The causes of the Iraqi civil war are primarily American and Syrian/Iranian. Local ruling classes have become patrons of warring militias like the Mahdi Army (Shiite), Ansar Al Sunnah and even Jaysh Al-Queda in an effort to seize control of the unstable situation that the American Coalition Provisional Authority guaranteed. The most recent Lancet report makes it obvious that as much as 300,000 deaths in Iraq are directly attributable to the three way civil war between Shiite, Sunni militias and Kurdish security forces, absent of the contribution of the american forces. So it’s obvious that this is now the focal point of the conflict and that the American presence is either secondary or suspected to fade in influence. What is important to these militias is seizing centralized power and influencing key posts like the oil ministry.

There are two poles here, one the Iranian/Syrian axis which gives tacit support to the Mahdi army and the Badr brigades and the other the American/Saudi axis, in which Saudi Arabia is afraid of both a Shiite insurgency along its border (because of its internal Shiite minority) but also a powerful Iranian state. So Saudi Arabia looked the other way as thousands of Jihadis joined the fight in Iraq and Iran has armed militias in Iraq. All of the local battles of the civil war are seeking patrons in a competition between two larger imperialist systems. I wrote more here if you’re super interested:

http://asayake.blogspot.com/2006/07/when-grass-is-cut-snakes-will-show.html

To Something:

Why do you think that?

The problem with O’reilly and letterman is that they’re two poles of an awful debate on how to ’stabilize’ Iraq. Don’t forget what ’stabilize’ means to capitalists and media talking heads, it means Nicaragua in the 80s, Peru in 1973. Indeed the Shiite death squads were an attempt at ’stability’ that simply failed. ‘Stability’ is often worse than the violence it wants to replace.

Yeah you’re pretty much right. And the Kurds are the only people who aren’t blowing shit up.

But one thing that I don’t get is that under republican leadership, whether there’s a civil war that breaks out or not, the US military is going to stay in Iraq till 2010 whether it gets good or worse. So why do Sunnis and Shiites bomb each other’s mosques? I understand Sadam’s Sunni leadership still has a lot of Shiites pretty pissed off about the massive graves, but causing more carnage in Iraq isn’t going to chase out the American Military.

There are 200,000 Iraqis in uniform, and that includes the military and the police force, yet the US is still there. Why do you ask? Well because Al Quaida and other sectarian criminals (released by Saddam before US invasion) have infitrated both the Police and Military, and have more leaks in them than the New York City Police Department.

This whole thing’s a big fucking mess, and I don’t approve of it. But I don’t approve leaving it now that we’re there. Leaving Iraq in its state right now would be contrary to the main objective: Taking away Iran’s control of the oil rich persian gulf.

You know those gay ass commercials that say “if you buy an 8th of weed from a drug dealer, you’re helping terrorists kidnap a judge”
Fact of the matter is we’re helping terrorists take down the foundation of our biggest and strongest buildings everytime we fill up our fucking tank of gas. So let’s change that, let’s take control of the persian gulf, let’s neutralize the middle’s east number 1 resource of wealth.

do i look like jesus?

^^LMFAO!!! Nation is sarcasm personified!!