Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TLF

Nelson says kill him

Recommended Posts

so i was listening to NPR, and Ben Nelson was talking about the Gates confirmation hearings. Apparently, Nelson thinks one of the things that needs to be done in iraq is to kill Al Sadr, an anti-american cleric in Iraq. thoughts? "take him out", were Nelson's exact words.

 

thought i would add a link to the wikipedia entry on al sadr, so we all know who's being assassinated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I really know about Al Sadr is that Newsweek has him pegged as the next big bad guy in Iraq. They had an ominous-looking cover spread where he was placed on a red and black background, snarling, with the words "The Most Dangerous Man in Iraq" behind him in big bold letters.

 

I thought it seemed somewhat melodramatic... Unless there's something really special about this guy, I don't know how much difference it makes who's in charge of our official "enemies" (ie, insurgents and "terrorists").

 

Edit: Haha, I got neg rep for this post that said "homo." Apparantly being skeptical about scaremongering is homosexual now...?

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so i was listening to NPR, and Ben Nelson was talking about the Gates confirmation hearings. Apparently, Nelson thinks one of the things that needs to be done in iraq is to kill Al Sadr, an anti-american cleric in Iraq. thoughts? "take him out", were Nelson's exact words.

 

thought i would add a link to the wikipedia entry on al sadr, so we all know who's being assassinated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr

 

Hell yea, why wouldnt you? He is A. Terrorist B. Creates a hostlity for soldiers in Iraq.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hell yea, why wouldnt you? He is A. Terrorist B. Creates a hostlity for soldiers in Iraq.

 

Because it would have the same effect as removing Saddam from power. It wouldn't change anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it would have the same effect as removing Saddam from power. It wouldn't change anything.

 

Good point, so we should just leave horrible assholes in power because removing them doesn't improve my own situation. Great use of logic there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

removing saddam did change something. It did make life better for the Kurds and freed them from many genocidal efforts of saddam. While insurgency has dramatically increased since the fall of saddam it is hardly to blame for the fall of saddam. There are many reasons for the insurgency in Iraq but getting rid of saddam isn't one. Thanks for your input. Getting rid of Al-sadr would actually change things, while an assaination by the United States probably wouldn't be the best option possibly a assination cover-up by the cia would probably be the best option when dealing with assaination.

 

 

P.S.

 

You can't compare killing Al-sadr to the arrest of Saddam because they are two completely different things. Thanks for your input though i always appreicate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point, so we should just leave horrible assholes in power because removing them doesn't improve my own situation. Great use of logic there.

Our president is sure working hard to get rid of Osama :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
removing saddam did change something. It did make life better for the Kurds and freed them from many genocidal efforts of saddam. While insurgency has dramatically increased since the fall of saddam it is hardly to blame for the fall of saddam. There are many reasons for the insurgency in Iraq but getting rid of saddam isn't one. Thanks for your input. Getting rid of Al-sadr would actually change things, while an assaination by the United States probably wouldn't be the best option possibly a assination cover-up by the cia would probably be the best option when dealing with assaination.

 

 

P.S.

 

You can't compare killing Al-sadr to the arrest of Saddam because they are two completely different things. Thanks for your input though i always appreicate it.

Name one reason for the insurgency in Iraq right now that isnt because the US setting out to topple Saddam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Name one reason for the insurgency in Iraq right now that isnt because the US setting out to topple Saddam.

 

"Saddam was an evil man and had to be removed..."

 

PWND MOTHER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Name one reason for the insurgency in Iraq right now that isnt because the US setting out to topple Saddam.

 

Umm.... let me see the religious differences between the sunnis and the shi'tes. Hm... also thats not point that i made at all i said that no insurgency came from toppling saddam, the insurgency actually came from other things. Also way to ignore the other facts in my post i really like how you did that. YAY for people who justify genocide!!!!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the part where anyone tried to justify genocide. Nice try, though.

 

"Taking out" al-Sadr would accomplish a few things. It would remove a man who is fairly powerful Shiites, breeding more hostility. It would remove a man in charge of the Mahdi Army, breeding more violence. It would be a symbolic kill for Bush to brag about, but not really accomplishing anything.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
removing saddam did change something. It did make life better for the Kurds and freed them from many genocidal efforts of saddam.

 

I'm not denying that there was a genocide against the Kurds, but when the media discusses the issue, it refers to the time during the late 1980s when over 100,000 Kurds were killed. Don't try to claim that removing Saddam in 2003 somehow improved the lives of those that really needed our help 15 years ago. Removing Saddam in '03 does nothing for the irreversible tragedy of genocide in the late 80s. *edit* I'll even go as far to say that the genocide continues with Hussein gone. The Kurds are terribly under-represented in the government. They are constantly being silenced by the majority in Iraq. To say that the U.S. is responsible for "freeing" the Kurds is a pretty conceited notion. We didn't do shit for them when they needed it most.

