That guy Sadr pisses me off. Look at that guy and tell me you don’t see the devil in him.

I think that there may be no alternative but to wipe him out. He should have been martyred 3 years ago instead of making deals with him. Yes, there will be a few angry religious shiites, but I am not sure that I know what the alternative is. A democracy means that all power must be derived from elected leaders. Elected leaders should not have to share power with thugs.

This Sadr guy obviously wants to be Iraq’s Khomenei. and is likely getting material and moral help from Iran. I think that it is time to take him down. Alternatively the US could give the Shia a choice, either support the democracy and support the US and Iraqi government taking down of this Sard guy, or the US will wash their hands of the mess and let Iraq decsend into war with the Sunnis.

Well its not like were attacking both shiite and sunni “gangs,” were basically going after sunnis, while shiites are free to shoot us in the back. Which they do, most Iraqi police and army troops are only in it for the money. During day they throw on their fatigues, at night, they plant the bombs that will kill our family and friends the next day. Hizbollah part 2? I’d say Viet Cong part 2.

“a few angry religious shiites” if we kill Sadr?

you dumbass, he got a whole army… if someone killed YOU, there would be a few pissed off people… you kill Sadr and his army will get live…

Would you group The Shiites in the Sunnie triangle under Sadr’s control with Shiites from southern cities like Basra? They are both the same people. They both have foriegn troops amungst them. Basra is full of Brits and Baghdad is full of Americans.

I often wonder if Shiites in the south are in cahoots with people like Sadr simply because they are both Shiites.

Alternatively the US could give the Shia a choice, either support the democracy and support the US and Iraqi government taking down of this Sard guy, or the US will wash their hands of the mess and let Iraq decsend into war with the Sunnis.

That’s so retarded I don’t even know where to begin. But here goes.

Sadr is a PART of the democracy. The block of votes that he controls has been vital in monitoring the SCRI-led Shiite block with regards to the installation of the new PM, al-Malaki. He actually got a hell of a lot more votes than the US-favoured puppet, Allawi. The fact that you could say that Iraqis just need to have faith in their democracy while supporting a foreign army’s efforts to liquidate one of the main opposition figures is a testament to your absolute lack of understanding of the concept of democracy. That’s like saying that the French should have rallied around the Vichy government and the Nazi army and support them while they liquidated figures in the resistance movement (Sartre would be ironically pertinent). You might balk at the idea of al-Sadr as an opposition figure… but you’ve got to realize that it’s a fucking warzone! The fact that you have such a militant branch of the opposition is just one of the many ‘birth pangs’ of a new democratic Middle East… if you wanna follow your own politicians’ stupid logic. Moreover… the concept of ‘supporting a democracy’ when you’re too scared to leave your own house because the Mahdi army (which you seem to write off as a bunch of idiots who wouldn’t be able to function without their spiritual leader), the Badr-Brigades (the ones who are REALLY supported by Iran) and the various other Sunni and Shia death squads (several of which have been trained by the US, via the Ministry of the Interior). People like you should not use the term democracy. It’s like watching a fat person go on about the wonders of Diet Coke.

Secondly… it is a civil war. Why in the hell do people keep saying that it MIGHT descend into civil war? Do you even know what a civil war looks like? There have been a higher rate of killings in Iraq in the past year then there was during the Lebanese Civil War…. which nobody pussyfooted around referring to by its proper name. More like “wash their hands of the mess and let Iraq descend into FULL-SCALE ETHNIC CLEANSING.”

bravo Heatscore, bravo

“People like you should not use the term democracy. It’s like watching a fat person go on about the wonders of Diet Coke“

Oh GodDAMN. That whole post was fucking beautiful.

Right on Heatscore!

ouch, in your face Izzy.

The Shiite militia run by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr

IS the AP implying that anti-Americanism is al-Sadr’s religion? Is he really “anti-American” or is he simply anti-occupation? Does this pass for unbiased reporting these days?

