US Senate votes to divide Iraq

[GostHacked]

Dog on Porch

Happy to help. Some of these folks would have us believe US GIs are lining up Iraqi women and children and executing them for crossing the road on a 'Don't Walk' signal.

That is when not re-writing history...

Don't throw words into our mouths. I had stated that the reason the US is getting more attention for deaths in Iraq is because they are the largest foreign military that took part in the occupation.

We all know damn well the war is not going according to plan. So when some of us point out the reasons why, it gets twisted to mean something else. That is how it is here.

I guess the reason is that we can get TV face time with Bush and Co on the main stream media. The terrorist leaders do not do this. So they are not in your face as much, out of site out of mind in a way.

So the US gets more attention this way, because they are the largest foreign force occupying Iraq right now. And with the US making most of the decisions in how Iraq was invaded and (hahahah) reconstructed, that garners them more attention as well when they screw up. The US wants to divide up Iraq into 3 seperate autonomous regions? If this does not go over well, who will be blamed? Exactly the US, because it was their plan to begin with. If the Iraqi's don't want it, how are the Iraqis to blame?

The US had a plan, the plan changed many many times since the war started. And it affects a country on the other side of the world, most of these people making the decisions for Iraq have never even been there. So again, this garners them more attention when things get messed up.

[DogOnPorch]

Don't throw words into our mouths.

Did I mention you? No?? Well, stop feeling so darn guilty, then.

---------------------------------------------------------------

A guilty conscience needs no accuser.

---Old Proverb

[Wilber]

What the heck are you talking about? I didn't blame the world's casualties on the U.S. This thread is about Iraq. The U.S. led the invasion of Iraq, therefore they are responsible for the majority of civilian casualties in Iraq.

They may be responsible for creating conditions that allow Sunnis and Shiites to massacre each other in an effort to fill a power vacuum but they are certainly not responsible for the deaths those parties inflict on other Iraqis. They decided to do that all by themselves.

[jbg]

Ad hominem. You won't convince many people of your arguments that way.

No, your response is ad hominem. Demonstrate that Yanks kill more Iraqis in combat than Iraqis do. You can't. Edited October 17, 2007 by jbg

[jbg]

They may be responsible for creating conditions that allow Sunnis and Shiites to massacre each other in an effort to fill a power vacuum but they are certainly not responsible for the deaths those parties inflict on other Iraqis. They decided to do that all by themselves.

Yes, Sunnis, who are about 10-20% of the population, resent losing their Saddam-era privileges, and the blood flows accordingly. The government is no longer able to conduct a unilateral bloodbath against the Shi'ites. Good on the Sunnis.

[GostHacked]

Did I mention you? No?? Well, stop feeling so darn guilty, then.

---------------------------------------------------------------

A guilty conscience needs no accuser.

---Old Proverb

No, you did not mention me. In fact you never mentioned any specific person. But in your statement of

Some of these folks would have us believe US GIs are lining up Iraqi women and children and executing them for crossing the road on a 'Don't Walk' signal.

It is not hard to see how it is directed. And it won't stop me from repsonding to your posts in the future.

[Guest trex]

Yes, Sunnis, who are about 10-20% of the population, resent losing their Saddam-era privileges, and the blood flows accordingly. The government is no longer able to conduct a unilateral bloodbath against the Shi'ites. Good on the Sunnis.

The shiites are worse than the sunnis, they are the ones who follow Ayatollah Sistani. Compared to the shiites, the sunnies are more western thinking and not as fundamentalist as the shiites. Sahria law is strictly adhered to by them but undur the sunnis women didnt have to cover up, they ad jobs in government, they went to school. Not so with the harsh fundamentalists muslims, which are now in control in iraq as a majority.

Hey democracy has made it worse!

[M.Dancer]

The shiites are worse than the sunnis, they are the ones who follow Ayatollah Sistani. Compared to the shiites, the sunnies are more western thinking and not as fundamentalist as the shiites. Sahria law is strictly adhered to by them but undur the sunnis women didnt have to cover up, they ad jobs in government, they went to school. Not so with the harsh fundamentalists muslims, which are now in control in iraq as a majority.

Hey democracy has made it worse!

Umm...no..and no and no.

Shia have much more emphasis on personal responsibility which makes them much more western that the Sunni.

