[xarkz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dhfenton', 'R')eichstag fire for the Shiites maybe? What to inflame the civil war more than a site like this being attacked? Shiites who want to take complete control could use a tactic like this to get the fire started in earnest.

[dhfenton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('xarkz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dhfenton', 'R')eichstag fire for the Shiites maybe? What to inflame the civil war more than a site like this being attacked? Shiites who want to take complete control could use a tactic like this to get the fire started in earnest.

[strider3700]

Maybe don't look for who benefits from this. Who suffers from this.
I'd say that no matter who did it the US can't be happy to have a potential civil war on their hands.

[ubercynicmeister]

I use the inverted commas around the word "civil" because "civil" wars are never civil.

Since that recent series of bombings in Iraq, civil war has become inevitable, in my opinion. But what do those who log in here think that conflict will become?

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', 'I') use the inverted commas around the word "civil" because "civil" wars are never civil.

[duke3522]

War? What War!!


The US public has moved on to more importent matters. Like who the next winners of "American Idol" and "Dancing With The Stars" will be.

Now move along. Nothing to see here.

Duke of Indiana

GO STACEY!!!

[eric_b]

Blood, blood and more blood.

[FoxV]

So what would the US's roll be in the event of a full scale civil war.

And how would a civil war appear any differently than insurgency does now.

[ubercynicmeister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FoxV', 'S')o what would the US's roll be in the event of a full scale civil war.

[Carlhole]

I think it's been pretty much planned or forecast from the beginning that Iraq would split into different territories. The long shot was a stable, US-friendly state.

Continuing ethnic/religious strife in order to keep Iraq indefinitely destabilized is to the Western corporate imperialist advantage. It seems obvious to me.

Iraq: Occupation and Sectarianism

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Global Research Contributing Editor Ghali Hassan', '.')..The arrest by Iraqi Police last September of two British undercover soldiers identified as “SAS elite special forces” and disguised as Arabs planning to detonate explosives-packed car in the centre of Basra was a case of Western perpetuated terrorism.

Bush and Blair have often used the pretext of preventing “civil war” to counter Iraqi demands for troops' withdrawal. It is the old colonial cliché: The more the natives are divided, the easier to rule them and exploit them.

These diviisions are not internal. We are not dealing with "an internal problem": it is a Western-created problem. The war on Iraq is a act of aggression responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. It consitutes a war crime committed to enhance U.S.-Israel domination of the Middle East and seize control of Iraq’s oil reserves.

The sectarian violence in Iraq has been deliberately created by the U.S. and Britain. Iraqis have overwhelmingly rejected the presence of foreign occupying forces. The only way to end the violence is to respect the wishes of the Iraqi people by implementing a full and immediate withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq.

[Dreamtwister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', 'B')ut what do those who log in here think that conflict will become?

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'H')owever I'm not sure what the formal distinction between revolution and civil war is. Perhaps a revolution is only so-called if it succeeds.

[duke3522]

I see there's a vote for number one. Nice to see spec could drop by.

:lol::lol:

Duke of Indiana

[JoeCoal]

Anyone have any conspiracy-theory thoughts about who actually bombed the shrine? I gather the level of atrocity here is like bombing the Lincoln Memorial to a Merican or bombing the Vatican to a Catholic.

Who gains the most from a full blown civil war in Iraq? Iran? But the site was holy to them too...

Russia? China?

Haliburton? Blackwater?

[oldrancher]

Isreal's security is more insecure now than at any time since 1949: The world is in danger of a "Super-state of Shias" namely the joining of Shia's in Iran and southern Iraq to join together politically, seize Iraq oilfields, and later march on Isreal.
The USA and Britain should release Saddam now to organize the Sunni's to fight against the Shia's, and this would form a buffer zone against the Super-state of expanded Iran, thereby protecting Isreal. Now is the time for USA and Britain to get the heck out of IRAQ: pull out now, and let arabs settle their own differences. Also, let Turkey protect the Turkmans (the forgotten people of Iraq) which is the northwest portion of Iraq, if need be.
Oil futures are currently too low to accurately reflect today's political realities.

[mekrob]

It's not really a 'civil war' (combined word, not seperate) like how many think like with the US, English, etc. These are really three different states, represented by 3 different groups. We just lump them all together and call it a nation and so when there's violence it's 'civil war' instead of just 'war' and violence. After it's all over, they will be as they should, three seperate nations, or 2 seperate nations and some more land and support for Iran.

We can't stop this now. Grand Ayatollah Ali As-Sistani had to appear publicly for the first time in more than a year just to keep the violence within three digits. The instigators know that they can just keep doing this, this wasn't the most holy Shi'a shrine in Iraq. There are several more, some more holy, I believe. Once those are hit, and they will be hit, hundreds will die within hours, not days. Thousands within days. At least the Kurds (with the most professional army outside of US) are mainly Sunni. They probably won't be bothered by the attacks. If they were Shi'a, it would probably be much worse.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'T')he American fight for independence is called 'the Revolutionary War' by Americans, but it's called the 'American Civil War' on the other side of the pond from what I understand.

[zoidberg]

Theres a natural dampening effect to any civil war in Iraq: The Americans. Not that the Americans would do anything to alleviate the consequences of a civil war, but no side wants to fight another side and the Americans at the same time. This may change if Iran is brought(brings itself?) into an Iraqi civil war, then it'll be the Kurds and Americans vs Iran and the Shia with the Sunnis picking up scraps/get booted in the crossfire. Although given mounting religous animosities the Sunnis just may end up shooting at everyone who comes into their territory. (And being mostly left alone if off major transport routes/oil/oil pipelines)

Plus as has been noted, this isnt a classical civil war as the Kurds arent all over Iraq and the Shias are mostly concentrated in South(look for Kurds to start throwing out Arabization Shia Arabs in Kirkuk though if things take off)

One cannot, of course, discount every other Sunni Arab state throwing guns and bombs into the mix as well, although direct intervention is highly unlikely.

So in sum, the civil war will be mostly low key, with spouts of intense violence as the factions jockey for position, but no major push as nothing suits American firepower better than big fat targets. And of course if America gets engaged in war with Iran, then all bets are off. Every faction will move to take as much of the pie as possible.

And I think Iran cant help but get involved. Some of the Shia militia groups are directly beholden to Tehran and others(primarily Sadr) may be willing to start all out conflict if their hopes of power cant be had through a mostly peaceful political system. A powder keg indeed, and conventional wisdom seems to hold for the end of March to show us clearly which way the winds are blowing. But for my extra 2 cents I'd say even if nothing major happens for months/years on end, A larger conflict is inevitable given the stakes, emotions, and shear amount of weaponry in the region.

Dr.Z.

[bobcousins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'H')owever I'm not sure what the formal distinction between revolution and civil war is. Perhaps a revolution is only so-called if it succeeds.

[zoidberg]

The civil war is off for now: Sadr has declared Sunni & Shiites to be brothers, organized another rally without weapons, and officially blamed Al-Qaeda for the bombing. (As opposed to domestic Sunni extremists I suppose)

Like I said earlier Iran is the catalyst here, and Iran is not going to force the issue too early as time is on their side, so ironically America holds the keys to fracturing Iraq or to keep the creaking status quo rolling along.

Ironically given Talabani's statements about impending civil war, may it be assumed that the Kurds may try to push something over the edge? Stay tuned next week to an all too real reality TV.