# The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters



## Infanteer (23 Sep 2005)

...and since I'm on a roll today, here is another common misconception that I've consistently argued against; Iraqis waiting for democracy while evil terrorists from somewhere else (Syria/Saudi/Iran) interrupt their quest for freedom and liberty.

Iraq has its own way of doing things (whether it be the Mahdi Army or Ansar al-Sunnah) and the West is now in the middle of it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html



> The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters
> 
> Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.
> 
> ...



It is commonly said that a good thing about Iraq is that Coalition forces are killing terrorists in Iraq rather than having to deal with them here.   I think the opposite can be derived from the above highlighted passage - Iraq is serving as a training ground for global militant Islam; what they lost in training camps in Afghanistan they are getting in real time by fighting the US in Iraq.   However, the crux of the article (most insurgents are Iraqi) gets to the fact that there is no half-measures and "liberation" in the Middle East, you either go in prepared for total victory and the actions required for such (which I'm convinced we haven't done) or you stay away.


----------



## Britney Spears (23 Sep 2005)

Even if you ignore the complete moral repugence of the "fight them over there" argument. It's only intuitive that the Invasion has spawned new centers of radicalism. A moderate Arab who does not feel the inclination to fight us "over here" may very well deem it perfectly acceptable to fight in the war of Iraqi liberation, and if he keeps getting frustrated, who knows what next?


----------



## Infanteer (23 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Even if you ignore the complete moral repugence of the "fight them over there" argument. It's only intuitive that the Invasion has spawned new centers of radicalism. A moderate Arab who does not feel the inclination to fight us "over here" may very well deem it perfectly acceptable to fight in the war of Iraqi liberation.



Good point Brit - this was a key early departure point in the Global Salafist movement - Shaikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam was Osama bin Laden's mentor; he was the one who issued the original _fatwa_ calling for _jihad_ against the Soviets in Afghanistan.   To meet this end, he set up _Maktab al-Khadamat_ to act as a pipeline to get Arab fighters, resources and money to Afghanistan to aid the local mujihadeen.   This is where bin Laden and his gang got their spurs.

Fast forward to the Soviet withdrawl.   Azzam is satisfied with his victory and wishes to turn his the attentions to another "near" enemy, Israel, in his native Palestine (near being within _Dar al-Islam_, far being outside of it) while bin Laden (who by now has arisen in status in the movement) wishes to take the fight to the "far" enemy, the United States.   Emboldened by the victory over one superpower, he feels that the mujihadeen can triumph over the other and sets up "The Base" (_Al Qa'ida_).   This is an ideological fallout between the two, and it turns into a dispute within the Salafist movement.   Azzam is assassinated in 1989 in Peshawar, and although there are a few suspects, both Sheuer and Sageman present cases that it was bin Laden himself in an attempt to overcome internal dissent against his planned offensive against the US.   And the rest is history.

Anyways, the point is that a we in the West have become the "near" enemy now for many - those that weren't onboard for bin Laden's quest against the "far" enemy probably got pissed with Afghanistan but definitely got pissed with Iraq (the article says as much about the Saudi militants).   It remains to be seen if the occupation of Iraq is an effective strategy, but I still remain skeptical of making ourselves the enemies of the "near" crowd (who are militant Islamists as well, and probably would have had to have been confronted anyways) before dealing with the "far" crowd hiding in the mountains of Pakistan (who have proved that they are still a very dangerous foe).


----------



## Britney Spears (23 Sep 2005)

I saw a picture (at lightfighter I think) which illustrates my point perfectly. It was a Marine officer giving a lecture with the following written on a board:

Three reasons why we are in Iraq:

1) Bring security and democracy to the Iraqis

2) Fight them here so we don't have to fight at home

3) WMDs (or some such)


 ;D

Damn, If I can only find it again.....


----------



## Dare (25 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Even if you ignore the complete moral repugence of the "fight them over there" argument. It's only intuitive that the Invasion has spawned new centers of radicalism. A moderate Arab who does not feel the inclination to fight us "over here" may very well deem it perfectly acceptable to fight in the war of Iraqi liberation, and if he keeps getting frustrated, who knows what next?


Doesn't sound very moderate, to me. But I mean, that's just me, I guess. Maybe I should be angry there are so many Arabs invading Caucasian and Black countries? (Of course I shouldn't, that would make me a racist.) Although, I suppose the racial component of your sympathies don't play into any accordance as they certainly do for your protagonist. Perhaps his frustration is a good thing if he deems it acceptable to fight to "liberate" Iraq from the Coalition of Doom (or whatever you wish to call it) and save it for the Arab supremisists. 

That and there is nothing "morally repugnant" about fighting our enemies on their ground rather than ours. Unless, of course, they're not your enemies.


----------



## GO!!! (25 Sep 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> (Of course I shouldn't, that would make me a racist.)



<posting loadied>

racist or realist?


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

> Maybe I should be angry there are so many Arabs invading Caucasian and Black countries?



What?



> save it for the Arab supremisists.



Huh?



> That and there is nothing "morally repugnant" about fighting our enemies on their ground rather than ours.



OK bud, let's try some role playing here. Pretend I am an Iraqi who has just seen her country destroyed in a blatant war of agression, and now being run either by foreign soldiers, or foregn muslim extremists,  seen loved ones killed, dwellings destroyed, and now must live daily with the risk of insurgent attacks and coalition firepower. Explain to me why the war which I had nothing to do with must be fought in my backyard and not yours? Am the lives of me and the rest of the brown  _untermensch_ worth so little in your eyes that we must be kept in a constant state of terror just so your security moms can save money on duct tape to fill up their SUVs? 

I said nothing about race in my previous post, because my points would have been true regardless of race. Any Canadian in the same position would do the same thing. You're the one with an apparent fixation on "race" and I think I see why.  If you at this point still insist on "fighting them over there" then you really are nothing more than a racist, and I'm afraid we haven't enough common ground to continue the discussion.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Sep 2005)

> Quote from: Britney Spears on September 23, 2005, 16:01:59
> Even if you ignore the complete moral repugence of the "fight them over there" argument. It's only intuitive that the Invasion has spawned new centers of radicalism. A moderate Arab who does not feel the inclination to fight us "over here" may very well deem it perfectly acceptable to fight in the war of Iraqi liberation, and if he keeps getting frustrated, who knows what next?



