trex Posted October 1, 2007 Report Posted October 1, 2007 Senate Endorses Plan to Divide Iraq Warner said the vote represented a de facto acknowledgement of the now widely held view that Iraq's long-term problems cannot be solved militarily. "This amendment builds on that foundation," said Warner. "In a way, we are paralyzed." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2601506_pf.html U.S. Tries to Allay Anger Over Iraq Partition Plan BAGHDAD, Sept. 30 - The American Embassy reiterated its support on Sunday for a united Iraq as six political parties together voiced their objection to a United States Senate resolution endorsing partitioning the country into three states. In a statement, the embassy said: “Our goal in Iraq remains the same: a united democratic, federal Iraq that can govern, defend and sustain itself. “Attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed.” Web Page ----------------- sounds like they didnt bother to inform the iraqis of their new plans for dividing iraq. they are making decisions for them from the other side of the pond. nice. dance little puppet Quote
Higgly Posted October 1, 2007 Report Posted October 1, 2007 Yeah, partition would produce (as usual) a lot of suffering and bloodshed. I don't think the US government is going to be able to find a way out of this mess without a lot of suffering and bloodshed. Maybe it's time for the US government to start looking around for somebody else who might be able to fix this thing. It is certain that neither the President, the Congress, the US military, nor the Senate is going to be able to do it. They've pretty much shown they just don't belong anywhere in the general neighbourhood. Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
buffycat Posted October 1, 2007 Report Posted October 1, 2007 Not a surprise, it was spoken about in Perle and Feith's Clean Break papers (written for Netanyahu). Israel has been wanting this for some time now - it all has to do with the balance of power - currently with Israel on top. You might want to take a peek at this: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/20...01_archive.html While Chomsky talks mostly about Iran here - the link is made between the ultra right neocons like Perle and Feith and the whole idea of redrawing the entire ME. Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
sharkman Posted October 1, 2007 Report Posted October 1, 2007 When Iraq was at the height of her powers with Saddam at the helm, they were still no match for Israel, so suggesting that Israel needs a divided Iraq to remain on top is just plain wrong. Left wing web sites continue to find Israel at the heart of everything! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 ....It is certain that neither the President, the Congress, the US military, nor the Senate is going to be able to do it. They've pretty much shown they just don't belong anywhere in the general neighbourhood. Huh? The Senate is part of Congress. They can do as they damn well please thank you very much.....see definition of INVASION and OCCUPATION. Iraq is bought and the USA is making the car payments. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 (edited) Partitioning might not be up to the politicians if the US pulls out of Iraq as a real civil war would certainly break out forcing some sort of lines to be drawn in the sand after a period of utter chaos. Damned if you do and da....etc etc etc. As for Israel...it's always been on top in terms of the military. Even when they had the crude homemade weapons and the Arabs had all the tanks. Superb officer corp...elite airforce...excellent Israeli-made weapons like the and . Nothing the Arabs have can match them. They tend to suffer the opposite. Rotten officers...crumby ex-Soviet equipment...poor motivation, etc, etc, etc. Numerous Arab countries in the region do have very active chemical warfare programs which is a bit of a worry when combined with ballistic missles (which they already have).---------------------------------------------------- I have learned to use the word 'impossible' with the greatest caution. ---Wernher von Braun Edited October 2, 2007 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
jbg Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 Huh? The Senate is part of Congress.It is common to refer to the House of Representatives as "Congress", much as "Commons" is often referred to as "Parliament" and its members "MP's" even though of course Parliament includes the Senate. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 It is common to refer to the House of Representatives as "Congress", much as "Commons" is often referred to as "Parliament" and its members "MP's" even though of course Parliament includes the Senate. It is common where? Not in my neck of the woods....where it is common to refer to the House of Representatives as the "House"...never Congress. I am confident that Canadians do not refer to the HoC as "Congress". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 Imagine my non-surprise! wasn't this the intent all along? Yup!!!! Yup!!! Wasn't this discussed prior to the attack? Yup!!! Yup!!!! Divide and conquer, just like good ol' imperialists. Ah 'freedom and democracy', 'cakewalk' and all that blather Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 When Iraq was at the height of her powers with Saddam at the helm, they were still no match for Israel, so suggesting that Israel needs a divided Iraq to remain on top is just plain wrong. Left wing web sites continue to find Israel at the heart of everything! actually Israel will benefit greatly from a divided Iraq, three weaker states , easier to attack, etc., particularly when Israel is in an expansionist mood. Not really up on things are ya!! