Sadr bitchslapped?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-18 03:50pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129275,00.html

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-18 03:57pm

Not really bitchslapped it sounds like; they agreed to withdraw but that's not much of a victory. They're just going else where and we let them. Unless they surrendered this is just letting them leave for the next battlefeild.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-08-18 04:04pm

I will belive that when he is marched out to the firingsquad...

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-18 04:06pm

Stormbringer wrote:Not really bitchslapped it sounds like; they agreed to withdraw but that's not much of a victory. They're just going else where and we let them. Unless they surrendered this is just letting them leave for the next battlefeild.

I have an idea. Let him leave and then proceed to shoot him up before he gets to his next chosen battleground.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-18 04:26pm

As long as they negotiate with him, they unwittingly legitimize him in the eyes of his countrymen, regardless of whether he makes concessions in those negotiations.

When you have a national "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy and then you negotiate with someone, what does that say? It means you are considering him a legitimate leader.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-18 05:01pm

Was it the US who reached this agreement with al Sadr, or the Iraqi government? From what I read, it was Iraqi officials gave him an ultimatum and Iraqi delegates who negotiated his withdrawal. They could just be trying to minimize bloodshed.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-08-18 05:07pm

Durandal wrote:Was it the US who reached this agreement with al Sadr, or the Iraqi government? From what I read, it was Iraqi officials gave him an ultimatum and Iraqi delegates who negotiated his withdrawal. They could just be trying to minimize bloodshed.

They're trading today's stability for tomorrow's government. Would it be possible that the Bush administration is actually pulling the strings and commanding the Iraqi gov't to do whatever it takes to keep things quiet for the next three months?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-18 05:22pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:
Durandal wrote:Was it the US who reached this agreement with al Sadr, or the Iraqi government? From what I read, it was Iraqi officials gave him an ultimatum and Iraqi delegates who negotiated his withdrawal. They could just be trying to minimize bloodshed.
They're trading today's stability for tomorrow's government. Would it be possible that the Bush administration is actually pulling the strings and commanding the Iraqi gov't to do whatever it takes to keep things quiet for the next three months?

I wouldn't put such a stunt past them, but it's difficult to decide whether losing more soldiers is worse for them politically than having this al Sadr jack-ass running around. If they don't get rid of him now, there's a good chance that he'll just be back in a month starting shit again. In fact, I expect that he'll continue being a pain in the ass until disposed of properly.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-08-18 05:36pm

Durandal wrote:I wouldn't put such a stunt past them, but it's difficult to decide whether losing more soldiers is worse for them politically than having this al Sadr jack-ass running around. If they don't get rid of him now, there's a good chance that he'll just be back in a month starting shit again. In fact, I expect that he'll continue being a pain in the ass until disposed of properly.

Properly? Come now, durandal, say the words.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-18 05:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:As long as they negotiate with him, they unwittingly legitimize him in the eyes of his countrymen, regardless of whether he makes concessions in those negotiations.

When you have a national "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy and then you negotiate with someone, what does that say? It means you are considering him a legitimate leader.

We're definitely setting him up as a legitimate and effect leader. Which is unfortunate because we're letting him leave which is the stupidest policy for winning a war since Vietnam and letting him pick where he wants to fight which gives him a way out when we could and should have had him. We're creating the monster because terrorist or not, we're sending the message that we can't or won't beat this guy and his force to a pulp like we should have.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-08-18 10:13pm

He's just going to come back later on.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-18 10:19pm

Chardok wrote:
Durandal wrote:I wouldn't put such a stunt past them, but it's difficult to decide whether losing more soldiers is worse for them politically than having this al Sadr jack-ass running around. If they don't get rid of him now, there's a good chance that he'll just be back in a month starting shit again. In fact, I expect that he'll continue being a pain in the ass until disposed of properly.
Properly? Come now, durandal, say the words.

I just felt the urge to sound like a shadow-government puppeteer.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-08-18 11:32pm

Just kill the guy, this is the guy YOU WANT TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-18 11:43pm

Knife wrote:Just kill the guy, this is the guy YOU WANT TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF.

