Posted on 10/12/2006 5:58:42 PM PDT by neverdem
"Yes, I think that was also called the CONSTITUTIONAL ELECTION. "
Thank you. (though I think there was also a poll just a week or 2 ago confirming that they didn't want their country split up)
I agree. The Iraqi's need to make the decision. And their strength against outsiders is in staying unified.
The Shiia are the largest population, they are 60% while the Sunni are only 20%
They have nothing to bargain with. The current government benefitted the Sunnis more than the Kurds or Shia. They've been sabotaging it. They've been pi$$ing in the well, and now they don't like the way the coffee tastes.
Am I going to care if the Sunnis start a war with the Shiites or the Kurds, and they get their @sses thoroughly kicked?
Not likely...not in this lifetime anyway.
You said -- "But if they don't want it, how can it be successful?"
Well..., first of all, I think you're going to have a "shoo-in" with the Kurds, over this issue. So, I would say that they are "in" with it.
Then, I would suspect you can split off the other minority group, that Saddam Hussein belonged to -- because they feel repressed in their own country now. They would probably go for their own autonomy, of sorts.
Then, that would leave the *one group* by itself -- and it was be "de facto" -- done -- since the other two had already split off. There would be nothing for them to do.
Regards,
Star Traveler
I've got a prediction on how this is going to play out. The US will get the UN to negotiate a split of the country into the aforementioned autonomous zones. Saddam's trial will either end in a not guilty verdict, or he'll be freed by his followers shortly after the US announces a drawdown of forces. Saddam wiil get control again and attempt to destroy the Kurds and reunite Iraq. There's a reason he isn't dead yet. He'll be back in power yet. Like Castro, he'll outlast his nemesis, GWB.
Or maybe a few hotheads on each of the 3 sides prefer that, and the wants of the majority of each group be dammed.
You said -- "The US will get the UN to negotiate a split of the country into the aforementioned autonomous zones. Saddam's trial will either end in a not guilty verdict, or he'll be freed by his followers shortly after the US announces a drawdown of forces. Saddam wiil get control again and attempt to destroy the Kurds and reunite Iraq. There's a reason he isn't dead yet. He'll be back in power yet. Like Castro, he'll outlast his nemesis, GWB."
Are you sure you're not having a *nightmare* while still awake. That's what this sounds like.
I guess (if this turns out that way) -- that the people of Iraq were right in not trusting and/or believing the U.S. when they were told that Saddam Hussein would never be back in power again. If he comes back again, it's like the U.S. just dumped billions of dollars down a rat-hole and wasted thousands of lives in the war over there. I can't overstate how much of a nightmare that would be.
Oh, and by the way, isn't this *exactly* what the Democrats want to happen?
Regards,
Star Traveler
Why ask a bunch of politicians (and Supreme Court Justice!) how to win a war. Why not convene a panel of military experts?
1) Saddam, a mass murderer, will go nowhere but to Hades. 2) Any scenarios for Iraq will assuredly be done in coordination with the Pentagon - the end result of it all may be the civilian group putting an official stamp on more-or-less the Pentagon's plan.
What's not to accept? The Sunnis will be poor, and badly outnumbered. 80% of the Iraqi population will have plenty of oil money coming in, and won't think twice about killing Sunnis who cause trouble. Once we're out of the way, and the Iraqis can settle their own mess, the Sunnis will wish they had played ball earlier. When it mattered whether or not they 'accepted' what was going on, that is.
You'll start to see this happening soon. Within the next 12 months at the latest. There's a growing sense that our large-but-not-large enough troop presence is making the problem worse. Since adding more troops isn't an option, and staying the course simply isn't working, the Administration is being corraled by wiser heads, like James Baker, into a position of having less troops.
Actually, I think that was the UN.
Because Iraq is too politically sensitive to be handled by military experts. It's the same reason we're got politicians and lawyers running the show from DC. And, pretty much the reason why people who have failed to produce results have not been replaced. Issues relating to Iraq have political considerations that negate or subordinate other, more practical concerns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.