Hence, in my summary, I referred to him as Anti-Occupation. I can’t see this guy being truly anti-American. I mean who was Muqtada al-Sadr before we invaded Iraq? How many wars did he declare or Americans did he threaten or kill before the Iraqi occupation? We sow our own demise in the world and then we blame it on something else altogether.

His the same thing as Hizballah; one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

Speaking about ethnic cleansing, the real test for Iraq is coming as the U.S. and Brits withdraw their forces. As this happens, the Iranians will step up their influence in the Shi’a regions in Iraq.

One of the two major Shi’a parties in Iraq, SCRII, or “The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq,” is pro—Iranian, and favors an Iranian style theocracy in Iraq. Iran will attempt to influence its allies in the Iraqi parliament and on the streets to favor Iranian objectives. For example, Iran could use its influence to attempt to divide Iraq into three, or on the other hand to prevent a secession.

The Mahdi Army and Muqtada al-Sadr are the other main Shi’a party. Both are opposed to Iranian influence in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr may be a devout Muslim, but politically he his first and foremost an Iraqi nationalist. Sadr wants a united Iraq under a Shi’a dominated government, independent from foreign influence. Sadr even has some credibility with Sunnis – when the resistance was mostly Sunni, Sadr had his Shi’a Mahdi Army join the fight in common with Sunni militants. He is unusual among Shi’a politicians for hs attempts to reach out to Sunni leaders.

Love him or hate him, Sadr may just be the only man who can hold Iraq together as an independent country, if anyone can. The recent fighting has been not between Shia and Sunni, but between Shia and Shia, Sadr and SCRII. If civil war in Iraq does break out (and I mean by organized, defined parties) I think it will be between Sadr and SCRII rather than Sunni and Shia

Headscroe The fact that you could say that Iraqis just need to have faith in their democracy while supporting a foreign army’s efforts to liquidate one of the main opposition figures is a testament to your absolute lack of understanding of the concept of democracy.

As a politician he can make speeches and get out his voters. As a militia leader who seizes territory, he is a criminal and should be stopped, killed if necessary.

It would seem the more we learn about the details of Iraq, the more we befuddled we become regarding U.S. and British goals in the Persian Gulf region.

Speaking about ethnic cleansing, the real test for Iraq is coming as the U.S. and Brits withdraw their forces. As this happens, the Iranians will step up their influence in the Shi’a regions in Iraq.

What makes you believe that the U.S. and its British allies will abandon their current policy of pressuring for regime change in Iran, prior to withdrawal from Iraq?

In light of our recent history of waging “pre-emptive” war and the current occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, believing that Iran does not await a similar fate is simply wishful thinking.

Acknowledging that Iran will be bloodier and militarily more difficult to invade and occupy than either Afghanistan or Iraq were individually, the task at hand is similar to the two previously invaded countries combined.

Afghanistan (31 million) and Iraq (26 million) together comprise a population of over 57 million people. Iran by comparison totals over 67 million.

Land area of Iran is 1.648 million sq km, Afghanistan 647,500 sq km, Iraq 437,072 sq km.

The advantages for the invaders when invading Iran over either Afghanistan or Iraq will be the presence of battle hardened troops in large numbers on Iran’s borders and Iran’s exposure to U.S. and allied seapower.

Afghanistan is completely landlocked and Iraq has a relatively short coastline that gives it access to the Persian Gulf. U.S. airbases in both Afghanistan and Iraq can be utilized as well as for airstrikes and close air support with both fighters and rotorcraft.

As for occupation troops, we already know the result of invading with sufficient forces to defeat the opposing military forces, but too few to effectively enforce order and provide security.

While it is difficult to imagine the U.S. and allies occupying a geographic region almost twice the size of Alaska and inhabited by approximately 125 million people, the realities of U.S. and British withdrawal from the region are even more difficult to imagine.

