War in Iraq

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by 17thfabn, Nov 25, 2006.

  1. Yes, it would indeed, X. It might be suggested that a united Iraq was an impossible goal from the very outset of the conflict. All the politicians, both American and Iraqi, seem to have rejected the whole idea of partition, but I wonder if that would not be the best possible solution in the long term. It seems clear that the Shi'ites will never again accept a situation in which the minority Sunnis have effective control over Iraq as they did when Saddam was in power. Likewise, the Sunnis fear retribution by the Shi'ite majority and effective disenfranchisement if elections are held and the voting goes, as it likely would, based on respective percentages of population. The Kurds, once again, simply want self-determination in the north. A partition of the country into three discrete sections, each with its own leader and governing body might work. Of course, there will still be the question of how the oil revenues should be assigned, and that would have to be determined by some sort of agreement. All three want a piece of that pie, preferably the largest piece! On the other hand, with the Iranis involved stirring the pot, along with Al Queda, a partition could end up being an open invitation to internecine warfare between the sections. I think we need to face the fact that no compromise in the American tradition between the opposing forces is likely to happen. With them, it seems, it's all or nothing.
  2. Light Coat

    Light Coat New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Middle of Nowhere, KS
    If you really want to get to the bottom of things concerning Iraq; you must recognize a few points about it. Iraq did not exist prior to the 1920's; prior to that it was several "territories" of the Ottoman Empire. The international community lumped together Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunni and Christians into a neat economic package. Britain took on the protectorate and raked oil out of the country giving little or nothing back. If you are a fan of British imperialism; this is a text book case of their abuses of colonial areas. We have, for the past 80 odd years, forged their weapon called oil. Since the earliest history of the world the region has been a hotbed of violence and strife.

    To truly win against the region; one must make their oil as valuable as their sand.
  3. Given the alleged changes in tactics and policy we've been hearing about for the last several days, I have to wonder if the changes are a precursor to a graceful pullout from Iraq, a policy that might actually work, or if what we're really doing is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. :rolleyes:
  4. Light Coat

    Light Coat New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Middle of Nowhere, KS
    Ahem, sir we need to put the chairs on the shuffleboard for the time being.
  5. All I'm saying, Light, is that we must either treat the situation as a war and do what must be done militarily to win, no matter how many politicians have a coronary, or pull the troops out and let the idiot ragheads kill each other until they settle it themselves.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum What do you think of my logic? Vietnam vs. Iraq, AT HOME. May 1, 2007
General Military Arms & History Forum Confirmed enemy kills in Iraq? Nov 19, 2004

Share This Page