REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

Warbler, it's pretty obvious that the USA has no stomach for taking on Syria and Iran in a succession of faraway dogfights. How much more clever (it thinks, playing with its pretty coloured crayons and toys in its nursery) to apparently credit these two most avid members of its Axis of Evil with the ability to help out with Iraq, thus, presumably, forging bonds of diplomatic friendship with the USA in the process.

Brian, there's no reason why a three-way go wouldn't work. The Kurds have been paddying for their own homeland for eons now, and the Turks would probably be equally as delighted as most Iraqis to see them all settled in a single, autonomous Kurdistan. Kurds just aren't tribally well integrated into Arab or other Middle Eastern countries - they're usually resented as being 'the gypsies' of those where they've settled, and they ought to have their own homeland by now. That really ought to be the priority of the UN now.

As for a Sunni/Shi'ah split - well, the country's as near as dammit sliced into two sectarian divides as it is. Why try to force Western notions of homogeneity onto a country far from ready to try it out? Two governates headed by a Sunni cabinet and a separate Shi'ah cabinet, reporting to an overall Parliament (to include minorities) might settle things down quite nicely for the foreseeable future. That way, no-one loses face with their own group, no-one has to fight the other for an overall control of the country. Sanctions and possible future military intervention to be imposed if either step out of line. It might be necessary to call the two governates 'United States of Iraq' or something like that in order to preserve an overall national cohesion, or one could just revert to Mesopotamia (not entirely demographically correct, but what country is, anyway?).

<blockquote data-quote="krizon" data-source="post: 2089365" data-attributes="member: 64950">Warbler, it&#039;s pretty obvious that the USA has no stomach for taking on Syria and Iran in a succession of faraway dogfights.&nbsp; How much more clever (it thinks, playing with its pretty coloured crayons and toys in its nursery) to apparently credit these two most avid members of its Axis of Evil with the ability to help out with Iraq, thus, presumably, forging bonds of diplomatic friendship with the USA in the process.&nbsp; Brian, there&#039;s no reason why a three-way go wouldn&#039;t work.&nbsp; The Kurds have been paddying for their own homeland for eons now, and the Turks would probably be equally as delighted as most Iraqis to see them all settled in a single, autonomous Kurdistan.&nbsp; Kurds just aren&#039;t tribally well integrated into Arab or other Middle Eastern countries - they&#039;re usually resented as being &#039;the gypsies&#039; of those where they&#039;ve settled, and they ought to have their own homeland by now.&nbsp; That really ought to be the priority of the UN now.&nbsp; As for a Sunni/Shi&#039;ah split - well, the country&#039;s as near as dammit sliced into two sectarian divides as it is.&nbsp; Why try to force Western notions of homogeneity onto a country far from ready to try it out?&nbsp; Two governates headed by a Sunni cabinet and a separate Shi&#039;ah cabinet, reporting to an overall Parliament (to include minorities) might settle things down quite nicely for the foreseeable future.&nbsp; That way, no-one loses face with their own group, no-one has to fight the other for an overall control of the country.&nbsp; Sanctions and possible future military intervention to be imposed if either step out of line.&nbsp; It might be necessary to call the two governates &#039;United States of Iraq&#039; or something like that in order to preserve an overall national cohesion, or one could just revert to Mesopotamia (not entirely demographically correct, but what country is, anyway?).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="krizon, post: 2089365, member: 64950"] Warbler, it's pretty obvious that the USA has no stomach for taking on Syria and Iran in a succession of faraway dogfights. How much more clever (it thinks, playing with its pretty coloured crayons and toys in its nursery) to apparently credit these two most avid members of its Axis of Evil with the ability to help out with Iraq, thus, presumably, forging bonds of diplomatic friendship with the USA in the process. Brian, there's no reason why a three-way go wouldn't work. The Kurds have been paddying for their own homeland for eons now, and the Turks would probably be equally as delighted as most Iraqis to see them all settled in a single, autonomous Kurdistan. Kurds just aren't tribally well integrated into Arab or other Middle Eastern countries - they're usually resented as being 'the gypsies' of those where they've settled, and they ought to have their own homeland by now. That really ought to be the priority of the UN now. As for a Sunni/Shi'ah split - well, the country's as near as dammit sliced into two sectarian divides as it is. Why try to force Western notions of homogeneity onto a country far from ready to try it out? Two governates headed by a Sunni cabinet and a separate Shi'ah cabinet, reporting to an overall Parliament (to include minorities) might settle things down quite nicely for the foreseeable future. That way, no-one loses face with their own group, no-one has to fight the other for an overall control of the country. Sanctions and possible future military intervention to be imposed if either step out of line. It might be necessary to call the two governates 'United States of Iraq' or something like that in order to preserve an overall national cohesion, or one could just revert to Mesopotamia (not entirely demographically correct, but what country is, anyway?). [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?