Why Iran? Why not Saudi Arabia?

[cravenboob]

i don't believe that the usa is trying to divide the parties in iraq. what would be their motive for this? it seems to me that the usa is more interested in having stability in the region which is why they went after saddam. remember he started wars with iran and kuwait while trying to get wmd's.

As for dividing iraq into 3 states, sounds good but a host of possible issues such as turkey vs the kurds, iran absorbing the shia areas and fighting the sunni's which would draw in other arab nations such as syria.

 

[cravenboob]

i see your point but i don't think the region needs the usa to divide them. they are already divided. it seems that no one in the muslim world believes in compromise. every religious and political leader is intent on enforcing their own brand of politics and religion. until they learn to "live and let live", there will never be peace over there and the western powers will be forced to try and save them from themselves

 

[Brownie69]

i see your point but i don't think the region needs the usa to divide them. they are already divided. it seems that no one in the muslim world believes in compromise. every religious and political leader is intent on enforcing their own brand of politics and religion. until they learn to "live and let live", there will never be peace over there and the western powers will be forced to try and save them from themselves

cravenboob, look at it this way. Even though action isn't required that doesn't mean that you don't take it. If the US wants to secure their interests the best way to do that is bygetting involved and controlling the situation. Why take the chance and leave it up to external factors?

Your right about the status of the Muslim world, I've said it a lot, there is no real leadership there and that is the big problem. I think its sad, I don't believe that war and conflict are solutions to anything, but people let their anger and hate consume them when there is no one to guide them.

 

[TQM]

First Brownie

"Firstly, the US after invading Iraq, could have split the country into three and given each group their own gov't. Instead they tried to form a democracy amongst warring factions, placing the previously oppressed Shites in power."

That's really funny brownie. First you say they are dividers. Now you are admitting they didn't want divisions. They tried to keep things patched up. Is it a wonder you aren't paid for your political analysis?



Who would have thought that a large portion would be resentful against the Sunnis who were led by Saddam for so long? Appearently not the US. But of course portions of the Shite population start paying back the Sunnis for the oppression they suffered.

"Oh and don't forget the Kurds are still there mixing it up."

Are they? Mixing it up? Every story I've read has shown the Kurds in a positive light - offering support to both Sunnis and Shiites; trying to be full partners. But you say they are "mixing it up." Cite your evidence or take it back, little one.

"To make matters worse, the US is facing increasing pressure to pull out of Iraq. So the fighting amonst these groups will continue and get worse. "

Of course! Bush wanted to sabotage the next Republican candidate. It's all clear now. They really wanted death and destruction all along. After all, isn't 'democracy' a code word for death and destruction?

Anyway, thanks for playing. I've seen enough.

 

[TQM]

2nd - DQ

You share initials with Dairy Queen.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how they've divided things. You just said they are trying to patch things up; and I checked the dictionary and patching is the opposite of dividing. Still waiting, little one.

 

[TQM]

at least Dairy Queen

is a modestly successful company. Still waiting to hear how the U.S. is dividing by patching things up.

 

[Brownie69]

"Firstly, the US after invading Iraq, could have split the country into three and given each group their own gov't. Instead they tried to form a democracy amongst warring factions, placing the previously oppressed Shites in power."

That's really funny brownie. First you say they are dividers. Now you are admitting they didn't want divisions. They tried to keep things patched up. Is it a wonder you aren't paid for your political analysis?

TQM, I seriously suggest you understand what you are reading before you jump to your own conclusions about what I mean to say.

My point was that the US picked a strategy that gave the impression of unity over division but the under lying goal was always one of divide and conquer. The US knew that forming a democracy in Iraq would never work and would only entice each factions to try and grab as much power as they could from each other through non-peaceful methods. You have to be stupid to think you can just go into a country where there has been so much hate and tension and believe that democracy will magically eliminate all the problems in the region. Please, give me a break, the US knew what they were doing.

Your buying into the bullshit that the US Foriegn Policy is selling. They put on this face and say that their motives are pure and they want stability in the area when their real motivation is to secure thier own interests in the region. I suspect your want Bush to come out and actually say that before you'll believe it. Good luck buddy, this is politics, no one comes out and says what they are really doing.

