Did we (Bush) give Iraq to Iran?

[jcrew2001]

I believe that within 5 years, the Sunnis will have taken over the Iraq govt and will establish formal ties with Iran, thus creating a huge monster that may threaten Western culture, etc.

Saddam attacked Iran for 8 years and bankrupted his country in the process, thus leading to his invasion of Kuwait, and eventually his death.

Bush attacked Iraq for 8 or more years, which may bankrupt the US and lead to our destruction by Islamic extremists.

I think we just need to find and kill Bin Ladin, and let the chips fall as they may. Other than that, hold on to your butts!

[MadMaddie]

1. You have summed it up....pretty well...

I still believe if they would have killed Bin Ladin....and left Iraq alone this world would be different today...

Yes 2007 will be a bumpy year folks...

[dave_p]

2. Shia, not Sunni

... the pro-Iran party, that is.

Plenty of us were saying before March 2003 that Iran would be the gainer. What's absurd is that the neocons are now presenting Iran as a greater threat than the country they fed to it.

This isn't policy, it's piecemeal suicide.

[leesa]

3. And finding OBL and killing him will do what?

We don't have any idea who did 9-11, you know. Perhaps we should have a criminal investigation first before we practice anymore cowboy justice, OK?

[Amused Musings]

4. Actually,

Iran has done more than any Arab country in legitimizing the new government, which is why the US should talk to Iran, seeing as it is inevitable they will aquire nuclear technology.

[jcrew2001]

5. yeah

Oh, Iran is Shia and Iraq is Sunni, I get those confused.

So why are the Sunni fighting the US, because the govt will be turned over to them regardless if we are there or not.

The Shia will keep their land in the southern region, but unless there's oil there, let them have it.

[frogcycle]

7. you're still confused

the Shia are 60% of the population; Kurds are 20 and Sunni are 20.

The gov't is already turned over to the Shia; the Sunni are fighting that, and us

The oil IS in the southern (Shia) region and in the Kurdish region, NOT in the Sunni region.

what will probably happen eventually regardless of WHEN we leave is that what we call Iraq will cease to exist. It will be carved up by its neighbors, with several wars to settle the boundaries. The big wealth is in Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia). They'll bankroll surrogates and possibly enter the fray themselves. Syria would line up with Saudi Arabia. In my view if it happens soon, then the Sunni's might prevail, but a monstrous bloodbath would be necessary - "ethnic cleansing" of horrific proportions, as they clear the Shia out of the oil-rich areas. If it is delayed, and Iran has nukes, the balance changes, and Iran might get the south, just cut off the Sunnis, force them into ghettos like the jews in eastern europe a century ago. The "insurgency" will go on and on and on, as Saudi and Syria supply cash and weapons.

Neither is a pretty picture, but the prospect of them becoming chums and sitting down to tea just isn't there - never was, never will be.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. Don't forget the fate of the Kurds. In the north of Iraq,

the Kurds have established what they consider a separate country, Kurdistan. I saw a documentary about Kurdistan a year or so ago and it has modern cities (or perhaps one big city), people in Western dress, a thriving economy. It was impressive; far more modern than other mideastern cities I've seen on film.

A looming threat is that there are also Kurds living in Turkey, right over the border, and Turkey doesn't want to lose any land to Kurdistan. I think the Kurds are Sunni, as well, which puts them at the mercy of the Shi'a majority in Iraq.

The Kurdish leaders who were interviewed in this documentary said that it was Iran who gassed their people, killing Kurds in outlying areas. So they contradicted the "Saddam gassed his own people" meme. Since Saddam and the Ba'athists would apparently kill anyone who got in their way, Sunni or Shi'a, I don't think the Kurds had any reason to want to take the blame off him. I wonder if we'll ever know the truth. . .

[DemBones DemBones]

9. More about Saddam. . .

OK, since this silly laptop double-posted, I'll delete one post and add more about Saddam on edit:

The saddest thing is that when Saddam was ruling Iraq, the Sunnis, Shi'as, Jews, and Christians did get along fairly well. At least that's what many Iraqis said. Although Saddam was Muslim and Islam was the state religion, it was the most secular Islamic state. Once Saddam was out of power, the Shi'ites started terrorizing shopowners who sold alcoholic beverages, barbers who shaved men, women wearing pants, women not wearing the hijab, etc. Jews, Christians, and many Muslims have fled the country. Saddam was a bad guy but he was a bad guy who kept control in Iraq, which is more than the elected govt and US military can do.

[Az_lefty]

6. Shia control with close ties to Iran...

yep,they created a really big fundamentalist Islamic state.

[jcrew2001]

10. leave

Yeah, so if we leave, we should just let the Saudis and Iran fight it out for control.

Then we can save our money, and have them engage in a long war.

Unless the US just wants to control the oil in Iraq, then that would be only reason to stay.