US troops move into NAJAF!!!

[Mattforclark]

oh boy...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3690669.stm

US tanks have surged into the Iraqi holy city of Najaf to take control of the governor's office amid fierce fighting with Shia gunmen.

Troops moved into the city's suburbs to draw out militiamen loyal to cleric Moqtada Sadr and allow the armour to sweep in largely unopposed.

The US military reported killing 41 militiamen in Kufa, just outside Najaf.

[skooooo]

1. Huh?

Isn't this worse than invading Falujah?

[Mattforclark]

3. Yes.

It is. Worse.

[AlCzervik]

4. "Holy city" of Najaf

yes, it's gonna be a bad weekend.

[demdave]

23. Not Najaf.....Kufa. 10 kilometers outside Najaf.

http://www.mideastweb.org/miraqd.htm

[wryter2000]

2. Holy Shiite

It's going to be a bloodbath. Damn you, Chimp!

[Gothmog]

5. This could really blow up in our faces

But how could the Iraqis be any less pissed at us. We have lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and so I guess we do not care about further alienating the general population.

[Nancy Waterman]

6. OMFG!!! Can they be this stupid!!

I thought shrubbie was trying to apologize for the culturally abominable deeds in the prisons. Now they are commiting more atrocities by Islamic standards. Say it ain't so!

[Mattforclark]

8. Yes, they can be this stupid

They have done lots of stupid things in the past. Stupidity knows no bounds.

[demdave]

9. Islamic standards? That is laughable.

When a group is attacked, their "standards" are rarely considered. The idea that we even include them in our military thinking is unique.


I wonder where you stand on the "Islamic standard" when it is applied to the treatment of women.

[Don Claybrook]

13. Hi. I've seen some of your posts the last few months

You seem to be surprisingly...conservative. Do you like here at Democratic Underground?

Mark me curious.

[demdave]

20. It is conservative not to agree with the was Islamists treat women?

I believe women should be educated, respected,allowed to vote AND drive. Not to mention leave the house, get a divorce, work and travel without first getting their male "keeper's" permission.

What is your stance?

[Don Claybrook]

24. It was a question that was general in nature

I was wondering, since you seem to be of a conservative tilt, how much you really liked it here. I wondered if you were frustrated by viewpoints you seem to largely disagree with. And of course, I wondered if maybe my perception was mistaken, so I thought I'd just ask you.

Do I really need to answer the specific question? I hate to completely remove nuance from a conversation, but I'll make it plain for you: of course I'm against the repression of women. That's why I don't care for Islamic fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Rush Limbaugh, or the Bush Administration.

Why do you ask?

[oldcoot]

27. Every mistake the administration makes jeopardizes women

Prior to the invasion, Iraq had a secular government. Iraq allowed women to drive, work, and get an eduction. Iraq even had one of the most most liberal divorce laws in the Muslim world. If Iraqi women are to keep these rights, they need a secular government.

Unfortunately, Bush's incompetence is jeopardizing the future of a secular government in Iraq. As a result of the chaos created by the U.S. invasion, extremists have started threaten women into conforming to their religious views. Recent revelations about the torture of Iraqi prisoners will not endear us to the Iraqis. I also doubt that tanks rolling into a holy city will do anything to improve Iraqis' opinion of the United States.

Eventually, Americans are going to get tired of this mess and they are going to demand an end to the U.S. presence in Iraq. Once the U.S. leaves, the Iraqis will choose their own government. Hopefully. Iraqi anger toward the United States will not cause the Iraqis to reject all western values including the belief that a secular government is the best form of government.

[NickB79]

28. Um, Iraqi women had ALL those rights under Saddam

Now, thanks to the US-led invasion, they have none. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

BTW, you seem to be thinking of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who are all currently US allies. Ironic, isn't it? Our "allies" treat their women worse than our enemy Saddam did.

[demdave]

36. I, indeed, was thinking of ALL Islamic fundamentalist states.

[slinkerwink]

38. Saddam's dictatorship was a secular one

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. Try to be less insulting....

...while you struggle with your credibility issues.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Art_from_Ark]

34. And to think that "Big, Bad Saddam"

had one of the best records for women's rights in the Islamic world.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

41. Like I said - alert on it, but I see through your conservative bias.

NT!

[Redleg]

15. Considering that we are supposed to be helping the Iraqis

maybe we should be concerned about Islamic "standards." After all, we have "liberated" them so they can practice their beliefs as they see fit, right? Maybe if the prison guards, MI folks, and Rumsfeld cared about human rights "standards" we wouldn't be in the shitstorm over torturing prisoners, would we?

[tkmorris]

31. "Attacking" ?

Hey pal, the Mission is ACCOMPLISHED! Didn't you get the memo? We aren't attacking anyone, we are bringing freedom and Democracy to the animal kingdom, hereafter known as "Iraq".

