HIP HOP LIFESTYLE

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An example for the "elected" Iraqi officials on unification & organization?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An example for the "elected" Iraqi officials on unification & organization?

    Zarqawi 'replaced as unrest head'


    Jordanian al-Qaeda militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been forced to step down as leader of a coalition of Iraqi militants, a leading Islamist claims.

    Huthaifa Azzam, whose father was a mentor of Osama Bin Laden, said Zarqawi was replaced by an Iraqi two weeks ago.

    Mr Azzam claimed some were unhappy about Zarqawi's tactics and tendency to speak for the insurgency as a whole.

    However, experts say choosing an Iraqi as political leader is a tactic aimed at giving the insurgency an Iraqi face.

    'Embarrassment'

    The new political leader of the coalition of insurgent groups - of which Zarqawi is part - is Abdullah al-Baghdadi, Mr Azzam said.

    He said that the move was in part prompted by embarrassment at Zarqawi's attacks on other countries, such as last year's hotel bombings in Jordan, and his use of brutal tactics, such as videotaped beheadings.

    The claims cannot be independently verified and it is not clear how Mr Azzam came by the information.

    He claims close contacts with the insurgents and is the son of Abdullah Azzam, a charismatic Palestinian who was one of the seminal figures in the modern jihadi movement in the Muslim world.

    Influence on Bin Laden

    Abdullah Azzam encouraged Muslims, including the young Osama Bin Laden, to go to fight in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan in the 1980s.

    As a result, the son speaks with a certain authority about the jihadi groups in Iraq, the BBC's Middle East analyst, Roger Hardy, says.

    As head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Zarqawi has become the country's most notorious insurgent - a shadowy figure associated with the bloodiest bombings, assassinations and the beheading of foreign hostages.

    In January this year al-Qaeda in Iraq posted a statement on a website saying that it had joined five other insurgent groups in Iraq to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, or the Consultative Council of Holy Warriors.

    Even if the claims of him adopting a lower profile turn out to be true, our Middle East analyst says that there can be little doubt that as a military leader - responsible for some of the most ruthless acts of violence in Iraq - Zarqawi remains a force to be reckoned with.
    These groups seem better able to unify under leadership than the lot that were elected. It seems likely to me that if the US withdrew this group would incorporate themselves into the bigger Iraqi picture and Iraqi's might actually get themselves a government.
    "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

    -Albert Einstein

  • #2
    These groups are useful to fight the US. But by the looks of them, they are medieval warriors that will offer nothing useful to the Iraqi people in the future.

    A coalition of the Kurdish and Iraqi Communist Parties and the Baathist party is needed in Iraq.

    Comment


    • #3
      If US forces are not present, a massacre beyond comprehension would occur. Look at Cambodia, Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur, ect. US forces were not there to protect the citizens, and hundreds of thousands were slaughtered.

      This Azzam guy could be talking out of his ass, trying to make it appear as if the insurgency has an organized effort.

      Comment


      • #4
        ^ That's a matter of opinion. Imo the troops are part of an ongoing massacre. Read Socrates thread, it provides interesting and salient examples of how this war has degenerated. Over and above that, foreign forces are a rallying call for all Iraqi's who feel disaffected from this war. Remove the troops you remove much of the motivation of the insurgency. Iraq is going to have to go through some sort of violent transformation whenever the US leaves - surely the sooner this happens the sooner they can get on with building their state. As it stands, the troops aren't making any headway, consensus seems to be that if we remain on this current path we will see a balkanization of Iraq into smaller manageable states. If that happens, I reckon the situation will degenerate further into a free for all with neighbours on all sides making claims and inciting violence.
        "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

        -Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tricia
          ^ That's a matter of opinion. Imo the troops are part of an ongoing massacre. Read Socrates thread, it provides interesting and salient examples of how this war has degenerated. Over and above that, foreign forces are a rallying call for all Iraqi's who feel disaffected from this war. Remove the troops you remove much of the motivation of the insurgency. Iraq is going to have to go through some sort of violent transformation whenever the US leaves - surely the sooner this happens the sooner they can get on with building their state. As it stands, the troops aren't making any headway, consensus seems to be that if we remain on this current path we will see a balkanization of Iraq into smaller manageable states. If that happens, I reckon the situation will degenerate further into a free for all with neighbours on all sides making claims and inciting violence.
          You make good points and I honestly wish you were right, but I don't think it is that way.

          We can look at another situation, Vietnam. In that conflict, you had a clear-cut civil war with Communist forces fighting the Capitalist forces. American troops supported the south, and we were fighting for them. However, once our troops were removed, all hell broke out in the region. Communist forces led by Pol-Pot and others killed 3 million people in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Because US Forces were not there to protect them, this massacre was aloud to happen.