Iraqi Shia follow Iraqi Shia Clerics, not iranian.....

Sunni also follw Sharia (see Saudi arabia, Yemen, Kuwiat....The Taliban)

As well, one of the most westernized branches of Islam originates from the Shia side...Ishmali Islam.

Edited October 17, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Moonlight Graham]

No, your response is ad hominem. Demonstrate that Yanks kill more Iraqis in combat than Iraqis do. You can't.

Of course i can't, because i was wrong. Instead of getting all defensive at the suggestion i could be wrong, i rather asked you to provide a link so i could read it. I'd much rather be wrong & know the truth, than to be right (or convince myself that i'm right) & be ignorant of the truth.

Isn't that the goal of debating? To learn the truth, rather than to just be able to claim you were right?

It's interesting that you didn't have time/energy to post the link yourself, but you did find time to insult me. And how exactly is the nature of Iraqi civilian deaths "obvious"? I don't live in Iraq, haven't trolled these boards long, and they dont widely report such statistics in the popular news media (let alone civilian death tolls in general). By your definition, any of your loved-ones who are also unaware that Iraqis are responsible for more casualties than the U.S. are also "challenged". But thanks for welcoming me to the forums nonetheless

[DogOnPorch]

It is not hard to see how it is directed. And it won't stop me from repsonding to your posts in the future.

I look forward. I wasn't trying to stop you from posting. Infact, it is far more enjoyable a forum with both my opinion and yours. However it was you who responded to the 'who took the cookies from the cookie jar?' ploy. Just watch closer for mines...we'll be good chums.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your door is a jar. Your window, a pickle.

---Mad Magazine

[BC_chick]

Almost all of Iraq's oil is in Shiite-dominated south. Splitting the country would therefore translate to killing hundreds of thousdands of Iraqis, thousdands of Americans, only to end up handing over Iraq's oil to..... you guessed it - Shiite Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/internat...st/30basra.html

If the oil was in Sunni areas the country would've been divided ages ago.

[M.Dancer]

Almost all of Iraq's oil is in Shiite-dominated south. Splitting the country would therefore translate to killing hundreds of thousdands of Iraqis, thousdands of Americans, only to end up handing over Iraq's oil to..... you guessed it - Shiite Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/internat...st/30basra.html

If the oil was in Sunni areas the country would've been divided ages ago.

Well, yes, except for the oil in the Kurdish north.....But why not give that to....Turkey!!

[BC_chick]

First, read the article I provided - 80-90% of Iraq's oil is in the Shiite south.

Second, are you disagreeing that an oil-rich autonomous Shiite division of Iraq would tremendously benefit Iran or is feigning ignorance (if it is indeed feigning?) and using my words in the literal sense the only argument you have?

Given the facts here - such as the geographical location of Iraq's oil in Shiite-dominated Iraq - I know it's difficult to argue that dividing Iraq would not benefit Iran. However, I expected a more coherent rebuttal than merely playing the semantics game.... yes, even from you.

[M.Dancer]

First, read the article I provided - 80-90% of Iraq's oil is in the Shiite south.

Second, are you disagreeing that an oil-rich autonomous Shiite division of Iraq would tremendously benefit Iran or is feigning ignorance (if it is indeed feigning?) and using my words in the literal sense the only argument you have?

Given the facts here - such as the geographical location of Iraq's oil in Shiite-dominated Iraq - I know it's difficult to argue that dividing Iraq would not benefit Iran. However, I expected a more coherent rebuttal than merely playing the semantics game.... yes, even from you.

Did you read the article?

Secular Shiites in Iraq Seek Autonomy in Oil-Rich South

[M.Dancer]

First, read the article I provided - 80-90% of Iraq's oil is in the Shiite south.

If you are going to be factual, be factual.

71% of iraq's oil fields are in the south

http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/052706.pdf

[BC_chick]

Once again, I see no denying of my original argument that a division of Iraq would benefit Iran - all I see is arguing about trvial fodder instead. Maybe you need assistance with the big words like "almost" in my first and original post where I say "Almost all of Iraq's oil is in Shiite-dominated south." Who knows.

But here, let me help you form a coherent rebuttal (because that's just the type of gal I am ). Your argument should go something like this....

