Sunni & Baathists unite against Al-Qaeda

[gregimotis]

O.K. you presented you view point very well. I am sorry to see that no other fourm members have joined in the discussion.

Just cause we aren't posting doesn't mean we aren't reading.

[Tom Yum]

I'm following your suggestion that we're fighting an enemy (like the Nazi power) that's bent on world domination - I can see that, but I believe that its the radical element of Islam rather than the religion itself as a unified evil empire.

In World War 2, the entire nation of Japan was seen as a unified evil empire using their imperial military to rape, pillage and destroy other Asian nations and nearly invade our own, whereas the enemy in Iraq (post-Saddam) and Afghanistan isn't Islam as an entity itself with a large conventional military; its a collection of many small, independent radical elements using violence to enforce their brand of Islam on the rest of the Middle East.

Moderate Muslim leaders suggest that the way to curb violence in their countries is through constructive dialogues with the west; meanwhile the more radical leaders would rather try to kill anyone they deem an "infidel" with chemical weapons and explosives. They are somewhat polarized, aren't they?

The 4th Generation Warfare tactics make it even seem less like a World War 2 and more like Vietnam (but I wasn't there, so I'm speaking strictly form what I've read).

[DickHardman]

a lot of these groups were not even around before we launched the war on terrorism. saddam may have been bad, but he for sure didnt have 40+ different extremists groups operating in his country. many of these groups have formed as a direct response to our invasion of iraq and some of the mistakes we have made there. im not trying to stir any argument, but thats a simple fact.

its easy to blame it all on them, but the fact is people were not blowing up children with chlorine bombs in iraq before 2003. iraq was terrible, but there were not ieds on every street corner and cars rigged with bombs roaming the cities at all hours looking for people to plow into. there werent streams of militants and volunteer fighters and smuggled weapons pouring into the country from every open border until we invaded the country.

these people are dangerous, and some of them cannot be compromised with. but we also have to admit that some of the mistakes we have made in the middle east have contributed to this.

[Tom Yum]

I'm going to write more, but I'm working a double shift that started at midnight yesterday...

[DickHardman]

Dick, speaking from a strategic standpoint, 40 splinter groups with limited or no cohesiveness are preferable any day to a government power with total control. Little groups that can't decide whether it's more beneficial to fight each other or attack us are nowhere near the threat that one big cohesive enemy would be.

isnt it worse for us? saddams conventional forces were defeated easily. its these splinter groups that are all operating on their own that have given us a hard time in iraq. they are they ones that are more elusive, and they are the ones that are sabatoging everything.

there are now many more terrorist groups than there were before 2003. more people out to get us than before. that is not beneficial to us.

The press does a good job of whipping everyone up into a frenzy over how terrible the insurgent groups are. They are a real danger, but they are nothing compared to Saddam and his government. Not one of those spolinter groups could, for example, order a coordinated genocide of people in a far-flung corner of Iraq and see it carried out. Their influence is limited totheir own neighborhoods. Tough as it may be to believe, that is a plus.

that doesnt change the fact that some of our mistakes and policies in iraq have caused people to want revenge on us and join terrorist groups.

And you're right. Terrorists weren't blowing people up with truck bombs full of chlorine when Saddam was in power. Saddam himself was doing it using mustard gas, and his death tolls were exponentially higher than what we see today.

actually, the number of casualties caused by the war in iraq may be higher than those caused by saddams entire regime. i dont have the numbers, do you have a source for that?

[Tom Yum]

In other words, fixing the woes of a single country or group of countries is not enough to put an end to the "movement." One has to effect a change in political Islam to put pressure on the fringe and eliminate safe-havens. That makes it a significantly greater threat than the Communists in Vietnam ever were.

I see what you mean. All the events in the GWOT leading up to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were more damaging to American soil than what we publicly know about the Cold War.

[DickHardman]

new clip

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bdc_1181357307

this clip here shows more footage of iraqi insurgents and US troops fighting alongside eachother against al qaeda.

[Tom Yum]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Iraqi Special Police and the Iraqi Army get into a scuffle.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=481_1181437041&p=1

We never see what eventually happens; ideally they exhausted themselves and decide to eat kabobs together...

As I understand it, the Iraqi Army is composed of mostly poor Shiite Muslims, whereas the Iraqi Special Police force is composed of Sunni Muslims, some with ties to Saddam's former Baathist party.