• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Iraq | What happens now?

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Iraq is not ready for division | Hayder al-Khoei | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

From the article

Iraq is going through a critical moment in its history; decisions that are made today will have severe long-term implications for generations. Some important decisions may be irreversible and we must be careful what we wish for.

Sadrists Call for New Elections in Iraq | News | English

From the article

The Iraqi political bloc led by anti-American Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has issued a call to dissolve Iraq's parliament and hold early elections, in a move that could escalate the country's growing sectarian crisis.

Nedda Alammar: Iraq -- Too Much, Too Soon

From the article

As the war in Iraq comes to a close, some of us Americans sigh in relief. Finally, it is over. But as an Iraqi-American, I am not quite sure what to make of this war.

While I cannot say that we have won (who did we beat?) -- or that we have lost (lost to whom?) -- I can speak of the great fear I have: That this withdrawal is premature.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
The only thing that can create any sense of order in a place like Iraq is a strong-handed dictator, which is why we should have left Sadam Hussein in power. Trying to implement a government and ideals based on a western, democratic-type mindset in Iraq is like trying to squeeze a diamond out of a turd.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
I partially agree. A benign dictator would indeed work better than trying to force democracy on a people who aren't really interested in it. But I can't agree with the idea of leaving Sadam in place. I had a personal hatred for the man and was happy to see him disposed. Colin Powell was right, America as a country doesn't have the will power to fight the kind of war needed to succeed in Iraq.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I agree with Kilgore. I'm guessing there will be a lot of infighting ahead. I don't have the impression that the Iraqis ever practiced, had a sense of, or embraced nationalism in quite the same manner as we do in the west.

I would think there will be a degree of stability for awhile at first, then attempts will be made later on to fracture the country into individual factions each fighting one another for supremecy. I fear the new goverment will essentially resort to using the same tactics as Saddam did in the forseeable future if they want "unity" under one flag, making this war pointless and a horrible waste to begin with IMO.

Hope I'm wrong.
 

JMorris

Democratic Socialist
i wonder how many days it will take between the kurds declaring an independent kurdish nation and a turkish invasion. or should it be hours?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
This is disturbing ...
Two realities stand out in the midst of all the noise and fury currently surrounding the debate in and over Iraq.

First, it is clear that the American venture in Iraq has ended in abject failure at the cost of 4,500 American lives and between 100,000 and 200,000 Iraqi lives. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, nor was any link established between the Saddam Hussein regime and al Qaeda. Furthermore, as the events of the past few days demonstrate, the United States has been largely unsuccessful in establishing an inclusive, democratic order in Iraq, another objective touted by Washington to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. What the American invasion ended up doing was creating unprecedented sectarian strife and totally debilitating Iraqi capabilities, thus tilting the regional balance of power in the energy-rich Persian Gulf substantially in favor of Iran.

Second, it is only Iran that can now prevent Iraq from sliding into the abyss of chaos and disintegration. This argument has a simple logic. Iran is the country with the greatest leverage with the Shia-dominated al-Maliki government. In fact, al-Maliki would not have been able to put together a coalition after haggling for nine months, and become prime minister for a second time after the last elections, had Iran not weighed in on his behalf. Iran is also the state with the greatest stake in keeping Iraq unified and ensuring its sovereignty, because Iraq's disintegration could adversely affect Iran's national integrity and its aspirations to become a regional leader in the Middle East.
The question now becomes one of whether or not a unified Iraq is worth the effort and the consequences.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
We leave Iraq because Al Quada was never there to begin with. What a stupid war to start. Al Quada only started showing up in Iraq because Bushy invaded for no reason. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

At least our current president focuses on the objective and terminates terrorists. Thanks again Bushy for the mess!
 
Top