Moral repugnance ? Perhaps you think the old adage "the best defense is a good offense" is also morally repugnant ? The invasion of Iraq did not spawn new centers of radicalism, it just exposed the one's that were already there. The problem with the arab world is the lack of democracy and lack of economic opportunity. The more of each is the best way to reduce the hold the radicals have. Right now in Iraq we are seeing the classic war of attrition. The losers are the radicals because its getting harder and harder to find martyr's for their cause.


----------



## GO!!! (25 Sep 2005)

Britney,

Are we to assume that you would prefer the US military to be duking it out with Muslim extremists in the streets of North America? 

Tomahawk,

While the bad guys may be suffering from a war of attrition, the US and Coalition Body Counts are still rising, at much the same speed they have been since the "end of major combat" was proclaimed by the C in C. How do you explain this?


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Sep 2005)

Actually US losses are down. But you cannot measure success in US losses, rather the net effect that coalition operations have had on the enemy. The enemy is on the defensive and are less capable of any type of offense. Look at Iraqi losses, they have been alot higher than ours and yet there is no shortage of volunteers to join the Army and IP a very good sign. Under Saddam it was a draftee force held together by fear. Slowly but surely the Iraqi's are becoming more self confident. No police stations have been overrun by the terrorists a sure sign of success.


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

> Moral repugnance ? Perhaps you think the old adage "the best defense is a good offense" is also morally repugnant ?



Meaningless.  If your neighbour's dog poops on your lawn, then by your reasoning the best course of action would be to go slash his tires and set fire to his garage?  The best defence, right?  Succesful foreign policy is not generally run on these principles.



> The losers are the radicals because its getting harder and harder to find martyr's for their cause.



Well, since I now support the war, I hope you're right. I suppose based on population,, Iraq will run out of martyrs before the US does. God help us now if it doesn't. 



> Are we to assume that you would prefer the US military to be duking it out with Muslim extremists in the streets of North America?



No, because such a scenario is completely ridiculous. Was there fighting in the streets on Sept. 11th?  There's fighting in the streets in North America already (see Katrina), but it had nothing to do with the Arabs. How exactly has invading Iraq stopped terrorists from attacking the US anyway? The fact that there are terrorists  in Iraq and no attacks on the US (yet) is just proof that it's the moderate Arabs who are being radicalized. 

If Bush had invaded Iraq on Sept 10th 2001, would that have stopped OBL and Sept. 11th?


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Meaningless.   If your neighbour's dog poops on your lawn, then by your reasoning the best course of action would be to go slash his tires and set fire to his garage?   The best defence, right?   Succesful foreign policy is not generally run on these principles.



Your response itself is meaningless...now, if I knew my neighbour was making bombs he and his co-horts were going to use to blow up the mall down the street (or my house for that matter) I should just sit back and let that happen? Gimme a break. I think I'd take it to his house and let him blow the sh%$ out of his own infastructure first. That's reality.
Apparently you assume that the whole polulation of Iraq is willing to become a martyr. Absolutely not the case. Only the radicals go there...and not themselves mind you...they recruit the poorest of the poor to blow themselves up instead the chicksh$%ts. When was the last time we witnessed Ayman Al-Zawahri or Osama et al strapping the mortars around their waists on Al-Jazeera? 

"Was there fighting in the streets on Sept. 11th? "

No...because the bast%^ds died in the planes too!! Then they arrested those co-conspirators that were in 'our home' then they took the fight to the rest of them BEFORE they come over here. Which is the whole point. I think it's pretty simple.

"There's fighting in the streets in North America already (see Katrina), but it had nothing to do with the Arabs."

Which is why it's ridulous that you bring this up it has absolutly nothing to do with Iraq. The only ones who've previously connected these two things are the muslim radicals claiming it was "Allahs work."

"The fact that there are terrorists  in Iraq and no attacks on the US (yet) is just proof that it's the moderate Arabs who are being radicalized."  

Really? I think it's just proof that us taking it to them over there....is working!!

"If Bush had invaded Iraq on Sept 10th 2001, would that have stopped OBL and Sept. 11th?"

Not. But had his predecessor acted as Bush has done, when embassies were attacked etc prior to Sept 10th...and OBL first began his rantings, Sept 11th may very well never have occured. It's all a guessing game now....


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

> Your response itself is meaningless...now, if I knew my neighbour was making bombs he and his co-horts were going to use to blow up the mall down the street (or my house for that matter) I should just sit back and let that happen? Gimme a break. I think I'd take it to his house and let him blow the sh%$ out of his own infastructure first. That's reality.
> Apparently you assume that the whole polulation of Iraq is willing to become a martyr. Absolutely not the case. Only the radicals go there...and not themselves mind you...they recruit the poorest of the poor to blow themselves up instead the chicksh$%ts. When was the last time we witnessed Ayman Al-Zawahri or Osama et al strapping the mortars around their waists on Al-Jazeera?
> No...because the bast%^ds died in the planes too!! Then they arrested those co-conspirators that were in 'our home' then they took the fight to the rest of them BEFORE they come over here. Which is the whole point. I think it's pretty simple.



Newsflash: OBL wasn't Iraqi. None of the 9/11 Hijackers were Iraqi. Women could drive cars and go to University in Iraq. Iraq was the most secular, non-radical Arab country of them all. Better go get some more Kool-Aid.




> Not. But had his predecessor acted as Bush has done, when embassies were attacked etc prior to Sept 10th...and OBL first began his rantings, Sept 11th may very well never have occured.




Do you seriously believe that it was CLINTON, and not Bush's incompetence, that caused 9/11? Do you actually know ANYTHING about this matter other than the fact that Bush came after Clinton?


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

Yep OBL was/is Saudi....

Newsflash...you really think Mr. Hussein didn't funnel any of that Oil for Food money (that he obviously didn't distribute among his people) towards getting rid of the great American scourge?? Please.

Yes the women could go to University....well certain women anyway....some (insert Kurd or other choice here) could also be shot, gassed, tortured at the whim of Mr. Hussein himself. Now if you want to continue to call that secular and non-radical that's up to you. PS I don't do Kool-Aid..the Timmies will suffice fine.

Yes..you must be right... Bush's incompetance must have caused 911 after all, during their years of planning for it the *******'s that did it just KNEW he was the one who was going to be elected 2 years hence when Clinton left office.

So I guess you are right again...As you say You, and not I, must be the only one to know anything about this matter. I must go watch Blackhawk down again...learn something.....


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

> I must go watch Blackhawk down again...learn something.....



