Why not al-Sadr as #1 super bad guy?

[underpants]

He did a pretty fine job at being numero uno super bad guy at the beginning of the war or at least at the beginning of the after war dead enders part of the war.

I think he is perfect. He has the flowing robe thing DOWN and I'll bet he will look great in his "dead" shot (side note:He has to look better dead than the Hussein brothers they were horrible at that).

You comic book fans probably know that now we have to go through several episodes of introducing a new character and that always gets tedious and long winded. Why not just dust off the old script. Real aficionados will really love this plot move too.

Apr 15, 2004
Iran's favorite is undoubtedly the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, a member of the ICG and the younger brother of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim, assassinated a year ago in the holy city of Najaf in a deadly operation that many attribute to Muqtada al-Sadr, the young firebrand cleric who has made himself America's number one public enemy and most wanted man after he initiated the latest cycle of bloody violence and hostage-taking in Iraq more than 10 days ago.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FD15Ak02.html

[wtmusic]

1. He's too popular in Iraq

Kill him and half-hell turns into all-hell.

[The Deacon]

2. al-Sadr

Has popular support in Iraq among Shiites (who are the majority, after all) as well as a militia which has proven effective at defeating US troops on the ground in direct combat (as opposed to roadside bombs.) In other words, he is everything al-Zarqawi was not.

edited to add:

Besides, targeting the son of a beloved cleric martyred by Saddam might be too much for even our bought-and-paid-for Iraqi government to stomach.

[wtmusic]

3. His militia doesn't stand a chance in direct combat

They were soundly defeated at Najaf, and al-Sadr himself would have been killed were it not for his popularity.

[Dhalgren]

4. Al Sadr is no good for "bad guy".

He is "into" politics and is now a "Bush democrat". Also he is "in" strongly with Sistani - and nobody fucks with Sistani...

[underpants]

5. That's right

Sistani is the reason they had those elections if you remember. Bush (Bremer) wanted military appointed caucuses and then military (US military) appointed governors. Sistani said "one man one vote" and W folded.

[Dhalgren]

14. You're right. It always seemed so unbelievable that Bush

would continue to tout Iraqi "democracy" when it was done not because of him, but in spite of him. But, then, nothing the little Dictator does should ever be "unbelievable" again....

[underpants]

16. Well look....

if you can actually stand up in public and take credit for 9/11 --hold it take a second and think about that he takes CREDIT for 9/11.... :wow: ---- well then anything is possible.

One of the ones that just kills me is how they media thing really does work. I was asked by a friend a month before we all knew the war would start "So you don't think they have WMD???" he was amazed. My answer was "Well, there might be something there but there is no way it is to the extent that W and all his mouthpieces are saying it is" Now I knew that was a half assed answer but it had been absolutely drilled into my head at that point so I tried to play both odds.

And here is the WEIRDEST part of that-as we were talking Blix and UNMOVIC were IN Iraq and finding nothing. The MSM covered it up by simply asking "Why can't they find anything?" and everyone just sat there thinking what they were supposed to:that there was something wrong with Blix and co. Right there in front of everyone they openly stated that they were full of shit and everyone (okay not everyone) just sat there laughing at the Keyston Kops yuck! yuck! yuck!

This is going to be very hard to explain in a few years.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x5260644
But hey I did march I did write LTTE's and letters to my Congressman and Senators. I did try.

Amazing.

[Canuckistanian]

6. Who do you support? Sunni or Shi'a?

That's what it boils down to. If Saddam was popular among the Sunni's, then demonize them. And that's exactly what was the US did to them and it's most visible leader al-Zarqawi.

BUT, if you support the Shi'a, then you're dealing with the pro-Iran faction. And you can't go too heavy on them, either, because the majority are Shi'a. They're finally starting to flex their political muscle and they like it.

And then, just to confuse the issue further there are the Kurds. They're not any big fans of the Saddamist Sunni, but they're increasingly wary of any alliance with Shi'a leaders. And they're going to be crucial in who gets to form a stable government.

So, where does that leave al-Sadr? He has the hearts of the people, but certainly not the power to take control of much. Yet.

And it would be nuts to try and take him out. The resulting firestorm would make the present civil war look like a schoolyard spat.

[underpants]

7. Something tells me

that when they do pick the newest bestest evil #1 bad guy ever that will mean that they already have him and are just creating their own PR moment.

[Canuckistanian]

9. I just hope it isn't "Iranian agitators" of some sort.

That might just be their justification to attack Iran.

[drduffy]

8. bs// pick somebody from our government....

Cheney or Bush....
Either is significantly more 'bad' than anybody currently in the rest of the world.

Why mince about when you can have the very best.

[Vogt]

10. Can't mess with Sadr

And we shouldn't want to either. He's a disagreeable fellow, but as other posters here have noted, he's too popular to contemplate taking out and the ensuing chaos would be maddening. Like him or not, he is actually a figure of "stability" in that insane jungle. Plus, he controls the security and police forces as he's worked for over tow years now two years packing their ranks with his Mahdi militia. Now he's the man in that respect. Aside from his control of the police and his popularity, he is also actually the best bet for us as far as clerics go because he is, above all, staunchly nationalistic. This actually serves our interests in the region if you think about it - especially vis-a-vis Iran.

Most of the Shi'ah clerics are subservient to Iran, but not Sadr. In fact, he's relatively hostile towards the Iranians and he absolutely opposes any situation where a Shi'ah run Iraq would be directly influenced in its policies by Iran. This serves our interests more than having an Iran-loving clerical government formulating Iraqi policies according to the wishes of one of our staunchest enemies. The best thing we can do in regard to Sadr is to leave him alone in a cool peace. He doesn't mess with us and we don't mess with him. Our hands are more than full with the Sunnis.

[underpants]

11. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Vogt]

12. Thanks

Cheers.

[Dhalgren]

15. Welcome to DU!

One of my favorite authors of all time is A. E. van Vogt, so I like you nick. :hi:

[butterfly77]

13. They are at the meeting today to plan their list of bad guys ..

as they knock them off or bring them out of the freezer..