Am I Being Too Simplistic Here - But Why Don't We Just Take Out Al-Sadr?......

[global1]

We know where he is. He seems to be the one that is holding us hostage. Just blow him the hell up and move on.

[SidDithers]

1. Does the word Martyr mean anything to you?...nt

Sid

[global1]

4. A Martyr For Whom?.........

Was Saddam a martyr? Where Udei and Kusay martyrs?

Take this guy out and get on with things.

[SidDithers]

9. Saddam et al were not religious leaders...

you wanna launch an all out holy war? Start killing off a bunch of clerics.

Sid

[PassingFair]

26. Everyone knows that the struggle dies with the leader....

Just ask any contemporary Christian...



:sarcasm:

[SidDithers]

32. My point exactly. Great post...nt

Sid

[Lerkfish]

10. maybe you should do some research on the region

and then come back to us.

[BadgerLaw2010]

40. I would strongly suggest reading up on Shi'a Islam.

[BurtWorm]

42. His father was a martyr, and he is a leader, not just of the militias, but of a large constituency

What would be the point of "taking him out?" Do you think it would make his followers give up their weapons or their political goals? You really think it would make Iraq more peaceful, less dangerous for American troops on the ground?

In short, yes, you are missing something. You're missing a lot. But then so were the assholes who got the US into this mess in the first place. Hope you enjoy membership in that club.

[Lerkfish]

8. Beat me to it. I was going to say you'd make him a political martyr

and frankly reinforce how we're not a peacekeeping force but an oppressive occupation tyrant.

[SidDithers]

15. Plus, the religious tensions ...

that are currently bubbling under the surface would explode.

Targetting al-Sadr would be seen by millions as a western attack on Islam itelf.

Sid

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. Does the phrase "We're the aggressors here and need to bring the troops

home pronto without any face-saving attempts at 'victory'" mean anything to you?

[acmavm]

3. And by what right do we have to 'take al Sadr out'? We went into

his country and killed thousands upon thousands so we could take over and hijack his country. Now we should be taking him out?

Simplistic isn't the word that first popped into my mind.

[Zueda]

5. Then things might improve and the...

war profiteers will go broke.

[magellan]

6. For the same reason there's been no official finish to OBL

Usefulness.

[jpak]

7. Dumbass post of the year

Why don't we just nuke Iran too while we're at it.

We know where they are - Just blow them the hell up and move on.

:puke:

[Zueda]

I think when he is in Iraq he should be fair game. n/t

[endarkenment]

19. Fair game?

Is it open season on Iraqis? WTF?

[jpak]

25. Maybe we should hire professional big game hunters and make a fine show of it

lalalalalalalala

[DS1]

45. Crikey! Look at the headwear on this one!

*blam*

[leftchick]

17. I second that

stupidest thing I have ever read here.

[sabra]

11. 1 million Sadrists will be on the streets the next day... and it will be very ugly...

[kentuck]

12. I think that is the plan?

But al Sadr spends much of his time concealed or in Iran. We are building up a force at this moment to clean out Sadr City. Many of its citizens are hurriedly leaving right now as we speak. They know something is about to happen.

[Lerkfish]

13. oh, and the correct answer: yes, you're being too simplistic

[WinkyDink]

14. "...holding us hostage"?? What, pray, does this mean, in the context of an ILLEGAL INVASION?

[Larkspur]

16. Al Sadr actually supports some of our positions in Iraq --

ones like an sovereign and united Iraq.

Al Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist with minimal ties to Iran. al-Maliki's party and militia is heavily backed by Iran. By supporting al-Maliki we're strengthening Iran's influence in Iraq.

The reason why we oppose Al Sadr is because he also wants US troops out of Iraq. al-Maliki is willing to keep US troops in Iraq as long as we help his militia fight groups like Al Sadr's. See Al Sadr's party is favored to win the upcoming elections in the Fall. If Al Sadr wins, then he will demand that US troops start leaving Iraq.

[global1]

28. Thank You For The Explanation And Setting Me Straight......

I guess it helps to know who is on who's side. I got the impression from watching MSM that the U.S. is backing al-Maliki against al-Sadr because he is the one that is holding us up. Cease-fire!!! Call off the cease-fire!!! Sounds to me that he is holding us hostage.

But now it makes sense. *Co wants to keep us in Iraq. Al-Sadr wants us out. So that is why MSM makes al-Sadr out to be the bad guy and why *Co is backing al-Maliki. Right?

