question: Why don;t we just split up iraq?

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Frackal
Interesting how the talk is shifting to what to do now that the original aim has failed

We didn't get the WMD??? :shocked:

Most people with any sense would gather that I was referring to the original aim with respect to setting up a representative coalition government. Were you not able to figure that out?

I'm sorry, many of us deal in facts and common sense. When you say 'original aim' we focus on the 'original aim', which according to our government was securing the safety of our interests and our allies by getting the WMD's. The only people who say the 'original aim' is anything else are neo-con Bushco apologists who can't stand the possibility of being proven wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: marvdmartian

Originally posted by: Lemon law
everyone hates Georgie.

Pretty bold of you, speaking for the entire world, isn't it?

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There is no hope for peace of any kind when we have 130,000 armed thugs roaming their streets.

Yeah, it's people with attitudes like this that spit on guys coming back from Vietnam. Thanks for taking us back in time 30+ years! :roll:

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
I'm pretty sure "we" don't own Iraq. "We" don't know fukc about Iraq. "We" need to leave.

Oh goody! Someone else representing a large group! Perhaps "we" should run for political office if "we" have such strong views? Or is it just easier to whine in a forum and do nothing else?? :disgust:

Originally posted by: LunarRay

We could end the uncivil war by using Mountbatten's India plan... and pump all the oil to a central area and divide the spoils 3 ways...

Possibly the only sensible idea I've seen in this thread. Unfortunately, human nature would likely not make this work, as sooner or later one group would think that they deserved to be "more equal" than the other two, or one group would claim that the other two were getting more than their fair share.

It's pretty obvious that having these three groups living together as one is working out just about as well as it did in Yugoslavia. Remember how shocked people were when things fell apart there? Yet they forgot that the only reason Yugoslavia didn't implode earlier than it did was the 40+ years of Soviet dominance there, that forced the people to get along with each other, much the same that 20 years of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq did the same.

These people will likely learn to live together, though I'm sure there will be some serious birthing pains before the "new Iraq" will be a success. I'm willing to bet that once the Iraqi's take over a stronger role, and we back off, that things will straighten out. It's very likely that it will take a strong ruler, much like Saddam (though without the murderous tendancies), to make it happen.

But that's just my opinion!

But there is no civil war or uncivil civilian war. There are insurgents trying to prevent Iraq from succeeding as a democracy. More troops are coming to stabilize the situation.

Well.......... folks is killing folks and it seems the killers and killees are of differing Iraqi religious factions. It appears the Kurds are not involved to a large degree with the two 'major' factions. There must be some folks from Iran and other interested Nations involved but it is the Iraqi for the most part fighting with the Iraqi. At least if we can believe what is being reported. So an internal domestic event is occurring and if 'Civil War' is too bitter to pronounce as the term for this .. then how about 'IDEO'... I know.. you have no Ideo what to call it.. but the US are calling up the reserves to march into Baghdad to induce peace.

If we do that... send in more troops we send in more targets.. Iran would love to see that so perhaps is instrumental in the Iraqi termoil.... or the Iraqi Term Oil....

I think Al Qaeda was killing the Iranian branch to cause them to attack the Arab branch, but the sectarian violence is not a civil war and what needs to happen is for the violence to be put down. More troops, or targets, if you will, can do that because these targets shoot back and will have superior fire power. A dead insurgent can't foment turmoil.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Frackal
Interesting how the talk is shifting to what to do now that the original aim has failed

We didn't get the WMD??? :shocked:

Most people with any sense would gather that I was referring to the original aim with respect to setting up a representative coalition government. Were you not able to figure that out?

I'm sorry, many of us deal in facts and common sense. When you say 'original aim' we focus on the 'original aim', which according to our government was securing the safety of our interests and our allies by getting the WMD's. The only people who say the 'original aim' is anything else are neo-con Bushco apologists who can't stand the possibility of being proven wrong.

Original aim = original aim for what type of government would follow Saddam's. This is stupid, your post is stupid, DMCowen's post is stupid too.

I already explained what I meant. I said nothing about the original aim of the invasion, I said the original aim for what type of government would be put in. This explanation should not have been necessary

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Frackal
Interesting how the talk is shifting to what to do now that the original aim has failed

We didn't get the WMD??? :shocked:

Most people with any sense would gather that I was referring to the original aim with respect to setting up a representative coalition government. Were you not able to figure that out?

I'm sorry, many of us deal in facts and common sense. When you say 'original aim' we focus on the 'original aim', which according to our government was securing the safety of our interests and our allies by getting the WMD's. The only people who say the 'original aim' is anything else are neo-con Bushco apologists who can't stand the possibility of being proven wrong.

Original aim = original aim for what type of government would follow Saddam's. This is stupid, your post is stupid, DMCowen's post is stupid too.

I already explained what I meant. I said nothing about the original aim of the invasion, I said the original aim for what type of government would be put in. This explanation should not have been necessary

Gotcha. That's not how I read it. Apologies.

 

[Polish3d]

No problem, apologies on my end too, it was unclear enough to be easily open to interpretation