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 flashback http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=2250 U.S. Considers Dividing Iraq Into Three Separate States After Saddam Is Gone October 1, 2002 A US war against Iraq appears to be only a matter of when, not if, despite the latest rumblings from a few high-level Democrats who oppose the idea. The latest Zogby poll shows that 70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein is a legitimate threat to the safety and security of the United States, compared to 25% who believe Hussein is just another ruler whose policies are anti-American. proof propaganda works but, I digress Well, my good friends at STRATFOR.COM released a fascinating report last Friday. Stratfor.com is one of the most respected geopolitical intelligence services in the world. Stratfor's high-level sources tell them that one of the leading long-term strategies being considered by US war planners is one that will DIVIDE Iraq into three separate regions. Under this plan Iraq would CEASE TO EXIST. Stratfor believes the plan would divide Iraq as follows: 1. The central and largest part of Iraq that is populated by the Sunni Arabs would be joined with JORDAN to form one "United Hashemite Kingdom," which would be ruled by Jordan's King Abdullah. This area would include Baghdad, which would no longer be the capital. 2. The Kurdish region of northern and northwestern Iraq, including Mosul and the vast Kirkuk oilfields, would become its own autonomous state. 3. The Shia Region in southwestern Iraq, including Basra, would make up the third state, or more likely it would be joined with Kuwait. Stratfor's sources indicate that the plan to divide (and thus eliminate) Iraq as described above is not the only plan under consideration, and it is also not finalized. However, such a plan makes a lot of sense to me. Stratfor says that such a plan reportedly was discussed at an unusual meeting between Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan and pro-US Iraqi Sunni opposition members in London in July. Further, they say that in September, the Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, stated that the US goal in Iraq was to create a United Hashemite Kingdom that would encompass Jordan and Iraq's Sunni areas. Also, Israeli terrorism expert Ehud Sprinzak recently echoed this sentiment on Russian television on September 24. So whose idea is this? According to Stratfor, Sprinzak stated that the authors of the "Hashemite" plan are Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, both considered the most hawkish of Bush administration officials. That is not surprising. therefore, the intent has always been to destroy Iraq, not liberate, but destroy. Not to free, but to enslave to the ideals of the neo-cons. But gosh, who really thought the US was helping anyway??? Oh sorry, some believed, like fanatic religious zealots, believed the rhetoric and nonsense. Thankfully (gloating) I wasn't one of them! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
jbg Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 Divide and conquer, just like good ol' imperialists.And what traditional history, pre-Ottoman conquest does "Iraq" have? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 When Iraq was at the height of her powers with Saddam at the helm, they were still no match for Israel, so suggesting that Israel needs a divided Iraq to remain on top is just plain wrong. Left wing web sites continue to find Israel at the heart of everything! I know. A country barely the size of New Jersey is responsible for all of the ills of the world. It's amazing how emotional people get about a "Palestine" they never advocated for between 1948 and 1967. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
kuzadd Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 (edited) And what traditional history, pre-Ottoman conquest does "Iraq" have? That was a reference to illegal, immoral, unjustified US invasion. Edited October 2, 2007 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
buffycat Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 Uh...jbg Iraq held the cradle of civilisation. That has been destroyed. It's sort of like re-writing history - once you wipe out the evidence who can argue with you? Baghdad Batteries? What Baghdad Batteries? Hanging Gardens? What hanging gardens? Not only has the UK/US war machine killed hundreds of thousands, made refugees of millions but it has also demolished, pilfered and stolen humanity's shared history by the looting and destruction of many in situ artifacts and wonders, as well as the tragedy of all the museums. Of course, this is quite likely part of the plan. Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
jbg Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 Uh...jbg Iraq held the cradle of civilisation.That has been destroyed. It's sort of like re-writing history - once you wipe out the evidence who can argue with you? Baghdad Batteries? What Baghdad Batteries? Hanging Gardens? What hanging gardens? Didn't the Ottomans do that destruction, in the name of Islam? Didn't the spread of Islam earlier than the Ottoman era wip a lot of that stuff out, as it did in Egypt and other formerly great civilizations killed under the dead Muslim hand? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
buffycat Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 (edited) Didn't the Ottomans do that destruction, in the name of Islam? Didn't the spread of Islam earlier than the Ottoman era wip a lot of that stuff out, as it did in Egypt and other formerly great civilizations killed under the dead Muslim hand? jbg are you being deliberately obtuse? Yanking the chains? I know you not that stupid: Google results for 'destruction of Iraq Antiquities' edited to add: Why is it that so many folk say 'Well so and so did it before!!' ? Like when on earth have two wrongs made a right? If my neighbour is pouring oil down the sewer drain does that mean it's fine and dandy for me to do the same or worse? What nonsense. Edited October 2, 2007 by buffycat Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
ScottSA Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 jbg are you being deliberately obtuse? Yanking the chains? I know you not that stupid: Google results for 'destruction of Iraq Antiquities' edited to add: Why is it that so many folk say 'Well so and so did it before!!' ? Like when on earth have two wrongs made a right? If my neighbour is pouring oil down the sewer drain does that mean it's fine and dandy for me to do the same or worse? What nonsense. In war, things get blown up. That's quite different from cultish Ottoman animals intentionally defacing everything in their path because some psychotic genocidal maniac told them God said to do it. Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 In war, things get blown up. That's quite different from cultish Ottoman animals intentionally defacing everything in their path because some psychotic genocidal maniac told them God said to do it. The original defintion of iconoclast. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