          Letís look at another situation, Rwanda. In Rwanda, UN Peacekeeping forces were sent in before the genocide took place. The goal was to prevent the Hutu and Tutsi tribes from fighting each other, and try to serve as an international intermediate to make a peace agreement between the two. This was a situation where many forces, representing many nations, were sent in (as a unified UN Peacekeeping coalition). Still, the Hutu started the mass killings of Tutsi tribes anyway. Almost all historians agree that if a large coalition of US Troops were sent in beforehand (or even during the conflict), the genocide of 850,000 people in Rwanda would have never happened.

          Comment


          • #6
            ^ Neither example fits the situation in Iraq. Vietnam was a disaster from day one when the French tried to hang onto to their power by force, it was made worse by the US' entry into the war and from there it could only deteriorate. Do you really believe that had the US remained and continued fighting a guerilla war with local Vietnamese the death toll would be any less? How long would you have recommended that the troops remain in order to prevent a massacre? Forever? Could they have prevented a massacre?

            Countries eventually need to get on with their own political agenda's. An external force coming in on one side of an internal battle doesn't improve the situation, in fact it inflames it imo.

            Had the US become directly involved with Rwanda it would have ended up fighting a guerilla war on the side of the Tutsi's. Rwanda is a mountainous jungle with no structures to target. This is one of those lose-lose situations for the US because had they come in it would have created huge anti-American sentiment as they would have been seen as invaders not saviours, yet the US has been equally as criticised for not going in.

            In my opinion, an international coalition under the auspices of the UN was the right solution, however peace-keeping forces have too many restrictions placed on how they are allowed to react in any given situation so they become completely ineffective. I think the best way to resolve this is to re-evaluate what peace-keepers may and may not do to prevent massacres such as those seen in Rwanda.

            The situation in Iraq however is unique in that the US is viewed as an invading force who is now occupying a sovereign nation for its own self gain. Only the Kurds seem remotely happy about the US presence. The bombing of cities that has lead to death and injury of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands), images from Abu Ghraib and the fact that Muslims feel increasingly targetted by the US has made the situation completely untenable. I just don't see how Iraq can get on with its future while the US remains in control of the country (and regardless of how many elections are held - people know that the US is ultimately in control).

            I see no advantage to keeping US troops in Iraq.
            "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

            -Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by StereoType
              We can look at another situation, Vietnam. In that conflict, you had a clear-cut civil war with Communist forces fighting the Capitalist forces. American troops supported the south, and we were fighting for them.
              The South was always and forever a puppet militarist regime to the US. They were not "capitalists", as Vietnam was not a capitalist country.


              However, once our troops were removed, all hell broke out in the region
              Complete and utter nonsense. It was you scum that dropped agent orange and other WMD on villagers everyday for four years, costing the deaths in a genocide of around 4,000,000 people. That's hell, you dumb Christian.


              Communist forces led by Pol-Pot and others killed 3 million people in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
              Again, nonsense. Your numbers are highly inflated and from the US government.


              Because US Forces were not there to protect them, this massacre was aloud to happen.
              And the 4,000,000 Vietnamese you killed is not a massacre? Or the 1,000,000 Cambodians you killed? Or the most bombed country ever, Laos, that cost hundreds of thousands of lives from the US military?

              The US soldiers are not in foreign countries to protect "them", only US coroporations and puppet dictators.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tricia
                ^ Neither example fits the situation in Iraq. Vietnam was a disaster from day one when the French tried to hang onto to their power by force, it was made worse by the US' entry into the war and from there it could only deteriorate. Do you really believe that had the US remained and continued fighting a guerilla war with local Vietnamese the death toll would be any less? How long would you have recommended that the troops remain in order to prevent a massacre? Forever? Could they have prevented a massacre?
                Yes, the massacre could have been prevented. By US troops pulling out, it showed that we did not care what happened to the people of southeast asia. The mass killings bled over to neighboring countries as well. I am not a supporter of the Vietnam war, but what I am pointing out is that the far-left anti war crowd during the Vietnam era had no solutions for handling the mass killings by Pol-Pot and others. The Vietnam War was not winnable because the south did not want to fight for their freedom. US troops can help, but they can only do so much. The south did not want their freedom, and now they live in a third world Communist country today.

                Originally posted by Tricia
                Countries eventually need to get on with their own political agenda's. An external force coming in on one side of an internal battle doesn't improve the situation, in fact it inflames it imo.
                If the people inside the country support a revolution, then it will succeed. Afghanistan is a good example. While Afghanistan is still not perfect, a US-led coalition helped overthrow the government and now the situation is improving. Bosnia is also another example of this.

                Originally posted by Tricia
                Had the US become directly involved with Rwanda it would have ended up fighting a guerilla war on the side of the Tutsi's. Rwanda is a mountainous jungle with no structures to target. This is one of those lose-lose situations for the US because had they come in it would have created huge anti-American sentiment as they would have been seen as invaders not saviors, yet the US has been equally as criticized for not going in.

