Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: NYT-As U.S. Gains in Iraq, Rebels Go to Afghanistan

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2807184]This is simply not true. Maliki went to Iran FIRST to ask for Tehrans intervention in the matter. Maliki knew that Sadr had (and still has) a strong political hold on the south. He did not want to get into a fire fight with Sadr. It was only after Tehran showed that they would side with Maliki that Maliki could maneuver. You need to get your facts straight[/QUOTE]

    You need to get your facts straight, the attack on Basra had nothing to do with a greenlight from Iran. The JAM was entrenched in Basra with sniper nests, roadside bombs, and traps waiting for the ISF to attack, the ISF did, got bogged down and fought for six days. After close to 1,000 JAM fighters were killed [B]al-Sadr requested a ceasefire[/B], then the Iraqi Government sent a diplomatic delegation to Iran to broker the deal.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2807193]You are wrong. As long as Maliki has the backing of Iran and the Iraqi Army continues to be made up primarily of the Iranian backed Shia terrorist group the Badr Army, Maliki doesnt have much to worry about regarding the Sunni Awakening. They will be crushed. And when you consider that Malikis Shia enemies hate the Sunni Awkening just as much as Maliki, Maliki has even less to worry about. Its not religious zeal Maliki is acting on, its a deep rooted hatred based on hundreds of years of history that we ignored when invading Iraq. Its also about survival. Eliminate your enemies. The Shia have done a very good job of that.[/QUOTE]

    Again this makes little sense, why would a government, having just gotten out of a civil war through political means with the Sunni Awakening seek to reignite that war? If they couldn't weaken the insurgency in 2006 with Coalition help then their chances are infinitely smaller now when we leave. Maliki will have to integrate the Awakening fighters into military jobs or guarantee civilian jobs for them if the ISF can't take in more soldiers and policemen (the ISF already numbers 600,000 strong, 2.3% of the nation's populous).

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2807205]You need to get your facts straight, the attack on Basra had nothing to do with a greenlight from Iran. The JAM was entrenched in Basra with sniper nests, roadside bombs, and traps waiting for the ISF to attack, the ISF did, got bogged down and fought for six days. After close to 1,000 JAM fighters were killed [B]al-Sadr requested a ceasefire[/B], then the Iraqi Government sent a diplomatic delegation to Iran to broker the deal.[/QUOTE]

    Wrong again. Please do your homework. Maliki went to Tehran long BEFORE the cease fire was called for by Sadr. In fact it was Iran who enabled the Ceasefire.

    [url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/32055.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0401/p08s03-comv.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080414/dreyfuss[/url]

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2807211]Again this makes little sense, why would a government, having just gotten out of a civil war through political means with the Sunni Awakening seek to reignite that war? If they couldn't weaken the insurgency in 2006 with Coalition help then their chances are infinitely smaller now when we leave. Maliki will have to integrate the Awakening fighters into military jobs or guarantee civilian jobs for them if the ISF can't take in more soldiers and policemen (the ISF already numbers 600,000 strong, 2.3% of the nation's populous).[/QUOTE]

    The Iraqi government didnt get out of a civil war with the sunni awakening through political means. The Sunni awakening was BRIBED by the USA to stop fighting with AQI and against the USA but to join the USA against. The agreement was with USA not witth Malikis government.

    Tell me, how is maliki gong to guarantee these guys (who are seen as a threat and traitors by most Shia Iraqis) civilian jobs when the Iraqi unemployment rate is between 30%-60%??

    [url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/103/story/53290.html[/url]

    Also, its not that the ISF can not take on these guys. Its that they do not want to. Do you have any clue as to who is really running the ISF?? Ever hear of the Badr Corps??

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2807269]Wrong again. Please do your homework. Maliki went to Tehran long BEFORE the cease fire was called for by Sadr. In fact it was Iran who enabled the Ceasefire.

    [url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/32055.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0401/p08s03-comv.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080414/dreyfuss[/url][/QUOTE]

    Great, an article from The Nation about how Sadr and Iran won the battle based on what an Iraqi reporter from the NYT said; an article from the CSM spanning half a page about how it was a stalemate and that Basra showed that the Iraqi government was undemocratic; the last article is fine but here are the facts.

    -the ISF controlled half the city and was holding it's ground by the time the ceasefire was enacted
    -The ceasefire merely hastened an inevitable defeat: "a large-scale retreat of the Mahdi Army in the oil-rich Iraqi port city because of low morale and because ammunition was low due to the closure of the Iranian border."
    -Maliki continued to order the ISF to attack and arrest JAM members in Basra and Sadr City after the ceasefire took place
    [url]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726489,00.html?xid=rss-topstories[/url]
    [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL30714216[/url]

    Do I doubt Iran had a hand in ending the fighting? No. Do I believe the ISF would have lost Basra had there been no ceasefire? Absolutely not. Do I believe the Battle for Basra was a victory? Yes.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2807278]The Iraqi government didnt get out of a civil war with the sunni awakening through political means. The Sunni awakening was BRIBED by the USA to stop fighting with AQI and against the USA but to join the USA against. The agreement was with USA not witth Malikis government.

