IRAQ - continuation

[kwicky]

I have noticed on this website that once an item disappears from the radar (not on the current page) the replies stop coming. With such a hot topic and still under discussion by the USA and Britain it is important to keep a focus on this topic.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/question31 9029.html

[kwicky]

The fact that many suggestions by eminent people have been put forward it would seem reasonable that these should be looked at in more detail and commented on.

Today Tony Blair outlined his proposal to engage Iran and Syria in the Iraq problem.

http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk-politics/614 2252.stm

Do you think this is a good idea?

[kwicky]

I must go to see the optician

It should read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6142252 .stm

[jno]

the US, and Britain, are not exaclty over the moon about talking to Iran, which they believe is acquiring nuclear weapons; they want to boycott it to stop it doing so. And they suspect Syria of being behind the murder of Lebanon's president last year. But they also need the support of both countries for sorting things out in Iraq, as it's pretty clear they're not succeeding in doing it themselves. But would Iran and Syria be interested in helping, in order to achieve stability in the region, or would they just like to see Iraq,as a potential rival, crushed?

I think the real Middle East problem, the one that causes all the rest, is still Israel and the Palestinians; and neither London nor Washington seems prepared to try to sort this out.

[youngmafbog]

I agree. Stability on the middle east will never be achieved until the Isreali/Palestine problem is sorted and that problem is far bigger than 2 men. Its a bit like two dogs fighting, you just have to leave it until one wins. If you keep intervening the hierarchy is never achieved.
I am in no way intimating that either side are anything to do with dogs, just an example.

[honest_joe]

Why then was Jack Straw and a member of the EU3 fired for talking to the Iranians? Blair is in a state of denial! Because the USA has realised the war is going badly wrong they have decided to change direction. But Blair unable to accept blame accuses others for his failures. So Instead of talking to Iran and Syria to get him out of this gigantic mess he gets on his high horse and lectures to them as though they are responsible. That is no way to get co-operation! They don't call him teflon Tony for nothing!

[kwicky]

Much has been made of the Israeli/Palestianian conflict preventing a solution to the Iraq problem. It may well have an affect. But are we not in danger of trying to solve a different problem by lumping them all together when we should be looking at them incremently? Do the insurgents in Iraq care a hoot about the bloodshed happening in the West Bank. I think we are being sidetracked if we can't just look at the Iraq situation. Lets look at the facts:

1. The Sunnis resent being governed by the Shia majority.
2. The Shias want total domination of Iraq and have created death squads to obliterate any opposition.
3. The insurgements from outside Iraq (Al qieda) have no allegience to anyone and wish the two religions above to cause civil war.

The solution therefore is for the resident Iraqis to join together and bring the downfall of the al quieda insurgents. This cannot happen beacuse the Shias are not willing to let this happen especially now Saddam is no longer in power to create a Sunni opposition.

[jno]

you may be right kwicky but I'm not really convinced this is all being caused by outside agitators from al Qaeda or wherever. I think most of it is longstanding tension between the sects; Saddam kept a lid on it, and now he's been removed. It may be that the best answer is just to split the country in three - Sunni, Shia and Kurds. As I recall, the current borders of Iraq were pretty much invented by the British anyway, so they could be re-invented. I don't know what this sort of split would do for regional stability, though. I don't think Turkey would be very happy with a Kurdish state next door, for instance. But I don't have a better solution. And I think in the end Blair and Bush will just have to learn to live with egg on their faces.

[LeMarchand]

"I have noticed on this website that once an item disappears from the radar (not on the current page) the replies stop coming."

I've noticed that too - I often think that AB might be better with a "floating" system where topics with new posts float to the top. On the other hand, it would mean that rubbish like Big Brother would be in permanent residence in some sections :-(.