The Sunis might keep the Sheites in check and thereby reduce the influence or interference of Iran.
The Kurds seem to be stable, and there is a reasonable chance that war fatigue will cause a stalemate that could end in a compromise for a descent government.
2006-10-17 18:11:05 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
BRINLAR---The Sunnis have subdued them in the past. Small in number but ferocious.
2006-10-17 18:33:20 · update #1
JUST HANG---when you keep someone in check, it's not just suppressing them but keeping them from suppressing you.
2006-10-17 18:38:49 · update #2
Most combatents eventually tire of losing loved ones and negotiate for peace, as they just did in Lebenon.
2006-10-17 18:44:23 · update #3
CHIEF--- Good answer, but i'm not sure that it's the war going on but rather two groups of religious nuts each wanting to subdue the other, and tryig to push us out of the way so they can get at it.
2006-10-17 18:55:48 · update #4
also I think we're long past the reason we came to Iraq, the next step should be to make the best of things as they now exist.
2006-10-17 19:01:22 · update #5
BADADSIX--- By Jove I think you've got it.
It's really some of the most intelligent discourse I've seen on Y.A.
I'm glad you directed me to it.
2006-10-17 19:14:41 · update #6
Thanx for the info.
2006-10-17 19:16:19 · update #7
PAULC 09--- Yes but Saddam himself was a big problem. If you recall him standing out on his balcony shooting his riffle and shouting "death to America". At that time he was becoming a hero to all Islam, because he was defying "the Great Satan".
2006-10-17 19:28:00 · update #8
He might have become the leader that the Jihadist needed to unite them.
2006-10-17 19:30:40 · update #9
look at my last two resolved questions...should clear it up for you.
I wasn't entirely sure about it either.
2006-10-17 18:30:25 · answer #1 · answered by Farnham the Freeholder 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem is that there is much more than Iraq involved. Remember before the invasion we were told (1) it was necessary to invade because Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). This proved not to be the case - no WMD in Iraq. Then we were told (2) that it was necessary to invade to unseat Sadam Hussein. Hussein has been out of power and in jail now for a long time. (3) we were told it was necessary to invade and occupy to enable Iraq to write a Constitution and have an election. That has been done, yet the war goes on.
The truth of the matter is - none of the above reasons was even remotely the reason for the invasion. The reason for the invasion was a belief by Dr. Paul Wolfowitz et al that we could win a quick war, set up a puppet or client state in Iraq, and thereby dominate the politics in the Middle East and its large oil deposits, together with the benefit of having a strong presence there to support Israel. The strong desire to support Israel should not be overlooked. Many American Jews have a strong allegience to Israel as a spiritual homeland. While they are patriotic Americans, they see all issues through a prisim that makes American policy favorable to Israel's interests the better choice.
To announce now that Victory has been accomplished, as the President foolishly did on the deck of the aircraft carrier in Los Angeles several years ago, and begin to realign our forces where they can better protect American interests, rather than the interests of Israel or Big Oil, would deal a bad blow to Big Business, and infuriate Senator Liberman and other powerful supporters of Israel, and jeopardize the Republican hope of maintaining control of Congress.
2006-10-18 01:35:36 · answer #2 · answered by Chief 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is good to see a question from someone with a little optimism occasionally.
Yes, it might turn out all right.
The Iraqi people have been given a golden opportunity to establish a government that answers to the people instead of the other way around.
We can only hope that reason and common sense will prevail and they won't squander the opportunity under the veil of Islamic fundamentalism.
They can coexist peacefully or they can continue to kill each other - the ball is in their court.
2006-10-18 01:25:12 · answer #3 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sunnis subdue the rest of Iraq, wasn't that what Saddam was doin? In fact didnt the U.S support Saddam for that exact reason to subdue the Shittes.
U.S foreign policy is disgraceful.
2006-10-18 02:03:41 · answer #4 · answered by paulc_09 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hmmm...keeping a group of people "in check"?
doesn't work that way. Would you want to be held in check?
The war is escalating...no sign of fatigue yet. The zealots get off on killing people. What can you do? We gonna sit there for the next 100 years (or until oil runs out) and hold their hands?
2006-10-18 01:18:43 · answer #5 · answered by powhound 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The blue collar will suffer for the repubs greed for the next 100 years even if it stops today. The rich will go on saying " Why are you complaining I'm paying over the minimun wage"
2006-10-18 02:49:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no chance at all teh us controls aboput 10 blocks in bagdad, america bleeds and bleeds and bleeds
there arnt enough sunnis to keep the shirtes in check , and sooner or later the kurds will want their own state and turkey will invade
2006-10-18 01:13:36 · answer #7 · answered by brinlarrr 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Try and decode this lyrics "Jesus Christ super star" will have the answer there.
2006-10-18 02:13:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