                In my opinion, an international coalition under the auspices of the UN was the right solution, however peace-keeping forces have too many restrictions placed on how they are allowed to react in any given situation so they become completely ineffective. I think the best way to resolve this is to re-evaluate what peace-keepers may and may not do to prevent massacres such as those seen in Rwanda.

                The situation in Iraq however is unique in that the US is viewed as an invading force who is now occupying a sovereign nation for its own self gain. Only the Kurds seem remotely happy about the US presence. The bombing of cities that has lead to death and injury of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands), images from Abu Ghraib and the fact that Muslims feel increasingly targetted by the US has made the situation completely untenable. I just don't see how Iraq can get on with its future while the US remains in control of the country (and regardless of how many elections are held - people know that the US is ultimately in control).

                I see no advantage to keeping US troops in Iraq.
                If the US had thousands of soldiers inside Rwanda, only the Hutu would have viewed us as occupiers. The Tutsi's and the international community would have viewed us as liberators. The Hutu's were running around with Machete's, the massacre could have been stopped by sending in US forces. In Bosnia, the ethnic cleansing was stopped by coalition forces sending in troops and launching air attacks. The same would have happened in both Rwanda and Darfur.

                Peacekeeping forces were in too few of numbers, and they could not even shoot at the Hutu's. If you send in a large coalition led by US forces with the right to shoot and kill, the genocide would not have happened.

                I believe progress is being made in the country. If no one is there to train Iraqi Forces, then the country turns into another Cambodia. Zarqawi would be the next Pol-Pot and start murdering thousands of people. The right solution to the problem is to continue training Iraqi Forces, and pull the troops out once the country can defend itself. I do think we need to put increased pressure on the Iraqi Government to get their act together and form a unified council.

                Originally posted by | K Y L E |
                The South was always and forever a puppet militarist regime to the US. They were not "capitalists", as Vietnam was not a capitalist country.
                Complete and utter nonsense. It was you scum that dropped agent orange and other WMD on villagers everyday for four years, costing the deaths in a genocide of around 4,000,000 people. That's hell, you dumb Christian.
                Again, nonsense. Your numbers are highly inflated and from the US government.
                And the 4,000,000 Vietnamese you killed is not a massacre? Or the 1,000,000 Cambodians you killed? Or the most bombed country ever, Laos, that cost hundreds of thousands of lives from the US military?
                The US soldiers are not in foreign countries to protect "them", only US coroporations and puppet dictators.

                Iím not talking about the number killed during the war (which is about the same on both sides), Iím talking about the amount killed after US troops were pulled out. The North would routinely target civilians and terrorize them. Not to mention the fact that the North had a policy of torturing their captured prisoners and making them work to death (both civilians and soldiers). It has never been a policy of our government to kill civilians, yet it was a policy of Ho Chi Minh, Pol-Pot and others.

                Comment


                • #9
                  And why weren't you in Cambodia, Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur? A US presence there would have been a lot more justifiable that it is in Iraq, but there is no oil there, is there, Stereo?

                  And in Iraq, the insurgency was created by the Americans - you are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Caged Birds
                    And why weren't you in Cambodia, Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur? A US presence there would have been a lot more justifiable that it is in Iraq, but there is no oil there, is there, Stereo?
                    And in Iraq, the insurgency was created by the Americans - you are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
                    We should have been there, I agree.

                    My only problem is why are you against us going into Iraq, and removing a genocidal dictator. Yet you are for it with those other countries?

                    Comment

                    Post ad widget 300x250

                    Collapse

                    LATEST POSTS

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by oneshotm3, Today, 08:29 AM
                    0 responses
                    1 view
                    0 likes
                    Last Post oneshotm3  
                    Started by oneshotm3, Today, 08:25 AM
                    0 responses
                    1 view
                    0 likes
                    Last Post oneshotm3  
                    Started by Deborahlanker, 04-12-2020, 12:32 PM
                    3 responses
                    261 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Heridan
                    by Heridan
                     
                    Started by evolution12, Today, 03:05 AM
                    0 responses
                    1 view
                    0 likes
                    Last Post evolution12  
                    Started by evolution12, Today, 03:04 AM
                    0 responses
                    1 view
                    0 likes
                    Last Post evolution12  
                    Started by Mark Ultra, 10-14-2020, 03:36 PM
                    1 response
                    8 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post BrookeDavis  
                    Started by Deborahlanker, Today, 01:51 AM
                    0 responses
                    1 view
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Deborahlanker  
                    Started by mwphdqwbkmhu, Today, 01:50 AM
                    0 responses
                    1 view
                    0 likes
                    Last Post mwphdqwbkmhu  
                    Started by keithtonsla, Today, 01:49 AM
                    0 responses
                    1 view
                    0 likes
                    Last Post keithtonsla  
                    Started by Deborahlanker, Yesterday, 11:32 PM
                    0 responses
                    1 view
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Deborahlanker  
                    Working...
                    X