Seriously, do you think crushing dissent with tanks is the proper way to win hearts and minds? How'd that go over at Tiananmen Square?

BTW, how do you like the "Christian standard" in treating women, like say the one used by the Promise Keepers group?

It would seem your argument is with Islamic fundamentalism, not the religion itself. If that's the case one wonders why you advocated attacking Iraq in the first place since they were easily the most secular of the nations in the region. It can't be that Saddam found it neccessary to jail and sometimes kill his opposition since that is exactly what you are advocating that the occupying US forces do.

[wickerwoman]

35. Hmm. I must have imagined all those Christmas cease-fires

in WWI and WWII.

"The idea that we even include them in our military thinking is unique."

Didn't we have a long bruhaha about whether or not to attack Afghanistan during Ramadan? And wasn't the targetting of Isreali civilians during Passover considered a justification for extra force in retaliation?

Religious beliefs and customs incite passion and passion can change the course of a war. A good military strategist knows and considers this.

[demdave]

37. You are correct, that was about the end of the "civil" era of warfare.

Odd instances not withstanding, the days of "civil" warfare is over. At one time, "respectable" armies would take the field according to very specific rules. Those days are gone.

[AZCat]

42. Ahh, the good old days- prior to the American Revolution, of course?

I seem to remember the Brits complaining that American soldiers wouldn't stand and fight, and instead had adopted the techniques of guerrilla warfare.

There has never been a civil side of war. All the rules in the world can't cover up the fact that war is about killing people. And that is about as un-civil as you can be.

[demdave]

43. Agreed, but you understand the distinction I was trying to make.

[AZCat]

52. I don't know if I do understand the distinction

Are you saying that war once had rules? And that WW2 was the last one where they were observed?

I don't agree with that. I don't think war has any rules. We tried to formally agree to some (Geneva Conventions) but those are flouted or stepped around all the time. I don't think it's any different now than it was prior to WW2. Didn't Washington attack the Hessians on Christmas Eve? (I might be wrong on that one- I don't remember)

[Art_from_Ark]

59. You might be thinking of his December 26, 1776 attack

on the Hessians, which inspired Leutze's famous painting "George Washington Crossing the Delaware"

http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/gw/el_gw.htm

[wickerwoman]

45. If "civility" and "respectability" are foreign concepts in this combat

whose fault is it?

We did kind of illegally invade a much weaker nation without provocation. Were they supposed to throw on uniforms and stand in the middle of the desert so we could get them all in one go?

And now we're desecrating their holy cities and disregarding the beliefs of people we're claiming to be "helping". Oh yeah, and riding their 70 year old grandmothers like donkeys.

But they're the uncivilized ones for using guerrilla tactics...

[demdave]

47. As i said, that concept died in WWII. I don't recall a universal

cease fire being declared in any major conflict since then. I am open to learning about one. Major conflict that is.

[wickerwoman]

49. You didn't read the second half of my original post.

You argued that religious customs and traditions are never a consideration in military tactics.

I recall that there was intense debate in October 2001 about whether or not we should attack Afghanistan in the middle of the month of Ramadan or put the invasion off to avoid what would be perceived as an insult to Muslims. We attacked anyway, of course, but the point is that it was a consideration.

And I recall several suicide bombers attacking Israelis during passover this year. The fact that they attacked during a religious holiday was offered as justification for ever more severe retaliation.

The point is that attacking people during their religious festivals or in their sacred places really pisses them off. And a good military commander will take that into consideration before they do it. If Al Qaeda bombed us on Thanksgiving or Christmas wouldn't you be especially outraged? If they bombed Westminster Cathedral or St. Patrick's in New York, don't you think we'd see even more enlistments and fervor than we already have?

The fact that sometimes military commanders do it anyway, doesn't mean they don't (in general) think through the consequences first.

[demdave]

51. I must have imagined all those Christmas cease-fires

was addressed, as was your second half. Who, other than the U.S. considers religious of cultural sensitivities when the issue of war comes up? Unless they are using it for a tactical advantage or shock value.

[wickerwoman]

53. That's off the point.

You said no one considers it.

I gave you three good examples of people considering it.

Whether or not anyone else considers these factors is beside the point. If they're smart, they should. Especially when their declared goal is "helping the Iraqi people" and they have stated repeatedly that "Islam is not the enemy".

[demdave]

54. You are wrong, any military operation is to achieve a military goal.

If winning the hearts and minds helps fulfill that mission, that helps the cause. Different goals at different times. War is incremental.

[wickerwoman]

55. And what is our goal in this instance?

Sounds like you're happy to win the battle and lose the war.

