|
Post by HStorm on Aug 13, 2004 11:41:57 GMT
I'm not sure bombing a city into oblivion is ever a good idea. For an awful lot of innocent people Najaf is their home and they've only left because if they hadn't they'd be dead now. They would very much like to go back once the danger has passed (assuming it ever does).
There's an awful lot of homeless and dispossessed people in Iraq these days. Destroying more precious infrastructure, like entire cities, doesn't sound like a wise move at all.
As for the Shia rising up against their "liberators", they want to form their own autonomous state separate to the rest of Iraq. Like the Kurds in the north they feel like a repressed ethnic minority, and as far as they can see liberation is still to arrive.
Their mentality is comparable to many British Euroskeptics, who oppose integration with Europe because it would mean mixing blood with those nasty Germans who did such terrible things in World War II, and never mind the fact that the war's been over for 60-odd years and practically none of the population of modern Germany was around back in the 1940's .
Likewise the Shias dislike remaining part of Iraq because they associate the oppression they suffered under the Ba'athist party with being ruled by Iraq, and never mind the fact that Saddam and his regime have been toppled and there's a (supposedly) benevolent and democratic (HAH!) government in power now.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 13, 2004 12:07:11 GMT
Just heard a fresh report on BBC News 24 that Allawi has opened negotiations with Sadr over a new ceasefire in Najaf. Fighting has apparently ceased over around 80% of the city.
Whether the negotiations will affect the fighting in Kut is not clear.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Aug 13, 2004 12:13:59 GMT
I admit it had never occured to me that the Shia's were trying to form their own state, but now I hear it it sounds like a reasonable idea. What we need to know is that if a Shia state was formed, would it be able to sustain itself (Like the individual states of the EU can sustain themselves without the EU, although the interstate free trade agreement is beneficial)?
It is clear that Saddam only was able to make Iraq stable through the use of brute force. Unless the Iraqi government chooses to do use his methods, Iraq will totally disintigrate into seperate states (although not 'declared states'). Signs of that are making themselves obvious now.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 13, 2004 12:40:04 GMT
This is the conundrum. The USA and Britain insisted that keeping Iraq intact was a crucial objective of the post-war rebuilding process in order to maintain infrastructure as safely and smoothly as possible (ROUGH TRANSLATION; it'll make it easier for them to pipeline the oil out of the Gulf if there are fewer borders to cross).
But the truth is that secessionism seems to be the prevailing trend in the provinces at the moment. As you say, it's difficult to say whether an independent Shia republic will be strong enough to survive on its own.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 13, 2004 16:12:17 GMT
The British journalist who was taken hostage in Iraq by Shia sympathisers, and threatened with execution, has been released. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3563032.stmThe decision was made after diplomatic pressure applied by Moqtadr Sadr himself. This demonstrates that he is prepared to be benevolent, and that although he isn't afraid to die for his cause, perhaps he can be reasoned with. His demands that must be met in order for the fighting to stop are as follows... US forces must withdraw from Najaf, Sacred Shia sites must be administered by religious authorities from now on, The release of captured fighters and amnesty for Sadr supporters, The restoration of basic services in Najaf. In short, nothing that altogether sounds unreasonable, at least at first glance. Thoughts, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Aug 26, 2004 19:18:17 GMT
Well, the deal is closed, as the US launched a large assault on Najaf. What do we know of the assault? What did it achieve, and what do we think, are it's implications?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 27, 2004 21:37:33 GMT
Well the mosque that the rebels were holding has been surrendered at last, and the new truce appears to be holding. But these are Intelligence reports from the US Army, so we can't know for sure how true it all is.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Feb 16, 2006 19:00:05 GMT
The issue of abuse of Iraqi prisoners has reared its head again. Previously-unreleased photos from the same batch that got into the media a couple of years ago have been shown on Australian TV, and have since been shown in newspapers and TV news all round the world.
Although this is not exactly 'news', what the new pictures have revealed is the true extent of the abuses; they were clearly worse than reports and some of the pictures that were released two years ago had suggested.