    Tell me, how is maliki gong to guarantee these guys (who are seen as a threat and traitors by most Shia Iraqis) civilian jobs when the Iraqi unemployment rate is between 30%-60%??

    [url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/103/story/53290.html[/url]

    Also, its not that the ISF can not take on these guys. Its that they do not want to. Do you have any clue as to who is really running the ISF?? Ever hear of the Badr Corps??[/QUOTE]

    The Badr Brigades are one of many militia groups that holds power in the ISF, that being said, plenty of ISF brigades, namely the Hillah Brigade are Sunni or mixed Sunni and Shi'a. If the ISF wants to grow to 700,000 strong through integration then it will take time, if they accept 20% (15,000) then the U.S can continue to pay them as paramilitaries. There's no way Maliki will let this civil war resume, he's not bent on murdering Sunnis or denying them any place in the political process because he knows Iraq will crumble if he pursues that course.

    In short, let's not make proclamations about this process until definitive action has been taken.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2807460]Great, an article from The Nation about how Sadr and Iran won the battle based on what an Iraqi reporter from the NYT said; an article from the CSM spanning half a page about how it was a stalemate and that Basra showed that the Iraqi government was undemocratic; the last article is fine but here are the facts.

    -the ISF controlled half the city and was holding it's ground by the time the ceasefire was enacted
    -The ceasefire merely hastened an inevitable defeat: "a large-scale retreat of the Mahdi Army in the oil-rich Iraqi port city because of low morale and because ammunition was low due to the closure of the Iranian border."
    -Maliki continued to order the ISF to attack and arrest JAM members in Basra and Sadr City after the ceasefire took place
    [url]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726489,00.html?xid=rss-topstories[/url]
    [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL30714216[/url]

    Do I doubt Iran had a hand in ending the fighting? No. Do I believe the ISF would have lost Basra had there been no ceasefire? Absolutely not. Do I believe the Battle for Basra was a victory? Yes.[/QUOTE]

    Do you doubt that the ISF would have had a victory w/o US intervention and if Iran chose not to back Maliki and not push Sadr into a cease fire??

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2807468]The Badr Brigades are one of many militia groups that holds power in the ISF, that being said, plenty of ISF brigades, namely the Hillah Brigade are Sunni or mixed Sunni and Shi'a. If the ISF wants to grow to 700,000 strong through integration then it will take time, if they accept 20% (15,000) then the U.S can continue to pay them as paramilitaries. There's no way Maliki will let this civil war resume, he's not bent on murdering Sunnis or denying them any place in the political process because he knows Iraq will crumble if he pursues that course.

    In short, let's not make proclamations about this process until definitive action has been taken.[/QUOTE]


    The Badr Brigades have the largest % of forces in the ISF and the high ranking officers in the ISF are predominantly members of the ISF.

    What you dont realize is that the ISF has no interest in incorporating more than 20% of the Sunni Awakening. That 20% itself was a concession. You are wrong about Maliki as well. He is bent on murdering Sunnis and has done so using several Shia Militias, most notably the Badr Corps. He has no need for incorporating Sunnis into the political process, his actions thus far has shown that. Iraq will not crumble w/o a Sunni presence.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2807492]Do you doubt that the ISF would have had a victory w/o US intervention and if Iran chose not to back Maliki and not push Sadr into a cease fire??[/QUOTE]

    No I don't doubt that, they were numerically superior, had Basra under a lock down and a curfew, and had made steady gains before stalling on the 30th of March. Reinforcements arrived soon after the initial push bogged down, the JAM was running out of munitions, fighters, and supplies as well.

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2807511]The Badr Brigades have the largest % of forces in the ISF and the high ranking officers in the ISF are predominantly members of the ISF.

    What you dont realize is that the ISF has no interest in incorporating more than 20% of the Sunni Awakening. That 20% itself was a concession. You are wrong about Maliki as well. He is bent on murdering Sunnis and has done so using several Shia Militias, most notably the Badr Corps. He has no need for incorporating Sunnis into the political process, his actions thus far has shown that. Iraq will not crumble w/o a Sunni presence.[/QUOTE]

    Why wouldn't it? The Sunnis will be sheltered, funded, and armed by Syria and the K.S.A. Attacks against the ISF and Shi'a government would be relentless and Iraq would return to 2006 form once more. Maliki won't do this, he will quietly concede more in the interest of stability. Knowing the consequences of de-Baathification in 2003 why would we allow the same thing to take place once more?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us