[demdave]

56. Nope, the goal is to get out of there and leave as stable a

government as possible. That is what I hope for. The closer to a democracy the better, the further into a global community the better.


Good night. Thaks for the convers.

[wickerwoman]

58. Good. I think we agree on the goal and our hopes.

And I think that attacking Iraqis in their holy cities is counterproductive to this goal. Unless our plan is to unify the Iraqis using their common hatred of us. We'd create a stable government, but one that is certainly more friendly with OBL than Saddam was.

Cheers.

[Barrett808]

7. This may not be the bloodbath we might expect

With Sadr isolated from the greater Shi'a community, we may actually be doing Sistani's bidding. This kid's a pain in the @ss for the moderates, who hope to acquire power through whatever political process the US/UN manage to cobble together.

Without tacit public support, such as the insurgency enjoys, the Mehdi militia's days are numbered.

[Disturbed]

10. Stoopid is....

as stoopid does.

While many Iraqis are sitll seething over the tortures and the publicity about them it's a good time to attack inside their holiest
city. Simply brilliant!

[Mattforclark]

11. It would be funny

if it weren't real.

[paulk]

30. It wouldn't surprise me if this has the approval of Sistani

and the rest of the moderate Shia leadership. They're just as anxious to neutralize Sadr as the Americans are.

[alcuno]

12. I heard that the office is only a stones throw away from the the Spanish

base that we took over. We dipped a toe into Najaf.

[bluedog]

14. this is also wrong

Excuse me? Who gave the U.S. right to start naming the Governors of regions of foreign countries?

Isn't that what they claimed this war was about - giving Iraqis control?

[leQ]

16. one would think they would let the current scandal simmer down a bit..

right? it's like when they dig themselves into a hole, all they want is bigger shovels. isn't there some psychiatric term for this type of behavior?

[hadrons]

19. psychiatric term for this type of behavior: Stupidpitous Enormous

[flamingyouth]

17. And we're handing this place over in 50 days?

Riiiiight.

Oh, this is an absolute fucking disaster.

[Daisey Mae]

18. This is a very stupid Administration and a very stupid

pRresident....BUT this takes the cake......This is and always has been a religious war (they are stealing too) but this war (remember)....God was talking to the Idiot King.... and told him he was on a" Mission for God.".. which puts him on an equal footing with the "Blues Brothers" and about 90% of the people who populate the mental insitutions.....GO GO GO "GOD" BOY.......too bad he controls such a military power..... Lots of people are dying and being injured for the Sick Pipe Dream of a Greedy, Insane Little F--k......

[hadrons]

21. "Blues Brothers" and about 90% of the people ....

I love that sentence

[Daisey Mae]

Thanx....I like your smiley faces........

[Disturbed]

22. Self Destructive

"the people who populate the mental insitutions....."

Amerika is one large mental insitution and the inmates are in charge.

[Daisey Mae]

26. you have a point.... Since Bush......

We are definitely down the "Rabbit Hole".....

[Darranar]

25. Oh, no. n/t

[PATRICK]

32. Clever way to save face

That's all. The chose the governor's office and made a big show of replacing the governor with a new puppet. It that is the best they can do Sadr must be really smiling. It's worse than a pathetic show and exactly who is left to be impressed anywhere on earth anyway?

Because they got faced down and won't attack the city they take a suburb and declare victory.

Bremer should just resign out of pure inability to do anything.

[gottaB]

33. Buses attacked, 4 pilgrims killed

http://www.geo.tv/main_files/world.aspx?id=16974

http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en63831&...

[burrowowl]

46. Shooting pilgrims

is not a good idea.

[Barrett808]

60. AP report

U.S. troops, Shiite fighters clash in Karbala; gunmen slay 2 journalists
By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI

...

In Karbala on Thursday, coalition troops clashed with dozens of al-Sadr militiamen. A witness told Associated Press Television News that troops fired on the insurgents and destroyed four buses of Pakistani pilgrims, which were seen burning. The witness said "three or four" Pakistanis were killed.

(more)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2004/05/07/45085...

[Disturbed]

40. Bremmer

He has been scheduled to leave on June 30.
Negraponte is taking over. He has experience in Central
America assisting right wing terrorist in over throwing
governments there.

[Zhade]

44. Yep. And our Dems - save 3 - approved that murderous criminal today.

And Kerry didn't even vote against the man his own Iran-Contra investigations helped prove a murderous criminal.

There is very little opposition left in the Democratic party, and it seems to die more each day.

[makhno]

57. But remember

It makes no difference as long as there's a D after that name. We the citizens are not to vote on policy, we are to vote on party affiliation.

The Negroponte vote is a disgrace. Our party wouldn't so much as lift a finger to oppose this administration. Snide remarks in the media don't count. They have a mandate and they better start fucking using it.