TR, let me see if I have this straight. It's not the political agenda that matters. It's that they hide among religion to give weight to their barbarity therefore all people of faith are responsible for that person or groups barbarity. Before I continue any further with this ridiculous assumption I would like to know if this is a social constant for all occasions or just when talking about religion. You see, if I'm to be responsible for your personal decisions and your actions I want to meet the sob who's responsible for mine. I've been carrying his weight for fifty years and I'm looking for some back pay.

Justoneperson

The insurgents who aren’t fighting with Al Qaeda for a greater Islamic state, but are merely fighting for control of Iraq are mostly labelled nationalist groups. In my opinion anyone who deliberately targets civilians for death is a terrorist. Insurgents who use the civilian population as a shield are almost as bad. Fighting should be done in uniform.

I called the 1920’s brigades ‘nationalist groups’ because they are against targeting of civilians and suicide bombings. I don’t think you can be a nationalist if you are trying to kill the civilians of your country.

You said” then why the @*^% did we impose the sanctions and then invade them?”

The people didn’t control Iraqi policy, Saddam did. Anyone who disagreed with him met a most unpleasant fate.

I think you are right. A small civil war is occurring, with the backing of neighbouring countries who are all taking advantage in order to extend their influence in the region. Most have a vested interest in keeping Iraq weak and divided.

However a full blown civil war, like in Bosnia Herzegovina, would be catastrophic. It could very easily pull in many Middle Eastern countries, thus becoming a very dangerous conflict indeed.

Are you prepared to be held responsible if leaving Iraq prematurely has the result that 100 times more people die in a full blown civil war. Would you stand up and be counted if this policy directly led to the region descending into a major international conflict?

I agree that things aren’t great in Iraq, but I think we should be sure that there is no possibility that we can help the Iraqis achieve their aims, before we pick up our bat and head home. Especially considering how much blood, sweat and tears we have invested together. To leave them in an even worse state from our leaving, would be unconscionable.

It leaves me cold to think of the number of people who want us to lose in Iraq, just so that they can be proved right about the flawed decision to go in the first place

Are ‘nationalist groups’ fighting the coalition?why?
Then there is the ‘civil war’ shia killing sunni / sunni shia.
AlQaeda and covert ‘western forces’ killing whom?
(Weren’t suicide bombings practised by one or more of those Zionist terrorist groups Haganah, Irgun and/or SternGang in the 50’s)
Then you agree the WW2 bombings of Japanese/German cities were acts of terrorism.
“Fighting should be done in uniform” >>Paul.L where are you going with this one?Something doesn’t sound right here.
Regarding sanctions, why did we punish the Iraqi citizens?
USA wants a stable Iraq for its armed forces, move them from Saudi, to control its oil (original name forthe invasion ‘Operation Iraqi Liberation’ OIL)
”..a full blown civil war...It could...pull in many Middle Eastern countries, thus becoming a very dangerous conflict indeed” >>don’t you think it’s a very dangerous conflict now.
”..leaving Iraq prematurely has the result that 100 times more people die in a full blown civil war. Would you stand up and be counted if this policy directly led to the region descending into a major international conflict?” >>what crystal ball you using, methinks the coalition have kickstarted a civil war, maybe you were looking in the wrong side of the ball, maybe it’s 100 times more people will die if we don’t get out now.
” .. we can help the Iraqis achieve their aims” >>whose aims (neo-cons for one) ..
“ .. considering how much blood, sweat and tears we have invested together” >>what a waste, Cheney and the neo-cons have a lot of blood on their hands (Blair and Howard who must have known about the deceit also).
“unconscionable” >>had to look that one up
”It leaves me cold to think of the number of people who want us to lose in Iraq, just so that they can be proved right about the flawed decision to go in the first place” >> very careful Paul.L, firstly what is a loss exactly in Iraq as I think it is a loss right now, how many dead civilians, how many dead coalition troops “cannon fodder”, and what exactly are you implying?

Justoneperson

I agree Iraq is a limited civil war. But it is a minor skirmish when compared to Rwanda, 500,000 people killed in 100 days, the majority by machete. Or Bosnia, 200,000 killed in 3 years of fighting, 10,000 in two weeks in Srebrenica. A full blown civil war in Iraq would be worse than either. Almost all Iraqis are armed with modern weapons. If the coalition left tomorrow Iraq WOULD descend into total civil war.. Neighbouring countries would become involved, thus widening the war and sending the region into major conflict. That would be truly disastrous.

