A "helluva mess" is how the former US Secretary of State James Baker is said to have described the state of Iraq...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6062688.stm

So, what is to be done with Iraq? Where do we go from here?

Iraq is not a country that has much of a history. When Winston Churchill drew the lines of Iraq in 1921 he was putting together in one country three old provinces of the Ottoman empire, those of Baghdad, Mosul and Basra.

It was convenient for the British but not necessarily so for the long-term stability of Iraq as each province had basically different peoples.

As unpalatable as it may now seem to some, I believe stability in the region and our own (and Israel's) security, requires involvement and a solution involving all nations bordering Iraq - Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - to try to sort this out. Britain and America would not be involved except by the invitation of these powers (which could easily be brought about by diplomatic means.)

The present government of Iraq is failing and, as a consequence, the Western allies' efforts are failing. It needs some bigger thinking now and I am hopeful that Jim Baker's study group can bring about the involvement I just mentioned.

What say you, my political friends ?

A "helluva mess" is how the former US Secretary of State James Baker is said to have described the state of Iraq...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6062688.stm

So, what is to be done with Iraq? Where do we go from here?

Iraq is not a country that has much of a history. When Winston Churchill drew the lines of Iraq in 1921 he was putting together in one country three old provinces of the Ottoman empire, those of Baghdad, Mosul and Basra.

It was convenient for the British but not necessarily so for the long-term stability of Iraq as each province had basically different peoples.

As unpalatable as it may now seem to some, I believe stability in the region and our own (and Israel's) security, requires involvement and a solution involving all nations bordering Iraq - Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - to try to sort this out. Britain and America would not be involved except by the invitation of these powers (which could easily be brought about by diplomatic means.)

The present government of Iraq is failing and, as a consequence, the Western allies' efforts are failing. It needs some bigger thinking now and I am hopeful that Jim Baker's study group can bring about the involvement I just mentioned.

What say you, my political friends ?I am encouraged that Baker has been asked by Bush to lead this study, he is among the best we have and I look forward to his thoughts when his work is done. Until that is complete, it is all snippets and soundbites taken in and out of context to support one particular agenda or another - I favor waiting 'till he is done and passing judgement on his completed work.

John

Bush can't handle America, what in the world makes you think he can handle Iraq!:cookoo:

On one of our more serious news, there was talk about this. They mentioned to split up Iraq in 3. To me that sounded like a good idea.
If nothing is done it seems more likely that they will have a civil war in the country, sunni and shia muslims fighting.

Along with this talk, Denmark is having an ongoing debate about how long we should have soldiers in Iraq. To be honest, I dont know what to think. On one hand, I know Denmark is doing a great job down there, on the other hand, I did NOT like the reason for us being there and how this all came about.

Flower

Bush can't handle America, what in the world makes you think he can handle Iraq!:cookoo:

What makes you say that Penelope?

I thought your stockmarket was booming etc?

Bush can't handle America, what in the world makes you think he can handle Iraq!:cookoo:Unfortunately, it's this sort of remark that turns sensible, thoughtful political discussion into a slanging match. Something I would like to avoid, if possible.

Clearly George Bush *is* handling the United States, even if some, like Penelope, don't like *how* he is handling it. But that isn't the focus of this thread.

This thread was intended to be about Iraq.

The problem with dividing Iraq into 3, even though it was three separate 'countries' prior to 1921, is that since then the peoples have intermingled considerably, intermarriages between faiths, etc. To divide Iraq into 3 isn't going to be an easy endeavor.

Furthermore, the oil - and thus economic prosperity - is only to be found in one of the three possible areas. All the oil riches would go to one 'country' leaving the other two with little more than desert or mountains.

Unfortunately, it's this sort of remark that turns sensible, thoughtful political discussion into a slanging match. Something I would like to avoid, if possible.

Clearly George Bush *is* handling the United States, even if some, like Penelope, don't like *how* he is handling it. But that isn't the focus of this thread.