No, I don't think we want to kill him. I say torture information out of him, break him, and then use him as puppet through which he can denounce his former followers.

Or just give him a sex change and dump him back on the streets. See how he likes fundamentalist Islam then.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-08-18 11:55pm

Stormbringer wrote:
No, I don't think we want to kill him. I say torture information out of him, break him, and then use him as puppet through which he can denounce his former followers.

Or just give him a sex change and dump him back on the streets. See how he likes fundamentalist Islam then.

Was there suppost to be a '

' in there?

He's a 'want to be' warlord. That is his claim to fame. Nothing more, nothing less. We DO not want Iraq to play the warlord game.

This guys gotta go. Fuck PR today. PR a month/year/whatever from now will look alot worse if this asshat continues in his plans. He's alread done this shit before! Why give him another chance?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-19 12:04am

Knife wrote:Was there suppost to be a ' ' in there?

No.

Knife wrote:He's a 'want to be' warlord. That is his claim to fame. Nothing more, nothing less. We DO not want Iraq to play the warlord game.

This guys gotta go. Fuck PR today. PR a month/year/whatever from now will look alot worse if this asshat continues in his plans. He's alread done this shit before! Why give him another chance?

We definitely don't need warlords but then again we don't need martyrs either. Whether we like it or not he's been elevated to more than just a wannabe warlord, in part by Iraqi and US actions.

Eliminating him is an idea but it would be far better to discredit him in some manner,

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-08-19 12:57am

Darth Wong wrote:As long as they negotiate with him, they unwittingly legitimize him in the eyes of his countrymen, regardless of whether he makes concessions in those negotiations.

When you have a national "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy and then you negotiate with someone, what does that say? It means you are considering him a legitimate leader.

The track record of the Bush Admin. breaking former stances, treaties, etc. has a precident. I'm not surprised by this happening.

Sadr knows he wouldn't be able to win. But he knows that he'd put the US in an untenable position. US attacks, Shi'ites: 2/3s of Iraq's population vote out our choosen boy in December. Sadr gets away and enters the political arena, then the US and Alawi have a chance to force him to have his followers stop making a scene out of Falujah, and then they can marginalize him politically. Technically this is a good move on the part of the US.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-19 01:52am

According to the news, al-Sadr agreed to do the three terms of the Iraqi governing council.

Those were:

Disband his militia.
Leave the mosque that he's holed up in.
Join the government and help build infrastructure.

It doesn't sound like the Iraqi government is looking to have this thug eliminated. It sounds like they are adopting him.

President Sharky · Post by **President Sharky** » 2004-08-19 02:29am

Sounds just like Saddam got into power. Having al-Sadr join the government will allow him to eat it up from within.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-19 03:09am

From watching CNN on the al-Sadr issue, the analyst was saying that there was good evidence that al-Sadr may be going for rogue warlord in rebellion to becoming a political party within the Iraqi government. There definately was an invitation to work with the government though.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-19 09:09am

Gil Hamilton wrote:According to the news, al-Sadr agreed to do the three terms of the Iraqi governing council.

Those were:

Disband his militia.
Leave the mosque that he's holed up in.
Join the government and help build infrastructure.

It doesn't sound like the Iraqi government is looking to have this thug eliminated. It sounds like they are adopting him.

I can't believe that the Bush administration is actually allowing this. I thought they were supposed to be our puppet government. Well start pulling the string that's tied around al Sadr's neck!

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-08-19 09:37am

I get the strangest feeling that this just fell to pieces. Fighting has begun outside the Mosque.

CNN wrote:NAJAF, Iraq (CNN) -- Sounds of intense fighting erupted Thursday outside the Imam Ali mosque where inside militia loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr failed to comply with Iraqi orders to disarm and disperse.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-08-19 12:14pm

Well, that lasted long.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-19 01:38pm

Knife wrote:Well, that lasted long.

Maybe this way al-Sadrs career will end with a length of hemp rather than a pension from the government.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-08-19 02:14pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Knife wrote:Well, that lasted long.
Maybe this way al-Sadrs career will end with a length of hemp rather than a pension from the government.

I think it'll end with a bullet crack...