outside of the Iraqi gov but they also actively oppose it?
2007-09-14 07:38:26 · 7 answers · asked by Page 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1661645,00.html
2007-09-14 07:38:40 · update #1
Neocons are really amusing! What would Leo Strauss think of his students? LOL
2007-09-14 07:39:33 · update #2
The Shi'ites will never give a drop of oil to the Sunnis. And why should they? The Sunnis have been stealling the Shi'ites oil for the past 80 years. They are not even even!
The Sunnis will never pay a shekel of tax to a Shi'ite-led government. And why should they? With five voters out of six hating the Sunnis, they would never see the shekel again.
Sunnis and Shi'ites will never co-operate within one country. Iraq must be divided like all Gaul into three parts.
Kurdistan already exists. One down and two to go.
After four years of death squads, there are only a few communities where Sunnies and Shi'ites are mixed. If we would offer a Sunni family a modest bonus and safe conduct to a Sunni area, they would jump at it. Cost: dirt cheap.
With the Baghdad region in their hands, the Shi'ites would have no reason to attack Sunnistan - there isn't any oil!
Except for suicide bombers, the Sunnis have never been able to attack the Shi'ites. Once borders are set, the game is over. We can offer to mediate the borders. Otherwise the Shi'ites will take what they want, and the Sunnis will get the rest.
Six US brigades for one year will protect Kurdistan and the other neighboring countries.
After the dust settles - less than a year - everybody goes home.
Case closed.
2007-09-14 10:35:49 · answer #1 · answered by marvinsussman@sbcglobal.net 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not nearly as amusing as watching a liberal try to think when you know that they're just not equipped for it. In the first place, look at who you chose for a commentary, the Ted Turner version of Pravda. Here they are telling you what the President said, BEFORE HE SAID ANYTHING. Boy, that's fair and balanced reporting. The part that has libs panties in a wad is that the surge is working, most notably in Anbar Provence, and people there who were tolerating Al-Qaeda are no longer doing so.
The truth of the situation is that the loopy left put all its re-election eggs in one basket, and that basket is unravelling. Success in Iraq spells failure for the left.
2007-09-14 14:59:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Neocons live by the old adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Unfortunately, neoconservative hawks are only living in the now rather taking into consideration any potential negative consequences in the future. When you deal with snakes, they eventually come back to bite you.
2007-09-14 15:10:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Partnering with a group that opposes the government you are trying to establish seems a bit counterintuitive.
2007-09-14 14:47:42 · answer #4 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neo-con/ zionists only ever wanted to Balkanize Iraq so it will never be strong enough to be a threat to the criminal state of Israel again, they will aid anyone to keep the hornet's nest stirred up.
2007-09-14 17:01:47 · answer #5 · answered by John M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its obvioius to me that anything im getting out of bush's mouth isn't neccessarily the truth
edit: to the jerk above me who i've blocked cause his answers are all neo-con rants, notice how he says at the end success in iraq is failure for the left,
i'd like to know how so? is this country only going to vote on one issue, iraq?
the country votes its pocketbook,
democrats have come close to winning the last election in 2004, and they did win in 2000, 96, 92
2007-09-14 15:10:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
In WWII the US allied with one great evil, Stalin, to defeat an even greater evil...Hitler. It eventually worked out all right.
Anyone who helps defeat Al Qaeda terrorists is a hero to me.
2007-09-14 14:42:54 · answer #7 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