A loss, exactly, in Iraq would be the coalition leaving before
1. an adequate level of services was restored (functioning administration)
2. a stable security environment was achieved ( functioning police )
3. it was able to defend itself from its enemies,( functioning defence)

The implication is that many people don’t care that leaving hastily might cause 100 times the casualties that leaving when the job is done, might incur. They are more concerned with the original decision to go to Iraq .

Up until the guerilla wars post ww2, any combatant caught out of uniform was shot as a spy/saboteur

No Jewish groups were involved in suicide bombing as far as I know. However Irgun was involved in the bombing of the King David Hotel, which housed the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the CID. Nearly 100 people were killed.

No the acts of area bombing in ww2 weren’t terrorism. The accuracy of allied bombing was such that point targets were never an option. It was area bombing or no bombing. Area bombing TODAY would be a terrorist act.

Sanctions were the only solution the UN could come up with. They were designed to force Saddam to allow inspectors back. Only the assembling of an army in Kuwait actually worked though . Unsurprisingly Saddam managed to subvert the sanctions process, passing the cost on to his citizens.

OIL? – Are you suggesting that was a Freudian slip? I thought you were smarter than that.

'TR, let me see if I have this straight. It's not the political agenda that matters. It's that they hide among religion to give weight to their barbarity therefore all people of faith are responsible for that person or groups barbarity.'

That's right aqvarivs. Islamic liberals and Western apologists are way too silent on the matter of Islamic radicalism. I would call them gutless wonders. Here is a classic case in point;

'How radical preachers turned a young man into a suicide bomber'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/student/news/article640346.ece

It is high time that Islam, and monotheism generally, are called to account and made to justify their existence.

Paul.L is there any facts/educated opinions(as non-partisan as you can get) to say if the coaltion leaves now (I mean a planned withdrawal not everyone tomorrow but starting to be actioned now) the situation would escalate any more than if they stayed on? I’d love someone to give me some references. I can only guess on what I’ve read it will be truly disastrous either way and won’t the ‘breeding ground’ for non-uniformed terrorists escalate if the coalition remains?
There doesn’t appear to be supporting evidence for 1. (functioning administration),
2. ( functioning police), 3.( functioning defence) likely to occur, again I’d love references to facts/educated opinions(as non-partisan as you can get) if you’ve got them.
The coalition movers & shakers should be held responsible for the original decision, if the us intelligence services were given ‘orders’ to find supporting evidence to fit the neo-cons hegemonists agenda
Who are these cold-blooded people who don’t give a damn about the future of the people of the Iraqi regions. I too will certainly support you in criticising same.
The underground groups WW2 should be denounced? Sorry not sure of what you’re saying here.
Please correct me if this list is wrong (or any part thereof) apart from the King David Hotel, what about
Sharafat,Feb.7,1951.
DeirYassin,April10,1948.
Falameh,April2,1951.
Naseruddine,April14,1948.
Quibya,Oct14,1953.
Carmel,April20,1948.
Nahalin,March,28,1954.
Al-Qabu,May1,1948.
Gaza,Feb.28,1955.
BeitKiras,May3,1948.
KhanYunis,May31,1955.
Beitkhoury,May5,1948.
KhanYunisAgain,Aug.31,1955
Az-Zaytoun,May6,1948.
Tiberia,Dec.11,1955.
WadiAraba,May13,1950.
As-Sabha,Nov.2,1955.
GazaAgain,April5,1956.
Houssan,Sept.25,1956.
Rafa,Aug.16,1956.
Qalqilyah,Oct.10,1956.
Ar-Rahwa, Sept.12,1956.
Kahr Kassem,Oct.29,1956.
Gharandal,Sept.13,1956.
GazaStrip,Nov.1956.
GazaStrip,Nov.1956.
Yes/I’m/aware/a/list/of/terrorist/events/perpetrated/on/the/Jewish/peoples/could/just/as/easily/be/made
Again/I’m/saying/it/isn’t/all/one/way,/the/way/western/mega/media/portray/it
Paul.L definitely disagree with you on ww2 targeted allied bombing of civilians, this one we will never agree on obviously.
Again correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t the ‘west’ aware of the sanctions effects?
I/never/meant/to/imply/I/thought/it/was/a/Freudian/slip/just/an/embarrassing/gaffe/which/was/quickly/altered (it took ~two weeks before they changed it to OIF, didn’t it?)
Me smart, IQ of 127 (well in the middle of the bell curve methinks), just enough to make me question when something doesn’t add up