sharkman Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 actually Israel will benefit greatly from a divided Iraq, three weaker states , easier to attack, etc., particularly when Israel is in an expansionist mood.Not really up on things are ya!! Please don't insult the intelligence of the posters here. Israel can not expand into Iraq, since they are neighbored by Syria, Jordan Eygypt, but no Iraq. Perhaps you should look at a map. Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted October 3, 2007 Report Posted October 3, 2007 Not only has the UK/US war machine killed hundreds of thousands, made refugees of millions but it has also demolished, pilfered and stolen humanity's shared history by the looting and destruction of many in situ artifacts and wonders, as well as the tragedy of all the museums. Of course, this is quite likely part of the plan. I agree that its a huge loss to human kind. these are things that we as a species should have cherished. However the UK and US are not the only ones to blame for such behaviour. for instance, the Taliban are known to deliberately cause such destruction of human heritage sites and objects if they offend their religious sensibilities. The bottom line is that such conflicts cost not only lives but the loss of significant and irreplaceable artifacts. Still, the loss of the Hanging Gardens cant be attributed to the UK or US as they were destroyed eons before the US even existed. Interesting topic though. Old accounts (Herodotus) had the walls of Babylon stretching for 80 miles, its now known they extended for 10 miles. The history of this area is well worth learning as its full of interesting occurrences, accomplishments, and also failures. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
trex Posted October 3, 2007 Author Report Posted October 3, 2007 the Taliban are known to deliberately cause such destruction of human heritage sites and objects if they offend their religious sensibilities. its not so much a question of whether people like the taliban are a problem or not, that is obvious to eveyone, and the fact that certain parts of muslim society are primitive and violent. but of course, that doesnt mean all of them. those who are violent must be dealt with effectively. they cant be reasoned with. those who are willing to live in peace and tolerance, should be left alone. msulim families who live in your neighborhood, they dont want to be like the taliban. many of them come to this country for that very reason, to escape them. so its a question of how to approach the problem... the wrong way leads to increased radicalization, gives the taliban a reason to use their propaganda against us, giving them leverage that they can win the psychological war, by showing us as brutal, indifferent hypocrits ourselves. its unreasonable to believe we can get rid of them all, much better to help them to become tolerant, religious fundamentalism is the problem and it exists on both sides. there are christian fundamentalists with extremist views too, some even want to bring about "the apocalypse", global war, to bring the return of their messiah. they all need to be marginalized, so that people wont take them seriously and follow them. we want their numbers to decrease, but it looks like some things we do are making them increase. Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted October 3, 2007 Report Posted October 3, 2007 I agree with a lot of what you say, I don't agree with this statement though. much better to help them to become tolerant, It may be possible you could instill tolerance in a relative hand full of them but I believe the majority of the Taliban are of the extreme Islamist sort. Far more than the Palestinians. Many Palestinians don't want the fighting, don't want to live in fear of both the Israelis and also their own. Unfortunately there are quite a few who think exactly the opposite. And they hold the rest in fear. I honestly don't think those kinds are open to tolerance. Their religious convictions and societal pressures are so great as to make them willingly, even joyfully eager to commit suicide. Its these guys (and girls) whom I do not think can be taught tolerance. The tough question is, what is the answer? Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
Bonam Posted October 3, 2007 Report Posted October 3, 2007 The tough question is, what is the answer? Not really tough at all. There is no answer, and never has been one. It's just the normal state of affairs. Some people somewhere in the world are always bound to hold crazy beliefs. Some people somewhere in the world are always bound to be in a state of suffering. We can't fix everything. Best thing we can do is not mess with things beyond doing what is necessary to assure our own (and our allies) interests and security. Quote
kuzadd Posted October 3, 2007 Report Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Please don't insult the intelligence of the posters here. Israel can not expand into Iraq, since they are neighbored by Syria, Jordan Eygypt, but no Iraq. Perhaps you should look at a map. I can't insult the intelligence of any posters here, who don't display any intelligence. BTW: don't insult my intelligence. read below. In 1996, a paper came out called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" from the "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break...uring_the_Realm ( i detest wiki though) some excerpts wrt Iraq Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, . Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia and one more for good measure To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996. so in 1996, Israel was looking to remove Saddam Hussein, as an important Israeli strategic objective. Make no mistake Israel is in an expansionist mode. Edited October 3, 2007 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.