 

The conditions of many Iraqi citizens are worse now than they were before the invasion. I had a better article, that I can't find at the moment, but this is just one example relating to health care in Iraq. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904962.ece

 

While insurgency has dramatically increased since the fall of saddam it is hardly to blame for the fall of saddam. There are many reasons for the insurgency in Iraq but getting rid of saddam isn't one.

 

You're proving my point here. The fall of Saddam had absolutely no consequence on the insurgency in Iraq. Everyone thought that removing him from power would magically make the terrorists disappear. Clearly, that logic was wrong.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Eat shit.

 

Getting rid of Al-sadr would actually change things

 

I have empirical evidence on my side. This warrantless claim is false. Cross-apply my argument from above.

 

while an assaination by the United States probably wouldn't be the best option possibly a assination cover-up by the cia would probably be the best option when dealing with assaination.

 

Being able to play Rainbow Six: Vegas on your XBOX 360 does not make you some kind of assassination expert. Please quit acting like you have any sort of idea on how you would go about assassinating one of the most protected terrorist leaders in the world. You're in high school. Go read Harry Potter and the Goblet of the Phoenix or something.

 

You can't compare killing Al-sadr to the arrest of Saddam because they are two completely different things. Thanks for your input though i always appreicate it.

 

Care to expand on how they are any different? Your main argument is founded on the fact that removing Sadr will improve things in Iraq. It's pretty fair to assume that this is not true. Until you provide some warrant as to how these situations are different, you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm.... let me see the religious differences between the sunnis and the shi'tes. Hm... also thats not point that i made at all i said that no insurgency came from toppling saddam, the insurgency actually came from other things. Also way to ignore the other facts in my post i really like how you did that. YAY for people who justify genocide!!!!

 

There are religious differences...but Al-Sadr's cause is not to spur grief with the Sunnis. His main concern right now is the occupation of Iraq by the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
........Being able to play Rainbow Six: Vegas on your XBOX 360 does not make you some kind of assassination expert. Please quit acting like you have any sort of idea on how you would go about assassinating one of the most protected terrorist leaders in the world. You're in high school. Go read Harry Potter and the Goblet of the Phoenix or something........

 

 

I think that everyone on this thread (myself included) is vastly overestimating their ability to predict what would happen from an al-Sadr 'take out.'

 

It seems the same analysis applies to whether Iraqis are better or worse off with or without Saddam, yet you seem to think you've got a good grasp on the situation. Perhaps you do. I certainly don't.

 

Of course, just because we're all woefully unqualified to assess the situation doesn't mean we can't. I think there is certainly value from trying to do so. But lets not kid ourselves in our ability to analyze this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not denying that there was a genocide against the Kurds, but when the media discusses the issue, it refers to the time during the late 1980s when over 100,000 Kurds were killed. Don't try to claim that removing Saddam in 2003 somehow improved the lives of those that really needed our help 15 years ago. Removing Saddam in '03 does nothing for the irreversible tragedy of genocide in the late 80s. *edit* I'll even go as far to say that the genocide continues with Hussein gone. The Kurds are terribly under-represented in the government. They are constantly being silenced by the majority in Iraq. To say that the U.S. is responsible for "freeing" the Kurds is a pretty conceited notion. We didn't do shit for them when they needed it most.

 

Exactly. When reports of gas attacks on Kurdish villages started coming in they were dismissed as "Iranian propaganda." When Jalaal Talabani came to the US to lobby for sanctions on Saddam, the Iraq foreign minister cancelled his meeting with the State Department's George Schultz. Schultz rushed to appease him saying "the United States does not interfere in the internal affairs" of countries with a Kurdish population. The State Department, the Reagan White House, and the H.W. Bush White House all fought Senator Galbraith's efforts to punish Saddam for the Anfal genocide. In fact, Bush Sr. went beyond refusing sanctions, he authorized $200 million in credit for the Iraqi regime. Fucking A right?

 

While there should never be a statute of limitations on genocide, to use a genocide that ended more than 10 years earlier to justify a war seems a little ridiculous, almost mean-spirited. Especially considering people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, etc., were in government positions while it happened.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly don't.

 

Then why did you reply in the first place? :)

 

 

Of course, just because we're all woefully unqualified to assess the situation doesn't mean we can't. I think there is certainly value from trying to do so. But lets not kid ourselves in our ability to analyze this.

 

The Rainbow Six example was simply referring to "yeahitsme's" apparent ability to come up with an effective plan or most viable means for assassinating Sadr. It really had nothing to do with the rest of the discussion.

