Iragi Soldier Kills Two U.S. Soldiers

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Three competing nations would decimate each other if there was no reason to coexist (e.g. American military support).
 
that is not going to be done
the Shias have the upper hand and will not share, especially with the Sunnis

The reason that is not going to happen is that country continues to move foward as a single entity. The differences tend to be along party lines which these does do not cut neatly between being exclusively shia or sunni. Both Allawi and Malaki's parties, the two top parties, are multi-ethnic parties. There are large numbers of Sunni, Kurd, Shia and minority ethnic groups within the parliment. There are not enough shia in the government to have control of everything and exclude other ethnic groups. Far from it. In fact, there are deep divides among the Shia in government, as deep as any seen between any of the individual ethnic groups.

The government in Iraq is gradually moving foward as well as successfully managing the current state of affairs, despite the failure to seat a new official government since the March 7 election. The Iraqi military continues to improve and is in charge of security in every Iraqi province. Violence is a tiny fraction of what it was 4 years ago.

Despite claims that Iraq is not a real country and could not survive as a single entity, it is doing just that, thanks to the efforts of the United States and other coalition partners that have helped to rebuild the country after 25 years of destructive rule under Saddam.
 
Turkey doesn't want Kurdistan to exist (I doubt Iraq nor Iran do either).

I believe the Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world without their own country.


After all of this, Iraq is only slightly less of a mess.
 
After all of this, Iraq is only slightly less of a mess.

Its now a country that does not invade and annex its neighbors, launch ballistic missiles at their neighbors, attempt to sieze the planets main reserves of oil, launch brutal WMD attacks against innocent civilians and soldiers, commit most of the countries wealth to the purchase of military weapons and launching wars against its neighbors, brutally murdering its citizens that might oppose the regime, denying its citizens basic humanitarian supplies, and it no longer has a leader responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people.
 
Its now a country that does not invade and annex its neighbors, launch ballistic missiles at their neighbors, attempt to sieze the planets main reserves of oil, launch brutal WMD attacks against innocent civilians and soldiers, commit most of the countries wealth to the purchase of military weapons and launching wars against its neighbors, brutally murdering its citizens that might oppose the regime, denying its citizens basic humanitarian supplies, and it no longer has a leader responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people.

I know that there will be no point in arguing with you, but I'll go ahead and do it anyway.

1) It hadn't invaded its neighbors in 20 years, there was no need for the war in 2003.
2) It didn't launch any ballistic missiles, there was no need to invade.
3) Blood for oil? Really? Preventive war for oil? Seriously?
4) There were no WMD's. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole crew were a bunch of liars.
5) We brutally murdered hundreds and thousands of Iraqis and harmed millions of others and left millions without their homes, tore families apart, left children orphaned, mutilated many others. So what was the point?
6) Right, it not longer has a leader responsible for 1 million deaths. Except, now we're responsible for 1 million deaths.
 
I find it fascinating that neo-conservatives try to justify the War in Iraq for oil. They think its okay if some people die for the greater good of society, which in this case is the supply of oil.

Yet at the same time, there is no neo-conservative who would dare support that the wealthiest of all pay a little more in taxes for the greater good of society, whether it to reduce poverty or increase healthcare coverage, etc.

Blood for Oil = Okay
Taxes for Poverty Relief = Not Okay
 
Back
Top Bottom