Fred Dehl wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in news:05adnVDg0K195mLeRVn-
:
...on Iraq...
How bad or good for the United States as a nation would it be if Iraq
devolved into a much larger scale, ongoing civil war that resulted in
the dividing of that country into Sunni and Sh'ite sectors?
You mean like how it actually WAS before Churchill f%xked it up?
I wasn't going to comment in this thread- but I'll make an exception
since for maybe the first time in a zillion I *agree* with Fred. :-)
Nations form when people have common bonds of language, religion,
tradition, and other values. Trying to make a nation from three groups
like the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is like pouring crankcase oil,
water, and honey into a gallon jug and then wondering why it doesn't
all blend together nicely. The Brits probably thought, "Hell, nobody
lives out there but a bunch of sand people anyway- so let's just lump a
big area together, give it a name, and make it easier to administer."
The only reason it hadn't fallen apart in the last 20 years is that
Saddam insisted on a secular government and also scared the crap out of
all sides. The US has allowed the people to vote in a constitution that
is at least semi-religious, and we can't scare the crap out of
*anybody* without playing into the propaganda program of the religious
fanatics.... we're in a tough spot. We should have looked at a bigger
picture before invading this place, but now that we're there it's
obvious that *nobody* has a good solution for resolving matters and
getting out. Too bad.