Good luck with that. In the mean time I'm glad people like you aren't running my country.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

Actually...I've never seen the movie unlike others in this forum...

And I'm glad that I'm serving in a Military that is run by people more like me..whether they choose to admit it or not

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34287.0/topicseen.html


----------



## Dare (25 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> What?
> 
> Huh?


I gather that was all too confusing for you.


> OK bud, let's try some role playing here. Pretend I am an Iraqi who has just seen her country destroyed in a blatant war of agression, and now being run either by foreign soldiers, or foregn muslim extremists,  seen loved ones killed, dwellings destroyed, and now must live daily with the risk of insurgent attacks and coalition firepower. Explain to me why the war which I had nothing to do with must be fought in my backyard and not yours? Am the lives of me and the rest of the brown  _untermensch_ worth so little in your eyes that we must be kept in a constant state of terror just so your security moms can save money on duct tape to fill up their SUVs?


Firstly, if the Iraqi's had nothing to do with the Iraq war, I would be amazed, as empires are not built upon a vacuum. Secondly, not everyone in Iraq is "brown", so your racial sympathy line falls flat. My mom doesn't own an SUV, although I wouldn't have a problem if she did. Your hyperbolic response doesn't really surprise me, but you usually fancy up your posts with militaristic rhetoric. Thirdly, this is not a "blatant war of aggression". Not every Iraqi has seen loved ones killed by Coalition forces. Although many Iraqis can say they have lost loved ones to Saddam Hussain. Maybe there is a reason that in a country with 26 million people and twice that in rifles hasn't risen up. Maybe there is a reason that 8 million Iraqis braved death by waiting in vulnerable lineups for a chance to vote. Maybe it has something to do with this "war of aggression". PERHAPS, we should have waited for Saddam to break through U.N. sanctions and aquired some serious capabilities to cause us harm.. AND the Iraqi people harm. Then we wouldn't have to fight this "repugnant war of aggression" on our terms, we could fight it on their terms! What a GREAT idea. We could be a part of a "lovely war of passive defence"! We could even send Iraq some planes to "even the playing field". My not-so-security mom could fire up her invisible SUV of aggression and we could launch our Just War knowing that we're fully sanctioned by the Holy U.N. and the always impartial/morally superior France (who never ever, ever, occupies countries).



> I said nothing about race in my previous post, because my points would have been true regardless of race. Any Canadian in the same position would do the same thing. You're the one with an apparent fixation on "race" and I think I see why.  If you at this point still insist on "fighting them over there" then you really are nothing more than a racist, and I'm afraid we haven't enough common ground to continue the discussion.


Read the article. Replace the words "Arab" with "White". "Saudi" with "American". Suddenly, it all changes, doesn't it  (your sympathies towards the protagonist, that is)? The poor Saudi fighters are angry at their racial nation being disrupted. I'm surprised (well, not entirely) that one with left leanings would tolerate racists. 

Read it. Read it carefully. It may be hard, but I'm sure you can manage. 
"Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country."

I suppose we were racist when we chose to fight the Nazi's "over there" and the Korean's "over there" etc. etc..


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

> I gather that was all too confusing for you.




Yeah, I'm easily confused by BS. Why don't you enlighten me about all the "Caucasian countries" currently being subjugated by Arabs? I'm afraid my liberal media has said nothing about it.



> Read the article. Replace the words "Arab" with "White". "Saudi" with "American". Suddenly, it all changes, doesn't it



Read my post. Replace the words "Arab" with "White". "Saudi" with "American". Suddenly, it all changes, doesn't it? 



> I suppose we were racist when we chose to fight the Nazi's "over there" and the Korean's "over there" etc. etc..



Nope, we weren't. What exactly is your point here?


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Nope, we weren't. What exactly is your point here?



Why weren't we? Because they were not Arab?? Well ain't that the pot calling the kettle black. Perhaps we should invite the Americans to invite the insurgents over to fight in the backyard of your very own permanent residence...apparently that would make you feel better?


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm easily confused by BS.



It seems to me that anyone with a view other than that of your 'enlightened self' is accused of spouting BS and you feel the need to question their integrity or intelligence...while you honestly believe that you are the only one who KNOWS and SPEAKS the truth. 

Aren't you glad you have the opportunity to live in a democracy (NOT the former Iraq) that allows you to do so?


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Sep 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> It seems to me that anyone with a view other than that of your 'enlightened self' is accused of spouting BS and you feel the need to question their integrity or intelligence...while you honestly believe that you are the only one who KNOWS and SPEAKS the truth.



I see you've met, observed, analyzed, and effectively categorized Britney all in one day.  Good job!


----------



## Dare (25 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm easily confused by BS. Why don't you enlighten me about all the "Caucasian countries" currently being subjugated by Arabs? I'm afraid my liberal media has said nothing about it.


It was a hypothetical situation, but I suppose the Sudan doesn't ring any bells of a racially motivated war conducted by Arabs against Blacks? Maybe blacks world wide would be justified in waging a jihad against these imperialists? OR would it be racist to invade the Sudan to prevent this racially motivated genocide because we'd be fighting "them over there"? 


> Read my post. Replace the words "Arab" with "White". "Saudi" with "American". Suddenly, it all changes, doesn't it?


Weak response.


> Nope, we weren't. What exactly is your point here?


My point is proving you are a hypocrite. Which I have successfully done. Good day.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I see you've met, observed, analyzed, and effectively categorized Britney all in one day.   Good job!



Well, I guess unlike her observation that I know nothing...I may perhaps know at least something after all...My parents will feel better knowing that they did not waste all my tuiton for Mount A...and that I actually learned about the locals when deployed and how much 99% of them support and agree with what we are doing....not just the media spin which leaves much much much to be desired.


----------



## Scott (25 Sep 2005)

Let's keep it civil please.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Sep 2005)

> Women could drive cars and go to University in Iraq. Iraq was the most secular, non-radical Arab country of them all. Better go get some more Kool-Aid.



JFHC - yes they could drive a car until Uday decided that they were pretty hot - then he could rape them at leisure.   If they squawked then he would kill them.   If they didn't their brothers or fathers would kill them.   If their brothers tried to intervene to prevent their sister taken in the first place they were fed to the meat grinders in Abu Ghraib.   

