Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

No Doubt About It! The US Wants an Iraq Civil War....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:40 AM
Original message
No Doubt About It! The US Wants an Iraq Civil War....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1387460,00....

This article is a must read for what happened in Fallujah. Please note also the lack of "foreign fighters" the US kept screaming about before the offensive.

The most startling aspect to me, besides the devastation of the people and city, is the absolute drive by the US for civil war! Yes folks, we have to stay in Iraq to quell the on going civil war and violence!
:grr:


~snip~

I wanted to ask Dr Adnan Chaichan about the wounded. I found him at the main hospital in Falluja at midday. He told me that all the doctors and medical staff were locked into the hospital at the beginning of the attack and not allowed out to treat anyone. The Iraqi National Guard, acting under US orders, had tied him and all the other doctors up inside the main hospital. The US had surrounded the hospital, while the National Guard had seized all their mobile phones and satellite phones, and left them with no way of communicating with the outside world. Chaichan seemed angrier with the National Guards than with anyone else.

He said that the phone lines inside the town were working, so wounded people in Falluja were calling the hospital and crying, and he was trying to give instructions over the phone to the local clinics and the mosques on how to treat the wounds. But nobody could get to the main hospital where all the supplies were and people were bleeding to death in the city.

It was late afternoon when I drove out of Falluja and back to Baghdad, feeling that I had just scratched the surface of what really happened there. But it is clear that by completely destroying this Sunni city, with the help of a mostly Shia National Guard, the US military has fanned the seeds of a civil war that is definitely coming. If there are elections now and the Shia win, that war is certain. The people I spoke to had no plans to vote. No one I met in those five days had a ballot paper.


~snip~

The US military destroyed Falluja, but simply spread the fighters out around the country. They also increased the chance of civil war in Iraq by using their new national guard of Shias to suppress Sunnis. Once, when a foreign journalist, an Irish guy, asked me whether I was Shia or Sunni - the way the Irish do because they have that thing about the IRA - I said I was Sushi. My father is Sunni and my mother is Shia. I never cared about these things. Now, after Falluja, it matters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
theresistance Donating Member (595 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. The civil war was created...
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 06:18 AM by theresistance
As soon as the US created its puppet regime in Baghdad. This regime would then happily launch war against its own people to stay in power. The propaganda of "insurgents" or "Zarqawi" or someone else wanting to forment civil war was then invented, naturally passed on by the media.

Fallujah was a great war crime. See some photos of American "progress" and what it means when the Chimpinator says "freedom is on the march" : http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_al...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theresistance Donating Member (595 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. WARNING PREVIOUS POST CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomkertes Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a crime against the peace
No American should be forced to fight for an immoral and illegal war. That's why I support freedom from the draft. I agree, it Fullujah was a crime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seldona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. I disagree.
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 05:53 AM by Seldona
The * administration have proved again and again they are completely incompetent.

They could not plan their way out of wet paper bag, let alone plan this far ahead in hopes of a civil war.

And what happend if there is a civil war in Iraq? We have at the most 150k troops stationed there. It is not going to be pretty if a majority of the 25 million Iraqis decide to go at each other, and us.

This is just another stunning example in a long line of stupid decisions based on whatever is convenient at the time.

I mean this is the same government that issued several student visas to some of the 9/11 attackers 6 months AFTER the attack.

They are hardly what one could consider tactical geniuses.

Just my opinion. I could be, and most likely am, wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theresistance Donating Member (595 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The plan behind the "transfer of power" to "Iraqis"...
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 06:02 AM by theresistance
was to divert attention away from the occupation onto a "sovereign" government. America said, "hey, you've got a sovereign government, so what's the problem?". The resistance could then automatically be demonised as disrupting "progress" towards a "free" and "sovereign" government blah, blah... It was the tactics in Central America and Afghanistan (partly even South Vietnam with its puppet dictatorship). Use proxies to fight your war, or at least help... That's my analysis anyway. However, the original story that was posted was not really pertinent to this discussion. That story proves that the so-called "Iraqi security forces" and "national guard" you keep hearing about are mainly Kurds (and maybe Shiites) with a bone to pick against Saddam Hussein's former Sunni power base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. and to add to your point
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 06:10 AM by booley
the US is recruting the poor and former military from places like Chile (home of Pinochet) and other latin American Countries to fight in Iraq.

So , if the plan goes through, the US can deny all responsability for the wars it wages.

The shrubbery are idiots, but they are clever idiots...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seldona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. I don't see how * can get a pass on Iraq.
I understand the concept of proxy armies fighting your wars. Sure helps on those casualty reports.

I just fail to understand how this goves *Bush a pass, even to the most hardcore of his supporters.

Doesn't matter who he gets to do the fighting. He owns this lock, stock, and barrel.

Even Powell said that. And his Pottery barn comment could be used against them in the case he tried to wiggle out of his repsonsibility.

Nor do I see the benifits to this administration or the republican party if a civil war does break out and we lose 10k, 20k, maybe far more, in a say a day or a bit longer.

I would think even the right wing media would have no choice but to call this war a failure at this point.

Then again they bold face lie constantly. It is the only way they can get ahead.

I guess I would think * would do whatever he can to get things settled down and be able to leave Iraq asap, claiming victory the whole way.

