Mmm indeed. The problem with such a partition, is that one side may not like they're partition. They may feel hard done by, resulting in a war between states instead of a civil war. I don't think this region can be stabilised. They're too agressive, and they're islamic ideology doesn't help. I don't think they actually want peace.

quote:

It has three separate nations - the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, and they are not going to get along.

I think an interesting "solution" to consider would be a 3-way partition. A system would have to be set up to divide the oil revenue equally but otherwise we could create 3-soverign and independent countries.

In a word: neo-colonialism. Well, kind of. Essentially, the administration hoped to establish a democracy in Iraq to counter Iran. Ironic, considering Iraq was doing a good job keeping the balance of power perfectly fine when Saddam was in power...

OK, there is no way in hell anyone is going to introduce democracy in a country like Iraq. It is not a nation. It has three separate nations - the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, and they are not going to get along.

So why is America there? What does America gain for its enterprise? Its it oil or something?

Bush wants a "surge" (political spin for escalation, if you ask me), which he says means a few troops for a short time.

Which will do (drum roll please)...

...absolutely nothing.

In order to "fix" what we've broken with guns and things, we'll need a lot more troops for a very long time.

But that will never happen. The nation is too fed up with the handling of Iraq. Even sending 22,000 more Americans to Iraq is coming under fire. This is a clear-cut case of "too little too late," but Bush and Cheney are the only ones who haven't seen it yet.

quote:

Obviously the amount of troops we had wan't doing enough good, so, logical conclusion, send in more.

That's not the logical conclusion of many American generals and military experts including Colin Powell and the Baker/Hamilton Commission. Giving the Iraqi government more responsiblity will force them to crack down on violence. An American presence in Iraq really only aggravates the situation...it gives an insurgents an easy target and scapegoat.

The Iraqi people do not want us there. The Iraqi president does not want us there. The American people do not want us there.

Every reasonable military expert has agreed that there is no military solution to Iraq quagmire. Thus, how would additional American troops help the situation? American soliders are not trained to play policemen in a a foreign country.

quote:

Originally posted by Kate127:
It's not like we can just pull all the US troops out. When we invaded this country we made a commitment to help them. It's not some toy you get bored playing with. Hundreds of thousands of people live there. We can't just say "sorry, you're on your own" We have to finish what we started. Obviously the amount of troops we had wan't doing enough good, so, logical conclusion, send in more.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that (a) it works under the assumption that the situation in Iraq can even be "fixed" by military means, which a lot of politicians are questioning, and (b) that a 15% troop increase isn't terribly substantial. I'm no military general and my knowledge of the region is limited at best, but most of the pro-war crowd seems to believe that a "surge" this minor just won't do the trick. Bush has sent in additional forces several times before, and the result has been more of the same. Of course, asking even more Americans to put their lives on the line isn't fair to us. Bush has made an unrealistic commitment to a region in turmoil, but his commitment to Americans has to come first.

It's not like we can just pull all the US troops out. When we invaded this country we made a commitment to help them. It's not some toy you get bored playing with. Hundreds of thousands of people live there. We can't just say "sorry, you're on your own" We have to finish what we started. Obviously the amount of troops we had wan't doing enough good, so, logical conclusion, send in more.

quote:

Does it really matter?
She probably wasn't aware of "board etiquette" until after she saw your original post.

1. I'm just letting her know.
2. Maybe it's less now, that's why I'm asking if she attempted it.

Does it really matter?
She probably wasn't aware of "board etiquette" until after she saw your original post.

quote:

sorry, it was too late to edit Smile

You have 8 minutes. The time between your two posts was 4. Did you attempt it?

sorry, it was too late to edit

bring more troops in? I KNOW! thats the amount he had in Iraq before. what a shmuck.

quote:

i'll shut up becuz i'll offend someone with what i might say about him.

If it's well thought out, then risk it.

I think that bush should... uhh. i'll shut up becuz i'll offend someone with what i might say about him. But he's being stupid about the war...

You know, there is such a thing as the edit button.

For future reference, use that. The mods (or other posters) don't like spammers, or people who post multiple times in a row.

I just wish he could realize what a big difference he's making to so many people. NO ONE agrees with him! He didn't listen to his advisors, generals, the public, congress. I just think he needs to think about what's best for the country and the world, not just what he wants to do. I guess I'm just really upset because someone I know is going to Iraq and won't be back for a year, so it's hard.