And *Co ultimately wants to take out Iran - so therefore - "by supporting al-Maliki we're strengthening Iran's influence in Iraq."

And *Co doesn't want al-Sadr to win in the upcoming elections in the fall because he'll demand that the US troops start leaving Iraq.

So we've come to sort of a stalemate here. Keep these two factions at odds and *Co keeps the status quo in Iraq. Iran then buys more centrifuges to ultimately go nuclear. *Co then has a strategic position in Iraq to take out Iran - and the whole of the ME blows up anyway.

It all makes perfect sense now.

Thank you George W. Bush. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. (sarcasm)

[endarkenment]

18. I know, let's just kill everyone we don't agree with.

Seriously, have you lost your mind or learned nothing over the last seven years?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. Ever heard of "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

21. Worst idea I've heard. Al-Sadr is the ONLY person in Iraq that can hold it together. If the USA took

him 'out', there will be a whole bunch of dead Americans every day and a full blown civil war.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. Simplistic describes it perfectly.

[moondust]

23. Isn't that what McBush and Cheney had planned?

Remember when both McCain and Cheney recently went to Bagdhad and met with Petraeus and Maliki? Is it just a coincidence that the attack on Basra and Sadr soon followed? Two weeks before Petraeus's report?

[OwnedByFerrets]

24. Yeah, just bomb the entire

fucking region. One great big fat nuclear bomb. That will teach dem fuckers.:sarcasm: :puke:

[BuyingThyme]

27. Since it's his country, shouldn't he take out us?

[AngryOldDem]

29. You must be joking. Right?

What, and make the region even more unstable than it already is?

[El Pinko]

30. Who is "we"? I don't support any facet of our illegal occupation...

..including killing some person who is fighting to keep his country from being a US puppet state.

Please say "the US military", because a great many Americans don't support any of their efforts in Iraq.

Complete and immediate withdrawal. It's really not all that complicated.

[backscatter712]

31. Some other asshole would take his place.

One person I talked to compared him to Al Capone or a Mafia Don - call him Muqtada Bin Corleone.

He's a politician - he does what he does because it scores him political points - sometimes that's ethnic cleansing, sometimes, it's playing ball with America, sometimes, that's sending relief supplies to people. Of course he's a total asshole when the day's done.

Still, killing him won't solve the underlying problem. He'll be martyred. Violence would become even worse. There are plenty more assholes waiting in line as we speak to take his place. And here's the real uncomfortable truth. If we want to avoid a repeat of Saigon, circa 1975, we'll have to work with him. We'll have to cut a deal with him, and the other power brokers in the region, along with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, along with the Kurdish groups, the Sunni groups, the Shi'a groups. We'll have to work with them, and we'll have to work with Al Sadr to come up with some sort of agreement, so the violence level is kept down to a dull roar when we pull our troops out, and there's a structure in place for the groups to come and work out their differences and not feel they have to resort to violence. The deal will be messy, we'll feel like we've got shit on our hands after we shake hands with people like Al Sadr, and chances are good that it'll all unravel. But it's the only alternative we have that has a hope of actually putting the brakes on the violence in Iraq.

[sinkingfeeling]

49. The assholes are the Neocons who planned to turn the ME into chaos. And we do have

'shit on our hands' because Bush&co. put it there.

[backscatter712]

50. Yep. What we need to concentrate on...

is first, getting those asshole neocons out of the White House and out of political power entirely. Then we'll have our hands free to do what it takes to bring our troops home and use some diplomacy to put the brakes on the violence in Iraq.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

33. The dude on Washington Journal this AM said

something similar. He was from the ironically named Institute of Peace. Made my head hurt to listen to him...

[High Plains]

34. Only stupid macho bullet heads say shit like that.

And Ugly Americans.

[bowens43]

35. This can't be a serious question. Are you trolling?

[Solly Mack]

36. Go ask your local recruiters. I'm sure they could aid you in your quest.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

41. buhbye...n

Sid

[Hugabear]

38. I dunno - because he's DEFENDING HIS COUNTRY?

How dare he.

[MilesColtrane]

39. Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq after the invasion...

...had a plan in place to do just that.

As ill qualified as he was to take the reigns of that country, he at least saw that Al-Sadr was going to be a big problem.
So Bremer submitted a plan to the White House to take him out and Bush never signed off on it. He just didn't make a decision.

