boil over once it's clear there is no superpower left to act as peace keepers. I assure you, we'd see coups in both Egypt, and Jordan within two years, leaving extremist governments from the Sinia, all the way to Iran.

You have to also understand that it's all about power, and shame in the Arab world. The game is to shame you into doing something, so you can expose, and then exploit your enemies weakness. The worst thing you can do is retreat in response to the mayhem they've created. They'll take it as a reward for their lunacy... and why shouldn't they? It's no coincidence that they picked one of the most important mosques for Muslims (where the spirit of the 12th holiest Imam is supposed to be hiding untill the end of days) as a target, or that they did it the same month Hamas gain power, not to mention the whole cartoon mess.

I wish we could get the hell out of there though. Our military seems incapable of planning more then three days in advance, or coming up with creative strategies.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Probably not, and if that had been the question I asked, it would have been a great answer. Do you feel that Iraq tumbling into civil war is an unlikely enough scenario that we needen't give it very much thought?

Max, it's the same question over and over again from you. Not to sound like Preechr, but every time the next "tipping point" in Iraq occurs, you jump all over it.

Yes, civil war would be bad. Does that even need to be said? How could the Pentagon have truly planned fo this in a way that would've been to your liking, asid from building a time machine, going back to 2003, and stopping the invasion....?

Would closing off the borders have prevented this? This was acted out by two guys, and although a lot of insurgents are coming from other countries, a lot of these folks are homemade terrorists. What does th U.S. do to prevent a group of muslims from blowing up a sacred muslim site? What does the U.S. do to prevent Shiite militias from attacking clerics and innocent people (aside from killing them)?

And Kevin. No, we didn't blow up the Mosque. We are nto to blame for blowing up the Mosque. We are to blame for being there, and the conditions favorable to the people who blew up the Mosque are a direct result of that mistake.

Really? Us being there caused a handful of savages to blow up sacred ground? I guess you'r right, Saddam never would've stood for this insurgency stuff. Nor would he have tolerated Shiite militias running around killing people. Nope, Saddam would've had a plan to deal with all of this.

This stuff should help Ramsey Clark's defense.

What exactly have we made better in Iraq since we got there?

1. Toppled an oppressive and brutal dictator.
2. Enabled the first democratic elections in the history of Iraq

Those two seem pretty big to me. For a more comprehensive list of stuff, relating to education, health, and basic infrastructure, this blog I had posted in an earlier thread does a pretty good job: http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/.

I agree. Lets start by not helping them kill each other if that's what they are intent on doing. Lets say we don't fund them, or do it for them, or arm police forces that turn out to be death squads.

Not fund them? How will that solve a damn thing? As abc pointed out, where we leave off, countries such as Iran will step in.

As I said earlier, we are in fact th only glue keping this thing together. The Iraqi factions wil not negotiate with each other if we aren't there, and our enemies will view our capitulation as carte blanche on Iraq. It will set a far worse precedent throughout the Middle East than the one you clam we've already set.

[mburbank]

Kev; It's very hard for me to concentrate on what yur argument is, as I have suddenly and unnexpectedly contrcated Herpes. Ironically, I had no advance plan for dealing with it and even now that I have the disease, I can't see the point in investigating it's typical progression. I guess I'll just react to each sympton as it occurs.

"As I said earlier, we are in fact th only glue keping this thing together."

You have no way of knowing this. I bet the Soviet Union thought they were the glue holding Afghanistan together. Who knows, maybe they were, the Taliban didn't take over until they left. If we have to be glue, couldn't we go be glue in Darfur, where we claim there's a genocide going on but there's nothing we can do? Plus, you accuse me of being paternalistic about the middle east. You just stated the they are one hundred percent incapable of finding a way through this and only with our help will they. The same arguments were made in Vietnam, and amazingly when we pulled out, the world did not topple domino-esque into communism.

While I wouldn't want you to accuse me of being pro Saddam, I have to say that toppling a dictator is only meaningful if it brings about improvement. When Hitler was defeated, conditions slowly but surely improved throughout Eastern Europe. And Hiter was an agressive, uncontained world conquerer as opposd to Sadaam who was an evil shit who was unfortunate enough to be the weakest evil shit around when we felt like we needed a war.

I may well jump on any tipping point. You put your fingers in your ears, squinch your eyes real tight and sing a song about how we have to stay no matter what. We have no strategy, no plan, by any rubric you care to use it's a shit storm. I'm not looking for a time machine, I'm not even looking for the US leaving because while I want that (and think we eventually will leaving the mission unaccomplished) I don't see anyone winning an election based on that right now.

Here's my prediction of what's coming, what W's current stratgey is, even though he won't say it. We intend to build, in fact are already building, that's public record, giant highly fortified fortresses within Iraq. We will withdraw our soldiers to them and put our air power at the disposal of the Shiites, while denying their even IS a civil war, and bomb the shit out of whatever they point us at. And while I do think dropping cluster bombs and white phosphorus on entire buildings full of people if we think there's at least someone we need to kill inside is more civilzed than kidnapping and beheading journalists, I'm not sure we should be overly proud of the actual degree of difference.