Crooks, smugglers and terrorists were all tolerated by Saddam as long as they didn't cross his patch and fed him enough graft.   That apparently included Arab socialists, Shia clerics, Russian arms manufacturers, French oil companies, Scots politicians, Canadian bureaucrats and American businessmen as well as local tribal sheikhs - a veritable model of modern internationalism.

You lot don't flaming get it do you. It is all about order - that is what the Iraqi's are clamouring for now, the imposition of order but a just order.   Saddam's mates, the Sunni Arabs and secular socialists (he only found religion after Gulf War I) are ultimately pissed because there was order and risk for them was low and manageable while benefits were high.   For the other 80% that couldn't go to university, couldn't learn english, were being gassed, slaughtered, driven out of their marshes by thirst there were damfew benefits to that ORDER.   

In the meantime those that greased Saddam's palm could do as the damwellpleased.   There was no obligation on his part to support international order.   His country, as much as Afghanistan, the Sahel and the High Seas was a place without controls, where criminals and anybody else could do what the wanted.

The West cannot tolerate that lack of order.   The Iraqis, and every other sentient being, craves order to get on with their lives.   But it must be a JUST order and OBLs Sharia based Order can never be JUST.

Every liberal notion that you have has come from people that encouraged and incubated free thought and expression. Often they had to impose those freedoms on others - forcing others to accept that kidnapping brides was not acceptable in Scotland, nor was Blackmail. Forcing people to accept the authority of parliament, not the local clergyman. Forcing people to accept that suttee, the practice of burning widows, was abhorrent.   Forcing people to accept that slavery was not acceptable much less ordained by God or Allah.   Forcing people to forebear from raiding into Britain or Russia to kidnap people for ransom or to be sold into slavery in the Middle East.   


None of the people indulging in those practices, those decidedly illiberal practices welcomed being required to stop.   To cease and desist. They regularly rallied their troops on the basis of blood, nationality, race and religion.   Those us and them divisors are as ancient as Cain and Abel, if you are believer, at least as ancient as the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians if you aint.

Your peace that permits you the opportunity to spout is only the result of imposed order.   The real threat to the world just now is the breakdown of order.   Somebody has to impose it and frankly I would rather that it was folks that permitted folks like you to speak as you wish.   

Please feel free to keep on speaking.   It is your right.   A right whose observance is imposed on the rest of us by the force of law, backed up by the police and the army.

I will exercise my rights and start ignoring you.

I regret that my country IS being run by the likes of you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Sep 2005)

Damn, I wish I could write like that, good post and message.


----------



## Reccesoldier (25 Sep 2005)

Kirkhill, well said.


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

> It was a hypothetical situation, but I suppose the Sudan doesn't ring any bells of a racially motivated war conducted by Arabs against Blacks? Maybe blacks world wide would be justified in waging a jihad against these imperialists? OR would it be racist to invade the Sudan to prevent this racially motivated genocide because we'd be fighting "them over there"?



Oh, so now it's HYPOTHETICAL....

I'm not against foreign intervention in Sudan, but I don't know what any of this has to do with Iraq.



> JFHC - yes they could drive a car until Uday decided that they were pretty hot - then he could rape them at leisure.  If they squawked then he would kill them.  If they didn't their brothers or fathers would kill them.  If their brothers tried to intervene to prevent their sister taken in the first place they were fed to the meat grinders in Abu Ghraib.
> 
> Crooks, smugglers and terrorists were all tolerated by Saddam as long as they didn't cross his patch and fed him enough graft.  That apparently included Arab socialists, Shia clerics, Russian arms manufacturers, French oil companies, Scots politicians, Canadian bureaucrats and American businessmen as well as local tribal sheikhs - a veritable model of modern internationalism.
> 
> ...




That's nice, got anything relevent or on-topic to add? 

For that matter, what exactly are you disagreeing with?  ???


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

Once again Ms. Spears... it would seem that it's only relevant or on-topic if it's you that's posted it or if it backs up your position. 

Quit insulting people. We're not as stupid or naive as you like to state.

And as for the "I don't know if any of this has to do with Iraq" comment, it seems it's alright if you yourself interject comments that have nothing to do with it ie "the fighting in the streets (Katrina)" comment so do us all a favour and stop slamming others acting in same said manner as yourself.


----------



## wongskc (25 Sep 2005)

I fail to see how Britney's last response was insulting.

Britney was refering to Iraqi society as a whole re: rights of women, etc. while Kirkhill took the case of one individual from Iraq that had immunity from the state's law.






Edited to explain my postion better.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

I find it insulting in that each time someone posts a view contrary to her own she deems it "irrelevant", off topic, or feels the need to ask them "do you know ANYTHING?" It is not becoming.

I would argue that the overwhelming portion of Iraqi society as a whole feels a whole lot better now that Mr Hussein is no longer the leader of their past "most secular and anti-radical" country as many including Kirkhill have attempted to point out... Just my point of view.  :-\


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Sep 2005)

What you expect from someone who is gender confused ? By this I mean Britanny internet nic and in real life is a guy. Dont let him/her get under your skin.


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

Dare, before your cohorts derailed the discussion with a whole page of meaningless, irrelevent polemic and flag waving (a typical conservative tactic), and ad hominem attacks (thanks tomahawk6, really raising the standards here)  I asked you a question:
Pretend I am an average, moderate Iraqi and explain to me how you morally justify "fighting them over there", an action which has resulted in massive destruction of my homeland and the death of thousands of my countrymen. You have offered nothing,  aside from: 



> Not every Iraqi has seen loved ones killed by Coalition forces. Although many Iraqis can say they have lost loved ones to Saddam Hussain.


   

and something or other about your mother. How charming.

And you were still wondering why they fight? No, according to you, they are not fighting at all! 



> Maybe there is a reason that in a country with 26 million people and twice that in rifles hasn't risen up.



There is no Iraqi resistance, American troops are not getting blown up, the article that Infanteer posted, and all the articles that I've posted saying the same thing, are just liberal lies. The title of the thread is a lie. Everything is just going peachy. Hail Bush.  :

Do you have a serious answer? I'm still listening. 


By the way, here's a pretty damn good reason why they're fighting.



> Published on Monday, July 25, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
> Shots to the Heart of Iraq
> Innocent civilians, including people who are considered vital to building democracy, are increasingly being killed by U.S. troops
> by Richard Paddock
> ...


