# Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi Cleric, Tells Followers To Stop Attacking U.S. Troops



## High_Gravity (Sep 12, 2011)

Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi Cleric, Tells Followers To Stop Attacking U.S. Troops 









> BAGHDAD  An anti-American cleric is urging his followers to stop attacking U.S. troops in Iraq so that their withdrawal from the country isn't slowed down, a call meant to ramp up pressure on Baghdad's political leaders who are considering asking some American forces to stay.
> 
> In a statement posted on his website, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr told his militias to halt attacks against U.S. forces till the withdrawal is finished at the end of the year as required under a security agreement between Washington and Baghdad.
> 
> ...



Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi Cleric, Tells Followers To Stop Attacking U.S. Troops


----------



## Sallow (Sep 12, 2011)

Step in the right direction.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Step in the right direction.



I don't really believe him though, he was already supposedly holding back his troops from attacking US Troops until the troop deadline, how he is telling them to stop, so he is basically admitting they were attacking US Troops the whole time.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 12, 2011)

So, wait.... a good idea is for them to stop attacking us, so we withdraw... and they can destroy Iraq with a civil war? That's good? In what way... exactly? Another terrorist supporting state emerges, hell bent on providing a training ground for the next wave of AQ terrorists to plan and train for the next 9/11.... that's a good thing? 

My opinion... we need more rational thought and less emotion-based 'logic'.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 12, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Step in the right direction.
> ...



He's well respected in Iraq. He's not a "terrorist" in that his call has been always for expelling troops foreign to his nation. This is a good step for Iraq.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



This guy recently returned to Iraq this year, he has been living in Iran for the past 3-4 years and his militia is armed and trained by the Iranians, this guy wants US Troops to leave so he can take over and alot of the Kurds and Sunnis in Iraq dislike him. With his track record I don't trust him either.


----------



## pgm (Sep 12, 2011)

I think this just proves that Muqtada has a lot less control over his followers than we in the West like to believe.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 12, 2011)

pgm said:


> I think this just proves that Muqtada has a lot less control over his followers than we in the West like to believe.



Alot of this guys followers don't listen to him all the time, but than again who really does have 100% control of their followers?


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 12, 2011)

iraq needs to deal with their own issues without our military intervention.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 12, 2011)

Moonglow said:


> iraq needs to deal with their own issues without our military intervention.



I have to agree with you there, I think we pretty much have done all we can.


----------



## pgm (Sep 12, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Alot of this guys followers don't listen to him all the time, but than again who really does have 100% control of their followers?



Grover Norquist?

(Ugh, my repartee needs work...)

I'll dig up the facts when I get the chance, but Al Sadr had a lot of trouble controlling his followers when he first ordered a cease fire in 2007. Dr. Kimberly Kagan believes that much of the Mahdi Army was directed by Iran by that point (although, that's certainly not established fact). 

All I know for certain is that prior to 2006, Al Sadr was hostile to Iran and had condemned Nouri al-Maliki's party for being puppets to Iran's clerics. Then, he decides to pledge military support to Iran and eventually goes to live there. I guess he believes in the adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

For what it's worth, our allies have received even more support and training from Iran and make up a large part of the Iraqi Army. Maliki's entire legitimacy as prime minister rests with his ability to have support from Iran-backed factions and the Kurds without being seen as too radical by the Sunnis. But the Iraqi government would fall apart (again) without Iranian support.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 12, 2011)

pgm said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Alot of this guys followers don't listen to him all the time, but than again who really does have 100% control of their followers?
> ...



Iran is going to have a relationship and a big role inside Iraq whether we like it or not.


----------



## pgm (Sep 12, 2011)

Quite true. We've been trying to manage that relationship for about four or five years now. Our diplomats in Iraq have been in contact with their Iranian counterparts since the last couple years of the Bush Administration. In ways, we've tacitly supported Iranian interference in Iraq, so long as it keeps the violence down.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 13, 2011)

pgm said:


> Quite true. We've been trying to manage that relationship for about four or five years now. Our diplomats in Iraq have been in contact with their Iranian counterparts since the last couple years of the Bush Administration. In ways, we've tacitly supported Iranian interference in Iraq, so long as it keeps the violence down.



Alot of Iraqis, particularly the Sunnis, really don't like this new hand the Iranians now have inside Iraq, alot of the violence from the Sunni Insurgent groups won't stop even when we have left the country.


----------



## Paulie (Sep 13, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi Cleric, Tells Followers To Stop Attacking U.S. Troops
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL at "new and tougher way". 