See: U.S. can’t afford to pull out of Iraq

The last strategic advantage that goes to the invaders in this endeavor will be the element of relative surprise. Since there will be no public support to be garnered in advance of this military effort, since the public in both the UK and the US is war weary and unlikely to support even the threat of the use of force, it can be safely assumed that this invasion won’t come at the end of a deadline as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The U.S. and British forces are also much better equipped today with armor plated and reinforced Humvees and improved body armor and they are now battle hardened. Don’t expect embedded reporters and widespread TV coverage.

We’ll all know what time it is when it comes, but when the first shots are fired it’ll all boil down to:

You’re either with us, or you are against us.

Sometimes no Peace.

Boy I am hearing some real bizarre and stupid commentary here. Stuff like “many Sunnis like Sadr”, or “He is anti-occupation.”

First, there is no occupation. There is one democratically elected government, which is a coalition of elected Iraqi.

Second, Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi army is religious and devout, and Sunnis do not want him in power. He is responsible for many of the death squads that have attacked Sunnis in retaliation.

Third, he is full of anti-US rhetoric, and he wips up his religious crazies with the usual scapegoats that all Islamic extremists turn to, the Jews and Zionism. He is terrified of the Sunnis and knows that democracy is the only way Shiites will stay in power. What he wants is for US troops to secure a democracy that will turn around and deal with him because he has armed supporters. Ultimately he does want a Khomeinii inspired religious Islamic state.

It is Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Sistani who was the moderate, who opposed a religious shiite state.

First, there is no occupation.

But you do of course acknowledge the fact that there are in excess of 150,000 “coalition” troops in Iraq.

There is one democratically elected government, which is a coalition of elected Iraqi.

Does this “Iraqi” government control these 150,000 plus troops within its territory?

Why then, is President Bush meeting with U.S. Generals to plan the military strategy in Iraq?

See: Bush to consult generals about Iraq strategy

‘We are constantly adjusting tactics,’ president says

If a foreign country controls your people and territory with it’s military, your country isn’t free, it’s occupied.

Tell me nobinPoddywodder,

Have you ever considered for a moment that the people inhabiting the Persian Gulf region and the greater Middle East are deserving of their own heritages, the right to self determination and to the use or sale of the natural resources within their territories as they see fit?

Are you totally incapable of recognizing that these military incursions and occupations are for the purpose of controlling access to the hydrocarbon resources within the countries in question?

This is cowboys and Indians.

They’ve got resources we need to control in order to maintain our lone military and economic superpower status in the world and the U.S. and allies have the ability to project military power sufficient to force our will over the collective objections of the region’s inhabitants.

This has nothing to do with democratic ideals.
Take a poll or at least read one.
64% of Americans oppose the war and continuing occupation of Iraq.

If this were a “democracy”, I would think our troops would be on the way home; not being readied for airstrikes and the eventual ground invasion of Iran.

If we can’t achieve “democracy” here, how are we to safeguard and spread “democracy” around the globe.

This is about the oil, the rest is Bushit.

Sometimes no Peace.

I’m getting dizzy with all the infighting among Shiite militias. I guess one good thing to come out of Amarah is the fact that the Iraqi Army came in to take it back and not us.

In August, British forces left Amarah in Iraqi control. This is the plan for the rest of the country. What happened in Amarah is what is feared to happen to the rest of Iraq when we leave, but the Iraqi Army came in to save the day.

I am optimistic.

As a politician he can make speeches and get out his voters. As a militia leader who seizes territory, he is a criminal and should be stopped, killed if necessary.

What about Dostrum in Afghanistan. How is he any different, besides the fact that he’s a Tajik instead of Shia and his insurgent opponents are Pashtun, not Sunni? The difference, my horribly biased friend, is that he’s an ‘ally,’ and as such, is not worth ‘taking out.’

Listen. I’m no big fan of Moqtada al-Sadr", as I’ve posted here before. I wouldn’t cry if he was killed. But you fail to understand his importance in the grand scheme of things. He lives in Najaf. If the US were to go into Najaf and take him out… the Shiites would rebel, straight up.

With regards to the Brits… their ‘redeployment’ was nothing more than a retreat. I mean… “patrolling the border with Iran?” C’mon….