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Dare, before your cohorts derailed the discussion with a whole page of meaningless, irrelevent polemic and flag waving (a typical conservative tactic), and ad hominem attacks (thanks tomahawk6, really raising the standards here)   I asked you a question:
> Pretend I am an average, moderate Iraqi and explain to me how you morally justify "fighting them over there", an action which has resulted in massive destruction of my homeland and the death of thousands of my countrymen. You have offered nothing,   aside from:
> 
> There is no Iraqi resistance, American troops are not getting blown up, the article that Infanteer posted, and all the articles that I've posted saying the same thing, are just liberal lies. The title of the thread is a lie. Everything is just going peachy. Hail Bush.   :
> ...



You don't ask questions Britney, you make statements phrased to superficialy look like questions.  You talk about people here using a "typical conservative tactic", but you yourself use a "typical liberal tactic" - taking a bunch of unproven baseless allegations and generalizations, lumping them together into a "question", and then repeating them endlesly and pretending to be surprised when nobody answers you.  AND the odd time that someone takes the time to answer you, you shift topics or make a sarcastic comment, or find some other way to dismiss them, after which you go back to asking the same "question".  You're this boards very own Cindy Sheehan.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Dare, before your cohorts derailed the discussion with a whole page of meaningless, irrelevent polemic and flag waving (a typical conservative tactic)



A typical liberal response...

And I am quite sure that you are the one who brought the "secure SUV mom into this discussion" how soon you forget.


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

Which one of my allegations are baseless? Do you dispute the fact that:

-  Many Iraqi civillians have been killed and injured during the war, and there has been a lot of damage to the infrastructure?

-  Most Iraqis are moderate?

- The Iraqis were not behind 9/11?

- Most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives?

With answers like this, am I supposed to be "suprised"?


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Which one of my allegations are baseless? Do you dispute the fact that:
> 
> -   Many Iraqi civillians have been killed and injured during the war, and there has been a lot of damage to the infrastructure?
> 
> ...



Your memory must be a little spotty....let me refresh it.  Here's your original "question":



> Pretend I am an Iraqi who has just seen her country destroyed in a blatant war of agression, and now being run either by foreign soldiers, or foregn muslim extremists,  seen loved ones killed, dwellings destroyed, and now must live daily with the risk of insurgent attacks and coalition firepower. Explain to me why the war which I had nothing to do with must be fought in my backyard and not yours? Am the lives of me and the rest of the brown  untermensch worth so little in your eyes that we must be kept in a constant state of terror just so your security moms can save money on duct tape to fill up their SUVs?



So originaly, you make the following allegations:

1)  The war in Iraq was a "blatant war of agression"
2)  Iraq is ebing run by "foreign soldiers, or foreign muslim extremists"

in addition you imply that:

1)  The war was at least partialy motivated by race - that to the US administration the lives of "brown untermensch" are worthless.
2)  That the US is intentionaly causing "a constant state of terror"
3)  That the war was fought in order to gain access to oil.
and finaly
4)  That my mom's SUV is somehow the cause of all that is evil in this world.


Where in that entire diatribe do you cove any of the following things:



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> -   Many Iraqi civillians have been killed and injured during the war, and there has been a lot of damage to the infrastructure?
> -   Most Iraqis are moderate?
> - The Iraqis were not behind 9/11?
> - Most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives?



Take your time.

I'll be here waiting when you come up with another way to try and swing our attention off of your initial statements.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

Brittany, No-one disputed your "facts" just your generalization that most Iraqis felt the same way. Fact of the matter is it sells more newspapers to show death and destruction, bombed Iraqi civilians and protests against the coalition forces than it does to show them talking with the troops, expressing their appreciation for Saddam's ouster and the troops working with locals to restore same infrastructure, and to allow them the right to vote. Please note that there are a hell of a lot more average Iraqis lining up to join their military and Police Forces, and run-in and partake in the elections than there are radical extremists lining up to blow themselves up, as a matter of fact I believe the extremists take no prisoners when it comes to blowing up the same innocent population when they do go out and vote yet that hasn't stopped the average Iraqi from doing so. Majority rules and right now the majority of Iraqis seem to be working towards that which will give them a better life in the long run...freely and fairly with their ballets not their bombs.


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

Well, the upside is that argueing with you  doesn't actually take very long.



> 1)  The war in Iraq was a "blatant war of agression"



Absolutely, do you dispute this? Or are you claiming that Iraq has engaged in a unilateral act of war against the US?



> 2)  Iraq is ebing run by "foreign soldiers, or foreign muslim extremists"



Absolutely, do you dispute this? Or Americans are not foreign?



> 1)  The war was at least partialy motivated by race - that to the US administration the lives of "brown untermensch" are worthless.



I am claiming that US public opinion on the Iraq war was motivated at least partially by race, due to the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were Arabs, and that Arab terrorism has long been a public spectacle. This IMO is ignorance.



> 2)  That the US is intentionaly causing "a constant state of terror"



The US intentionally started a war which is causing this situation. Do you dispute this?




> 3)  That the war was fought in order to gain access to oil.



Absolutely, do you dispute this?



> 4)  That my mom's SUV is somehow the cause of all that is evil in this world.



I never said anything about your mom, but it's true that I dislike people who drive SUVs soley for the sake  of appearances.



> Where in that entire diatribe do you cove any of the following things:




If you are not going to read what you quote, then stop wasting my time.

 I didn't claim in my original post that 



> - Most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives?



But I thought that was kind of obvious. Maybe it's different in Toronto?


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Well, the upside is that argueing with you   doesn't actually take very long.
> 
> I never said anything about your mom, but it's true that I dislike people who drive SUVs soley for the sake   of appearances.



Actually Brittany what you said was "Am the lives of me and the rest of the brown   untermensch worth so little in your eyes that we must be kept in a constant state of terror just so your security moms can save money on duct tape to fill up their SUVs?"

 ???

Edited to add: "and my how you do like to argue."


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Sep 2005)

Short answer:

Yes, no, yes, no, no and yes.

Hey, you're right, arguiong with you doesn't take long at all!

I've yet to see you prove any of your allegations, every time you've attempted it in these forums you only managed to look....less than knowledgable.   And taking this thread off topic just to rehash the same tired old arguments is rather silly.


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

Let me get this straight: You do not agree that the US invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression. You are asking me to provide "proof" of this. You also don't think that Iraq's oil had any bearing on Bush's decison to invade Iraq. You are truly a bizzare man. Thank you for your correspondence, and enjoy your Kool-aid.

In any case, even <a href=http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm>most Americans, the most conservative people in the Western world,</a> now agree that the war was a mistake. It's nice to know we're only down to the true loonies now.


