A possible solution to the Iraq Crisis

Hope in the Desert

from JoeUser Forums
It is now clear even to the most fanatical Bush acolyte that the neoconservative agenda in Iraq has come unstuck, horribly so. President Bush is trashing about for a solution and the old statesmen of the first Bush Presidency are there to help out in the Baker Commission. A few important points need be stressed. First, the partition of Iraq along sectarian lines will not help in establishing peace in the region. On the contrary it will only add to the list of failed and failing states. Second, the brutaal war waged by the USA against the people of Iraq, particularly the fanning of Shiaa resentment against the Sunnis has added a very complex dimension to the whole issue. As we have repeatedly pointed out in our past blogs, the USA has unintentionally strengthened the political space available to Iran and in so doing did what Iran had always hoped, a crisis from which like a pheonix a Shiaa state could arise. Surely the Bush Administration should have realised the folly of pursuing its highly provocative policy oi military occupation of Iraq.

This is not the time for recriminations. It is the time for solutions. The death toll in Iraq is unacceptable and this cycle of violence cannot be accepted by the international community. What are the options.

The tregion as a whole does not regard USA as part of the solution. In fact public opinion is firmly committed to the proposition that USA is the problem. Therefore the solution lies in the simultaneous withdrawal of USA and Britain from Iraq and the posting of a strong Iranian and Arab Peace Keeping force without UN supervision. This measure is required bwecause the region as a whole feels that the United Nations does not represent the wishes ans aspirations of the average person in the region and has become a tool in the hands of powerful Anglo-Saxon nations like the USA and its smaller ally Blair's England. This move will assuage the feelings of Iraqis because none of the important states in the region--Syria, Jordon, Iran and Turkey--will find the partition of Iraq a viable solution as all of them have sizable Kurdish or Sunni populations. Iran will not be eager to join this peace keeping mission, but pressure from the other Moslem states can pursuade Iran to send her troops.

This effort is of course premised upon the fact that the middle eastern peace process, especially the Two state solution envisage by the so called Road Map be restarted. The Israeli attak on Lebanon has added another important factor, and hence the states of the region may have some mechanism for collective security.

The objectives for which the war was faught in Iraq have not been realised and the al-Qaeda has emwerged very strong in the region not in an organisational sense but certainly in an ideological sense. The combined peace keeping efforts of the powers of the region in which the Shiaa state of Iran is the counterveiling power may help stem the tide.
politics
6,433 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
"A few important points need be stressed. First, the partition of Iraq along sectarian lines will not help in establishing peace in the region. On the contrary it will only add to the list of failed and failing states."

Not to disagree, but would you mind showing me the right way to finding out more, perhaps provide a link? I dont get how they can say so, when it's only supposed to have been so new. I mean, personally i think it would be the best option.

"This measure is required bwecause the region as a whole feels that the United Nations does not represent the wishes ans aspirations of the average person in the region and has become a tool in the hands of powerful Anglo-Saxon nations like the USA and its smaller ally Blair's England."

Pffft. If anything it has become outdated, and needs to be scrapped -or- reformed. (I prefer the latter myself) It's good for some things, but others -in my opinion- it shouldn't touch.

"The Israeli attak on Lebanon has added another important factor, and hence the states of the region may have some mechanism for collective security"

Incorrect, it was not an attack 'on' lebanon. It was an attach on Hezbollah, 'in' lebanon. While I didn't care for the sporadic assaults, which led to some innocent deaths, there is a difference between the two. Israel (in my opinion), was doing Lebanon a favor. Hezbollah doesn't bode well for Lebanon (or some other countries) image at the moment.

I do believe it would be best if we sought help from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc...

Peace, ~L
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The terrorist loving, America bigot farts again.  Tell me Bahu, when is your turn to strap on the ol' suicide belt and get your virgins?  I bet you just can't wait to see how many Americans you kill.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top


You do not seem to even understand what I have said. I have made it abundantly clear that these are the perceptions of the people in the region. In fact even the vast majority of the American people want out of Iraq. Are they too anti America.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Bahu, it isn't that you want to see our troops out of Iraq.  If that were your position then I would just take it as such and move on.  There are a lot of bloggers here at JU who want our troops out of Iraq, I don't see them as anti American, anti military, or anything else.  Each has their own reasons for feeling that way, and I base my opinion on their reasoning.

You go beyond that though.  You totally embrace the terrorists view and mission.  You consider the US troops murdering thugs and criminals.  You are willing to lie through your rancid teeth to support the terrorist cause.  I wouldn't be surprised if you called for the capture and execution of all US troops for "the brutaal war waged by the USA against the people of Iraq" .

I'm just asking you when your hatred for Americans will motivate you to move from mere cheerleader, to suicide bomber?

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interestig how some people are so concerned for the Iraqis now, but could not care less when Saddam was putting them in mass graves.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Right.  Turn Iraq over to the Terrorists.  What a great plan.  NOT.

How about we just cut cornes and make bin Laden the Dictator now?

This was the worst excuse for a plan I have ever seen.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush offers th solution himself. Go to

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ys1qv8xYaM
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is strange how easily people forget the most recent of events. Iraq under Saddam was not a safe haven for al-Qaeda and this is established by the 9/11 Commission. Now to use Terrorism as an excuse for staying on in Iraq is quite perverse due to the fact that it is the US invasion that made al-Qaeda strong in Iraq. Having said that it is clear that only Iran can control the situation in Iraq and without the participation of Syria and Iran no solution is possible. Now as far as Saddam's killing is concerned, more tens and hundreds odf thousands of innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered during the 3 years following the US invasion than the 30 years of Saddam's brutal rule and it is well to remember that during all those bloody years he has had the unstinted support of the USA.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is strange how easily people forget the most recent of events. Iraq under Saddam was not a safe haven for al-Qaeda and this is established by the 9/11 Commission


And you are as incorrect as one can be on that. Having just read the entire 585 pages I call your assumption a load of BS! Have you read the report? Let me help:
Link

If not outright approval, there was at the very least a tact approval between bin Laden and Saddam.