They've just been holding out on this new and tougher way for the last 7 years waiting for JUST the right time to step their game up


----------



## ekrem (Sep 14, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Another terrorist supporting state emerges, hell bent on providing a training ground for the next wave of AQ terrorists to plan and train for the next 9/11.... that's a good thing?
> 
> My opinion... we need more rational thought and less emotion-based 'logic'.



Where was your "less emotion-based logic" when you invaded?


----------



## JStone (Sep 14, 2011)

ekrem said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Another terrorist supporting state emerges, hell bent on providing a training ground for the next wave of AQ terrorists to plan and train for the next 9/11.... that's a good thing?
> ...



What logic is behind your rogue state of Turkey invading Cyprus, or did allah will that, too?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uvGnmpgzfg]The Turkish Invasion of Cyprus - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 14, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Step in the right direction.



D'ya think?

War Crimes of Muqtada al Sad'r

My recollection of this murderous figure was that he hated America more than Hussein, who killed his father, his grandfather, etc, even after we helped him, he was continually stabbing us in the back.

imho, it's nice it looks like he's turned over a new leaf, but it's only to get American forces out of Iraq.

These telling them when we're leaving only gives avowed separatists and extremist muslim groups ammunition against other groups in Iraq, and if too many troops leave, our troops become enemy combatants of which to rid themselves.

I don't think Muqtada has forgiven those who participated in his family members' demises.

I would like to know how the man treats women in his sect. Is he fair to them? Will he let women vote? Or is he just another extremist who wants America to leave so he can resume enslaving women instead of liberating them from bad and unjust laws.

There are too many questions in my mind to be comfortable with this.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 15, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Step in the right direction.
> ...



Moqtada is not turning over a new leaf, he is a liar who says one thing and than does another just like so many others in the region. He came out and told his group to stop attacking US Forces right? well the thing he is said they were in a cease fire already and would not resume fighting us unless we stay past the deadline, so either he doesn't have as much control over his group as he likes to think, which is very likely, or he lied about the ceasefire in the first place and the Mahdi Army was always attacking us, which I think is the case.

As far as womens rights I really don't know what to tell you, I really doubt that is high up on Moqtadas priority, more than likely right now he is counting the days until US Forces leave Iraq so he strike back at his enemies and unleash his Mahdi Army and really start to take control of the country, thats what I'm betting on. Moqtada spent some years in Iran and I am guessing the system he wants to put in place is something very similar to what they have.


----------



## pgm (Sep 15, 2011)

He probably would try to establish some sort of Iran-based government. Muqtada has, in the past, rejected Iran, but praised the Velayat-e faqhih. I believe he viewed the Iranian government as corrupt and an improper representation of Islam (or maybe it was bad blood from the decade-long war). But, since he spent nearly half a decade living in Iran, he seems to have changed his mind.

Still, the Kurds would not go for that and Muqtada doesn't have enough national support. His primary base is with the poor, particularly in Sadr City in Baghdad. He's gained a lot of power in the south, but the ISCI is still bigger and more powerful than the Sadrists.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 15, 2011)

pgm said:


> He probably would try to establish some sort of Iran-based government. Muqtada has, in the past, rejected Iran, but praised the Velayat-e faqhih. I believe he viewed the Iranian government as corrupt and an improper representation of Islam (or maybe it was bad blood from the decade-long war). But, since he spent nearly half a decade living in Iran, he seems to have changed his mind.
> 
> Still, the Kurds would not go for that and Muqtada doesn't have enough national support. His primary base is with the poor, particularly in Sadr City in Baghdad. He's gained a lot of power in the south, but the ISCI is still bigger and more powerful than the Sadrists.



It won't work. Iraqis still have a bad taste in their mouths over the Iran/Iraq war. There may be a treaty of some sort but tribalism will quickly kick in.

They have a common "enemy" now. Remove it and the old hurts will kick in.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 15, 2011)

pgm said:


> He probably would try to establish some sort of Iran-based government. Muqtada has, in the past, rejected Iran, but praised the Velayat-e faqhih. I believe he viewed the Iranian government as corrupt and an improper representation of Islam (or maybe it was bad blood from the decade-long war). But, since he spent nearly half a decade living in Iran, he seems to have changed his mind.
> 
> Still, the Kurds would not go for that and Muqtada doesn't have enough national support. His primary base is with the poor, particularly in Sadr City in Baghdad. He's gained a lot of power in the south, but the ISCI is still bigger and more powerful than the Sadrists.