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

> You are truly a bizzare man. Thank you for your correspondence, and enjoy your Kool-aid.



*sigh*

I retract the above heat-of-the-moment statement. I was out of line and needlessly insulting. 48thhighlander is a reasonable and intelligent fellow by all measures, and although I disagree with him in this particular matter, I respect his opinion and will agree to disagree. FWIW, I think we share the opinion that the US prescence in Iraq needs to continue and maybe increase until the country is stabilized. Perhaps we might have a reasonable new discussion on that topic in the future.


----------



## TCBF (25 Sep 2005)

"Now, after they killed my husband, I hate them," she said. "I want to blow them all up."

- Wow.  Getting bad over there.  Good thing Janet Reno isn't in power any more, or she'd be Ruby Ridging and Wacoing them simply to death.

- Wait, I forgot, the Clintonistas only kill Americans.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (25 Sep 2005)

:boring:

What a way to derail a fairly interesting topic.

The content of the insurgency makes for some interesting debates, but the "Justification for Iraq" isn't one of them.

Does anyone have anything relevent to the original topic?


----------



## TCBF (25 Sep 2005)

Sorry about the bait-aqnd-switch.

I don't think drawing out foreign fighters into an Iraqi KZ is a good justification for staying.  If we have to fall back on that as a reason, then we have failed to understand that if the West leaves Iraq now, they will only end up wishing they left Saddam in power.

Too late to stay out, too soon to go home.

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Sep 2005)

> I don't think drawing out foreign fighters into an Iraqi KZ is a good justification for staying.



To me, it doesn't even really make any sense. If Al Qaida is being massacared in such droves  in Iraq as tomahawk6 claims, why do they keep going? The US can't MAKE them go to Iraq. Isn't this the same dichotomy that the US faced in Vietnam? The North Vietnamese, while they didn't do all that well on the battlefield, could never "lose" because they only fought when they chose to, while the US was tied down indefinitely to holding down a foreign population that was at best indifferent.  By invading Iraq, the US has lost the momentum? What makes the Iraqi situation different? 

As for the article, perhaps we should keep in mind that Arabs tend to identify with their ancestral tribes, and not their artificial  nation states created by the West. Saying that someone was a Saudi probably doesn't mean as much as saying that they belonged to a specific tribe, which probably had members on both sides of the border, or that they belonged to a specific religious group o rsect.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Sep 2005)

In fairness to Britney (I never thought I'd say those words), I believe there is some truth to the fact that killing an Iraqi individual of any gender obviously creates resentment.

That being said, she/he/we are not rationalizing this all the way through.

1) Who is getting killed?
2) By whom?
3) How is that death impacting the affiliated population?

In order of casualties in the last six months.....(roughly estimated)

Group One:  Shia Iraqis killed and maimed by Al-Qaeda in Iraq (foreign fighters) often with logistical support of Local Sunnis
Impact:  Radicalization of the Shia that they MUST use their power of majority to protect themselves and their customs because they know should the Sunnis rise to power once again, they will be slaughtered.  There are many reports indicating that both police officers and new army officials (in particular in the South) are far more loyal to the Shia Clerics and the Mehdi Army, than they are to the central government.  In essence, the Sunni's are being their own worst enemies in terms of destroying their own negotiating position.

Group Two:  Sunni Insurgents killed and maimed by US/Iraqi Armed Forces
Impact:  I would argue that there is little radicalization taking place here.  Instead I would argue that those who decided to fight and those who support them made their decision a long time ago.  It is reported that Saddam was teaching Guerilla tactics to Republican Guard forces prior to the invasion.  In essence, you could kill them or not kill them, but the nationalist Sunnis want to take back the reigns of power.  Importantly, those Sunnis who are acting in this way are no better than the SS and the Nazi population that supported them and as such finding them each their very own burial plot is fine with me.  And as a side note, there were some interviews done well over a month ago in secular Sunni neighbourhoods in Baghdad (as opposed to Tikrit which is Saddam's hometown) and they quite bluntly said they like the American soldiers, would like them to stay, but very much dislike and distrust the New Iraqi Army that is predominantly Shia.

Group Three:  American Soldiers killed by Sunni Insurgents
Impact:  Growing complaints within the US over why their boys are dying.  They were told it would be a long process, but the fact that the tribal-nature of Iraq appears to eliminated any ability to create a rational solution.  I should point one irony in all of this that it was the pro-war group who wanted to believe the best about the Iraqis that they would pull themselves up by the bootstraps if given the opportunity, and the anti-war group who believed the worst about the Iraqis and predicted a civil war.  Strangely enough when individuals like Britney try to say "I told you so", they often omit that fact....apparently prio-war people have more faith in brown people than anti-war people?

Group Four:  Civilians of all sorts by the US Military
Impact:  Since the initial invasion where "shock & awe" (dumb tactic by the way as it made wonderful footage for Al-Jazeera and Al-Qaeda Recruiting Tapes) it appears that civilian casualties have been minimal with the exception of some poorly dropped bombs.  Tragic, absolutely.  The only disclaimer is that in many cases the bombs landed in Sunni neighbourhoods and often "civilians" were in fact logistical supporters (otherwise they likely would not have been in the same building).

Group Five:  Pro-Democracy Sunnis by Nationalists and Al-Qaeda
Impact:  Fear.  This tactic has been incredibly effective in silencing the secular Sunnis who we do want to negotiate with.  My own belief is that the United States needs to redirect assets to protect this specific group and get them involved.

Where I'm going with all  of this:  "Iraqi deaths are not directly equivalent to more resistance to the United States.  As with everything in life, it is a matter of context."  


More important is the discussion of "Whereto from here?"

Quite frankly, I think the only solution is a loose federation of affiliated states as neither the Shia nor Kurd trusts the Sunnis to be part of a ruling government with jurisdiction over their territory....and based on their behaviour under the previous regime in particular, I find it hard to blame them.  The difficult part will be how to arm each of these federated states.  My own opinion is that in the constitution there needs to be a clear statement of only ONE central army for as soon as you get regional armies, or even militias, you are very quickly going to see outside interests leap in to cause great difficulty.  The Iranians have already started this by arming the Mehdi Army.  The Americans have been arming the Kurds for years (with good reason) which leaves the Sunnis who would likely be befriended by whomever they offer oil rights to (Russian, China, France....maybe the USA).  

