Insurgents execute 21 men in front of their relatives

[kurth]

Associated Press
Insurgents Gun Down 21 in Iraqi Village
By 11.25.06, 8:13 AM ET

Gunmen broke into two Shiite homes and killed 21 men in front of their relatives, police said Saturday, as Vice President Dick Cheney sought Saudi Arabia's help in calming Iraq after an especially violent week.

The capital remained under a 24-hour curfew two days after suspected Sunni insurgents killed 215 people in Baghdad's main Shiite district with a combination of bombs and mortars. Another 87 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence across Iraq Friday. The chaos cast a shadow over the summit next week between Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush in Amman, Jordan.

Politicians loyal to radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have threatened to boycott parliament and the Cabinet if al-Maliki goes ahead with the meeting. The political bloc, known as Sadrists, is a mainstay of support for al-Maliki. Sadrist lawmaker Qusai Abdul-Wahab blamed U.S. forces for Thursday's attack in Sadr City because they failed to provide security...

http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/2006/11/25/ap3202823.html

[undeterred]

1. If we leave now, a civil war will break out.

[AIJ Alom]

4. If we leave either tomorrow, 3 months from now, or 5 years from now,

there will be an all out civil war. Unless of course we are willing to obliterate one side and install a true authoritarian government which might (only might) make a civil war less likely. This is a lose-lose situation. The question is, how much do we want to lose?

[undeterred]

7. if this isn't already a civil war

I don't know what is.

Our losses are tiny compared to theirs. We don't have the right to decide this. If the Iraqis want us out, we should get out.

[AIJ Alom]

8. It is a civil war and our soldiers are playing the role of peacekeepers.

I agree with you, it is within all of our best interests, Iraqi and American, to withdraw our troops now and to replace our numbers with Saudi or other forces from the Middle East to perform the peacekeeper function in hopes of limiting this civil war. Regardless, when we leave, an all out civil war for control of Iraq between Shia factions and Sunnis will ensue for 5-10 years. This will be very much like Afghanistan after the end of Soviet occupation.

[lapfog_1]

10. Which country in the ME would you like to replace us?

Let's look at the choices:

Iran - there would be a Sunni genocide. The Iranians are stilled very pissed about the war with Iraq (the one where we supported Iraq and gave Saddam WMDs to use against the Iranians - 100s of thousands if not millions dead). Besides, the Saudis would be very nervous about a Shia fundie revolutionary army on their border.

Kuwait and the gulf states - no armies to speak of and no desire to involve themselves in this.

Saudis - no army to speak of, and no desire to fight in Iraq, plus the Shia Iraqis would rightly feel that this is going back to the days of Saddam. Possible Shia genocide would follow. But it won't happen, the Saudis have no army.

Jordan - possible, but not likely

Turkey - if you like what's happening now, you'll just LOVE a Turkish takeover. They are possibly even more hated than the Americans are, with justification.

Syria - Has an army, not big enough to do the job, plus they may be a surrogate for Iran these days.

we'll just leave Lebanon, Israel, the PLO, and Yemen out of this as just being too silly to think about.

Egypt - Has an army, mostly Sunni, some radical elements of which might commit genocide on the Shia, or might not. Probably the best choice.

Libya, Sudan and other Islamic north africans. - Not big enough armies to do anything.

So, no real obvious choices. Egypt would likely be the best, but I bet they don't want to get involved.

Another choice not from the ME would be Pakistan or possibly Indonesia. Both would have issues getting into Iraq.

A Islamic UN force of Pakistan, Egypt, and Indonesia backed with Saudi and US money, and with the approval of Iran... that would the best we could hope for... better make it 200,000 men, and they would need us to leave so they can use our base camps and other facilities.

[AIJ Alom]

11. I like your choices. In addition these nations should also take up

the task of training the Iraqi police and military forces. Agreed we will have to fund this excursion on behalf of the peacekeepers and provide them with the permanent bases we've created. In addition, we need to get all the nations of Middle East, including Israel on board financially, to help prevent the spread of civil war/unrest. It is within all of our best interests.

[acmejack]

2. I can't imagine what it would be like then

Compared to this tenuous peace, an outbreak of unrestrained violence there would be horrific.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Send that fat bald-headed stooge to Sadr City, not Saudi Arabia

Let him get right into the last throes "celebrations" if things are going so well.

That man pisses me off more than Bush. He's the evil force behind the dummy.

[NC_Nurse]

5. Gee, wasn't this war to save these people

from this sort of thing? You know, big bad SADDAM?
I wonder if they feel better off today than then?
What a complete clusterf*ck!

[AIJ Alom]

9. We took out Saddam and his brutal regime.

And replaced it with the follow mix. Our troops, who are now viewed as occupiers acting as peacekeepers. Iraqi troops and law enforcement, who's loyalty can change at any second. Former regime elements acting as the primary base of the Sunni insurgency, hoping to drive out the Iranian elements, and re-establish Sunni dominance. Foreign Al Qaeda operatives hoping to kill Americans and finding it much easier now that our soldiers are acting as police instead of an army. And finally, Shiite militias, such as the Mehdi Army, who hope to establish a new Iran friendly theocracy. Throw in American mercenaries and oil companies and you have innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of bullets coming from multiple directions.

[Boojatta]

6. Who writes the headlines?

Did Charles Manson "execute" people? Is no legal process whatsoever required for a killing to be considered an execution?

Edited to add: perhaps "execute" is being used in the sense of execution-style murder?

[mc jazz]

12. hinting at the political nature of it?

There are leaders behind this which perhaps 'execute' implies, more reason to bring Iran and a Sunni nation in otherwise these might become the leaders of large parts of Iraq. For the sake of the Iraqi's the neighbours must be brought in somehow or they will come in anyway. Look how little they have meddled, I'm amazed the insurgents have not got hold of anti-aircraft missiles for example when they had such effect in the soviet Afghan war. If this isn't done what is to stop Al-Queda coming in and taking over the Sunni area of Iraq?

[Boojatta]

13. I hope you're not suggesting that, because the Iraqi government is

not currently strong enough to protect the lives of Iraqi citizens, the Iraqi people should be sold out to bullying countries that are neighbors of Iraq.

Suppose GWB were to say, "It has come to my attention that the Mexican government is doing little to prevent illegal immigration across the Mexican border into the USA. If in six months we are not satisfied that progress has been made, then we will begin to study the possibility of giving anti-aircraft missiles to Zapatista rebels."

What would you think?