Kurds/Shia vs. Sunni Battle Inevitable?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Adam's Apple, Nov 21, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Slaughter of Sunni Foes Is Inevitable
    By James P. Pinkerton, Newsday
    November 17, 2005

    When will the anti-American violence in Iraq end? It will end when we unleash the Shia Arab Muslims and the Kurds to finish the job, all the way to the bloody extreme. We're not ready for such unleashing just yet, but we're getting close.

    for full article:
    http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vppin4515723nov17,0,3416132,print.column...
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    A 3 state solution might be an idea.
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    The military community back in the early 90s generally predicted this to be the final outcome of removing Saddam from power. Why it was not addressed and planned for PRIOR TO invading beats the Hell out of me.
     
  4. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    and Happy Thanksgiving. I took a one year break from this board after a couple of very entertaining months with y'all in late 2004 (a family medical issue forced me to leave abruptly).

    It's been interesting to return and see the change in feeling here. A year ago, all the conservatives were lined up in a row, cheering Bush on. Now the libertarians, the Christian moralists, the fiscal conservatives, and the neoCons are on entirely different pages, and there's a lot less self-congratulation.

    Anyway, on this subject--a 3 state solution isn't possible because the oil wealth of the country isn't evenly distributed among the three geographic areas. Who would keep peace between the 3 states?

    It was utterly clear before the war that Saddam managed to stay in power by playing the 3 groups off against each other. When you read all Bush and gang's rallying before the war, they repeatedly referred to "the Iraqi people" as if they were one group rather than 3. I used to yell this at the TV set. It was one of many reasons that so few other nations chose to join our "coalition of the willing."

    Why did Bush and the neoCons not see this coming? I can only think of one word: arrogance.

    Mariner
     
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    "Bush and the NeoCons" .... a new rock band? I suppose you can define "NeoCon"? Your post indicates that you seem familiar enough with the term used to identify "Bush and the NeoCons," so I'm SURE you have an answer.
     
  6. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    neoCons," because it seems obvious that when choosing to go to war Bush was under the sway of people who believed in the neoConservative philosophy that suggested that simply removing Saddam from power was the only obstacle to creating democracy in Iraq, which would quickly be followed by a flowering of democracy throughout the region. Republicans in general were not arguing this prior to Bush's election--only neoCons were.

    As far as we can tell--and it's not easy, given that this is the most secretive administration in history--Paul Wolfowitz was the main neoCon who had Cheney and Bush's ears. Somehow, neoCons overcame Bush's aversion to "nation-building" and bought themselves--and all of us--a $200+ billion war.

    Plenty of people cautioned that this was a rosy scenario, and worried about potential messes we might create, including the one we're in now, including military people, non neoCon conservatives who worried about bearing the cost of the war ourselves, and mideast experts who pointed out the potential pitfalls in neoCon thinkging.

    Mariner.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Well you never did define neo-con, no surprise there. As for
    I think that was accomplished more by 9.11.01.
     
  8. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    I'm not exactly sure why you're asking me for a definition. I went looking for one, though. Here's wikipedia's:

    "Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and their lack of support for the "small government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives."

    As for 9/11 "causing" our intervention in Iraq, I think we'll only know exactly how that came about when Bush the second part of the inquiry into the use of pre-war intelligence is completed. The fact that Bush and the Republicans in Congress have postponed completing this task strongly suggests that there is much to hide. The hints that have dribbled out to date are not encouraging. My skeptical position is that Saddam had zilch to do with 9/11, which is also what 95% of the American public believed, until Bush started referring to invading Iraq as a front in the war on terror.

    Both the Wall Street Journal (conservative) and the New York Times (more liberal) have reported on the details in recent months. It is now perfectly clear that when Condi Rice referred to a "mushroom cloud," the uraniam info from Niger was already discredited. Bush has admitted that his 16 words about that subject in his State of the Union Address on this subject were wrong. A couple of weeks ago, the White House quietly admitted that Saddam never had WMD. Powell has called his speech to the U.N. (which persuaded me, and many others who trusted him but not Bush, that war might be needed) a "blot" on his record. The "secret" evidence about aluminum tubes was already discredited. The supposed meeting between Atta and Hussein's people was also completely discredited before Bush stated it as fact.

    And then there is the whitewashing and distorting of intelligence that the White House provided to Congress. Bush had access to daily briefings that were not shared with Congress, and White House staffers removed ambiguities and changed phrases to strengthen their case for war.

    I predict that when all the facts come out, it will be clear that Bush and his team duped us all, having their own reasons to invade Iraq, and using 9/11 and convenient cover. Also, a lot easier to attack wimpy Saddam than to take on the real problem. Remember Osama bin Laden? Why did he commit 9/11? Because he hated US bases on Saudi land. You guys can continue to believe what you want here, but the truth will eventually come out.

    (And on that note, where in the Constitution does Bush find the "right" to executive privilege? It was created by the "activist" judges on the Supreme court in the 1960's. If Bush were a true "originalist" he'd stop his obsessive secrecy and let us in on some of his decision-making. The Constitution is also crystal clear on the subject of treaties--that they have the force of law. Yet Bush has surrounded himself with advisers, e.g. Andrew Yoo and Cheney's two new top aides, who argue for an imperial presidency that can ignore treaties at will. That's a violation of the basic balance of powers created by the founders.)

    Mariner.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    You are somewhat right on the executive privilege, it's not mentioned in the Constitution. But there certainly is precedent for it:

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html

    On the other hand, if you'd like to take away all powers/rights now considered acceptable from here on out, I'll join ya in that! :thup:

    As for the 'nation building' I will be truly surprised if it is 'discovered' that 9.11 just sped up the administration's decision on Iraq. Not that there wasn't a 'plan' for Iraq, Clinton had left one which had been tweaked from what Bush 1 left him, which was left from Reagan and so on. The governement wouldn't be doing its job if they didn't have a 'war plan' for every possible country. Of course those that are active against our nation, well their plans are more up to date.

    The democrats are well aware of that and when in office, do the exact same thing, it's their responsibility to. Then when out of power, try to say, "They were planning for war..." Of course they were.
     

Share This Page