Bottom Line:  Democracy in nations with segregated homogenous populations is rarely easy and often fails but we need to stop trivializing the process by getting caught up either anti-war or pro-war mantras as they are guaranteed to get us nowhere.  

JMHO,



Matthew.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Sep 2005)

Balkanization of Iraq is a non-starter. It sure has worked well in Europe. An article I read recently addresses this pretty well. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200509230813.asp


----------



## Glorified Ape (29 Sep 2005)

Good article, Infanteer. It's interesting to see some actual figures tied to the numbers of foreign fighters and their respective origins. The "foreign fighter" misconception is unsurprising if one considers that it's much more comfortable and propagandistically expedient to believe and purport that the resistance to "liberation" is the work of someone other than the people you're supposed be "liberating". Kind of akin to the "they greet us with cheers on the roadside" stuff running on the tickertape below film of US soldiers being pelted with rocks. The emperor's new clothes are fine, indeed.  :


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (2 Oct 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Good article, Infanteer. It's interesting to see some actual figures tied to the numbers of foreign fighters and their respective origins. The "foreign fighter" misconception is unsurprising if one considers that it's much more comfortable and propagandistically expedient to believe and purport that the resistance to "liberation" is the work of someone other than the people you're supposed be "liberating". Kind of akin to the "they greet us with cheers on the roadside" stuff running on the tickertape below film of US soldiers being pelted with rocks. The emperor's new clothes are fine, indeed.   :



You leap to hyperbole too quickly....the statistics also show that in excess of 60% of suicide bombers of all types (which are causing the huge majority of casualties) are foreigners, primarily Saudis.  In essence, if you eliminated the foreigners, casualties could quickly fall 50% or more....

In short, you better check your own garb before you step too far out in front of the masses to "testify".



Matthew.


----------



## Glorified Ape (4 Oct 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> You leap to hyperbole too quickly....the statistics also show that in excess of 60% of suicide bombers of all types (which are causing the huge majority of casualties) are foreigners, primarily Saudis.   In essence, if you eliminated the foreigners, casualties could quickly fall 50% or more....
> 
> In short, you better check your own garb before you step too far out in front of the masses to "testify".
> 
> ...



Not at all - if you consider where the real problem lies, it's not with foreign agitators but with the elements of the native population engaged in insurgency. They're the ones most likely to prove the enduring problem, imo. They're also not the ones busy protesting US soldiers or pelting them with rocks, I would think, and thus aren't the propagandistically disrobing element which I was referring to. Indeed, they can't be if they're foreign since the argument I was making was that the US' "roadside flower party" image was being dispelled not only by the native insurgents but by the common Iraqi protester.


----------



## Dare (4 Oct 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Dare, before your cohorts derailed the discussion with a whole page of meaningless, irrelevent polemic and flag waving (a typical conservative tactic), and ad hominem attacks (thanks tomahawk6, really raising the standards here)  I asked you a question:
> Pretend I am an average, moderate Iraqi and explain to me how you morally justify "fighting them over there", an action which has resulted in massive destruction of my homeland and the death of thousands of my countrymen. You have offered nothing,  aside from:


Ah yes, my "cohorts". Having not actually seen any of them waving flags, I must say, I wouldn't be offended had they done so. So, aside from the fact that I have talked to "average, moderate Iraqi's", I will pretend you are one. I will explain to you how this will lead to less death in the future of your countrymen that Saddam wasted away during his reign. You, of course, being an average, moderate Iraqi, will likely understand completely the brutality of Saddam and agree to that end. Given you will likely be an eligable voter, you will be entitled to vote for your own representatives at the next election. This being another thing I suspect I would not have to tell you. You'd already know. Chances are, you'd already have braved death to vote in the previous election. Given you'd be "average", you'd like be Shi'a and pleased that Saddam is gone and won't be filling mass graves with your people any more. I suspect you'd also be pleased that the former Iraq was not allowed to be free and grow strong enough to destroy Iran and take over a larger geostratigic mass of petroleum. I would have no doubt that the idea of Saddam having nuclear weapons would frighten you far more than the Americans having nuclear weapons. 


> and something or other about your mother. How charming.


Yes. You brought my mother into it. So she hopped into her invisible SUV of BloodOil and began shooting random foreigners. Just like all "Security Mom's". *Insert deflection of whatever random meme's you wish to add*  :


> And you were still wondering why they fight? No, according to you, they are not fighting at all!


No. 99% of Iraqi's are not fighting. Interesting, yes? Considering, of any country, Iraq has more than enough weapons floating around to put up a serious challenge, rather than what is currently being battled. 


> There is no Iraqi resistance, American troops are not getting blown up, the article that Infanteer posted, and all the articles that I've posted saying the same thing, are just liberal lies. The title of the thread is a lie. Everything is just going peachy. Hail Bush.  :


I did not say there is "no Iraqi resistance". I did not say that American troops are "not getting blown up". I never said Infanteer's article was a "liberal lie". I never said the title of the thread is a lie. I never said everything was going peachy, and I certainly never said "Hail Bush". If you like, I can insert a whole lot of words and phrases into your mouth as well? 


> Do you have a serious answer? I'm still listening.


Yeah. 8 million out of 14 million people voted in Iraq for the first time. Each vote cast was voluntary. Fighting the enemy where they grow, recruit and strengthen is the only way to defeat the enemies that we mutually share. It is a strategic advantage. It always will be. No amount of race baiting or other clap traps will change it. We fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here. If we had to fight them here, it would not make it any less lethal for their civilians. Just more lethal for our civilians. Whom we are charged with protecting. You position holds no water. Not that it usually does.


----------



## Dare (4 Oct 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Well, the upside is that argueing with you  doesn't actually take very long.
> 
> Absolutely, do you dispute this? Or are you claiming that Iraq has engaged in a unilateral act of war against the US?


It seems to me that Iraq actually engaged in several hundred unilateral acts of war against the US, France and Britain. Each shot on their fighters is an act of war. Neglecting the fact that Iraq was already at war with several nations including the US. It was under a ceasefire agreement. Which it broke. "Unilaterally", if you will.


> I am claiming that US public opinion on the Iraq war was motivated at least partially by race, due to the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were Arabs, and that Arab terrorism has long been a public spectacle. This IMO is ignorance.


It does sound like ignorance of one type, or another..


> The US intentionally started a war which is causing this situation. Do you dispute this?


Cause and effect is a bit weak there, considering the Iraq government and the US government are not the only actors.


