Are People Killing Each Other in Iraq Because of Domestic Opposition to the War? (1 Viewer)

[Cremaster77]

The claim is repeatedly made by supporters of the war that any publicly expressed opposition "emboldens the enemy" and "undermines our efforts in the war". So the question is simple. Are there more Iraqis killing each other and our troops due to opposition in the US to the war, or would these people be killing anyway?

 

[dragonslayer]

they are killing each other because we invaded and destroyed the country and its government. We wiped out the government which was non partisan and kept the country stable. Sadam and his sons were nasty characters. They were not murdering millions of folk the way the Bush Administration propaganda claims. They are killing Americans because we are the hated invaders. Americans are getting killed by both Shia and Sunni.

Bush is responsible for as many deaths in Iraq than Sadam. Amnesty international claims that there has been over 400,000 people die since we invaded.

 

[Moot]

The claim is repeatedly made by supporters of the war that any publicly expressed opposition "emboldens the enemy" and "undermines our efforts in the war". So the question is simple. Are there more Iraqis killing each other and our troops due to opposition in the US to the war, or would these people be killing anyway?

Nothing emboldens an ememy more than attacking and forcefully occupying his country.

So if the pro-war supporters think that public criticism of the war emboldens the enemy, then what do they think killing thousands of Iraqi citizens and occupying their country is doing?

The supporters of the war also claimed that publically expressed opposition emboldened the enemy in Vietnam too. But that shouldn't be too surprising since both wars used the same advisors. So these same advisors think public criticism is a lesson learned from Vietnam and have tried real hard to not to allow public criticism of the Iraq war from the very beginning.

In the first days leading up to the war in Iraq, they tried not to show the world wide protests and public anti-war rallies on the MSM. During the invasion, they imbedded journalists with the troops and told them what to say. They tried to dissolve the Whitehouse press corps to keep them from asking the hard questions. They wouldn't allow the flag draped coffins to be photographed or show the fallen troops funerals or even allow the public to see the wounded as they returned home. They used the media to smear and ridicule the anti-war critics and pumped out pro-war propaganda from the Pentagon and Whitehouse. It seemed to work in the beginning.

But now, probably because of the internet, it is too hard for the public to ignore the carnage of this war of choice. So in a way, the pro-war mongers are right. Because just like Vietnam, growing public opposition to the war is a sign the war is not going to last as long as they would have liked. But then, anything short of an eternal war, is too short for them.

So if this war is a rhetorical repeat of Vietnam, then we can probably expect the pro-war mongers to ignore the public criticism and instead escalate the war, killing thousands more before a complete withdrawal.

 

[jamesrage]

The claim is repeatedly made by supporters of the war that any publicly expressed opposition "emboldens the enemy" and "undermines our efforts in the war". So the question is simple. Are there more Iraqis killing each other and our troops due to opposition in the US to the war, or would these people be killing anyway?

These people are killing each because they want control and they want to wipe each other out.They know the US is nothing to fear because of the fact the rat liberal media would tar and feather our troops if they tried to maintain any real control.

 

[saggyjones]

These people are killing each because they want control and they want to wipe each other out.They know the US is nothing to fear because of the fact the rat liberal media would tar and feather our troops if they tried to maintain any real control.

What, in your opinion, is real control?

 

[jamesrage]

What, in your opinion, is real control?

Real control is dragging these militia/terrorist organization members out in the middle of the street and putting bullet in their heads,real control is bombing these scum no matter where the hell they are regardless if they are in a mosque,funeral,graveyard or some other place a pc ***** might bitch about.

 

[saggyjones]

Real control is dragging these militia/terrorist organization members out in the middle of the street and putting bullet in their heads,real control is bombing these scum no matter where the hell they are regardless if they are in a mosque,funeral,graveyard or some other place a pc ***** might bitch about.

Isn't that what the troops doing?

And would you support bombing a Christian church (not that there are any in Iraq) to kill 15 terrorists? What about a hospital filled with citizens to kill 20 terrorists? I'm just wondering the extent of your zeal.

 

[jamesrage]

Isn't that what the troops doing?

I wish.This war might be over by now if they were allowed to do that.

And would you support bombing a Christian church (not that there are any in Iraq) to kill 15 terrorists? What about a hospital filled with citizens to kill 20 terrorists? I'm just wondering the extent of your zeal.

Yes I would support bombing those places in order to wipe out the terrorist.Those 15-2o terrorist might wipe out way more people if they were allowed to get away.

 

[saggyjones]

I wish.This war might be over by now if they were allowed to do that.

Yes I would support bombing those places in order to wipe out the terrorist.Those 15-2o terrorist might wipe out way more people if they were allowed to get away.

Wow you are really intent on killing the terrorists, but I see your logic, even if I don't completely agree with it.


Back to the thread topic, I agree that the different religious sects are fighting for power. It's ridiculous to suggest that anti-war arguments are causing fighting or increases in fighting. If anything, it would cause less hatred toward Americans because it would make the U.S. seem less unified in the goal to destroy Muslims (this is the Iraqi extremist perspective). Also, they would see many Americans as less heathen-ish (?) and that would give less reason for the Iraqi people to support these sects.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

QUIET!!!!! They’ll hear you!

:shock: *rapidly looks around like a man with hyperactive paranoia*

Think only HAPPY thoughts, NEGATIVITY only emboldens the enemy!:fueltofir


:roll:

 

[jamesrage]

Wow you are really intent on killing the terrorists, but I see your logic, even if I don't completely agree with it.

