Iraq on Verge of Collapse...

pjalive21

SO NOW IS THE TIME TO PULL OUT RIGHT? (SARCASM)...................




By Ibon VillelabeitiaThu May 17, 9:15 AM ET

Iraq's government has lost control of vast areas to powerful local factions and the country is on the verge of collapse and fragmentation, a leading British think-tank said on Thursday.

Chatham House also said there was not one civil war in Iraq, but "several civil wars" between rival communities, and accused Iraq's main neighbors -- Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey -- of having reasons "for seeing the instability there continue."

"It can be argued that Iraq is on the verge of being a failed state which faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation," it said in a report.

"The Iraqi government is not able to exert authority evenly or effectively over the country. Across huge swathes of territory, it is largely irrelevant in terms of ordering social, economic and political life."

The report also said that a U.S.-backed security crackdown in Baghdad launched in February has failed to reduce overall violence across the country, as insurgent groups have just shifted their activities outside the capital.

While cautioning that Iraq might not ultimately exist as a united entity, the 12-page report said a draft law to distribute Iraq's oil wealth equitably among Sunni Arabs, Shi'ites and ethnic Kurds was "the key to ensuring Iraq's survival."

"It will be oil revenue that keeps the state together rather than any attempt to build a coherent national project in the short term," the influential think-tank said.

The oil law, among benchmarks Washington has set Baghdad as critical steps to end sectarian violence, has yet to be approved by parliament. Ethnic Kurds, whose autonomous Kurdistan region holds large unproven reserves, oppose the draft's wording.

Rather that one civil war pitting majority Shi'ites against Sunnis nationwide, the paper said Iraq's "cross-cutting conflicts" were driven by power struggles between sectarian, ethnic and tribal groups with differing regional, political and ideological goals as they compete for the country's resources.

The author of the report, Middle East expert Gareth Stansfield, said instability in Iraq was "not necessarily contrary to the interests" of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

"(Iraq) is now a theatre in which Iran can 'fight' the U.S. without doing so openly," Stansfield said, adding that Iran was the "most capable foreign power" in Iraq in terms of influencing future events, more so than the United States.

The rise to power of Iraq's long-oppressed Shi'ite majority has caused concern in Sunni Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, which deeply distrusts non-Arab, Shi'ite Iran's influence in Iraq, Stansfield wrote.

Should a U.S. withdrawal herald the beginning of a full-scale Sunni-Shi'ite civil war in Iraq, Saudi Arabia "might not stand by," the paper said, "with the possibility of Iran and Saudi Arabia fighting each other through proxies in Iraq."

Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution o: report

mammasan

pjalive21 wrote:

SO NOW IS THE TIME TO PULL OUT RIGHT? (SARCASM)...................

Why not. If our surge is not working and we are truely caught in the middle of a civil war there is little reason for us to be there. Why sacrifice more of our troops for a people who refuse to get along.

pjalive21

mammasan wrote:

Why not. If our surge is not working and we are truely caught in the middle of a civil war there is little reason for us to be there. Why sacrifice more of our troops for a people who refuse to get along.

i agree with you to an extent, but if we leave the mess we partially created then it would be our fault for the complete collapse...Iran according to this read has their hand in this and it needs to be severed (sorry for the PJ reference..haha)

i dont want anymore dead troops, trust me, my family is military and so are some of my friends but they have a mission they want to accomplish and complete and failure isnt an option for them

josevolution

if you by what MCcainn says we are making progress there all the time ,he is cluless or naive or in denial that his plan hasn't worked and it won't work at all .........scratch him off the list as the next president imo....

mammasan

pjalive21 wrote:

i agree with you to an extent, but if we leave the mess we partially created then it would be our fault for the complete collapse...Iran according to this read has their hand in this and it needs to be severed (sorry for the PJ reference..haha)

i dont want anymore dead troops, trust me, my family is military and so are some of my friends but they have a mission they want to accomplish and complete and failure isnt an option for them

I understand your position and I feel horrible for the innocent Iraqi people who will be left there to suffer but there is only so much our military can do. Our young men and women didn't volunteer in the military to police some civil war.

As far as Iran sticking it's nose in this, the way to deal with that is through talks. And finally Iran is not the only neighbor who has their hands in the pot. The report stated that Saudi Arabia is involved as well. The last think the Saudi royals want is a Shia controlled Iraq as a neighbor. The Saudi Government treats their Shi'ite minority like second class citizens and they are extremely oppressed. A strong Shia Iraq2 posses a great danger to them. Yet again though you never hear a word, out of our government, pointing to Saudi entanglement in Iraq.

godpt3

pjalive21 wrote:

Should a U.S. withdrawal herald the beginning of a full-scale Sunni-Shi'ite civil war in Iraq, Saudi Arabia "might not stand by," the paper said, "with the possibility of Iran and Saudi Arabia fighting each other through proxies in Iraq."

There's only one way this ends. Unfortunately, Americans don't have the stomach for what needs to be done. The complete and total destruction of the entire Mid-East region. Iraq, Iran and ISRAEL need to be wiped off the map.

