Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (179232)	1/5/2006 7:18:45 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you think that is a wrong assumption on my part? No. I think the Sunnis have been asking for it. But I don't see much else in store for them. The Shia are more inclined towards an Islamic state than the Sunnis were under Saddam, so that is what will happen in a democratic context. AFAIK, there is no real motivation for either Shia or Kurds to want anything to do with Sunnis. What do they have to offer? The only reason I can see is to maintain a united Iraq, but the only party that really wants that are the Sunnis. Fundamentally the Kurds don't want that, and the Shia don't care particularly. The only place for the Sunnis as a sizeable minority in Iraq with majority Shia is to control the place like Saddam did. Thats not going to happen again, that game is over. The split will come, but for political reasons, we can't be proactive about it. For the US to push for a three state solution will look like failure to most people. I don't see it that way, although it is an admission that ethnic/religious issues can prevent a stable state from forming. In Israel, we are pushing for a two state solution, no one is trying to force a combined Jewish/Pal state, so why in Iraq? The fact that we cannot be proactive means we will get there ass backwards, which is not the best way to arrive anywhere. Just my 2 cents.