I Wonder what's holding the shiites back

The shiite keeps hitting the fan

I think what is holding the Siites back is the general respect accorded to al Sistani, their most senior cleric who has urged non-retaliation; coupled with the fact that Sadr's militia, closely associated to the Shiite block, is doing a lot of their wetwork. I think the Shia leadership realize that al Queda and the Sunni's are trying to manipulate them into civil war. If they couldn't get them going when they bombed their holiest shrine, mass killings aren't going to cut it now.

All that being said, I think the Shia will wait, allow a greater influence by Iran sufficient to eventually form a Greater Persia through the ideological (if not political) amalgamation of Iran and Iraq. It should be remembered that Iraqis do not consider themselves as Arabs - they are Persians. It is the Arabian Middle-east where Sunni Islam, and specifically the radicalized Wahabism prevails, not Persia, which is predominatly Shia Islam. I think an ideological civil war between Persian Islam and the Arab Sunni (Wahabist) Islam is quite possible. I would suggest there is an argument to stoking the internecine Islamist fires to get them at each other's throats. Think about it - if that time bomb goes off, the West needs only to sit back, let them kill each other en masse, engage in strategic sabotage (bombing a holy site when things die down a bit) and then wait for the victor, who will be weakened by the fight. We then step in to assume control militarily of the oil fields. A stealth crusade!!!

You may likely get that scenario, Beowulf. The Shia leaders are saying they do not know how much longer they people will listen to them. There is an upswell of anger and open talk of retalitation.

We're in a civil war now; it's just that not everybody's joined in," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a former military commander in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "The failure to understand that the civil war is already taking place, just not necessarily at the maximum level, means that our counter measures are inadequate and therefore dangerous to our long-term interest.

"It's our failure to understand reality that has caused us to be late throughout this experience of the last three years in Iraq," added Nash, who is an ABC News consultant.

Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told ABC News, "If you talk to U.S. intelligence officers and military people privately, they'd say we've been involved in low level civil war with very slowly increasing intensity since the transfer of power in June 2004."

The New York Times reported in its online edition Saturday that an internal staff report by the U.S. Embassy and the military command rated overall stability of six of Iraq's 18 provinces "serious" and one "critical." The report was dated Jan. 31, the Times said.

The newspaper said provinces where overall stability was rated "serious" included Baghdad and oil-rich Basra, where Shiite militias wield considerable influence. Anbar province, which includes Ramadi and Fallujah, was rated "critical," the newspaper said.
The New York Times reported in its online edition Saturday that an internal staff report by the U.S. Embassy and the military command rated overall stability of six of Iraq's 18 provinces "serious" and one "critical." The report was dated Jan. 31, the Times said.

The newspaper said provinces where overall stability was rated "serious" included Baghdad and oil-rich Basra, where Shiite militias wield considerable influence. Anbar province, which includes Ramadi and Fallujah, was rated "critical," the newspaper said.

Haven't I seen that headline before?

Oh yeah.

Yesterday.

And the day before that.

And the day before that...

Just another day in the hood... literally.

War.

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing.

War.

What is it good for?

Ensuring that those who would wage it are defeated and never allowed to rule those who do not want to be ruled. You may not like war, but it was war that has enabled you to speak freely on this forum. Talking only buys those who are at a disadvantage time to grow their strength. Just because you dont advocate war, dont think that an enemy wouldnt use that to their advantage...and kill you..War is good for something..naivety is good for nothing.

Ensuring that those who would wage it are defeated and never allowed to rule those who do not want to be ruled. You may not like war, but it was war that has enabled you to speak freely on this forum. Talking only buys those who are at a disadvantage time to grow their strength. Just because you dont advocate war, dont think that an enemy wouldnt use that to their advantage...and kill you..War is good for something..naivety is good for nothing.

Posted by boaz at 2006-04-08 10:23 PM | Reply


Not all war is Necessary Not all war is Just or haven't You figured that out by now Boaz. You think War is Justified all of the time BULLSHIT Boaz that is utter Horseshit aqnd You know it so why do You keep supporting it. Just like this Iraq War it isnt Justified It isn't Legal it isn't Rightious. Yet You can't comprehend that because You can't deal with it.

NOT ALL WAR IS JUST NOR RIGHT

Larry

"Ensuring that those who would wage it are defeated"
So now you want Bush to lose?
Lucky for you, he's doing that already.

Cmon Larry,

Sadaam needed to be defeated because he was a threat to the area, even if he didint have WMD. You are right though Larry, not all war is just. And I do think there could have been better targets that we could have undertaken. But the comment was: War is good for nothing. I wasnt commenting just on the current situation. NorthGuy, dont take my comments out of text, because I dont want the united states to lose...

Sadaam needed to be defeated because he was a threat to the area, even if he didint have WMD. You are right though Larry, not all war is just. And I do think there could have been better targets that we could have undertaken. But the comment was: War is good for nothing. I wasnt commenting just on the current situation. NorthGuy, dont take my comments out of text, because I dont want the united states to lose...

Posted by Boaz at 2006-04-08 10:57 PM | Reply



Legally Ethicaly Morally it was NOT Our Choice to make. It was the call of the UN's and the UN's PERIOD. He was no threat to the Reigon. Pu8hlease don't spew some Bullshit because it won't fly with me Boaz not one iota. He was a broken Dictator. Need I remind You of what Condi Rice Colin Powell and Dick CHeney declared before it became Politicaly advantagous to say other wise. Saddam was NO Threat. Puhlease.


Larry

Ill tell you what will get the Shiites moving in Iraq, the US bombing Iran.
If the US bombs iran I imagine it will be all bets off in Iraq.
I imagine that the US will not use military force against Iran untill it is willing to abandon Iraq

DOEM...GOOD STATEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!