Did you expect me to change my mind because you brought up a church or hospital?Killing those terrorist will have a greater benefit than the preservation of some building.

Back to the thread topic, I agree that the different religious sects are fighting for power. It's ridiculous to suggest that anti-war arguments are causing fighting or increases in fighting.

Its logical the violence is not because of anti-war sentiment or anti-US sentiment.These people have killed more of each other than have of coalition forces.If these militias and terrorist were smart they would keep things quiet to give the US a sense of of accomplishing progress and wait until the coalition forces packed their **** up and left and then go nuts trying to kill each other.

 

[Hatuey]

QUIET!!!!! They’ll hear you!

:shock: *rapidly looks around like a man with hyperactive paranoia*

Think only HAPPY thoughts, NEGATIVITY only emboldens the enemy!:fueltofir


:roll:

Easter Bunnies Think Easter Bunnies. Works for me.

 

[saggyjones]

Did you expect me to change my mind because you brought up a church or hospital?Killing those terrorist will have a greater benefit than the preservation of some building.

Well with the hospital I meant the preservation of civilian lives, not a building. With the church I was just wondering.

Its logical the violence is not because of anti-war sentiment or anti-US sentiment.These people have killed more of each other than have of coalition forces.If these militias and terrorist were smart they would keep things quiet to give the US a sense of of accomplishing progress and wait until the coalition forces packed their **** up and left and then go nuts trying to kill each other.

If fighting stopped, The US would help the Kurds get independence, which would leave the Sunnis and the Shiites still fighting over Iraq. But I think it's more complicated than simply waiting for the US to leave.

 

[jamesrage]

Well with the hospital I meant the preservation of civilian lives, not a building.

Those terrorist can potentially wipe out more civilains than the ones in the hospital.

With the church I was just wondering.

A church is just a building.

If fighting stopped, The US would help the Kurds get independence, which would leave the Sunnis and the Shiites still fighting over Iraq. But I think it's more complicated than simply waiting for the US to leave.

I think after awhile the nutjobs will kill each other off,at this rate they might succeed in doing that sometime soon.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

they are killing each other because we invaded and destroyed the country and its government. We wiped out the government which was non partisan and kept the country stable.

Non-partisan? Are you insane? The sectarian violence under Saddam was just state sponsored ever hear of the Al-Anfal campaign.

Sadam and his sons were nasty characters. They were not murdering millions of folk the way the Bush Administration propaganda claims.

Ya tell that to the Kurds and the Shia.

They are killing Americans because we are the hated invaders.

The Iraqi people are happy to be free it is a small minority that is doing the killing, good to see that you take the side of thirty to fifty thousand Islamic Fascist murderers over twenty four million Iraqi's though.

Bush is responsible for as many deaths in Iraq than Sadam. Amnesty international claims that there has been over 400,000 people die since we invaded.

And they base that figure on what exactly?

 

[saggyjones]

Those terrorist can potentially wipe out more civilains than the ones in the hospital.

A church is just a building.

I was just curious on your views of those.

I think after awhile the nutjobs will kill each other off,at this rate they might succeed in doing that sometime soon.

They won't kill each other off because there are too many of them. Insurgents fighting insurgents doesn't work very well for either side because they just don't have the firepower to take out the other side without blowing up a bunch of civilians, which would make the people hate the winning side and defeat the purpose of their war.

 

[nort_12345]

iraqis are killing each other because the two groups both want power. the sunnis and the shiites. when we went into iraq, we wanted to remove saddam and the sunnis from power (which we did). but then we figured out that the shiites are worse than the sunnis. so now we want the sunnis to win but it looks like the shiites are going to kick their ***. the kurds just want their own little piece of territory in the north which they have pretty much established. so if the sunnis get control of the government, then the US might be able to control the oil. but if the shiites win the gov., then iran will come in and control the oil which is what looks like is going to happen. that would be bad for the US.

 

[Jay R]

That hit the nail on the head, well done nort.

In laymans terms the violence in Iraq has little to do with the continued presence of coalition forces. Rather it is a conflict for control of the nation by rival factions, each representing a major branch of Islam. They're still targetting American and British personelle, but their primary concern is territorial domination and influence, hence the easy switch from terrorist tactics employed against coalition forces (Guerrilla warfare, resistance, call it what you will) to terrorist attacks against civilians and state infrastructure (Guerrilla warfare, civil war, same difference).

The solution? From our perspective in London and Washington the only solution now can be to split the nation. It should eliminate the majority of the bloodshed, providing theres a thin green line of our troops to keep the Sunni's and Shi'ites apart (A thin blue line of UN helmets would of course be completely useless.) and crucially it denies Iran and Syria the carve up they are looking for. It will also acknowledge and solidify the Kurdish state, which is important as they are about the only faction that can still be considered pro-American. Granted that will really piss off Turkey (Iran too, by the way), but I'm a European, I can live with that.

Anything else is going to result in the carnage seen in the breakdown of the former Yugoslavia, we will be repeating a mistake if we continue to try and hold together a nation made up of fundamentally opposed religious sects and tribal groupings. After all, Iraq is not a real nation with any meaningful history, it was and is an Anglo-French construct, part of our carve up of the Ottoman empire post-WW1. The British (We're usually to blame in some way!:mrgreen: ) drew the lines on the map for the sake of our oil interests, and getting one over on the French, who got stuck with Syria I think.