Blind pig and truffles comes to mind!
No doubt that an advisor gave Joe the idea.Nothing comes out of that swamp known as Biden’s mind.
Hey, a broken clock is right twice a day.
Joe Biden right? Snort...
This guy is a one-man refutation of the principle of a stopped clock being right twice-a-day. A stopped Biden clock would maybe be half-right once a day, at best.
And that would be after a session in the Krell ‘brain boost’ headgear...
Biden did not and does not know what he is talking about. A stupid comment about dividing up Iraq years ago does not explain the many Obama administration errors that have led to the current disaster in the middle east.
By what method would the various sects be horded into their assigned areas? And how would said division be maintained?
Partitioning Iraq would seem a sensible idea.
In 20/20 hindsight this seems like a good idea...
I would propose no matter how the country is divided...there will still be civil war, three factions instead of two...
Islamist have blood lust breed into them...
There are not really happy unless they are killing each other...
I say....may they be overcome with happiness...
As if he came up with that idea. People have been saying that for decades.
This has some interesting information about the current events in Iraq. IMO.
". . . Ankara has entered into energy deals with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), something which has infuriated the central Iraqi government in Baghdad but which has helped the Kurds further build a foundation for their independence [yes true that] Ankara has been so alarmed by the growing Kurdish autonomy [in Syria and tolerated by Syria, I believe] that it reportedly has provided support for [ISIS] in their fight against the Kurdish militia that controls the region [of Syria],which is affiliated with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)." [my emphasis]
more..
". . . the takeover by ISIS in recent days of Mosul and other cities . . . Ankara will likely not only have to deepen its relationship with the KRG . . . but also alter its approach to the Kurds in Syria [I ask: but demand that the Kurds in Syria reject the PKK?]"
more..
"Explains Lehigh University professor and Turkey expert Henri Barkey in an analysis piece on Al-Monitor website: The crisis may force the Turks to rethink some of their policies in Syria. To date, Ankara’s friendship with the Kurds stopped in Iraq; Erdogan and his government have taken an uncompromising position against Syrian Kurds led by the Democratic Union Party of Kurdistan (PYD), an offshoot of the Turkish Kurdish insurgent group the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The PYD has emerged as the strongest Kurdish group in Syria and has put together an impressive fighting force to defend its territory from both ISIS and the regime. The idea of another autonomous Kurdish region on its borders after the KRG has been anathema to Ankara. Paradoxically, the PYD’s armed elements are some of the only ones that have scored blows against the jihadists. In the face of the ISIS sweep, the PYD and the KRG, which have also had antagonistic relations, appear to be cooperating on defensive measures against ISIS. Turkey may have to reconsider its boycott of the Syrian Kurds to enlarge the anti-ISIS coalition." [my emphasis]
Yep — and Tacit was right too.
No. “Sectarianism” is just a convenient, comforting excuse for the fact that Obama has done nothing to stop AQ and its offshoots from gaining one victory after another. Having three or more even weaker smaller states certainly wouldn’t help; in any case, all of these places would have minorities of the other sect, so even if “sectarianism” were the problem, that wouldn’t help. And they would have had their allies in the larger states governed by their particular sect (Iran, anybody?), who would certainly not have been content with the measly little patch of territory their adherents had.
The only thing that would have helped would have been the establishment of a strong civil state governed by the rule of law, which was what we were attempting to do and nearly had done by 2009 - when Obama threw it all away by dumping Iraq. The civil government wasn’t strong enough, the economy wasn’t strong enough, and their military wasn’t strong enough.
A strong, stable, modern Iraq would have served as a barrier to AQ and Iran alike, which was the point of the whole exercise.
I thought it an interesting idea at the time...but how is it our place to divide a country? Our job was to rid of Saddam and help ease to a functional democracy. If they chose to do it, so be it, but people worried about our arrogance of power would have a point if we went around doing this.
Plus, this terrorist movement would have just as easily swept across three countries as they have one.
I don’t know about Biteme, but, the British sucked at drawing maps.
I can guarantee you if he was right, it wasn’t his idea...
No. The jihadists who are waging war in Iraq today are NOT Iraqis. They are Syrians, Iranians, American Jihadists, and other international terrorists.
seem to me the British are at fault as they are the one who drew the arbitrary lines in the whole mid east.
Biden said, in 2010, “(A unified) Iraq is one of the greatest achievements of this administration.”
But due to blowing this “achievement” with a premature pullout, they give him a mulligan, and revert back to what he said ten years ago.
Which is it? Can’t have it both ways.