Question is, have the media overstepped the mark by showing these pictures? And was the timing wise, given the recent tide of unrest over the Danish cartoons (supposedly) mocking the prophet Mohammed?
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Feb 20, 2006 2:51:43 GMT
(re: Photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse) Question is, have the media overstepped the mark by showing these pictures? And was the timing wise, given the recent tide of unrest over the Danish cartoons (supposedly) mocking the prophet Mohammed? Personally, I don't think the media have overstepped the mark. In fact, I feel there was not enough of an outcry after the first lot were posted. In the midst of all the numerous atrocities committed in our name, Abu Ghraib has successfully been marginalised by the mainstream media, and the military/corporate/administration that it is beholden to. It could be fair to say that we're sick to death of hearing of all the crap that still goes on, but then to my mind there hasn't been nearly enough debate on the prisoner abuse issue. If anything, the photos should serve as a reminder that we still haven't come to any resolution; Abu Ghraib still operates, torture is still institutionalised, and only a few lowly soldiers have been punished. I will concede however, that posting the pics amidst the furore over the Danish cartoons was probably not the wisest thing to do in terms of keeping the peace, but then it seems anything will inflame those protesting.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 7, 2006 12:57:52 GMT
An Amnesty International investigation into treatment of detainees within Iraq has concluded that abuses - not necessarily by coalition troops - are still going on, and that basic human rights are being denied to many prisoners. This includes more than 200 detainees who have been imprisoned for more than two years and nearly 4,000 for longer than a year, all without a trial. The lessons of the Abu Ghraib scandal, it seems, have not been learned.
The human rights minister in Iraq has reluctantly confirmed the content of the report is largely accurate, although he has tried to play it down somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 10, 2006 21:56:50 GMT
In what has been optimistically classed as a 'landmark decision', the US military has announced that it will cease holding detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison, which will then be handed over to the Iraqi justice ministry (which plans to close it down).
A new prison is being built called Camp Cropper (now that's a nice-sounding name), which the 5,000 Abu Ghraib inmates will be transferred to.
This will apparently disassociate law-enforcement in Iraq with the notoriety of torture and abuse of prisoners that Abu Ghraib has been involved in, under both Saddam and the Western coalition.
This will solve the problems of unrest and suspicion of the law. Apparently. You see, it seems that all the torture/abuse/that kinda shit is all about perspective. So if prisoners are no longer being held in a place so heavily-implicated in that kinda shit, people's view of it would become uncluttered and maybe then it will turn out that all the abuses of prisoners by western soldiers didn't happen after all, and we apparently just imagined those photos and videos and things.
(That's my long-winded way of saying, why waste money building a replacement prison when Iraq has so many other problems?)
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 12, 2006 13:48:27 GMT
Would it not accomplish the same objectives (i.e. disassociation with torture and abuse) if they simply renamed the prison?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Mar 12, 2006 15:57:00 GMT
I have to disagree. Abu Ghraib should be torn down, if anything just because it's unfit for any form of human habitation, even if it's incarceration.
The place has the hygeine and sanitation of the Black Hole of Calcutta; it's even feasable that Saddam modelled the place on it. It's got built-in torture chambers, which I personally feel no prison should ever have as it's just tempting fate. And the cells are small, cramped and generally rather unpleasant. The place needs to be replaced.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 12, 2006 23:40:22 GMT
The place has the hygeine and sanitation of the Black Hole of Calcutta; it's even feasable that Saddam modelled the place on it. It's got built-in torture chambers, which I personally feel no prison should ever have as it's just tempting fate. And the cells are small, cramped and generally rather unpleasant. The place needs to be replaced. Seconded
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 13, 2006 19:57:34 GMT
There has been a lot of talk, once again in the mainstream media, about the probability of Civil War breaking out in Iraq. Certainly the tension between the many minority political factions, the excruciatingly slow progress of the new government and the remaining militants doing their best to stir up trouble are all contributing to a very difficult situation there right now but do you think it will actually descend into a Civil War?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 13, 2006 20:03:15 GMT
I know officially it hasn't, but look at what's happening and it's hard to say it hasn't already started.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Mar 13, 2006 23:35:47 GMT
I reckon the only thing thats stopping Iraq having a civil war is theat no-one's organised enough to have one. The place has decended so far into anarchy that there's nothing civil left to it.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Mar 14, 2006 2:44:25 GMT
I agree with Nas. Once people organise themselves into two (or more) distinct opposing factions, then we'll be able to call it a civil war. Ironically enough, that would then present circumstances where many would argue that miltiary intervention would be advantageous.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 14, 2006 11:20:02 GMT
Hmm, it's a rather kind view to take of wars, I'd say, arguing that they're defined by how 'well-organised' the chaos is.