The Kurds don't want us to leave, they don't trust Moqtada anymore than we do and they still don't want to be subjugated under another Arab government in Baghdad and I don't blame them, my guess is the Kurds will continue to live in semi autonomy like they have been the past 20 years, the Kurds don't view Baghdad as their Capital, their capital is Irbil, they have their own international airport there, they basically have their own Military the Peshmerga and they don't even fly the Iraqi flag in Kurdistan, they fly the Kurdish flag. Kurdistan is the safest place in Iraq hands down especially for foreigners looking to invest, the Kurds are ahead of the Arabs in that country, the Arabs know that and it pisses them off so there may be a conflict in the future when we leave.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 15, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Thanks.
\
Mr. Gravity, you seem to have a true heart in your observances over there. There's one thing that truly puzzles me. It's the attitude that people like Iraq's Hussein had against the Kurds, and I've heard these people have also aroused the Ire of Turkey lately. Do you have a thread on the Kurds that explains their plight? Why do all their neighbors keep landing on them with threats of genocide and containment? I just don't get it, and I just don't get it some more. What's the root? Are they secret Jews, or something that causes their neighbors to whack away at them with all the ferocity they can get away with and still be part of the world community? Why do their neighbors view them as stickers under their camel's blankets. There must be a cause for other Iraqis, who used gas on 30 Kurdish villages years back. They're always under seige by some upset neighbor. What poisons the Arab universe against the Kurdish people? I just don't get it.


----------



## Article 15 (Sep 15, 2011)

Man, I haven't heard that name in a long time.  I wouldn't trust that dude at all.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 15, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



The Kurds got screwed out of their own country when the borders were drawn up for the countries of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Kurds are not Arabs, Turks or Persians, they are their own distinct culture, they are mainly Sunni Muslims but are mainly secular in nature, they don't really fit in with the Arabs, Persians and Turks and they are disliked and seen as a burden, which is why Saddam tried to kill them all and why the Turks have been trying to as well. In Turkey the Kurds were not even allowed to teach their own language in schools.The Kurds were protected by us with the no fly zone we set up in Northern Iraq after the first gulf war, so we have been kind of a big brother to them you could say, most Kurds like America and don't have any problems with us for the most part, you won't see Kurds burning American flags and carrying on like in other countries in the region.

The Kurds also have dealing with Israel, Israeli commandos have been to Kurdistan in Iraq to train the Pesh Merga, another reason for the Arabs, Iranians and Turks to despise them. The Kurds are in a rock in a hard place you could say, they really do need and deserve their own country because Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey really don't want them around but there is really no chance we could convince all these countries to give up land for them, the Kurds are a good people, Kurdistan is the only place in Iraq where no American troops have been hurt and Westerners can actually walk around without fear of being kidnapped or shot. I would love to see them have their own country but because of all the politics involved and there is really no way we can convince these countries to give up land for them, I don't really see anything changing in the future. Its a shame because they deserve better, they are one of the few groups of people in the region besides Israel who will have our backs.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 15, 2011)

Article 15 said:


> Man, I haven't heard that name in a long time.  I wouldn't trust that dude at all.



No doubt, he is a snake in the grass and he is just telling us what we want to hear and doing something completely the opposite.


----------



## pgm (Sep 15, 2011)

Sallow said:


> It won't work. Iraqis still have a bad taste in their mouths over the Iran/Iraq war. There may be a treaty of some sort but tribalism will quickly kick in.
> 
> They have a common "enemy" now. Remove it and the old hurts will kick in.



(Note for clarification, this is an addendum to what you are saying, not an argument against it):

Something to keep in mind about Iraq is just how tribal it is. We in the West like to view it as Shi'a Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds, but that barely scratches the surface. Unless you can tell me something about all of the tribes in this list, you really are  not an expert on Iraq. At the minimum, you have to know which tribes are major players and who is friends with whom. Some of the Sunni tribes are closer to the Shi'a tribes than other Sunnis. Some have ties to Ba'athists, others do not. It's an incredibly complicated web. 

Here's a statistic for you just to show you how important tribal relations are in Iraq: nearly half of all marriages are between first or second cousins. Outsiders are simply not to be trusted in Iraq. Tribalism runs deep.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



High_Gravity said:


> Kurdistan is the safest place in Iraq hands down especially for foreigners looking to invest, the Kurds are ahead of the Arabs in that country, the Arabs know that and it pisses them off so there may be a conflict in the future when we leave.



Iraqi Kurdistan is the brightest thing to come out of the war. It's supposed to be a great destination for tourists. If only Baghdad could be like that. Baghdad was once the greatest city in the Middle East and as recently as either the '70s or '80s was considered a great place to have some fun (lots of booze).