> Absolutely, do you dispute this?


If they fought for oil, why did they give it back to the Iraqi's?


> I never said anything about your mom, but it's true that I dislike people who drive SUVs soley for the sake  of appearances.


I've yet to meet an SUV driver who bought it to "look cool" or to "look tough". SUV's are excellently designed machines with many possible purposes.


----------



## Dare (5 Oct 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> To me, it doesn't even really make any sense. If Al Qaida is being massacared in such droves  in Iraq as tomahawk6 claims, why do they keep going? The US can't MAKE them go to Iraq. Isn't this the same dichotomy that the US faced in Vietnam? The North Vietnamese, while they didn't do all that well on the battlefield, could never "lose" because they only fought when they chose to, while the US was tied down indefinitely to holding down a foreign population that was at best indifferent.  By invading Iraq, the US has lost the momentum? What makes the Iraqi situation different?


See past the box. Look at the full picture. Who is locked down? It seems to me, several ideologies and governments are locked down on Iraq. It is not the US that is. They can leave if they want. They can irradiate the whole country if they want. They can fight an entire other war if they want. The box they have put themselves in is an artificial and political one. It is a chain that disallows advocates of leaving too soon, a platform. At any time, they can leave this box and break that chain. It is only there to provide commitment to the total mission and give a longer end game cemented in the area. Tactically, it may be that our enemies fight at a time of their chosing, but strategically, they are dedicated to fight at a time the US chose, which is now. The smart ones know that if they don't prevent the success of the new Iraq government, their ideologies will be doomed to retreat to other failing nations as the traditional swamp drains. It already spread to Lebanon. *We* have the momentum. Because the democratic movement is not purely military. It empowers civility to take control. Thus, the US has indeed compelled these agitators and terrorists to Iraq, by virtue of self-preservation. If they do not remove what springs in our wake, they will eventually be defeated *by our momentum*. That is why they come to fight. That is why we fight them "over there". The extremists have boxed themselves in making America  and Israel their prime mission for being. They are holding onto their piles of sand by either being the best at fighting the west or Israel (verbally usually), or by claiming the other does not fight the west or Israel enough. Again, boxing themselves in. They certainly picked the countries least likely to capitulate to being slaughtered. 


> As for the article, perhaps we should keep in mind that Arabs tend to identify with their ancestral tribes, and not their artificial  nation states created by the West. Saying that someone was a Saudi probably doesn't mean as much as saying that they belonged to a specific tribe, which probably had members on both sides of the border, or that they belonged to a specific religious group o rsect.


That's an interesting racial suggestion, yet again, from you. Perhaps if you specified it was culturally oriented, I would agree. Considering not every Iraqi is an Arab. Not every Saudi is an Arab.


----------



## TCBF (5 Oct 2005)

"To me, it doesn't even really make any sense. If Al Qaida is being massacared in such droves  in Iraq as tomahawk6 claims, why do they keep going? "

- Because they believe they will eventually prevail.   This is not a foriegn concept to us, either. 

Tom


----------



## Acorn (9 Oct 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> Not every Saudi is an Arab.



Who're the non-Arab Saudis?


----------



## Infanteer (10 Oct 2005)

CIA World factbook gives Saudi population at 90% Arab and 10% "Afro-Asian" (whatever that is).


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Oct 2005)

Maybe he's referring to the "guest workers" and immigrants from SE Asia.


----------



## armyvern (10 Oct 2005)

Break down of the different Religions within Saudi Arabia:

74 % Sunni Muslim;
13.4 % Shi'ite Muslim;
4 % Christian;
0.7 % Hindu;
0.5 % Buddhist; and
1.4 % (Other Religion or Athiest).

"Christians make up 4% of the population but 98% of the Christian population are expatriates. The sacredness of the area to Muslims makes for a rather strict and harsh attitude towards non-Muslims and their religious activities. 

An interesting link below if you would like to get into the nitty-gritty details of the Countries of Origin for the immigrant and ex-pat polpulations within Saudi:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=538603


----------



## Acorn (14 Oct 2005)

All Saudis are Arab. Guest workers aren't entitled to Saudi citizenship.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> More important is the discussion of "Whereto from here?"
> 
> Quite frankly, I think the only solution is a loose federation of affiliated states as neither the Shia nor Kurd trusts the Sunnis to be part of a ruling government with jurisdiction over their territory....and based on their behaviour under the previous regime in particular, I find it hard to blame them.   The difficult part will be how to arm each of these federated states.   My own opinion is that in the constitution there needs to be a clear statement of only ONE central army for as soon as you get regional armies, or even militias, you are very quickly going to see outside interests leap in to cause great difficulty.   The Iranians have already started this by arming the Mehdi Army.   The Americans have been arming the Kurds for years (with good reason) which leaves the Sunnis who would likely be befriended by whomever they offer oil rights to (Russian, China, France....maybe the USA).



This is indeed the crux of the problem. Iraq is an artificial state carved out of the Ottoman Empire post WWI, hence the ethnic divisions. As a nation, a federal state with a Kurdish, Shia and Sunni "province" may well be the only way to go, even if it is too broad a brush (where do the Assyrians go, for example?). The "One Army" concept is very important, though. Currently there is a fledgling national army, but there are also local militias, Kurdish _Pesh Mergas_ and who knows what else out there. So long as armed men have loyalties to their local clans or warlords, then there is the nucleus for active opposition to the central government (or even the local and provincial governments). The best way to overcome this would be to have the Iraqi army trained by the American Army or Marines to ingrain an institutional ethos (i.e. the soldiers are part of the Iraqi army rather than the Shia division). Over time, as solders move into civilian life this ethos will filter into other parts of Iraq. Perhaps putting Iraqi civil servants through Marine boot camp is also required, in order to instill a national ethos in government organs as well.



> Bottom Line:   Democracy in nations with segregated homogenous populations is rarely easy and often fails but we need to stop trivializing the process by getting caught up either anti-war or pro-war mantras as they are guaranteed to get us nowhere.



Robert Kaplan has made similar observations about failed, failing and weak states, although his take is that it is often geography which defines the state. Areas where transportation is difficult prevent states from projecting power, so the mountains, jungles and other wastelands of the earth are often ungovernable anarchies even if they are part of some nation on the map.


----------



## TCBF (16 Oct 2005)

"Iraq is an artificial state..."

- All states are artificial, some more-so than others. 

Tom


----------