And as far as the Kurds go. Do you think your hearing the complete story? I don't know what your news sources are but a people's desire for indepenece does not disappear over night. Believe me the Kurds are not sitting back during this.

 

[TQM]

Thank you, brownie

So:

a) the U.S. tried to keep them together knowing they wouldn't succeed. Still not the same thing as dividing, is it?

b) You've nothing to say about the Kurds that you can back up with any evidence. Of course, there is a strong independence movement amongst the Kurds. But they aren't blowing people up, now, are they?

 

[Brownie69]

So:

a) the U.S. tried to keep them together knowing they wouldn't succeed. Still not the same thing as dividing, is it?

b) You've nothing to say about the Kurds that you can back up with any evidence. Of course, there is a strong independence movement amongst the Kurds. But they aren't blowing people up, now, are they?

a) It is the same thing if you know that the policy will cause further divisions which is exactly what I'm arguing.

b) You don't hear or see the Kurds doing anything to mitigate the violence either do you? True, they aren't actively engaged at the moment, but why should they be? The other parties are killing each other; no need for them to get involved right now. Wait till things stop going their way.

 

[TQM]

you said

they were trying to unite - even if they think they won't succeed, that's not the same think as dividing. What other policy should be in place?

As for the Kurds - you are remarkably wrong - there have been many stories of their positive efforts.

Here's one such story: http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9202948

Sorry to get in the way of your theory. I think the Kurds are showing remarkable restraint, under the circumstances. That you would say what you did, without having any evidence, is very revealing.

 

[Brownie69]

Ok lets back up and make this clear. Yes I said the US is trying to unite the people in Iraq. But I'm saying that is a front, i.e. that is not the real goal and the goal is to further the divisions in the region. To be crystal clear, The US is on the surface showing the world an image that they want a united Iraq, but the means they choose to do that are specifically choose to lead to further division of the Iraqi people. I'm sorry if this has not been clear thus far. As far as to what policy should be in place? I have no clue, I wouldn't even advance one cause I don't think I know enough about the entire conflict to presume that I could come up with a workable solution. All I can say is that based upon what I see, this solution is meant to accomplish other goals.

On the point about the Kurds, IMO, they are doing the same thing as the US. They are positioning themselves to carry out their real intentions. Their current actions are simply a means of getting others to buy a farce of their supposed support of a democratic Iraqi government. Read this article about a potential goal of the Kurds: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11397.htm

The thing about current new reports about the Kurds is that your only getting commentation on what they are doing right now. There is very little on there on what their leaders are actually thinking or planning. Sure, you can mark it up to speculation, but the chances of this are very high in my opinion given the history of the region and the unchanging goals of the Kurdish people.

 

[red]

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05152006.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19070463/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6284718.stm

 

[TQM]

brownie

Where to begin with you....

1. You think the Kurds are are going to invade the rest of Iraq? Really?

2. So the U.S., in your view, really wants to fail. Sure - I see it now. That will really play well in the American press. "Bush tried but Failed." That will really help out the next Republican candidate. I can see the next campaign slogan - "We fail but at least we try."

So - the U.S. wants to fail. This way they get more soldiers killed; they get to build their debt further; they get less oil...... I understand completely. Thanks for the info, little one.

 

[Brownie69]

Where to begin with you....

1. You think the Kurds are are going to invade the rest of Iraq? Really?

2. So the U.S., in your view, really wants to fail. Sure - I see it now. That will really play well in the American press. "Bush tried but Failed." That will really help out the next Republican candidate. I can see the next campaign slogan - "We fail but at least we try."

So - the U.S. wants to fail. This way they get more soldiers killed; they get to build their debt further; they get less oil...... I understand completely. Thanks for the info, little one.

1. It doesn't matter if I think thats their plan or not. The point I'm trying to make to you is that I don't believe their intentions are as noble as you would like to believe. In time I believe we'll see something from the Kurds, maybe not an all out invasion (btw, you can't invade a country your already in) but something.

2. Do you really believe that Bush cares about what happens after his presidency in the immediate future? He knows the American press will be all over him, but in 40 years from now he probably believes that history will look back on his legacy differently because he would have set the ground work for the continued success of US interests.