High_Gravity said:


> The Kurds got screwed out of their own country when the borders were drawn up for the countries of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Kurds are not Arabs, Turks or Persians, they are their own distinct culture, they are mainly Sunni Muslims but are mainly secular in nature, they don't really fit in with the Arabs, Persians and Turks and they are disliked and seen as a burden, which is why Saddam tried to kill them all and why the Turks have been trying to as well. In Turkey the Kurds were not even allowed to teach their own language in schools.



In terms of ethno-linguistics and culture, they're the closest to the Persians. To be more accurate, they're Iranian (like the Afghani Pashtuns), but they're not Persian. I saw some genetic analysis that found that Iraqi Kurds have definitely intermarried with the local Arabs, although their language and culture have remained Kurdish.

Like you said, the Turks have treated the Kurds poorly. Until 1991, the Turks didn't even recognize that the Kurds existed. They were called "Mountain Turks." There was some ethnic cleansing done by the Young Turks, although not to the degree that the Armenians suffered. This is probably because the Kurds were seen as less of a threat because they were Muslim and would not side with Christian Russia (one of the primary reasons for the Armenian genocide).


----------



## GHook93 (Sep 15, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Step in the right direction.



You are a true mental midget! The minute we leave (and it should be soon regardless), a bloody civil war will emerge. It will be a three prong war, that ends with a Turkish invasion.

(1) The Sunnis get knocked out of the government and the Iraqi government reverts back to a theocracy.
(2) The Sunnis start a guerrila terrorist campaign aided by Saudi Arabia. 
(3) The Shia Iraqi government starts to crack down with brutal force. Mean while the Kurds are eating popcorn and watching.
(4) A civil war draw down secular lines embarks. With Iran aiding the Shias and Saudi Arabia aiding the Sunnis.
(5) With both Shia and Sunnis taking huge blows. The Kurds declare their independence claiming the northern oil fields which are not currently under their control. The Shia Iraq government declares war on the Kurds and they start to fight, but they are more worried about the Sunnis. 
(6) Soon Turkey without justification or provocation invades Kurdistan! 

Iraq becomes a cluster fuck!


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 16, 2011)

pgm said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > It won't work. Iraqis still have a bad taste in their mouths over the Iran/Iraq war. There may be a treaty of some sort but tribalism will quickly kick in.
> ...



I think you pretty much nailed it, the Kurds may be related to the Iranians but Iran really wants nothing to do with them. The Kurds are basically the red headed step children in all the countries they reside at in the Middle East, its really a shame they don't have their own country because if they did we here in the US would definently have a good relationship with them, they are one of the very few people in the Middle East who support the US and they can be trusted. I really wish Baghdad would be more like Kurdistan, if it was we could have been done in Iraq militarily years ago and we could have gotten farther in reconstruction and really doing business with the Iraqis.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 16, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Thanks, High Gravity. That makes it a lot clearer to me. Your description reminds me of the Kuwaitis, except the Kuwaitis have power due to their oil wealth. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, I knew some students from Kuwait at Oregon State University. Of course, they were the only other people in the library when I was there (all the time ) They took their education in the United States very seriously, and they stayed together in a group. One day after the war was over, I saw one of the students on television (all grown up) who had worked his way up and was some kind of a minister of foreign relations, being spokesperson for the leadership in the country. When I knew him, he had his eye on the very beautiful girl who was always in the library working on whatever she was studying at the time. Of course, that was a long time ago, and I just wondered if he won her over or not.  Maybe he did. 

Anyway, I was upset the whole time Saddam was in Kuwait, and that's when I got really interested in Middle Eastern affairs. I really didn't know the kids all that well, but I admired how they looked out for one another, and was worried when I heard a couple of thousand Kuwaitis died. I've always thought of the Kuwaitis as friends. They are like what you described the Kurds as--liking the American people. I hope all those who visited at the library same time as me were ok. I grew fond of them, looked forward to seeing them; then was heartbroken when their country was invaded, wishing I hadn't been so busy and a little too shy to ask my quiet study friend for an address to send Christmas cards to. It's hard to be social when studying takes all your time. Their government paid for all Kuwaitis to be educated, and their literacy rate always used to be tops in the Middle East. I knew exactly why.


----------



## Trajan (Sep 16, 2011)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



well aside form the murder he engineered no, or the Basra bloodbath..... hes quite the man of peace


----------



## Trajan (Sep 16, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi Cleric, Tells Followers To Stop Attacking U.S. Troops
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and this one reason why I had to ultimately found fault with the invasion ( aside form the rest), as they didn't take him way back when they could have and followed thru on the  charges of his direct  complicity in the murder of al-Khoei.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 16, 2011)

Trajan said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi Cleric, Tells Followers To Stop Attacking U.S. Troops
> ...


