Yes. Six years after WW I, Britain named a chunk of the Ottoman Empire "Iraq", but they could not make an Iraqui out of an Arab or a Kurd. To maintain order, they armed the minority Sunnis, who subjugted the majority Shi'ites and controlled (stole!) their oil.
By a stroke of dumb luck, a village idiot liberated them from Sadaam Hussein and now, after 75 years, they have their oil again. But now, the idiot is trying to convince the Shi'ites that they should give the Sunnis a lot of their oil and he can't understand why they refuse.
The idiot was never very smart about the oil business. He should have stuck with baseball. Even more ridiculous, the red state red-necked oil workers from Texas, Alaska, Oklahoma, and Louisiana just love the idiot. But, when 50% of all adults have below-average intelligence and are given the same voting rights as the above-average group, what can we expect?
It would be funny except that the idiot killed many thousands and we are still counting.
2007-08-23 02:38:40 · 6 answers · asked by marvinsussman@sbcglobal.net 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
(1) This war was started to "straighten out" the Middle East, which is important only because of oil. Nobody invades Africa. It was certainly not about WMDs or democracy. Whatever it was, here we are. Now what?
(2) Read the obscure question again. The answer is "YES" because the Shi'ites won't give their blood enemy a drop of oil and the minority Sunnis and Kurds will not live under the majority Shi'ites. (Shi'ites are 2/3 of the population; Kurds and Sunnis split the rest.)
(3) Yes, there will be fighting over oil, but we could not prevent it and cannot stop it. They have to settle it the way it has always been settled. It is criminal to put our guys in the middle of this for no good reason.
(4) I have a strategy that gets our guys out of combat (not out of Iraq) as soon as physically possible without timetables. It only needs a simple majority vote in the House. I will send it to anyone who sends me an e-mail address.
(5) Now, was that a pathetic, illogical rant?
2007-08-23 04:40:28 · update #1
is it really 'dooming' Iraq to allow it to break up into 3 nations? If the Iraqi's want to be 3 nations, who are we to prevent it. Maybe its the only sollution to this mess.
It's called democracy in action.
2007-08-23 02:44:28 · answer #1 · answered by Fancy That 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It should be three separate states but there would be huge wars over oil rights. I hate to say it but Cheney was right in a 1994 interview...He said that if we overthrow the leadership of Iraq, that area would become a huge mess...and of course, our Leader Knucklehead decides to invade...
2007-08-23 09:46:32 · answer #2 · answered by Spirit 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This fight isn't about oil. That said, yes a possible outcome is three separate nations where Iraq is now.
2007-08-23 09:44:20 · answer #3 · answered by Brian 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, I will provide you facts but you will just give the Bush haters a "high five" but here you go anyway:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/index.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-1.html
http://www.lcnp.org/global/Iraqstatemt.3.pdf
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5862
WMD's were just PART of the argument to use force against Iraq. Oil just happened to be in Iraq. Stop crying and come up with a solution genius.
***Even though my IQ is 122, this is just common sense. By your use of words in this pathetic rant, I can safely say that yours is far below mine.
2007-08-23 09:52:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Thats the direction it is heading. Good observation.
2007-08-23 09:46:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The irrational rant obscured the question.
Could you ask it again?
2007-08-23 09:46:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