Federalism in Iraq?Good or Bad idea?

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

I think federalism in Iraq is a bad idea cos if the country is broken up into defferent sects,a whole new case of issues will follow.

These people need to learn and co-exist.If they are separated and favours are bestowed on one side more than the other,all hell will break loose and peace will never be in Iraq.

Fuck federalism,learn to share!

[papabryant]

I think federalism in Iraq is a bad idea cos if the country is broken up into defferent sects,a whole new case of issues will follow.

These people need to learn and co-exist.If they are separated and favours are bestowed on one side more than the other,all hell will break loose and peace will never be in Iraq.

Fuck federalism,learn to share!

 

I think you misunderstand Federalism. It would give everyone a chance to be heard, and protect the losers of a political battle from reprisal.

 

What is wrong is this multi party system they're setting up which does allow groups to form on sectarian lines. Enforce a two party system and let the factions fight it out in Party rather than in the halls of government itself.

[TerroristHater]

I think federalism in Iraq is a bad idea cos if the country is broken up into defferent sects,a whole new case of issues will follow.

These people need to learn and co-exist.If they are separated and favours are bestowed on one side more than the other,all hell will break loose and peace will never be in Iraq.

Fuck federalism,learn to share!

 

I agree. The Shiites (Iranian influenced assclowns) are trying to rig the new government to make an Iranian takeover of Iraq easier.

 

I think the Shiites need to be removed from power. I do not believe they can be trusted to do what is in the best interest of Iraq.

[Mr X]

I think federalism in Iraq is a bad idea cos if the country is broken up into defferent sects,a whole new case of issues will follow.

These people need to learn and co-exist.If they are separated and favours are bestowed on one side more than the other,all hell will break loose and peace will never be in Iraq.

Fuck federalism,learn to share!

 

Yeah AIG,you would say that your're probably sunni hahahahaha

 

 

Anyways..federalism is a pre-cursor to independence under these circumstances.

 

The Americans would rather see the Iraq represented by all parties(to contain Irans interests)..but these sunni attacks are making it mighty hard.The sunni's will realise that they won't gain anything if the americans leave...the control and command structure they once had does not exist...their tanks/artillery/aircraft are in disrepair...thanks to looters and scrap metal merchants and black marketeers.

 

Its doubtful that syria would pitch in to help..they have just pulled troops out of lebanon..a move that would not have happened under hafiz al assad.

 

Jordan probably won't want to get in this mess as they don't have the money either..unless saudi arabia steps in.

 

It's actually in the best interest of the iraqi shiahs, that the sunni's continue their attacks on the americans and hope it filters back on public opinion in the u.s to pull out as well.

 

It will come down to bribing countries...from either saudi or Iran

[builder]

Look at the history of our current middle east region, and you'll find that the Brits, the Russians, and the French, had more to do with the current problem than first meets the eye.

 

Few events in world history have had a more profound impact than that of World War One (1914-8). Although the German attempt to dominate Europe was thwarted in the end, the equilibrium of the region was also destroyed by the fierce fighting between its different elements.

 

'At the beginning of November 1914, the Ottoman Empire ...abandoned its ambivalent neutrality.'

The Middle East was no less affected by the conflict. After four centuries of continuous rule, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, creating a vacuum that contributed to tensions between local inhabitants and external powers or interests. The 'war to end all war' had not achieved its aim.

 

At the beginning of November 1914, the Ottoman Empire, the world's greatest independent Islamic power, abandoned its ambivalent neutrality towards the warring parties, and became a belligerent in the conflict, with the sultan declaring a military jihad (holy war) against France, Russia and Great Britain.

 

The Ottoman Empire had recently been humiliated by setbacks in Libya and the Balkans. Participation in what had begun as a European war might seem to outside observers, therefore, to have been suicidal, but key elements in the government, impressed by German industrial and military power and motivated by dreams of imperial glory, greeted the expanding war as an opportunity to regain lost territories and incorporate new lands and nationalities into the empire.

 

'In a pre-emptive strike, London immediately landed an Anglo-Indian force at Basra.'

The Ottoman/Turkish army (some 600,000 troops divided into 38 divisions) was of an unknown quality. But with Germany as an ally, the Ottoman Empire represented a serious threat to the British Empire, so in a pre-emptive strike, London immediately landed an Anglo-Indian force at Basra, near the estuary of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. This was done to protect the Anglo-Persian oil pipeline, which was vital to the British navy, and to show the Union Jack in this strategically important area in the Persian Gulf.

 

Within weeks the Central Powers struck back with a surprise attack against Britain's 'jugular vein', the Suez Canal. This attempt, in early February 1915, to breach British defences on the Suez Canal and raise an Islamic revolt in Egypt, failed however, and resulted in heavy losses for the attackers.