Thanks, Trahan, and since al Sadr is behind this and other suspected eliminations, it would be just another America-hating killer taking over from another America-hating killer, Saddam Hussein. Al-Sad'r's goal has always been to take over, and he has a trained militia to make it happen.  It's too bad this administration has taken it upon itself to snatch a defeat from the troops' victory in Iraq.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 16, 2011)

My recollections back during Operation Enduring Freedom, seems alSadr's killings were considered exceptionally brutal for some reason. Maybe it was revenge for his father's and his grandfather's murders. 

History of family brutal murders + more brutal murders = ​


----------



## pgm (Sep 17, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Thanks, Trahan, and since al Sadr is behind this and other suspected eliminations, it would be just another America-hating killer taking over from another America-hating killer, Saddam Hussein. Al-Sad'r's goal has always been to take over, and he has a trained militia to make it happen.  It's too bad this administration has taken it upon itself to snatch a defeat from the troops' victory in Iraq.



I don't think the Mahdi Army is strong enough to defeat the Iraqi Army. Back in 2008, the Iraqi army took over Sadr City without any involvement from the U.S. (it was Iraqi planned and executed). U.S. troops were involved earlier in a joint effort to control the southern third of Sadr City, but the final push was all Iraqi Army.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 19, 2011)

pgm said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, Trahan, and since al Sadr is behind this and other suspected eliminations, it would be just another America-hating killer taking over from another America-hating killer, Saddam Hussein. Al-Sad'r's goal has always been to take over, and he has a trained militia to make it happen.  It's too bad this administration has taken it upon itself to snatch a defeat from the troops' victory in Iraq.
> ...



Sadr wants to make the Mahdi Army like Hezbollah, a well trained guerilla army that is the strongest force in the country, fortunately that is not the case in Iraq. The Mahdi Army are not as well trained, equipped or as good fighters as Hezbollah and like you say the Iraqi Army is better, but the Mahdi Army is good enough to create problems in the region especially if they are getting the support from Iran, which very well might be the case.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 19, 2011)

Trajan said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi Cleric, Tells Followers To Stop Attacking U.S. Troops
> ...



We should have followed through and arrested this clown way back when he had that other cleric murdered, back in 2003-2004 Sadr did not have nearly as much clout and influence that he does now, now its too late.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 19, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



I was deployed to Kuwait during my time in the Military and I know what you are saying, a good portion of the Kuwaitis are fond of the US and don't have a problem with us, however there is also a segment of the Kuwaiti population that does NOT like the US. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003 the Mahdi Army was formed and they have set up offices in Kuwait amongst the Shite population there, they collect moneys from the Kuwaitis as charities to give to the Mahdi Army, and they spy on US Troops and the US bases in Kuwait. There are reports of Kuwaitis going to Iraq and Afghanistan as suicide bombers, it seems that Kuwait has the same problems just about every Arab country has these days with a portion of their population falling under the sway of Islamic Militants.


----------



## GHook93 (Sep 19, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Kuwait is very much like Kosovo. He went to war to prevent Sadam from killing the entire Kuwaiti population and now they fund terrorism, help the terrorist in Iraq and are ANTIAMERICAN!

The we prevent the Serbs taking back their land in favor of the Muslims of the Ficticious Country of Kosovo. What do we have now. A mafesto run government. A hotbed of Islamic terrorist, antiamericanism and antiwesternism. The Russian were right on Kosovo. Now we created yet another Muslim country that the world needs to worry about!


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 19, 2011)

GHook93 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Everytime we deploy our Military to fight on the behalf of Muslims, we step on our dicks.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 19, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> pgm said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...


That's somewhat consistent with his prior behaviors, but I also hope the Iraqi Army is true to Iraq. Many lives could be taken if they are not. It's too bad Sadr likely availed himself to influences of chaos. OTOH, maybe he saw that peace would be more beneficial to the people of Iraq. You never know what an absence can dissuade or promote. Our finest hope can only be that forces within Iraq will come together to end the bloodletting.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 19, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > pgm said:
> ...



The problem is Sadrs agenda is totally different than the people of Iraq.


----------



## pgm (Sep 19, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Sadr wants to make the Mahdi Army like Hezbollah, a well trained guerilla army that is the strongest force in the country, fortunately that is not the case in Iraq. The Mahdi Army are not as well trained, equipped or as good fighters as Hezbollah and like you say the Iraqi Army is better, but the Mahdi Army is good enough to create problems in the region especially if they are getting the support from Iran, which very well might be the case.