Sure I'm looking for the tipping point. Is that worse than solidly refusing to consider there could ever be one? If we get to the point where half Iraqs population is dead do we go home then or stick around until the place is empty?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

"As I said earlier, we are in fact th only glue keping this thing together."

You have no way of knowing this. I bet the Soviet Union thought they were the glue holding Afghanistan together. Who knows, maybe they were, the Taliban didn't take over until they left. If we have to be glue, couldn't we go be glue in Darfur, where we claim there's a genocide going on but there's nothing we can do?

Of course we should be more involved in Darfur, but this is the proverbial strawman argument. "Our education system sucks, shouldn't we not be spending on guns!!?"

Also, I think you can look at what has gone on, how things have played out, and make logical assumptions. I know that if we leave, most players will leave the table. Why, for example, should the Kurds talk to anybody if we were to leave? Without our military presence, what will prevent the Shiites from simply oppressing the Sunnis??? once we leave, and security falls apart, who will the Shiites turn to in our place?

You'll still have private, hired guns in Iraq. You'll probably have Iran and Syria more present in Iraq, too.

Leave now, and it sends the message that we are weak and unwilling to fight this fight. Before 9/11, we were in fact at war. The only problem was that only one side knew it, and we did not. As abc mentioned, if we capitulate, it will be viewed as a victory for terrorists and radical muslims. Kill some reporters, decapitate some aid workers, and America will retreat from the world.....leaving the people of Iraq to them ,of course.

Plus, you accuse me of being paternalistic about the middle east. You just stated the they are one hundred percent incapable of finding a way through this and only with our help will they. The same arguments were made in Vietnam, and amazingly when we pulled out, the world did not topple domino-esque into communism.

No, but Vietnam remained an undemocratic, poor, third world nation. I don't want to get into a comparative politics discussion, because I think there are a lot of problems in constantly comparing this to Vietnam.

I don't necessarily know what role Iraq plays in the greater war on terror. I do know that we toppled that country, and have made a promise to bring democracy and open markets to their nation. We've initiated that process, and to leave now would be tantamount to betrayal (which we were accused of after the FIRST Gulf War).

While I wouldn't want you to accuse me of being pro Saddam, I have to say that toppling a dictator is only meaningful if it brings about improvement. When Hitler was defeated, conditions slowly but surely improved throughout Eastern Europe. And Hiter was an agressive, uncontained world conquerer as opposd to Sadaam who was an evil shit who was unfortunate enough to be the weakest evil shit around when we felt like we needed a war.

Saddam Hussein without question supported terrorism in Palestine. Saddam Hussein had imperialistic ambitions throughout the Middle East, and while I agree with you that he posed no immediate threat to our soil, he was an enemy.

Things have unquestionably improved. There's a long way to go, and we have a serious problem right now, but to say that things are worse now is ridiculous, sorry. Democracy isn't easy, it's contentious, disruptive, and in this case, often violent. It took us three tries to get the Constitution right, and took several years before we could even get all of the participating states to agree. Then there was the whole civil war thing that it culminated in. That's what, 100 years?

You know that I view this as an obligation on our part. You ask for a plan because you want to know when we'll leave. I say we leave when the job is done, rather than leaving because we just can't be bothered with these people. The task at hand is helping a struggling people attempt soimething that is quite rare in the Middle East.

Here's my prediction of what's coming, what W's current stratgey is, even though he won't say it. We intend to build, in fact are already building, that's public record, giant highly fortified fortresses within Iraq. We will withdraw our soldiers to them and put our air power at the disposal of the Shiites, while denying their even IS a civil war, and bomb the shit out of whatever they point us at. And while I do think dropping cluster bombs and white phosphorus on entire buildings full of people if we think there's at least someone we need to kill inside is more civilzed than kidnapping and beheading journalists, I'm not sure we should be overly proud of the actual degree of difference.

Can I get a link on the fortress story? I could only find a snide little piece on it at the socialist workers website.

I doubt that this will be our strategy. We may be wavering on our man power in Iraq, which is a mistake, but the likelihood that we'll just revert to an air campaign doesn't add up here. We still need to search out insurgents, and we're not going to simply bomb a building because the Shiites say so. We have friggin' troops standing all day outside Sunni mosques currently, if anything, we are hyper-concerned over the sensitivities between the various factions.

Sure I'm looking for the tipping point. Is that worse than solidly refusing to consider there could ever be one? If we get to the point where half Iraqs population is dead do we go home then or stick around until the place is empty?

Yikes, try not to gush at the possibility, Max!

I've already said what I think we should do, and the elected Iraqi government is trying to keep this all together. It's tough, when the people you're dealing with would rather blow up mosques and taret random civilians.

If we pull out, then we haven't even touched upon the tipping point. It'll come years from now, when it's Iraqi terrorists who are bombing allied nations, or GOd forbid our own soil. And then everyone opposing military action will get really outraged, they'll accuse us of invading Iraq and leaving the people there defenseless. The Left will demand that we ask the question-- "How are we responsible for this???"

Let's have this fight now, because it isn't going anywhere, IMO.