Also, political parties know they will lose an election at some point in time, they aren't oblivious to the fact that they must lose at some time. If you accomplish what you want to accomplish in a term or two at the expense of a loss election then you do it. Come on now....

 

[TQM]

ummmm.

You link to a story which purports the Kurds are going to invade. It's an intensely stupid story. But all I did was ask you if you believe it. Now you say, you don't know if you believe it but you're still sure those sneaky Kurds are up to something. Without any evidence, I'd say you're bordering on racism.

2. So - you admit this will hurt politically. Then why do you think the U.S. currently secretly wishes for such a division. If it's going to put the Democrats into office (or at least will help to do so), it sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do.

 

[slowpoke]

i see your point but i don't think the region needs the usa to divide them. they are already divided. it seems that no one in the muslim world believes in compromise. every religious and political leader is intent on enforcing their own brand of politics and religion. until they learn to "live and let live", there will never be peace over there and the western powers will be forced to try and save them from themselves

These religious divisions become much more powerful when a weaker country falls under the control of a dominant outside power who can't provide security or maintain any of the trappings of a functioning state. Prior to the US invasion, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq were far more tolerant of each other. Saddam probably had a stabilizing influence but it went beyond that. Their sense of belonging to a particular religion was offset by their sense of national purpose, allegiance to their homeland and hope for a prosperous existence. Before the sanctions, Iraq was a functioning and relatively successful state with a thriving middle class, good education, employment, opportunity etc. Saddam was a menace but it would've been easy enough to prosper by simply avoiding activism or subversive behaviour. But our sanctions destroyed the middle class and the economy. Then the bombings and the invasion destroyed their security, their infrastructure, their sense of national purpose and their hopes for any kind of normal existence.

It took many years of sanctions, bombings and occupation by incompetents to strip away the harmonizing and insulating qualities of normal society that had previously allowed Iraq's religious groups to see past their differences and co-exist peacefully. So now that we have completely destroyed just about everything that once worked for them and held them together, we can blame their downfall and the insurgent bloodbath on the failure of their religion. Yeah, why can't they all just "live and let live". Must be their religion!!

 

[Brownie69]

You link to a story which purports the Kurds are going to invade. It's an intensely stupid story. But all I did was ask you if you believe it. Now you say, you don't know if you believe it but you're still sure those sneaky Kurds are up to something. Without any evidence, I'd say you're bordering on racism.

2. So - you admit this will hurt politically. Then why do you think the U.S. currently secretly wishes for such a division. If it's going to put the Democrats into office (or at least will help to do so), it sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do.

Well we're not going to agree and thats fine, everyone has their opinions. Red has provided a couple of links there showing instability in the region if you want to read/comment on those.

As far as the racism comment goes, you can believe what you want, but I'm not a biggot. I just understand things from a different perspective than you do, a perspective that you cannot understand. If peace can work in Iraq then I sincerely hope it does, but I'm not that optimistic.

As for the US, many gov'ts do thing that seem stupid. Take that for what you will.

 

[TQM]

on the stupid thing

On the one hand you are telling us the U.S. govt. isn't stupid - that it planned it to happen this way. But then you are telling us they are stupid - because having planned it this way, they had no good reason to want this outcome.

QED........

 

[frasier]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070717_NIE_Report.pdf

NIE report a widely accepted assesment, widely accepted by both sides of the aisle.
Maybe some of that will answer TOV's question....but then..maybe not.

 

[Brownie69]

It took many years of sanctions, bombings and occupation by incompetents to strip away the harmonizing and insulating qualities of normal society that had previously allowed Iraq's religious groups to see past their differences and co-exist peacefully. So now that we have completely destroyed just about everything that once worked for them and held them together, we can blame their downfall and the insurgent bloodbath on the failure of their religion. Yeah, why can't they all just "live and let live". Must be their religion!!

I disagree slowpoke. The division between the Shites and the Sunnis comes about from their history, not from their religion. Ali, the fourth Caliphate of Islam is key to understand the division. Its all political and it revolves around a grudge that goes back to the very begining of Islam itself. Here read this:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/SHIA.HTM

The so called peace you talk about in Iraq before the invasion was because of the iron rule of Saddam, which is well documented. It was based on tyrany, not a mutual acceptance of each group.