Sectarian break-up of Iraq is now inevitable, admit officials

[Barnabas]

On cnn they said 1000 die per week in sunni vs shii attacks/fights

I doubt with sadaam it was that bad, maybe when they were at war with iran.

[chequita guevara]

Right now, more people are dying than under Saddam's final years. I'm fairly certain there were periods in his rule that easily exceeded that during the first Gulf War (the one against Iran).

[SlowwHand]

Iran and Iraq have fought forever, that I know of.
The 2 idiot countries were under discussion in my elementary years. And I sailed with Noah.

[Lodi]

Slowwhand, check out an ancient Egyptian festival called 'argha noa.'

I just think the plan for Iraq is to break up the country into 3 or 4 parts, de facto or de jure. Then the US can be set up in permanent military bases in Iraq to 'deal with the chaos.' From these permanent bases, and other staging ares, the US will then attack other countries.

The bases will allow for control of the oil fields. If the price of oil is to rise, then these oil fields won't be having too much output. If they want to drop prices, then oil output will be allowed.

Also, it will allow the blood merchants to profit from the military contracts and orders.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Disagreements about slavery do not in any way signify a secterian divide or a nationalist devide.

Unless it causes a ****ing civil war. That might be a hint.

Civil War can happen because ofr POLITICAL disagreements.

Trouble reading or something?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by RoboCon
Hello there! I see you are discussing Sectarian violence. Perhaps I can be of assistance.

America comes first, your liberal colours betray you. It is in our best interests for there to be a permanent Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq. Iraq's failure to prevent Sectarian violence is the best thing that could have happened to us. Anybody who needs further proof that Islamic teachings render people subhuman should read Anne Coulter's wonderful book "Godless: The Church of Liberaliism."

You guys are asleep!

[techumseh]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Right now, more people are dying than under Saddam's final years. I'm fairly certain there were periods in his rule that easily exceeded that during the first Gulf War (the one against Iran).

So, are you in favor of executing Bush, as you are President Hussien?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by techumseh
You guys are asleep!

You should be doing the MrFun dance.

[johncmcleod]

I still don't understand Bush's motivations for this war. He had to, or at least his advisors, would had to have known the war would turn out this way. It was incredibly obvious from day 1, and so many people knew it would happen. You would have to be pretty stupid to actually believe the US could go into Iraq and bring stability and democracy to it. I could understand the average American actually believing that, but not an entire cabinet. That would be impossibble. Bush obviously figured (correctly) that the majority of the violence wouldn't hit until after his second election, but still, that doesn't answer the question of why he went in in the first place.

Obviously there is the simple 'for oil' answer, but that doesn't really cover a lot of depth. I am assuming that before the Iraqi war, American corporations did not own Iraqi oil. I know that they do now. But would Bush want to ruin his political legacy and hurt his political capital all to help out old business friends? That wouldn't make sense. And I think he'll retire afterwards, and he has enough money, so I don't think the prospect of being on the board (sort of like Blair) of an oil corporation would be that great either.

There is also the explanation that it was for military purposes, to extend American influences into the region, but militarily Iraq was a disaster and he would have known this going into it for reasons discussed above.

Another explanation is that Bush did what he actually believed was right-that what helps American businesses will help the American economy, and steps must be taken in order to advance this goal. But still, would the war be worth it? I guess it probably helped out American oil companies (how much I'm not sure), but the cost seems to be too great. All of the money and lives put into the war would not make this economic gain nearly worth it, even from a purely economic standpoint (national deficit, etc.). And if he believed helping out American business interests was that important to the welfare of the American people, and that was his real motive, than why wouldn't he go out and say that? Why would he say it was to 'bring freedom to the Iraqis'? Because nowadays, I think the former would sound better to Americans than the latter. I mean let's face it, most (not all, but a very large portion) Americans don't sincerely care about the welfare of non-Americans (at least not enough to keep them in mind when at the polls), so I don't see 'freedom for the Iraqis' as a good enough lie.

[Gatekeeper]

He did it because he's an evangelical, end-times Christian who believes America is truly the golden city on the hill overlooking a blighted and evil world.

Gatekeeper

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by techumseh
So, are you in favor of executing Bush, as you are President Hussien?

That would require consistency on Che's part...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
He did it because he's an evangelical, end-times Christian who believes America is truly the golden city on the hill overlooking a blighted and evil world.

Gatekeeper

Indeed, there's enough whacked-out end times religious nutters in the Bush administration that you wonder if they're not actually [b]trying/b] to trigger Armaggedon. It would explain their rabid support for Israel...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
And if you want to talk about slavery - **** off and open a thread about it!

Why? It's not like there's any inherent value to your troll threads. And nobody knows when you'll abandon them, the same way you apparently abandoned your USS Liberty troll after the initial post.

I'm surprised you haven't started a new thread about the Qana bombing. It's a major ****up, obviously, but why not escalate it into "proof" that the Israelis are on a campaign of genocide?

Then you could even have an excuse to abandon this hopeless thread.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I still don't understand Bush's motivations for this war. He had to, or at least his advisors, would had to have known the war would turn out this way. It was incredibly obvious from day 1, and so many people knew it would happen. You would have to be pretty stupid to actually believe the US could go into Iraq and bring stability and democracy to it. I could understand the average American actually believing that, but not an entire cabinet. That would be impossibble. Bush obviously figured (correctly) that the majority of the violence wouldn't hit until after his second election, but still, that doesn't answer the question of why he went in in the first place.

Obviously there is the simple 'for oil' answer, but that doesn't really cover a lot of depth. I am assuming that before the Iraqi war, American corporations did not own Iraqi oil. I know that they do now. But would Bush want to ruin his political legacy and hurt his political capital all to help out old business friends? That wouldn't make sense. And I think he'll retire afterwards, and he has enough money, so I don't think the prospect of being on the board (sort of like Blair) of an oil corporation would be that great either.

There is also the explanation that it was for military purposes, to extend American influences into the region, but militarily Iraq was a disaster and he would have known this going into it for reasons discussed above.

Another explanation is that Bush did what he actually believed was right-that what helps American businesses will help the American economy, and steps must be taken in order to advance this goal. But still, would the war be worth it? I guess it probably helped out American oil companies (how much I'm not sure), but the cost seems to be too great. All of the money and lives put into the war would not make this economic gain nearly worth it, even from a purely economic standpoint (national deficit, etc.). And if he believed helping out American business interests was that important to the welfare of the American people, and that was his real motive, than why wouldn't he go out and say that? Why would he say it was to 'bring freedom to the Iraqis'? Because nowadays, I think the former would sound better to Americans than the latter. I mean let's face it, most (not all, but a very large portion) Americans don't sincerely care about the welfare of non-Americans (at least not enough to keep them in mind when at the polls), so I don't see 'freedom for the Iraqis' as a good enough lie.

Good, now all we need is a time machine to jump back 2-3 years when everybody else had this debate.

[Lodi]

I still don't understand Bush's motivations for this war. He had to, or at least his advisors, would had to have known the war would turn out this way. It was incredibly obvious from day 1, and so many people knew it would happen.

Consider the possibility that the chaos may have been one of the goals.

Bush obviously figured (correctly) that the majority of the violence wouldn't hit until after his second election, but still, that doesn't answer the question of why he went in in the first place.

Did he make the decision, or is Bush an errand boy?

But would Bush want to ruin his political legacy and hurt his political capital all to help out old business friends?

Not all kickbacks have to be direct.