[Preechr]

Every single time the West has interacted with the Middle East, problems arose. I told you before how Islam spread in Indonesia, of all places, because a volcano blew up and the Dutch cut and ran, leaving their colonies behind. That's how Islam spreads. Wherever there is great injustice, there are Imams pointing fingers and stirring passions. I am not downing the religion one bit, either. The tools used to spread Islam in this fashion were developed in the West... that's how they can be so effectively used against us.

Our own historical evidence shows us exactly whay we cannot leave the Middle East until our Mission is truly Accomplished. As soon as the last American plane takes off, the cancerous way of thinking that is caused by the methods by which Islam is spread (please notice I did NOT say caused by Islam) will strengthen and grow most likely to the point that we will not be able to counter-act it and the Western world will be threatened to a degree much greater than ever before.

See, max... Islam is not the problem. Democrats and Republicans and Sunnis are not the problem. The problem is that it has become acceptable in this world to blame your problems on someone else and then pout and maybe even get violent about it. MLKjr was a great man because he recognized this growing problem in the modern era and accomplished great things by leading us out of the blame game, at least for a little while. He taught that we must act positively toward our goals rather than getting depressed or destructive when we don't get our way.

The entire modern world is guilty of ignoring this lesson. We cater to every childish demand that some random group might make in recompense for some perceived slight, whether obviously real and understandable or not. Those that led the American Revolution were not pouting because they felt put upon. They were throwing off the shackles of colonialism, risking their lives for the sake of FULL responsibility for one's actions: Freedom.

The bombing of that mosque was obviously engineered to create exactly the sort of reaction you are predicting. You ask, "What should we do if this happens?!" ...and then get pissed because the answer is pretty much the same as it always has been: Stick to it, no matter what.

Too much is at stake. Yes, it would be nice to have had social and military plans that reflected the gravity of the situtation, but I'm pretty thankful we at least have the will to try fulfilling our responsibilities. Our mistakes will be the reason Iraqis one day take their own destinies in hand... they will hopefully convince themselves, eventually, that they can run their own lives better than we have been ham-handing it for them. If we were perfectly competent at this job, why in the world would they ever want to take over?

Either way, if we leave, we will be doing the same thing Western civilizations have always done when experiments in Arabia have gone awry, so we can only expect the same results: the spread of radicalized Islam along with all the hostility toward the West that entails. Making the same mistake over and over, expecting different results, is the definition of stupidity.

When you vote we leave, THAT is what you are suggesting would be best for all concerned. Make no mistake, if Hillary is elected in 08 after our troops returned home before their job was completed, we will still be hated. Terrorists won't be putting off their attacks until we elect another Republican or another member of the Bush family. The War on Terror is not a war on ideology or a war of political goals. It is a war on a way of living life. It is a war on blaming others for your problems and then feeling justified in using violence in retribution.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_4227871.htm

Iraqi leaders vow to form gov't, defuse sectarian violence


BAGHDAD, Feb. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- Iraqi political leaders agreed on Saturday to continue efforts to form a new government and defuse soaring sectarian violence that claimed the lives of at least 160 people in the past few days.

The late Saturday night meeting gathered Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite, President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and Sunni politicians.

"We have all agreed that the political process should be accelerated without any delay," al-Jaafari told reporters after the talks that lasted for some three hours.

"Terrorism is the only enemy for all the Iraqi people," he said,adding that Iraq was far away from a civil war due to sectarian disputes.

The leaders, including Sunni politicians who previously decided to boycott talks with Shiites on the formation of a government, also denounced Wednesday's bomb attack on a major Shiite mosque in Samarra, some 120 km north of Baghdad, and the subsequent reprisal attacks on Sunnis and Sunni mosques.

Al-Jaafari also said the leaders had agreed to spare no effort to protect mosques and fend off more violence.

The meeting came after U.S. President George W. Bush contacted Iraqi political leaders of all sects on Saturday, calling for unity and joint efforts to ease violence.

Earlier on Saturday, supporters of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and representatives of the Association of Muslim Scholars,a key Sunni body, declared in a joint statement an agreement to stop sectarian violence, vowing unity.

At least 160 Iraqis have been killed in rising sectarian violence during the past few days, pushing the already restive country into fears for a civil war.

The bloodshed continued on Saturday as bomb attacks and gunfire killed dozens of people.

Rising sectarian tensions have posed a grave threat to efforts toward the formation of a new Iraqi government.

Although the Shiites, the largest bloc in the parliament, have formally proposed al-Jaafari for premiership, leaders of the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds have still been jostling over the makeup of the next cabinet, over two months after the Dec. 15 elections. Enditem

[ItalianStereotype]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Every single time the West has interacted with the Middle East, problems arose. I told you before how Islam spread in Indonesia, of all places, because a volcano blew up and the Dutch cut and ran, leaving their colonies behind. That's how Islam spreads. Wherever there is great injustice, there are Imams pointing fingers and stirring passions. I am not downing the religion one bit, either. The tools used to spread Islam in this fashion were developed in the West... that's how they can be so effectively used against us.

I dunno if you were being serious here or not, but Islam spread through Indonesia centuries before the arrival of the Dutch, or even the Portugese ;<