Working backwards, the Mahdi Army is definitely getting support from Iran. It's one of the top Iran-backed militias. The top one, though, is the Badr Bridgade, which is now mostly integrated into the army. It took a while, but the primarily Shi'a army is willing to deal with Shi'a militias, so maybe the Mahdi Army can eventually become part of the regular Iraqi forces.

Iran has its hands in a lot of things in Iraq. It's trying to hedge its bets. It's even supported Sunni militias, including those with links to Al Qaeda, which would have been unheard of a decade ago. Still, Iran's base of power is the Shi'a south. Iranian currency is accepted there, primarily because of all the tourists visiting the shrines. I also remember reading a few years ago that Iran provided electricity for some in the south.

I'm sure Sadr would like the Mahdi Army to be like Hizb'allah. Although, right now he doesn't need to since he's such an important figure politically. He's one of the pillars of the al-Maliki government, so he doesn't need to try to undermine the government yet.



High_Gravity said:


> The problem is Sadrs agenda is totally different than the people of Iraq.



Yeah, definitely not. I think you'll have a case in Iraq, where the south resembles something a bit like Iran, but the rest of the country is far less strict. Religion will play a bigger role in the country than during Saddam's rule, but I don't think it'll be Iran.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 19, 2011)

pgm said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sadr wants to make the Mahdi Army like Hezbollah, a well trained guerilla army that is the strongest force in the country, fortunately that is not the case in Iraq. The Mahdi Army are not as well trained, equipped or as good fighters as Hezbollah and like you say the Iraqi Army is better, but the Mahdi Army is good enough to create problems in the region especially if they are getting the support from Iran, which very well might be the case.
> ...



Iran has also trained and given explosives to Taliban members in Afghanistan, they have been finding IED's with Iranian trade marks on them similar to the ones found in the Shite areas of Iraq for years now. In Lebanon Hezbollah is also part of the government, they hold the majority of seats I believe and no decision gets made in Lebanon without Hezbollah signing off on it, thats the kind of situation Sadr would like for the Mahdi Army in Iraq I believe, not total outright control but enough so that they impact decisions made in the country. For some people that kind of arrangement is better than outright control, because if you have outright control you have no one to bitch to when the country is still a third world shit hole and disaster.


----------



## pgm (Sep 20, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Iran has also trained and given explosives to Taliban members in Afghanistan, they have been finding IED's with Iranian trade marks on them similar to the ones found in the Shite areas of Iraq for years now.



The "Iranian trademarks" on the IEDs is a bit overstated. It doesn't mean that Iran hasn't provided the IEDs; it just means that the IEDs could have been made with or without Iran. The big concern is from the mortar attacks now, and I'm pretty sure they're Iranian-made weapons.

Iran's involvement with the Taliban is also Iran hedging its bets. Iran and the Taliban have been enemies for so long. Let's not forget the Iran helped us overthrow the Taliban. It was a different Iranian president, but the Supreme Leader controls the military, so he must have ok'd it.



> In Lebanon Hezbollah is also part of the government, they hold the majority of seats I believe and no decision gets made in Lebanon without Hezbollah signing off on it, thats the kind of situation Sadr would like for the Mahdi Army in Iraq I believe, not total outright control but enough so that they impact decisions made in the country. For some people that kind of arrangement is better than outright control, because if you have outright control you have no one to bitch to when the country is still a third world shit hole and disaster.



Yeah, Hezbollah have the majority in Lebanon. But that country is in a weird situation since they forced the last government collapse so they wouldn't be indicted for an assassination. It's possible for Iraq to end up like that. But so many pro-U.S. Iraqis have a lot of power. The Kurds are big enough as a group that their support is a requirement for a government.  Then a bunch of Shi'a groups are closely allied with the U.S.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 20, 2011)

GHook93 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



A year after we liberated Kuwait the people were really grateful, US Marines were showered with flowers and kissed by the people of Kuwait. It was nice while it lasted but the honeymoon is over, now 20 years after the Iraqis came and gone alot of Kuwaitis don't like the US anymore, even though without our intervention they would all be Saddam Husseins bitches right now.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 20, 2011)

pgm said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Iran has also trained and given explosives to Taliban members in Afghanistan, they have been finding IED's with Iranian trade marks on them similar to the ones found in the Shite areas of Iraq for years now.
> ...