 

Unwilling to commit all of its emerging military resources in 1915 to the Western Front, where trench warfare prevailed, the British leadership embraced a naval offensive against Istanbul to force the Ottoman Empire out of the war. When the Royal Navy in February and March was unable to fight its way through the Dardanelles to place the Ottoman capital under its big guns, the military authorities hastily assembled an expeditionary force to land on the Gallipoli peninsula.

 

The muddled thinking that led to this campaign continued during the savage fighting, and the predominantly British force suffered heavy losses (205,000 British soldiers, and 47,000 French - with the sick included in the figures) and had to be withdrawn. The Ottoman/Turkish Fifth Army, well armed and fighting from strong defensive positions, had proved more than a match for the Allies.

 

As the Gallipoli campaign wound down, an Anglo-Indian force was cut off and surrounded at Kut-el-Amara, a town about 100 miles south of Baghdad. The limited, defensive stance at Basra had evolved into a distant and risky advance up the Tigris toward Baghdad, and this had been the result.

 

Political objectives, as had been the case in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli venture, had trumped military considerations - the Anglo-Indian force did not have the necessary reserves or logistical support to retain Baghdad, even if they had been able to capture it. Moreover, a strong British presence in Mesopotamia had no connection to the defeat of Britain's primary strategic rival, Germany. But the Indian government were concerned that a holy war might be ignited in Persia and Afghanistan, thus threatening India, and they wanted British prestige upheld in the Islamic world to avert such a war.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/middle_east_02.shtml

[Mr X]

interesting article builder.. have you read books/articles by Dilip Hiro?

 

I read a book by him years ago(I think 18+ years ago) because I wanted to understand news events better.It basically taught me a lot about the complications in the middle east religion/politics/colonial influence etc...you can easily predict events once you know the background.

 

 

btw these so called straussian theorists better include him in there "must have book reads" before they give bush anymore advice.

[builder]

ahahahahahah

 

Dunno.

 

I'm a reader, and I react. Whatever.

 

I've seen dubya in interviews, and when things don't go to script, his forehead droops, his eyes contract, and his lips do that "chimp catching flies" thing he has going.

 

Awesome. Where can I get me one of them?

[Mr X]

Books you mean builder?

 

I tend to use the local library ,if I can't find it on the net free in .pdf form.

 

Yeah you often wonder and worry about bush...yes he is consumer of intelligence and not a producer...which makes him easily susceptible to manipulation to his advisors hidden agenda..when they hand him "selective intelligence reports".They probably do the ol trick and give him the illusion that he's making the decisions...but in reality he's basing his decisions on what he intentionally given.

 

I really did not find anything groundbreaking with leo strauss philosophy...that shit has been going on since time began..e.g shamans were notorius for this b.s

 

 

 

As for the masses, I say "don't confuse patriotism with stupidity"

[builder]

Books you mean builder?

 

I tend to use the local library ,if I can't find it on the net free in .pdf form.

 

LMFAO. I meant "Where can I get me one of them Bush puppets. LOL.

 

I haven't been to a Library for years, now. Apart from a stint at University a coupla years back. I do most of my reading and research on the web. I still try and cross-reference to avoid biased accounts.

 

In Australia, most of our mass-media outlets are controlled by two people, Murdoch and Packer. The bias shown is clear and laughable. Dad always said "the only good thing to come out of a newspaper, is fish and chips".

 

Yeah you often wonder and worry about bush...yes he is consumer of intelligence and not a producer...which makes him easily susceptible to manipulation to his advisors hidden agenda..when they hand him "selective intelligence reports".They probably do the ol trick and give him the illusion that he's making the decisions...but in reality he's basing his decisions on what he intentionally given.

 

He's not real bright. Makes for a great puppet. His actions when the script is not followed can be quite hilarious. The unfunny issue is, he "controls" the heaviest arsenal in history. He was smart enough to invest in the same.

 

I really did not find anything groundbreaking with leo strauss philosophy...that shit has been going on since time began..e.g shamans were notorius for this b.s

 

I'm a student of political issues today, and how the past reflects on the future. I'm far from finished in my political education.

 

As for the masses, I say "don't confuse patriotism with stupidity"

 

Agreed.

[fullauto]

I think we need to let majority rule in Iraq.... whatever the majority of the people say they want, that should be it... barring of course any time of Extremist backed gov.... If we try to tell them what to do, it's just going to turn into chaos over there.... worse than it is now.... let them fucking figure it out...

 

 

We did the hard part... we ousted Sadam... Now let them get thier hands dirty in thier own country... Trial by fire I say! Rome was not built in a day!

[EnterNetProphet]

I think we need to let majority rule in Iraq.... whatever the majority of the people say they want, that should be it... barring of course any time of Extremist backed gov.... If we try to tell them what to do, it's just going to turn into chaos over there.... worse than it is now.... let them fucking figure it out...

 

 

We did the hard part... we ousted Sadam... Now let them get thier hands dirty in thier own country... Trial by fire I say! Rome was not built in a day!

 

Rome burnt down overnight under nero..