I'd also say that most of the factions involved are quite clearly defined in Iraq's case. It's just there's so many of them and most of them are quite small, so it gives the impression that it's complete anarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Mar 14, 2006 11:51:21 GMT
Well, I don't think they are. The 'insurgents' represent at least twenty highly disparate groups, with some of them simply criminal gangs, others legal militias, and yet other groups made up of religious fundamentalists. Frankly, it's more of a vast, lethal pub brawl than a war.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 14, 2006 20:20:50 GMT
The killings are certainly getting worse, somewhere in the region of 87 bodies were found in the last 24 hours (some in mass graves) in Shiite Muslim areas. It seems they were executed and that the killings were secular
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 14, 2006 20:29:42 GMT
Even though the solutions that some - not all - of the terrorists look towards have a theological basis, all of the issues and grievances involved are secular, political and, most importantly, entirely modern in their outlook.
Even though the killers in this instance are probably seculars (almost certainly Saddamites), I'm sure Rumsfeld is already looking for a way to claim they're Islamic Radicals from 'al-Qaeda'...
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 14, 2006 23:01:25 GMT
I'm really starting to feel concern about this latest wave of killings, every time I have looked back to the BBC website this week I have seen reports of more bodies being found. Since my last post reports are emerging of more bodies found in Baghdad. Obviously post war-Iraq has never been devoid of violence, but most of the killings up until recently were isolated bomb attacks by militant groups attempting to undermine stability(with the occasional co-ordinated series of explosions). The recent wave have been executions and most of the bodies were bound and blindfolded before being executed and buried in mass graves are most definitely acts of sectarian violence between Suuni and Shia extremists. Obviously a lot of this is in retaliation for the bombing of the Shia shrine at Samarra in February but the inability of the Iraqi parliament to agree on even the basic composition of their government means that there is little effective action being taken to avoid a Civil War. It now seems to be an inevitability and, as HStorm says, in some ways it has already begun.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 20, 2006 18:40:10 GMT
It's three years to the day since the war began, a special occasion happily marked by more of the same; more bombings, more sectarian tension and more governmental turmoil. A couple of days ago, Iyad Allawi declared that the Civil War has been under way for some while. Doubtless he said it for selfish political reasons to undermine the current administration, but he's probably right.
Three years. Billions of dollars lost in oil revenue. Water and fuel supplies are now even lower than they were on the day Saddam's statue toppled. Unemployment exceeds 50%. Public opinion on Iraq's streets is fury that the richest nation on Earth has stolen their country and managed to make life far worse than it was under the Ba'athists.
But fear not, folks! We should all be cheerful at this time! Why, you ask? Well because in an address to mark this anniversary, George Dubya has told us we should, of course, praising US troops - presumably for the exceptional standard of their prisoner abuses - and saying the US-led strategy would "lead to victory" and create a secure Iraq for generations to come.
So that's okay then. I wasn't aware that the US had a strategy at any stage of the conflict, but what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Mar 20, 2006 18:55:16 GMT
I believe the strategy to which he refers is the one where he tells everyone everything'll be OK until they believe it, while simultaneuosly having his soldiersslaughter any dissent. But I may be wrong.
|
|