Bush unifies Iraq...

[MTAtech]

...unfortunately, against America.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 8 — When the United States invaded Iraq a year ago, one of its chief concerns was preventing a civil war between Shiite Muslims, who make up a majority in the country, and Sunni Muslims, who held all the power under Saddam Hussein.

Now the fear is that the growing uprising against the occupation is forging a new and previously unheard of level of cooperation between the two groups — and the common cause is killing Americans.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/09/in...09SHIA.html?hp

[nomaxim]

If we leave the country, then what?

They kill each other!

What are you trying to say?
If we leave then a civil war breaks out. How many die then?

Do we stay and watch a few hundred die? Or do we leave and watch a few thousand die?

Please note that I am talking about people, all people, not just Americans.

[dragonz]

This is news from today. Sounds like things might be getting better.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

It's sad that they have to keep hostages. =\

Not true MTA, its simply more highly bias propaganda from the usual sources determined to misrepresent the actual opinion of the Iraqi citizens. Show me ANY poll that indicates that ANY majority group in Iraq opposes the ability to elect their own Government.

Every opinion poll taken in Iraq shows that most Iraqis don't support an austere Islamic government, as Sadr does, and a majority don't support attacks on U.S. troops, which is the hallmark of the Fallujah rebels.

Virtually every poll taken since the fall of Saddam indicates that neither of these groups who have tried to disguise their real objectives behind a mask of anti-Americanism represents the vast majority of Iraqis, who want to elect their own government, free of intimidation.

a Gallup poll showed that most Iraqis were optimistic about their future.

[Pexster]

In all of the discussions about Iraq's future, the "experts" always stress how important it is that Iraq as a country stays together. Why is this true? It wasn't one a hundred years ago. Why can't it be divided, if necessary? I think Turkey has said they cannot tolerate an independent Kurdish state, but why not? The Kurds in Turkey could move there if they wanted to. I don't understand why this is always accepted as a "given."

[MTAtech]

Originally posted by Fingers
Not true MTA, its simply more highly bias propaganda from the usual sources determined to misrepresent the actual opinion of the Iraqi citizens. Show me ANY poll that indicates that ANY majority group in Iraq opposes the ability to elect their own Government.

Those polls may be outdated now.

This is from George Will (the conservative columnist), the other day:

A U.S. official in Baghdad accurately insists that the violent insurgency involves “a minuscule percentage” of the 25 million Iraqis. However, history usually is made not by majorities but by intense minorities. Remember 1917, and this from Richard Pipes’s “The Russian Revolution”: “The Bolshevik triumph in October was accomplished nine-tenths psychologically: the forces involved were negligible, a few thousand men at most in a nation of one hundred and fifty million.” There may have been fewer Bolsheviks than there are members of Sadr’s militia, which is one of many. The cancellation last weekend of a Baghdad trade fair was symbolic of the ability of a minuscule minority to sow chaos sufficient to prevent a majority from attending to mundane matters.

Now that's from a leading CONSERVATIVE columnist. We must stop and reflect.

[Chuckiechan]

The insurgencies you are seeing are raw challenges to the new government in Iraq. The Shiites want their power back that they had under Saddam. It is traditional in Arab culture to beat down the loser. The have a view like the old saying in the West:"If you aren't the lead dog the view is all the same". Brutality and torture is a family value over there. We are trying to change that.

Much of the problem is Iranian "special forces" filtering in to add fuel to the fire, and weapons coming in from Iran and others.

Iran has a lot at stake in fueling the fires in Iraq. Anything that keeps Bush's feet to the fire and works against his re-election is a gain for radical Islam. They only recently became an "Axis of Evil" and attention was diverted back toward their nuclear program which was ignored by previous administrations as being "too difficult".

I don't know what MTA's solution is. Maybe going back to tribal lines like pre WW1 would be the way to go. That has always made sense to me only if they were handles like states without armed militias or armies. It really depends on who starves since the oil isn't evenly distributed.

The only agenda seems to be "Beat Bush". But then what? Another "Carter Coma"?

[MTAtech]

That is true Pexster and if I was in a position of authority, I would openly explore changing the borders to the liking of the people.

However, I don't want to go back to the 1920 borders, where Iraq and Kuwait were one country.

[nomaxim]

Posted by MTATech

Now that's from a leading CONSERVATIVE columnist. We must stop and reflect.

Your point of haterd is?
Please answer below,





I'm waiting.

MTAtech wrote
Bush unifies Iraq... ...unfortunately, against America

How does that article by Will, stating only a "minuscule percentage" of Iraqis are involved in the violent insurgance, support the title of this thread?