Anyway I have not slept yet either. Perhaps I will get it when I have has some sleep.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. it' simple
what thing has caused th emost consternation about the iraqi war so far? what issue upsets mor eof the mainstream?

it's not iraqi's dying. we 've had that for years with no major outcry except among us bleeding hearts.

It's not the way our security has been put in danger. Most peopel will fal asleep as you explain how this happened.

it sure as hell wasn't the lying. Too many people were perfectly content to drink the Kool-Aid.

It's the Troops. Reduce or stop american casualites and the primary thing making more and more Americans uncomfortable. Why do you think the Shrubbery was so concerned abotu keeping American bodies out of the press (unless they were killed by terrorists?)

IF suddenly it was only non-Americans dying, then we would be right back to this only mattering to us bleeding heart peaceniks.

Not to say the mess and the killing won't continue to gfet worse. Not to say that americans won't still pay a price. But with non-americans fighting our wars, that price won't be as obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clem_c_rock Donating Member (989 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. I think the goal was to stay all along
It's pretty obvious a millitary footprint, firsthand access to practically the best oil fields in the world, protection for Israel.

They will keep their claws dug in as deep as possible until there's no choice to leave.

What they need now is a nice fat manufactured, er, um, terrorist attack to bring back the new, improved draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. But you are making an assumption, I think
that what Shrub says he wants to happen is what he really wants to see happen. that what Shrub considers good for the country and what he considers good for Shrub are the same thing.

Actually a good number of Shrub's actions and policies have been successful even though they didn't fulfill or even undermined thier stated goals...

The Clear Skies initiative was a failure if you think that it's purpose was to reduce air pollution. BUT that' s not what it was designed to do. That''s just what Shrub said it was designed to do.

The tax cuts are a failure if you think they were meant to spur the economy. But that's not why Shrub wanted them. That's just the rational he gave for wanting them (actually one a quite a few rationals that changed as the circumstances did)

Same with other numerouse examples I could give.
Not to say that the Shrubbery isn't an incompetant pack of fascists, fools and yes men. But why can't they be evil and incompetant at the same time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seldona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Oh I never did believe what he stated as his objective in Iraq.
I am just failing to see how a civil war in any way helps the neocons in their powerplay to dominate the world.

I can see how it would give them reason to stay longer, if you assume that they have any intention of leaving in the first place. Which I do not beleive they do.

And I would think he would want to use whatever troops he gets once the draft starts on his next attack on a siveriegn nation.

Not wanting to bog down another half a million troops or whatever number it would take to calm the civil war down.

I really believe that at the point of an Iraqi civil war, even some in his party, let alone the media, would be all over him like a cheap suit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clem_c_rock Donating Member (989 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Oh come on. You still buy the "They screwed up but had good intentions?"
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 04:29 PM by clem_c_rock
Excuse for the 20th time in a row.

They use this excuse all the time for f**cking everything.

911 - oh sh** - everythings so bureaucratic - they
just slipped through. But boy what an opportunity to invade
2 countries the PNAC has been drooling over for the last
decade.
Iraq - oh sh** - everythings so bureaucratic - the intelligence was
flawed


Let's get real to the possibility that the 2000 stolen elections, 911, the invasion of Afghanistan, three nice new bases outlining Unocal's pipeline project, the installation of Unocal's Hami Kharzi's as president (arguably a rigged election-US Specialty), the invasion of Iraq, disbanding of the Iraqi army, 14 nice new bases, trying to start sh** w/ Iran/Syria, Peak oil, declining dollar, rigged 2004 elections were all connected nicely together in a big 'ol packaged deal. The PNAC has a nice document called "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" that seems to outline all this quite nicely. The arguments against this possibility are getting more pathetic by the hour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. Civil war is plan B.
It would have been preferable to the Bush's to get their hands on the oil but if they can't have it then a civil war perhaps even a regional religious war between the Sunni and Shia is a fall back option they can live with. A religious war could cause all concerned to want to keep the oil flowing to pay for not just the war but the rebuilding in the aftermath.
Again their strategy is simple. Keep them poor, hungry, sick and beat down so they keep the spigots open. It seems these assholes make out no matter what happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Agree. Our evil overlords are very flexible when it come to oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theresistance Donating Member (595 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. People are still thinking...
a civil war in the sense of Sunnis fighting Shiites, which may or may not happen. What I mean is that, regardless of whether or not this happens (probably not), the US occupation has in effect created a civil war (intentional or not) as soon as the puppet regime was set up: the puppet government and whatever collaborators they can find fighting opponents to stay in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hilster Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
10. It certainly seems
shrub & co have a knack for dividing people amongst themselves..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theresistance Donating Member (595 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
15. See for example this report...
Some unknown militant group waging war against "terrorists" in Iraq: http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?catid=138&newsid=555...

You'll never know whether these sorts of groups are part of the "El Salvador" option and are created or helped by the US and/or its puppet regime. Expect more of these sorts of groups to pop up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. It is just like VietNam!
bring in the black-ops guys and no one knows who anybody is anymore!
It kept that war going for WAY too long! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
17. THEN they can blame the DESTRUCTION OF IRAQ on the civil war!
That is the only way we can save face when we pull out of there and the world will see how The United States destroyed the CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION!!

Start a Civil War and blame the RUIN on them!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC