Civil war is because "We don't have enough guns"

Apparently, the problems in Iraq are easily solved. They don't have enough guns. If the US only gave them* more guns, it would be a haven to rival the Kingdom of Peace and Love.

If the administration is counting on al-Maliki for anything more than getting the pizza order right, I suggest they have a real shock coming.

This is the kind of delusion one gets after months of living and working only in the Green Zone with yes-men:

Quote:

---

He conceded that some “sectarian” acts were being perpetrated. But he said there would not be a civil war because Sunni and Shia had lived in peace for many years.

---

:wall:

(I suppose he might have a strategy after all. If he gets the weaponry he wants handed over, his sponsors in the Mehdi Army will be nigh on impossible to root out).

*"Them" meaning, no doubt the highly disciplined and impartial Iraqi army and police force who are in no way connected with any insurgency of any sort, honest, guv, cross my heart and hope to be a martyr.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader

Stephen Farrell in Baghdad
Prime Minister wants change of US policy
Mistakes over Saddam hanging, Times told


America’s refusal to give Baghdad’s security forces sufficient guns and equipment has cost a great number of lives, the Iraqi Prime Minister said yesterday.

Nouri al-Maliki said the insurgency had been bloodier and prolonged because Washington had refused to part with equipment. If it released the necessary arms, US forces could “dramatically” cut their numbers in three to six months, he told The Times.

In a sign of the tense relations with Washington, he chided the US for suggesting his Government was living on “borrowed time”. Such criticism boosted Iraq’s extremists, he said, and was more a reflection of “some kind of crisis situation” in Washington after the Republicans’ midterm election losses. Mr al-Maliki conceded that his administration had made mistakes over the hanging of Saddam Hussein. But he refused to accept all criticism over the execution. When asked about the Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi’s attack on Iraq’s capital punishment laws, Mr al-

Maliki cited the Italians’ summary killing of Benito Mussolini and his stringing-up from a lamppost.

Asked how long Iraq would require US troops, Mr al-Maliki said: “If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for American troops will dramatically go down. That is on condition that there are real, strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping and arming them.”

The US Government is wary of handing over large amounts of military hardware to the Iraqis because it has sometimes ended up in the hands of militias and insurgents.

Gordon Johndroe, the White House national security spokesman, conceded that some of Mr al-Maliki’s criticism was “valid”. The training and equipping of Iraqi troops would be speeded up, he said, adding that by “self-admission we have had to redo our training and equipment programme”.

Although Mr al-Maliki’s tone was measured throughout, he is clearly irritated at US criticism that he has failed to curb Shia militias. Robert Gates, the new US Defence Secretary, said that Mr al-Maliki could lose his job if he failed to stop communal bloodshed and Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, gave a warning that he was living on “borrowed time” and that American patience was running out.

Challenged on the point, Mr al-Maliki remarked acidly: “Certain officials are going through a crisis. Secretary Rice is expressing her own point of view if she thinks that the Government is on borrowed time, whether it is borrowed time for the Iraqi Government or American Administration. I don’t think we are on borrowed time.”

He added: “I wish that we could receive strong messages of support from the US so we don’t give some boost to the terrorists and make them feel that they might have achieved success. I believe that such statements give moral boosts to the terrorists and push them towards making an extra effort and making them believe that they have defeated the American Administration, but I can tell you that they haven’t defeated the Iraqi Government.”

He rejected the accusation that his Government was “lenient” with Shia militias, saying 400 al-Mahdi Army members had been arrested in recent days, in crackdowns in southern towns such as Karbala, Samawa, Diwaniya and al-Nasiriya.

And he insisted that he was prepared to fulfil his promises to Washington and confront the militias of Shia parties within his coalition, including Moqtada al-Sadr’s widely feared al-Mahdi Army. He conceded that some “sectarian” acts were being perpetrated. But he said there would not be a civil war because Sunni and Shia had lived in peace for many years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

When asked about the Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi’s attack on Iraq’s capital punishment laws, Mr al-Maliki cited the Italians’ summary killing of Benito Mussolini and his stringing-up from a lamppost.

---

Talk about crappy red herrings... :wall:

Until men like al-Maliki show themselves capable of organizing a decent hanging, let alone governing the country without being dominated by sectarian issues, I think not.

I wonder how long al-Maliki will last in light of recent events and comments, and how shia militias would take it if he were sidelined. It seems the US is losing control even over him.

They want them. I say give them the guns. If all goes to hell, we can't be blamed for not doing exactly what they wanted.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

They want them. I say give them the guns. If all goes to hell, we can't be blamed for not doing exactly what they wanted.

~:smoking:

---

And if everyone has guns there will be a lot fewer militias to rout out anyway. Lots of bodies to clear away though.

I know exactly what kind of peace he would implement.

:rifle: :fainting: :skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

I wonder how long al-Maliki will last in light of recent events and comments, and how shia militias would take it if he were sidelined. It seems the US is losing control even over him.

---

You say that like we ever did. He has always been Ajay's man. We just thought we could steer him in certain directions.

Given that this is the direction the Iraqi government is taking, and our own administration's only response is more of the same, I think today is the day I officially join the chorus of voices suggesting the time has come for us to go, damn the consqueences. I didn't agree with the action back at the beginning in 2003, but once it started, I kept my criticisms to myself, thinking disunity could only hurt. I now realize until somebody puts a gun to their heads, the administration will not improve the situation, and they will continue to throw American lives away in their act of utter hubris, all to avoid acknowledging mistakes.

Bush said as much on 60 Minutes the other night, that he knew most of the country was turning against the war, and the outlook didn't look good, but he wasn't going to change a damn thing, except maybe send more American lives and cash over there to disappear. I know he's not the most glib speaker sometimes, but after 6 years, don't you think even he would have found a way to be more political than " I'm in charge for 2 more years, and this is what I want, so tough luck"?

well...if everyone is dead over there I suppose a kind of "peace" will reign over the land....:dizzy2:

sure....what´s a solution for a volatile situation?.....MORE GUNS!!! don´t know how I didn´t figure that one out....ohhh wait...it´s because I have a brain!!! :furious3:

To hell with guns. I say we just give them fifteen or twenty tactical nukes.

That would completely solve the problems Iraq is facing.

Hold on didn't they send them lots and lots of guns , guns they had taken out of former yugoslavia as part of the process towards building peace there .
What happened to those guns ?
Oh yeah I remember now , they arrived in Iraq and somehow got mislaid .
Slightly careless , but hey if they was controling what happened to the guns they were shipping in that would be gun control , and gun control is bad:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

You say that like we ever did. He has always been Ajay's man. We just thought we could steer him in certain directions.

---

Fair enough. Now is the point where al-Maliki's course diverges from the US government, whose support is becoming more of a liability than a boon for him personally. Looking for more regional allies now, I guess.

Isn't the country pretty much rotten with guns to begin with...?

Now that's the military I remember. CLICK> MISSING WEAPONS

We provide weapons to Iraqi security forces to standardize the training. Makes it easier for our instructors and the trainees. Someone failed to record serial numbers on most of the small arms and keep an accurate inventory. So, stolen in small batches it would take some time before the weapons would be missed.

If they recover any of these stolen arms, and they were used to kill any of our soldiers, the idiots responsible for this negligence should be lined up in front of a firing squad and shot.

Guys, remember that although these guys speak pretty good English, it's not their first language, so when he says guns, he meant equipment, which has been an issue for a long time, the army doesn't have the resources in terms of support vehicles to transport troops and support actions without the us army.

here's some links to stories iv found...
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...4949-3236r.htm
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...mentshorta.htm

Sorry, but al-Maliki specifically speaks of arms, and for someone in his position I'd find it very hard to believe he'd accidently say that whilst meaning equipment.

But... more guns makes the USA safer. I'm sure loads of people have been saying this!

If all Iraqis have an M-16, the whole region will be peaceful. I'm sure that the NRA said something similar. Oh, and of course then no foreign power will be able to occupy the land either...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

If all Iraqis have an M-16, the whole region will be peaceful. I'm sure that the NRA said something similar. Oh, and of course then no foreign power will be able to occupy the land either...

---

No no no Rory , it is that if they all had guns then they could overthrow their government if they didn't like it , and of course in self defense shoot any agent of the government who came to take their guns away .
It is vitally important that citizens should have guns ,and even more vital that the government should have no permanant record of who exactly has which guns just in case they decide to try and take guns off people .:yes:

So, Iraq is coming close to an NRA utopia - masses of weapons and no one has any idea who owns them. Everyone persuing their God-given right to freedom by shooting anyone who is a potential threat (for example by having a weapon).

Couldn't the NRA set up some sort of donation so they could send across some cheap guns with the serials filed off to alow the Iraqis to continue to persue their gun-filled utopia? If the state can't provide, it is up to like minded freedom loving people to fill the void.

~:smoking:

Well they was going to send Charlton Heston on a speaking tour , but pulled out when he refused to venture outside of the green-zone , because someone might have ended up taking his gun from his cold dead hands .

Just pull out, and take all the media with you. If we can't see it, it isn't happening.

Was it two or three years ago they embarked on that money for guns program in Iraq? People would hand over their self-defence weapons, like AK-47’s, machine guns, RPG’s, mortars, tanks, etc, and get dinars in return. And with their new dinars they could buy twice as many weapons and resell them all over again.

But bullet prices are actually skyrocketing in Iraq these days. More demand than supply can handle. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

But... more guns makes the USA safer. I'm sure loads of people have been saying this!

If all Iraqis have an M-16, the whole region will be peaceful. I'm sure that the NRA said something similar. Oh, and of course then no foreign power will be able to occupy the land either...

~:smoking:

---

Quote:

---

Tribesman Well they was going to send Charlton Heston on a speaking tour , but pulled out when he refused to venture outside of the green-zone , because someone might have ended up taking his gun from his cold dead hands .
Today 06:09
rory_20_uk So, Iraq is coming close to an NRA utopia - masses of weapons and no one has any idea who owns them. Everyone persuing their God-given right to freedom by shooting anyone who is a potential threat (for example by having a weapon).

Couldn't the NRA set up some sort of donation so they could send across some cheap guns with the serials filed off to alow the Iraqis to continue to persue their gun-filled utopia? If the state can't provide, it is up to like minded freedom loving people to fill the void.


Today 06:04
Tribesman Quote:
If all Iraqis have an M-16, the whole region will be peaceful. I'm sure that the NRA said something similar. Oh, and of course then no foreign power will be able to occupy the land either...


No no no Rory , it is that if they all had guns then they could overthrow their government if they didn't like it , and of course in self defense shoot any agent of the government who came to take their guns away .
It is vitally important that citizens should have guns ,and even more vital that the government should have no permanant record of who exactly has which guns just in case they decide to try and take guns off people .

---

Apparently there aren't enough nannies to go round.:bow:

I just watched 4 hours of US Senate testimony by General Dave Petraeus (bio link )

I'm guardedly hopeful for the first time in years, that our Iraq debacle can be turned around, and relatively quickly. If anyone can do it, this guy can; and if he fails, the subsequent finger-pointing will be at our politicos (and Iraq's), not our soldiers & marines.

The part of his testimony that I saw impressed me greatly. He may be the best thing to come out of the 101st so far. I'm rather skeptical though, he was given command of the north and that's a relative piece of cake. The Kurds were given their own de facto country thanks to the no-fly zone and a lot of his work was done for him. The relatively monoethnic region has a lot to gain by sitting and waiting. If the center is able to pull the “country” apart the north can press their claims in other countries from a position of strength. Something the Turks especially dread.

Quote:

---

The Kurds were given their own de facto country thanks to the no-fly zone and a lot of his work was done for him.

---

What ?
Do you mean that the ethnic Kurdish militias of different political persuations have managed to enforce their will on areas that their gunmen control .

Quote:

---

The relatively monoethnic region has a lot to gain by sitting and waiting.

---

Its funny isn't it , ethnic cleaning can produce a relatively monoethnic region .
Whodathunkit .

Quote:

---

If the center is able to pull the “country” apart the north can press their claims in other countries from a position of strength.

---

Woohoo if the Iranian and Israeli backed factions can manage to keep their internal figting to a minimum they can threaten their neighbours with a regional war .