Democrate won election.

One man's freedom fighter is not another man's terrorist.

Freedom fighters don't blow up schools, only military or governmental targets. Not civilians. Terrorists kill anyone.

 

I agree that we have a definite responsibitly in Iraq, but I might have a different opinion on what it means to "stabilize the country"..

In the latest Time magazine, they lay out a case for the partitioning of Iraq into three states, Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite. They make the (IMO) persuasive argument that, while there are downsides to this course of action, they're mitigated by the fact we're already experiencing those downsides. They're facts that we already have to deal with. Iraq is partioned in all but name only. Kurds have the North. Shiites the South. And Sunnis the West.

I don't understand why Bush is so stuck on a unified Iraq. I'm sure there's political reasons that I'm blind to. The only sticking point that I can see is that the Sunnis will get screwed out of the super-producing oil fields (5 billion barrels +), but this can be worked out diplomatically. They can be guaranteed a percentage of all oil revenues for a period of time, while they explore/develop the large unexplored areas of their "portion" of Iraq.

I probably have an over-simplified view of the whole thing because I just started getting interested this kind of thing, but I haven't heard a good argument yet for why our best course is to prop up a bullshit Iraqi Security Force that actively participates in the civil war. If they want seperation, give them seperation. Work out the details diplomatically.

Don't use US ground troops to try and force a unified state that originally took a ruthless dictator to maintain.

 

I agree that it would be safer to divide Iraq or at least make each of these three parts an autonomy, but I think that's the matter of Iraq nation, so it needs Iraq referendum. Then we would get typical Balkan scenario, which would be surely better than unified Iraq in complete chaos.

 

Iraq is already devolving into civil war and segregation, so I agree that seperating them into three sections is a good idea. Rather than divide them into three seperate countries though, I'd create three States with one central Federal govt to oversee the country as a whole. This would allow the seperate cultures to define their beliefs and political opinions within their own 'borders' while still living together as one people. It might also help to curb some of the sectarian violence. They still need a unified military though, or inter-state war will erupt.

 

Let's create name for this, that's good idea. It would be "Mesopotamian Confederation of Assyria, Babylonia and Sumer"

 

The New Congress is going to ask for an get than phase withdraw of america forces from Iraq and Afghanistan which will be complete before the 2008 election. The two main sect of Islam are in a religious civil war in Iraq while being freedom fighter against us the foreign decil. The america people are trie of this war and want use out of it.

 

finally, a statement i can agree with... although it still makes me cringe.

 

- Dad! Dad! What's that?
- It is a tram, my son.


The perfect subtitle for this pic I found on wiki

 

Ohh please.
If you have a problem with the War do something about it.
If not shut the fuck up.

 

So...
Your will to do something about the war is deminishd because of people like me...
Im the one saying do something about it.
Im trying to spur you on.
If you want my real advice it would be this.
If you care about the War that much then pull your act together.
Stop being a pussy.
You think Hitler had it easy?
NO!
Hitler worked hard to get to the position he was in and in my opinion, prior to the whole mass murder of jews and invasion of other countries he did a great job. He came from nothing.
You could do the same. If you gave enough of a shit.
But no.
You would rather sit back and let others protest.

 

The problems is, does US want to go like Gitler. It seems that for US economical domination will be preferrable. And remember, now is a nuclear century, so nobody could predict what 'Roman variant' would cause

 

I was accused earlier of being a bit "dated" in my examples. Well, the thing you have to remember is this war isn't like any other war that's ever been fought. Hitler fought with an army, against another army. Nation against nation. In Iraq, we're fighting fucking civilian clothed cowards, who hide RPG's in nursery schools and mosques.

Not exactly the same as WWII. So I think your premise is a bit off, Xz.

 

Unfortunately, yes. I commend soldiers for their bravery and refusal to kill civilians (as it should be), but I'm also very sad knowing that the "injured old woman" might be a terrorist with an rpg strapped to his back.

 

Well, as I said before, we'll make a giant, nuclear circle. Baghdad, Kuwait City, Dhahran, Bahrain, Qutar, AbuDhabi, Sanaa, Mecca, Jidah, Medina, Al Aqabah, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Damascus, Beruit.

Open up a map, and look at that.

 

Looks like a new rise of Middle East civilization, ended years ago with destruction of Babylon.