Iran is willing to give the Taliban arms as well as various insurgent groups in Iraq because they don't want our time in these countries to be too easy, right now we basically have Iran cornered on both sides right now and they are nervous, no matter what they might say. They don't want us to successful so we can focus on toppling their government, so they arm these groups. It will be interesting to see what happens in Iraq in the future, you are correct the Kurds definently have the manpower and the clout and their approval is definently required for a government, we also have some Shite groups working with us. I would like to see Iraq become a functioning country, not a fractured country like Lebanon with militias arming themselves to the teeth and the government can't stop them.


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 4, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> pgm said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Throughout our Iraq engagement, it was made clear to me from reading at Centcom the concern that the IEDs getting our soldiers' humvees were of Iranian origin, and particularly after we reinforced the humvees to protect the soldiers riding in them, the technology to engage the new reinforced vehicles to maim and kill American troops was linked directly to Iran. In addition, editorial staffs in the Middle East, still driving Saddam's gifts of shiny new Mercedes around, were not entirely forthcoming with any information that would reinforce the good our troops did there for the purpose of impugning the entire effort that led to Saddam Hussein's arrest. When their press lied, our troops died, because selected monominded  idiots in the EU could cherry pick their _grievances-du-jour_ with America.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 4, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > pgm said:
> ...



This is very true Becki.


----------



## Ropey (Oct 4, 2011)

^ This is why the war.

It comes...


----------



## pgm (Oct 4, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> I would like to see Iraq become a functioning country, not a fractured country like Lebanon with militias arming themselves to the teeth and the government can't stop them.



Me too. I really want to see what's left of ancient Babylonian history (actually a little bit).

Baghdad was also one of the great medieval cities, but that appeals to me slightly less (but still quite a bit). I'd be interested in seeing Kurdistan, but I can do that now.

There are tons of great Shi'a shrines that I'd be interested in seeing _if I was there,_ but they're not a reason for me to go to Iraq (being that I'm not Muslim).


----------



## JStone (Oct 4, 2011)

pgm said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see Iraq become a functioning country, not a fractured country like Lebanon with militias arming themselves to the teeth and the government can't stop them.
> ...



Babylonians' contribution to civilization was negligible.  The Hammurabi code was overshadowed by the Hebrews' Mosaic code of laws.


----------



## pgm (Oct 4, 2011)

Do you actually think that's Babylon's contribution to Western Civilization?


----------



## JStone (Oct 5, 2011)

pgm said:


> Do you actually think that's Babylon's contribution to Western Civilization?



The Babylonians contributed nothing to civilization.  The Babylonians and Assyrians were too busy enlarging their empires to do anything substantive.

Constitutional Rights Foundation: The Hebrews and the Foundation of Western Law 
The Ten Commandments and many other elements of Hebrew law provided a major source for the development of western legal systems and democracy. 


> Three thousand years ago, the ancient Hebrew people lived in the Near East in an area called Canaan. This ancient people developed the idea of monotheism, the belief in one god. They believed that their god gave them laws to regulate their society, their religious practices, and their relationships with other people.
> 
> Conquered by the neo-Babylonians and later by the Romans, the Hebrews eventually became a scattered people, living in many countries under different legal systems. But they continued to develop their own law and tried to follow it even in foreign lands. Their law was based on the Ten Commandments and other sacred writings, which today we find in the Hebrew Bible. In developing their law, they sometimes borrowed legal concepts from other civilizations as well as passing on their own ideas. The Jewish law that developed influenced Roman law, English law, and our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
> 
> ...


----------



## pgm (Oct 5, 2011)

What about the Babylonian contributions to astronomy, math, agriculture and engineering?


----------



## JStone (Oct 5, 2011)

pgm said:


> What about the Babylonian contributions to astronomy, math, agriculture and engineering?



There are none.  

The Sumerians invented writing and the wheel and they and the Egyptians advanced agriculture along the Tigris and Euphrates and the Nile


----------



## pgm (Oct 5, 2011)

OK, now you're diving into self-parody. I understand your disdain of Arabs; that's just basic bigotry 101. But now you want to go back to the people who predated the Arabs. The Babylonians created innovations which were borrowed heavily by Hipparchus, who is considered the founder of the Trigonometry. The Pythagorean theorem was created in Babylonia first. The Babylonians created the Sexagesimal numbering system, which is used for the measure of time and circles. In Astronomy, the Babylonians had innovations with the phases of the moon as well as the relationship between planets that was also picked up by the Greeks.


----------



## JStone (Oct 5, 2011)

pgm said:


> The Pythagorean theorem was created in Babylonia first.



Er, Pythagoras was Greek not Babylonian.  Maybe, open a history book?


----------



## JStone (Oct 5, 2011)

pgm said:


> OK, now you're diving into self-parody. I understand your disdain of Arabs; that's just basic bigotry 101.



