[billbears]

I think it was an artificial creation just like Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union; all held together by brute force; just like Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.

Ah but Iraq was created by Western powers trying to 'fix' a situation in 1918. By your logic we should have let it devolved long ago. Note I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it shouldn't have been established in the first place should it? Some of the fallout from the first 'spreading democracy' foreign policy

I don't think we have any business in Iraq but we are there now.

Indeed. But 'fixing' one problem always leads to 'fixing' another, and another, and well you see where this leads.

Lastly,please state your position if you are going to satirize mine.

Don't feel special, I satirize most positions when it comes to Iraq. Especially the ones that state we (being the US) need to help another downtrodden group of people. I feel for the Christians. As a Christian myself, I know they need help from private organizations to be led to a point of safety. However that does not mean I advocate the State to ensure safety within another nation does it?

otherwise you sound just like a democrat, all criticism and no plan.

Plans were suggested long ago (well three+ years seems long ago now doesn't it?). They weren't listened to then and frankly I don't think they would work now. Unfortunately, contrary to solid conservative thought, the US must stabilize the Iraqi government to some extent. What that means however is who the Iraqis vote they get, whether we like the bastard or not. Maliki seems to lean to Iran, well too bad. That's what the Iraqis apparently wanted with their purple fingers isn't it? Let Maliki's government stabilize and get out.

The sad case however is that eventually the Iraqis will elect a theocratic government and draw ever closer to Iran over the next generation. But that's what we gave them isn't it? The freedom to choose their course. And when they do, there shouldn't be complaints coming from the either side of the aisle about going to 'fix' it again.

[fatez]

I actually agree with your assessment. This is France's and Britain's mess from long ago. I do believe the Elder Bush was also in a no-win situation. Partitioning is easier said then done, I do understand that(note my first post that said a lot of hurt and death). I never believed in the pipe dream of democracy in the Middle East. I thought we would loose this war from the start (not because of the troops, but because we have an active 5th column in our country (and to take Iraq without taking Syria was just nuts (like the Syrians would just stand around doing nothing while we 'rebuild Iraq', that was very naive of the powers that be, however we could never have won world opinion on taking out Syria nor Congressional approval, so we should not have gone in at all))). But eventually Saddam would have gained some type of weapon and either used it himself or given to someone who would. A whole other mess.

I understand fixing one problem leads to making new ones (the law of unintended consequences) or leading to fixing others as you state. But by that logic, we should not have gone after Al Qaeda or stood up to NAZISM or Communism. In fact standing up to Communism is what helped create Al Qaeda as you probably well know. I want a homeland for the Christian Arabs, I will not get what I want, because nobody will seriously consider partitioning Iraq except the Iranians and the Syrians. Iraq will implode and those two countries will be there to absorb the pieces. The Kurds will be out once again (like Poland over the 300 years) and the Christians will be forced to emigrate, convert or die.

I would love to give the Kurds and the Christians the chance to fight for their own survival, that is why I would like to see a partition, but it will not happen. It is politically taboo here, but not in Damascus or Tehran...