I disagree with you BC_chick, I believe that Iran would not benefit the most from Iraq being divided along religious lines because: (fill in the blank)

But you're welcome to continue digging yourself in a hole here, it's actually quite amusing (you single-handedly managed to get me back on this site 3 days in a row!) You trying to deny that Iran would not gain the most with Iraq being divided is something that not even O'Reilley, Hannity, Limbaugh, or even Bush himself would do.

[M.Dancer]

Once again, I see no denying of my original argument that a division of Iraq would benefit Iran -

look closer...at the title of the\article even.....you are making someyhing nout of nothing.

[BC_chick]

I still don't see you denying the fact that Iran would be ecstatic about an autonomous oil-rich Shiite controlled area of Iraq.... secular or not.

[kuzadd]

I still don't see you denying the fact that Iran would be ecstatic about an autonomous oil-rich Shiite controlled area of Iraq.... secular or not.

Many have contended that the entire Iraq fiasco, was a great boon to Iran.

What with the natural affinity towards the shia population.

An autonomous oil rich shiite controlled region, would make a great ally.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...03/ai_n16658765

from the chicago times

U.S. attack on Iraq strengthened Iran

I can recall reading other articles of this nature , previously.

But clearly it makes sense.

Edited October 23, 2007 by kuzadd

[GostHacked]

Many have contended that the entire Iraq fiasco, was a great boon to Iran.

What with the natural affinity towards the shia population.

An autonomous oil rich shiite controlled region, would make a great ally.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...03/ai_n16658765

from the chicago times

U.S. attack on Iraq strengthened Iran

I can recall reading other articles of this nature , previously.

But clearly it makes sense.

Hmm.. you just made me think of something.

Afghanistan is to the east of Iran. Iraq is to the west. Now, if the US breaks up Iraq, it is all about divide and conquer after that. Iran if invaded, could be broken up the same way. Strategicly, this makes it easier for the US to maintain control over the favoured new 'countries' that control the most oil. Energy reserves.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/images/harita_b.jpeg

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=3882

[Guest trex]

Umm...no..and no and no.

Shia have much more emphasis on personal responsibility which makes them much more western that the Sunni.

Iraqi Shia follow Iraqi Shia Clerics, not iranian.....

Sunni also follw Sharia (see Saudi arabia, Yemen, Kuwiat....The Taliban)

As well, one of the most westernized branches of Islam originates from the Shia side...Ishmali Islam.

The shiites are the ones who run Iran. The shiites require their women to wear the black burka, and are more restrictive in womens rights. Under Saddam Hussein and the sunnis this was not necessary, and women were even in high levels of government.

Ayatollah Sistani in Iran is their religious leader. Thats why Muqtada Al-Sadr makes many visits there, to get instructions.

Thats why we knew, when the US declared the problem was with the sunnis in Iraq it was only because Saddam was a sunni. But the baffling part and the real truth was that by removing the baath party and army, they were handing the country over to shiites control, essentially giving Iran the upper hand in the region, which before was at war with Iraq under Saddam.

And now today it is the shiites who are the problem. First the sunnis, then al-qaeda in Iraq, then the shiites and the kurds. These boys are running around in circles, but are they actually getting anything done.

[Guest trex]

U.S. envoy warns of growing power of Iraqi militias

Thu Oct 25

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. military has succeeded in delivering a crippling blow to al Qaeda in Iraq, but this has only served to highlight "the other big problem" -- the power of Shi'ite militias, Washington's envoy to Iraq said on Thursday.

[M.Dancer]

The shiites are the ones who run Iran. The shiites require their women to wear the black burka, and are more restrictive in womens rights.

The shia do not require women to wear the burqa. That dress is more often seen Afghansitan and Pakistan

[Sulaco]

The shia do not require women to wear the burqa. That dress is more often seen Afghansitan and Pakistan

If you're gonna educate those who speak out of their asses you need to be more verbose. I am sure trex does not really know what a burqa is.

I've never seen a picture of an iranian woman in a burqua. As far as I know it doesn't happen. Burquas are a Sunni fetish.

[Moxie]

On a side note wasn't it the Taliban and the Palestinians that reinstated the Burka, it's popularity has blossomed since 911 in Islamic Countries as a way to thumb their noses at the west. It's also popular in UAI and now Saudi Arabia, they are becoming more radicalized and Moafied by the day.