Edit: And that would be viewed as a failure of the coalition's work.
Diplomacy? With criminals? Why?
If I get a gang of like minded people together, get a bunch of guns and take over a town in Montana, terrorising the population and killing the police and others should I expect to be negotiated with by diplomats or killed by the police and the army?
You can call them criminals if you wish to see it that way but they represent a growing frustration with a foreign force that is occupying and holding the reigns of power
I'd rather expect the latter. Diplomacy? The man's a killer and backer of killers. I don't know why they haven't just gone in there and cleaned him out. I would have. With tanks.
This is a reference to Sadr, right (as opposed to Fallujah)? Killer? Don't you find it ood that this arrest warrant (on those specific charges) only appeared after the mass insurgency began? The coalition didn't give any reason for producing this warrant at such a late junction, either. It's just a pretext. Furthermore, Sadr has said he is willing to stand before a court under a free and democratic Iraqi governemnt (as opposed to the governing council and coalition).
Why haven't they cleaned him out? Like with Vietnam, fear of a greater conflict, although in this case an internal conflict. Plus, Sadr city provokes fears of a Somalia style situation.
No, we aren't. I'm not familiar at all with the incident you're quoting.
Three events (in the mdeia) lead to the crowd that converged on coalition positions in Baghdad and Iraq, and is also including the fighting Fallujah. Those were:
- The killing of four American contractors and the desecration of their bodies in Fallujah.
- One of Sadr's newspapers is shut down for inciting violence against the coalition.
- Protests against coalition and Iraqi govenring council by Sadr's demanding the newspaper be allowed to reopen and the release of Sadr's aide (link below). Then the increased violence begins.
Nah - they can't because they're useless. Some may not want to fight 'their own people' but mostly that's just an excuse not to get involved. Those who give it should be canned. They're cops and soldiers. Cops are always 'against' their own people (the lawbreakers) and soldiers swear to support their government against all enemies foreign and domestic. It's that domestic part that's important there.
This would be true if they had to fight on the say so of their own leaders but instead they are being asked to do so in defence of foreign forces they view as respponsible for the situation itself. Also, like you said they can't, in many cases the police were ill-equipped to deal with the numerous, heavily armed insurgents.
Sistani's a cipher. I'd love to know if he's just an opportunist or a real supporter of something better. He could be either.
First of all, as Iraq's preeminent religious authority, he can bring at least 100, 000 protestors to the streets.
Actually, when Saddam was ousted, Sistani issued a fatwa telling people to cooperate with coalition forces. He is seen as a moderate. His letter to the UN stated that they did not want to see Iraq's interim consitution as a framework for the permanent constitution, since it sees Iraq divided along ethnic lines, in their opinion. Note: "They" is a reference to Sistani and his followers/organisation.
As to questionable in terms of popular mandate would you care to relate who the last Iraqui leader with a popular mandate was? As far as I know there has never been one - but I'm not an Persian political specialist. Meaning that the Iraqui people aren't used to one and don't really understand what it means. More western bias.
Equating Saddam to the coalition is not, especially as they claim that their purpose is liberating and democratising Iraq. That is why people are critical of the whole fiasco. There's a large deficit between the symbolism, stated purposes and the ground work being done.
Somalia - try again. That was a UN aid operation propped up by US forces. Far from being "led" by the US (although the more famous actions were) the US forces were a smallish group without proper support. Indeed the only armored units were UN controlled (French or Belgian as I recall) and the bloody mess in Mogadishu was only ended when the US finally managed to get them up off their butts and into action. Somalia was led by the UN and US backed, not the other way around.
True, but this was because the US decreased commitment dramatically in the process altogether, when power was handed over to the UN. asically they went in and then tried to leave. But Somalia was a disater for the UN also.
And by referencing Kosovo, I'm not talking about what the west did but about what the Serbs and Albanians did to each other.
The campaign in Kosovo was a NATO thing, supported by various UN resolutions. I do not follow your crityicism of the UN here.
Nice but unsupported. Is it true? We've no idea.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040209-060443-5307r.htm
Do you honestly think that someone cannot be opportunistic enough to work with other groups if it benefits them? The timing is highly suspicious. Extremely so. Coincidence? Do you really believe that these events are unconnected and just 'happened' to occur at the same time?
First of all, the events I stated above (the death of the contractors, etc.) happened within a short span of each other - those events in Fallujah were not connected to the protests by Sadr's followers. The coalition responded to these events and the fighting with Sadr's militia/insurgents by moving against Sadr while attempting to lockdown Fallujah at the same time. That is why the events seem so planned adn connected. Do I believe that Fallujah and Sadr were strategically in cahoots? No. It was two front offensive by coalition forces (not in literal terms - there was fighting in other cities, as well).
This message last edited by Monotonous Mantra on 4/15/2004 at 6:26:19 PM.
