Some people see mosks as churches, others as commandcenters / trainingcenters from where the the Jihad is planned and waged and leaders and weapons are hidden protected by some unwritten law not to attack holy buildings. Now irony, enough, weren't the twin towers not some of our holy capitalist building from where financial world domination was arranged?? But first, burn the mosks, or praise the mosks, gentlemen your votes plz.
Attacking mosques, even for seemingly valid tactical reasons, will in every case create far more popular backlash and strategic threat than any mosque can present. There is no faster way to destroy acceptance for US administration than to allow the resistance to exploit religious and cultural rage, which is the clear intent of fighters drawing occupation forces toward these symbolic structures- Attacking a mosque, occupiers play utterly into the hands of the resistance, even in killing every combattant within. I am of the opinion that the entire occupation cannot be salvaged in the interest of the US from this point- But that aside: In cases of resistance within mosques, the only reasonable military response, in keeping with the primary mission of creating an Iraq that is not entirely hostile to the US, is to isolate such a standoff: Starve them out, but never enter or damage these places of worship, especially shrines. Underestimating the political implications of mosque sweeps is extremely ignorant and dangerous. Iraqi radicals are taunting America to attack mosques, because they know that in this assymetrical warfare, it is in the minds of the public, not the real estate, and not the bodycount, that the final victory will be secured.
Starving them out is a good idea. Definitely better than burning the building right off the bat. However, if a siege should prove problematic, it is probably wise to simplify the matter and, well, flatten the mosque.
Everything Americans do in Iraq from now on is very problematic. All of these problems are explosively exacerbated by inflaming religious rage. "Flattening" a mosque is the fastest, most indelible possible way to fatally stigmatize the occupation.
Personally I say get rid of all religions, but politcally it would probably be best to leave the mosques alone. Too bad it seems that militant muslims so often attempt to draw fire to the mosques.
Yassin was supposed to be off limits because he was a poor elderly cripple, and now al-Sadr is off limits because he is hiding behind a minaret. I wonder how far this can be taken. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! if you don't want the mosque to be hurt, don't hide in the mosque there are million and one other places you can hide
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Funny, pothead. But the glasses wouldn't have been a comparable problem. Osama was killed 2 years ago, and nobody noticed because it was done correctly.
That's the truest thing I've read in awhile, hyperwaders. As for the hypothetical inflammation of the Iraqis' anti-American sentiment, it seems to me that it can't get much worse, anyhow. We might as well live up to our disreputation and display a little machismo, no? I kid, of course, but, seriously, what left is there for the Administration to do when hesitation costs American lives?
The same thing as any individual must do whenever an unredeemable error has been made: Correct it. Iraq will never form a western-friendly government, provide secure US military bases, or produce significant export of oil, at American gunpoint.
I think, that there is no man who will not do what he is told to do at gun point. However, if what you describe is true, then we must either leave them to war with one another, or shoot them all, at gun point. Don't you think that's a little romantic, a little exaggerated?
No. Shooting them all at gunpoint is too passion-driven and exaggerated. US forces very simply must - and inevitably will - leave Iraq. In that process, the US should allow for all possible international peacekeeping and aid, and that Iraq's religious leaders should be encouraged to devote maximum effort to avoid sectarian fighting. Because the question of the political viability of a unified Iraq is an independent problem to the occupation, and because in fact the likelihood of civil war is increased by further prolonging of the occupation, there is no justification for delaying US withdrawal.
hypewaders, I wouldn't be surprised to see bin Laden pop up in the fall, a couple of months before the election. Ace in the hole so to speak. If dead maybe he's in a freezer somewhere right now.
Bring our troops home now and let the buggers fight it out among themselves. Our presence makes no difference to peace in Iraq.
"I wouldn't be surprised to see bin Laden pop up in the fall" We'll see. I'm 99.99% convinced that the Bush Administration's would-be trophy and overpersonification of terrorism was crushed into irretrievable pulp under a shattered Afghan mountaintop in mid-April, 2002.
Nice photo otheahp, true, can I have a photo next to that of Sharon with the text: "you wouldn't hit a man wearing the american flag would you?" Sorry Vienna, we want to but we can't pull out, because we have strict orders not to let the Iranians jump in the vacume and takeover the south, which would make it possible for instance to station their medium range missiles (nuclear armed coming soon?) hundreds of miles towards the mediterranian sea , if you know what I mean Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Looking in hindsight it would have maybe played out better if America invaded iran instead of iraq, because that's maybe where the real WMD are Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and a lot less mixed ethnic soup, a lot of iranians were ready for democarazy and want to get rid of the ayatollahs....
So who's gonna stop the Iranians from taking over the south anyway when all the troops have gone? Surely Iraq would welcome Iran and make their own coalition against the west. Or maybe Iran will just take over Iraq? We (Me & you) are a closer target for such missiles than the States - aren't we?