Er, Babylonians were not Arabs.  You're severely confused


----------



## pgm (Oct 5, 2011)

JStone said:


> Er, Pythagoras was Greek not Babylonian.  Maybe, open a history book?



Of course he was. He built upon a framework that had already been created by the Babylonians. This is why I said it was invented in Babylonia _first_. The Babylonians discovered the ratio and Pythagoras built upon it. 



JStone said:


> pgm said:
> 
> 
> > OK, now you're diving into self-parody. I understand your disdain of Arabs; that's just basic bigotry 101.
> ...



And you're only partially reading. That's perhaps why you're also only partially quoting. If you had read the next sentence, you would see that I called the Babylonians "the people who predated the Arabs."

Anyway, our system of measuring time comes from the Babylonians. Much of the rest is solid conjecture, but only the Babylonians were using a base-60 system.


----------



## JStone (Oct 5, 2011)

pgm said:


> JStone said:
> 
> 
> > Er, Pythagoras was Greek not Babylonian.  Maybe, open a history book?
> ...



What was the name of the Babylonian Pythagoras? Shame Pythagoras takes credit for the Pythagorean theorem 



> Anyway, our system of measuring time comes from the Babylonians. Much of the rest is solid conjecture, but only the Babylonians were using a base-60 system.



You made that up, too.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

Oh well at least the Arabs have hummus and the shawarma, no one can take that away from them.


----------



## pgm (Oct 5, 2011)

That's Levantian, no? 

Anyway, I don't feel like arguing with JStone about the important contributions of the Babylonians. There's just no point. I still want to visit what's left of Babylon and that's one reason I hope for a stable, friendly Iraq. There are obviously other reasons that peace is in America's interest.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 5, 2011)

pgm said:


> That's Levantian, no?
> 
> Anyway, I don't feel like arguing with JStone about the important contributions of the Babylonians. There's just no point. I still want to visit what's left of Babylon and that's one reason I hope for a stable, friendly Iraq. There are obviously other reasons that peace is in America's interest.



Unfortunately I don't think Westerners will be able to travel to Iraq safely any time soon, the country will still be a war zone for years after the US Military has left.


----------



## pgm (Oct 5, 2011)

Yeah, it's a shame. As long as I get to see Beirut in my lifetime, I'll be satisfied never seeing Baghdad.

I think it would be cool to go to Iran as well. I had a history professor who lived there until the Revolution. He talks about it as a great place. He said even today an American is welcomed with such hospitality by the people (not the government, obviously). He also likes to talk how the most fervent political discussions in Tehran are in the taxi cabs or over the dinner table.


----------



## JStone (Oct 5, 2011)

pgm said:


> Yeah, it's a shame. As long as I get to see Beirut in my lifetime, I'll be satisfied never seeing Baghdad.



The Muslims from Hizballah have turned Lebanon into a police state.  The UN concluded Hizballah was complicit in the assassination of Lebanon's former PM Hariri.

Lebanon was a nice country when run by the Maronite Christians who have been chased out and murdered by the religion of peace'ers


----------



## pgm (Oct 5, 2011)

The Maronites are certainly guilty of their own share of atrocities. I much prefer them to Hizb'allah, though. Still, the rich parts of Beirut are still quite accessible to foreigners.

I sometimes get a kick out of the conspiracy theories that come out of that region. I heard one from a Maronite Christian and I'm sure he's not alone in believing this crazy one. He said that Hizb'allah and Israel were working together. Hizb'allah gives Israel an excuse to bomb Lebanon and then can come in to provide money to those who were hurt by the bombing. Hence, Hizb'allah are stronger now than it was. It's certainly a false belief, but it does show the unintended consequences of Israel's actions in 2006.


----------



## JStone (Oct 5, 2011)

pgm said:


> The Maronites are certainly guilty of their own share of atrocities. I much prefer them to Hizb'allah, though. Still, the rich parts of Beirut are still quite accessible to foreigners.uences of Israel's actions in 2006.



Israel's actions in taking self-defensive measures against terrorist bases in Lebanon.  Lebanon is in violation of international law and the UN Charter in providing safe haven to terrorist factions and Israel has been compliant with both in protecting its national security.

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.


----------



## pgm (Oct 5, 2011)

JStone said:


> Israel's actions in taking self-defensive measures against terrorist bases in Lebanon.  Lebanon is in violation of international law and the UN Charter in providing safe haven to terrorist factions and Israel has been compliant with both in protecting its national security.



See, this is a perfect example of the strawmen I was talking about. I never said Israel wasn't right in asserting its self-defense. I said that the Maronites have committed atrocities.


----------