This conflict began in 1947 with the creation of a Jewish state, dropping them right in the middle of where they were LEAST wanted. It won't end until somebody (or more likely than not, everybody) dies.

my2hands

pjalive21 wrote:

they have a mission they want to accomplish and complete and failure isnt an option for them

i think this type of thinking is absolutely fucking ridiculous. "win or lose" like its a high school basketball game.

a mission to complete and falure isnt an option? give me a fucking break. all this tough guy rah rah is bullshit. you know what vicotry is, bring home our friends and family safe right fucking now. what is so wrong with that?

americans really need to stop with this victory shit. this isnt a fucking game. is american pride so absolute that they are willing to sacrifice their own friends and family to thump their chest and pronounce "victory"

ask Wall St about victory, they already fucking won.

no one is "victorious" in a war, everyone loses, the sooner we understand that, the better off we will be

godpt3

mammasan wrote:

Why not. If our surge is not working and we are truely caught in the middle of a civil war there is little reason for us to be there. Why sacrifice more of our troops for a people who refuse to get along.

Because this little civil war won't stay civil for very long, and it'll likely drag the entire region, and then the world, into it.

my2hands

godpt3 wrote:

There's only one way this ends. Unfortunately, Americans don't have the stomach for what needs to be done. The complete and total destruction of the entire Mid-East region. Iraq, Iran and ISRAEL need to be wiped off the map.

This conflict began in 1947 with the creation of a Jewish state, dropping them right in the middle of where they were LEAST wanted. It won't end until somebody (or more likely than not, everybody) dies.

you are disgusting

godpt3

my2hands wrote:

you are disgusting

why? Explain to me, right now, what other possible outcome there is to this mess. The muslim states won't rest until Israel has been destroyed. And they likely wouldn't stop there, either. And despite all their protestations, Israel is just as responsible for the current situation as the arabic world.

It takes two to make peace, and I don't see the Jews and Arabs making amends to each other any time soon.


It's basically the same scenario as Hiroshima. How many lives, and how many years, would we be saving the world with the complete destruction of the middle east. Would the lives lost in the mid east be greater than the eventual World War III. I highly doubt it. Sometimes you've got to take a life to save one.

pjalive21

my2hands wrote:

i think this type of thinking is absolutely fucking ridiculous. "win or lose" like its a high school basketball game.

a mission to complete and falure isnt an option? give me a fucking break. all this tough guy rah rah is bullshit. you know what vicotry is, bring home our friends and family safe right fucking now. what is so wrong with that?

americans really need to stop with this victory shit. this isnt a fucking game. is american pride so absolute that they are willing to sacrifice their own friends and family to thump their chest and pronounce "victory"

ask Wall St about victory, they already fucking won.

no one is "victorious" in a war, everyone loses, the sooner we understand that, the better off we will be

and accepting failure is an option??? what is that to teach anyone...go into this thinking, "if you dont succeed, hell just quit someone else will clean up the mess" come on, i know the "everyone love everyone" system sounds all glamorous but its not the real world

mammasan

godpt3 wrote:

There's only one way this ends. Unfortunately, Americans don't have the stomach for what needs to be done. The complete and total destruction of the entire Mid-East region. Iraq, Iran and ISRAEL need to be wiped off the map.

This conflict began in 1947 with the creation of a Jewish state, dropping them right in the middle of where they were LEAST wanted. It won't end until somebody (or more likely than not, everybody) dies.

How can you possible believe that unprecidented death and destruction is the only solution to this problem. By doing this we would be no better than the people we are fighting.

mammasan

pjalive21 wrote:

and accepting failure is an option??? what is that to teach anyone...go into this thinking, "if you dont succeed, hell just quit someone else will clean up the mess" come on, i know the "everyone love everyone" system sounds all glamorous but its not the real world

The problem is that the manner in which we entered this war and conducted it, failure was the only possible outcome.

godpt3

mammasan wrote:

How can you possible believe that unprecidented death and destruction is the only solution to this problem. By doing this we would be no better than the people we are fighting.

They're going to die anyway, and which is worse, a million dead, or a BILLION? There's no way out of this that doesn't involve a body count. And isn't it better to have our destiny in our own hands, rather than leaving it to somebody else?

godpt3

mammasan wrote:

The problem is that the manner in which we entered this war and conducted it, failure was the only possible outcome.

On that point, I agree. Unfortunately, the point in time in which we discuss whether we should've bombed Iraq is over. The damage is done, and now we need to see it through to the end, or otherwise watch the entire world go BOOM.

mammasan

godpt3 wrote:

They're going to die anyway, and which is worse, a million dead, or a BILLION? There's no way out of this that doesn't involve a body count. And isn't it better to have our destiny in our own hands, rather than leaving it to somebody else?

I would rather keep my humanity and be less safe than be completely safe at the expence of my humanity.

godpt3

mammasan wrote:

I would rather keep my humanity and be less safe than be completely safe at the expence of my humanity.

You know, I applaud your pie-in-the-sky idealism, but it won't do us much good when we're all dead and there's nobody left to remember our high-minded ideas.

mammasan

godpt3 wrote:

You know, I applaud your pie-in-the-sky idealism, but it won't do us much good when we're all dead and there's nobody left to remember our high-minded ideas.

Well I can die knowing that I didn't support the annhilation of millions of people.

godpt3

mammasan wrote:

Well I can die knowing that I didn't support the annhilation of millions of people.

But would your conscience be clear knowing that, through your inaction, you were directly responsible for the death of billions?

inmytree

godpt3 wrote:

On that point, I agree. Unfortunately, the point in time in which we discuss whether we should've bombed Iraq is over. The damage is done, and now we need to see it through to the end, or otherwise watch the entire world go BOOM.

he he he ...

this is funny..."see it through to the end"....priceless...

mammasan

godpt3 wrote:

But would your conscience be clear knowing that, through your inaction, you were directly responsible for the death of billions?

Yes it would be clean because my actions would have had nothing to do with the death of billions. The people who carried out the actions are responsible not I.