[TexasObserver]

43. Why don't we just kill anyone we feel like?! Why limit it to Iraq?

He may be the problem you think he is, but he's far from the cause of problems in Iraq. We killed their leader, destroyed their government, their infra structure, and killed their citizens. We disarmed them, then saw gangs spring up.

I can imagine you being an Englishman in 1776 and saying "why don't we just kill John Adams?!"

One man's rabble rouser is another man's patriot. By any measure, it's his country, not ours, and your point of view is not progressive, but rightwing reactionary.

[NNN0LHI]

44. What about Sadr's children. Blow them up too?

Because someone will take his place thats for sure.

Don

[devilgrrl]

46. Osama Bin Laden is somewhere in Pakistan - we should blow up that country too - we know where he is

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

47. Because that's murder?

[L. Coyote]

48. I didn't know we advocated for murder on DU! Sounds more like a war criminal, not simplistic!

Isn't it a crime to say something like this?

[global1]

51. Well I Hope I Made My Point Here......

the majority of Americans don't know who we are fighting in Iraq. Al Qaida, Al-Sadr, Al-Maliki. Shi'a, Sunni's, Kurds, Iranian's, etc, etc, etc.

No one has taken the time to explain the situation to the American people in terms that they can understand. I know for a fact that a number of people are thinking that al-Sadr is the enemy.

When one reads in the press the following what is one to think:

"The government imposed a one-day curfew on the capital for Wednesday -- the fifth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad -- but gave no reason. Sadr, a fiery cleric who was once an ally of Maliki, had called for a big anti-U.S. march in Baghdad on that day but cancelled it for fear his followers would be attacked.

Sadr urged his Mehdi Army to "continue your jihad and resistance" against U.S. forces, although he did not spell out if this was an explicit call for attacks on American soldiers.

Despite the more than 7-month-old ceasefire, Sadr's followers have clashed with Iraqi troops and U.S. forces in the south of the country and Baghdad in the past two weeks in the country's worst violence since the first half of 2007."

They don't understand that he is a cleric and his death could invoke a 'holy war'. They don't understand that he is a 'Iraqi patriot' fighting to get his country back.

Most Americans are fed up with all of this. They don't care who the enemy is or what happens to Iraq after we leave - just to stop all of this killing and spending of money and take care of our country - that *Co so effectively in the last 7+ years - has taken apart.

I guess I invoked some nasty replies to my original post - but in those replies - there was support for my original suggestion as well. Bottom line there is still too much confusion as to what really is happening - who the enemy is - why we are there in the first place - why we can't get out - why this keeps going on. This seems to be part of the problem - a general lack of understanding on everyone's part as to what is going on and how we are to end this.

[Pastiche423]

52. I disagree that there is a general lack of understanding on

everyone's part as to what is going on. But I will agree that you appear to have no fucking idea.

[Fireweed247]

53. Sadr is more intelligent and coherent that our leader

and I am sure he has the Iraqis best interest at heart, can't say the same about US.

I wonder if they feel the same?

[malaise]

54. Hasn't America killed enough people in this illegal war

and occupation.

[Strelnikov_]

55. The Sadrist's/Mehdi/whatever seem to be a broad based movement/coalition

versus a cult of personality.

My impression is the Sadrist movement is a coalition of the poor/disenfranchised, mostly nationalist, Shia. They are a counterbalance/reaction to the Quisling Shia (Dawa/SCRI/whatever) who are connected up with the US/Iran in order to grab power (and wealth).

In other words, knock off Sadr, someone 'worse' may appear. Also, there is some question as to how much real power Sadr has over the movement.

[zonmoy]

56. great way to turn a bad situation

into a war of the entire islamic world against america. sounds like we have a cabalist that wants to cause the world to turn against the US.

[scarletwoman]

57. How about because he's a true Iraqi nationalist who would have the best chance of anyone to unite

Iraq and form a truly independent sovereign nation. The U.S. ALWAYS hates people like that. That's why we foment coups in country after country -- to prevent independent nationalist leaders from freeing their countries from our control.

Sadr could very well be the best hope for Iraq -- the corrupt puppet government of Al Maliki is a death sentence for Iraq as a sovereign nation.

Furthermore, this has to be one of the most idiotic statements ever made: "...holding us hostage" -- excuse me?!?! Holding US hostage?!?! WE'RE the ones who invaded and occupied THEIR country!!!! Who the hell is the "hostage" here? We have NO fucking right to be there in the first place! Are you really THAT clueless?

Sheesh...

sw