 

Also, are you claiming that Al-Sadr's assassination actually would end or at least diminish the violence in Iraq? That seems to be what you're getting at.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point, so we should just leave horrible assholes in power because removing them doesn't improve my own situation. Great use of logic there.

 

How would removing Sadr from power improve your particular situation in BF, South Dakota?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

intially, bush's failures in afghanistan are not justified by a general lack of attention (even among congressional democrats) on afghanistan. if we've learned anything from this guy it's that the president can set the agenda for a war. and in this case, he already did. if that agenda was forgotten, it's his own goddamn fault. he's certainly kept this other war on the agenda = empirical proof he could still be doing something about terrorism if that's what he was really about.

 

as far as the situation in BF sodak, nothing can improve that. but seriously, the question was never how will kill al sadr improve the situation in america. i mean, it's a question of what you buy is at the "root" of the civil war in iraq. if you think it's a power struggle between sunni, shiits, kurds, then the notion that removing one leader ends that is ridiculous. none of the involved parties have gotten any of their objectives, so there's zero reason the conflict would end. if you think the civil war is fueled by anti-americanism, then again killing al sadr doesn't address the problem. our troops are still there post his death, and in fact have just killed a political leader and so this probably causes more violence (if it's root is anti-americanism). the number of assumptions you have to make for al sadr's death to cause a significant decrease in violence are rather numerous, actually. you have to assume that his militia is directly involved in increasing violence (the most defensable assumption), that killing the head of a militia would decrease their resolve/organization, that the head wouldn't be filled in by someone else(zarqawi anyone?), and that the head isn't martyrd (increasing support/sympathy/recruitment).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why did you reply in the first place? :)

 

The idea that this thread can accurately diagnois whats going on in Iraq and hypothetical take outs, etc... is silly. Almost as silly as another thread in this forum and its pursuit of philosophical questions - as if anyone on that thread had a shot of hitting at the truth. Doesn't mean we... err... those knuckles in the New Perspective thread should stop, nor does it here.

 

I still think its great and I'd always encourage discussion. But I think you need to be honest with yourself. Do you truly believe you understand the situation in Iraq and all of its complexities to such a degree that you can accurately predict the fallout of an assassination in a couple of paragraphs? Again, doesn't mean you should stop, but you ought to think about that...

 

 

 

 

The Rainbow Six example was simply referring to "yeahitsme's" apparent ability to come up with an effective plan or most viable means for assassinating Sadr. It really had nothing to do with the rest of the discussion.

 

It has everything to do with the conversation. You contend that playing video games doesn't make one an expert on the subject matter of the game. I am arguing that experience pursuing an undergraduate degree in political science, middle eastern studies, dental hygiene, etc... or following the news as a high schooler in armchair fashion doesn't make one an expert on Middle Eastern policy.

 

I have no doubt everyone on this thread knows far more about the players and the action in Iraq than I do. But perhaps in a backwards Socratic arrogant way, the recognition that I don't know whats going on in Iraq might be the wisest approach. I don't know. Maybe you do really know the situation in and out from your many trips there, life long study of the region, its actors, and posession of intimate knowledge of essentially an infinite number of other causes that are related.

 

Again, this doesn't mean you have to throw up your hands and say you give up - that would probably be worse. But you might want to think this one over.

 

Also, are you claiming that Al-Sadr's assassination actually would end or at least diminish the violence in Iraq? That seems to be what you're getting at.

 

How could you get this out of my post? I have no idea what the effects would be. I don't follow the region to a close enough extent to make such a wildly outlandish claim that I could predict the outcome of such an event. I leave that to those who believe they have more knowledge on the subject than me.

 

I'd love to type more but I'm quite busy and its getting close to my bedtime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
babble

 

It doesn't take a Middle Eastern specialist to know that simply killing al-Sadr isn't going to resolve any conflict there. How do you contend with this argument alone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't take a Middle Eastern specialist to know that simply killing al-Sadr isn't going to resolve any conflict there. How do you contend with this argument alone?

 

 

I'm inclined to agree with the statement that killing al-Sadr won't stop the conflict. I don't have objections to your analysis - you clearly have more knowledge on the subject than me.

 

You're missing the broader point though of what I'm trying to say. If you care to ignore it, or if you simply missed it, or if its not something you want to discuss, or perhaps you're not capable of discussing it, or maybe you feel your analysis disproves my babbling, etc... than I guess you'll continue to offer your analysis as you have been.

 

My posts don't dispute any of your arguments, they don't pretend to offer a better way to examine the effects of an al-Sadr take out. It simply is an attempt to get you to stop for a second and recognize what you're saying. I've come to respect academia and professional anaylsis a lot more over the past six months from actually reading professional journals and recognizing its a whole new ball game at that level. That recognition might be helpful to you. Maybe you're already capable of being published in such journals and simply choose not to. I don't know.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...