This thread was intended to be about Iraq.

The problem with dividing Iraq into 3, even though it was three separate 'countries' prior to 1921, is that since then the peoples have intermingled considerably, intermarriages between faiths, etc. To divide Iraq into 3 isn't going to be an easy endeavor.

Furthermore, the oil - and thus economic prosperity - is only to be found in one of the three possible areas. All the oil riches would go to one 'country' leaving the other two with little more than desert or mountains.

Yes Spider.

Imagine the NI conflict, with suicide bombers?

I am encouraged that Baker has been asked by Bush to lead this study,

Of course he asked him, he wants a certain answer. And he wants to make it clear its the Iraquis fault if their country fails, not his, oh no. :cookoo:

Yes Spider.

Imagine the NI conflict, with suicide bombers?

Similarly the old Soviet Onion States.

One of the lessons of history that I think has been failed to recognize here is that despite the obvious downsides of dictators like Sadam, they also did keep their countries together through iron fists (not saying that this was good, but just a fact). The same thing happened with the demise of Yugoslavia after Tito died, and to a lesser degree the break up of the soviet union (Russia is stronger of course than most of her surrounding states now).

What would I do?

One thing I might put on the table is three countries but with an agreed economic union - to share the proceeds of e.g. oil revenue for x years or indefinite years, an economic trading plan etc etc. That way the individual states are free to define their own laws on a local level etc, but be able to trade and reap benefits of said trade.

Just an idea to toss out into the ring.

Paul

Unfortunately, it's this sort of remark that turns sensible, thoughtful political discussion into a slanging match. Something I would like to avoid, if possible.

Clearly George Bush *is* handling the United States, even if some, like Penelope, don't like *how* he is handling it. But that isn't the focus of this thread.

This thread was intended to be about Iraq.

The problem with dividing Iraq into 3, even though it was three separate 'countries' prior to 1921, is that since then the peoples have intermingled considerably, intermarriages between faiths, etc. To divide Iraq into 3 isn't going to be an easy endeavor.

Furthermore, the oil - and thus economic prosperity - is only to be found in one of the three possible areas. All the oil riches would go to one 'country' leaving the other two with little more than desert or mountains.

You leave Pen alone. She takes the heat off me VERY nicely, thankyouverymuch. :D

Jennifer

I gotta wonder how I would feel if another country/regeime was attempting to dictate to me what and how to sort out my country. I'm not sure I would feel that comfortable putting my future in the hands on people who most likely do not know much about me, my freinds and family, my way of life, what I want, what I like.

Ok, so it's possible the past was not great for me, I did however have certainty about each day, now I have much uncertainty and fear. So what does the future hold? Is anyone asking me what I would like to see and have?

I think the people need to be heard, isn't that part of being a democracy?

I also don't believe the USA can step back and ask the bordering countries to resolve this from their perspective, that like hyena's at the kill. The USA started this, they need to at the very least facilitate the solution.

I'm afraid the future of Iraq will always be in the eyes of those that want the oil, and the people will be forgotton, yet used as pawns and a facade for a better future.

Today, right now, I don't have a solution - I can bet though that when the powers that be are asked "What's your outcome?" what the people of Iraq want won't be top of the list.

Mark

Saddam Hussein gets the death penalty!

Now what?

Saddam Hussein gets the death penalty!

Now what?

Nothing. Nothing gained, nothing achieved with his death, IMO, a complete waste of time and money.

Crazy crazy system.

Mark

All that means is we'll feed him, clothe him and house him for thirty years worth of appeals if it's anything like the US prison system. :hopeless:

Jennifer

I wish Bush would quit calling me for my vote. The recording doesn't start until I say something like "hello." I think now when I get an unknown call and they don't speak immediately, I'm gonna hang up because I know the pitch is comin.'

Saddam Hussein gets the death penalty!

Now what?

We rejoice because a madman killer cannot murder people anymore and the world is a little bit safer.