Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28
  1.    #1  
    Is it possible that Baghdad's unrest is leverage being applied to obtain an Israeli/PLO "peace" agreement?
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Is it possible that Baghdad's unrest is leverage being applied to obtain an Israeli/PLO "peace" agreement?
    That would imply that there is a controlling entity applying that levrage.

    I think the obvious and more simple explaination iis more likely.
  3.    #3  
    Saudis? They're keeping the oil flowing.
  4.    #4  
    This is not to downplay the very real angst between Sunnis and Shiites. However, so far, none of the nearby nations with clear ties to either side is obviously stepping in to aid.

    Plus, applying the "common enemy" principle, isn't Jerusalem a goal shared by all parties?
  5. #5  
    Could you expand on your premise?

    Surur
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    This is not to downplay the very real angst between Sunnis and Shiites. However, so far, none of the nearby nations with clear ties to either side is obviously stepping in to aid.

    Plus, applying the "common enemy" principle, isn't Jerusalem a goal shared by all parties?
    No one is going to "clearly" aid one side or the other while the strongest military in the world is camped out.
  7.    #7  
    I find it interesting that the sectarian conflict has not spread geographically. Why are not Sunnis from surrounding countries coming to the aid of their brethren? Why are not Shiites from surounding countries coming to the aid of their brethren?

    Why are not muslims in general urging these warring factions to reserve their hostility toward each other and direct it at the great satan?

    Some benefits to on-going quagmire:

    1. Embarrass US and its "great" military
    2. Keep significant numbers of US troops engaged, so as to not be able to respond to other regions
    3. Wear down the will of the US citizens
    4. Create desperation in the US Executive administration, where compromise on Israel seems like a small price to pay for resolution in Iraq
    5. If Presidents are indeed concerned about their "legacy," Mr. Bush could be looking for an achievable milestone.

    All of these items individually are interesting observations. However, in concert, they couldbe brewing the perfect storm.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I find it interesting that the sectarian conflict has not spread geographically. Why are not Sunnis from surrounding countries coming to the aid of their brethren? Why are not Shiites from surounding countries coming to the aid of their brethren?
    Plenty of experts say they are, as discreetly as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Why are not muslims in general urging these warring factions to reserve their hostility toward each other and direct it at the great satan?
    I don't believe Muslims in general hold the Great Satan view. Also, this is a power vacuum in a region where this thing called Iraq has only existed since 1940 and the past several decades, one internal minority group held power, AND there are valuble natural assets.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Some benefits to on-going quagmire:

    1. Embarrass US and its "great" military
    This administration is the embarrassment. Our military did exactly what was asked of them and did it fast. Occupations are not what they're trained for.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    2. Keep significant numbers of US troops engaged, so as to not be able to respond to other regions
    This is the choice of this administration. The purpose of which is to, in my belief, prevent Iraqi oil from certain markets.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    3. Wear down the will of the US citizens
    The will of the American people for what? "Victory"? There is no such thing. Powell called it exactly right when he advised Bush.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    4. Create desperation in the US Executive administration, where compromise on Israel seems like a small price to pay for resolution in Iraq
    This US admin cares not for Israel. And moves there will have no influence on sectarian violence in Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    5. If Presidents are indeed concerned about their "legacy," Mr. Bush could be looking for an achievable milestone.
    I believe Bush does care about his legacy and has bought the neo-con belief of "Democracy in the Middle East" hook line and sinker. Too bad it's ivory tower pie in the sky foreign policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    All of these items individually are interesting observations. However, in concert, they couldbe brewing the perfect storm.
    What "storm" are you concerned about that's not here already?
  9. #9  
    I think the chaos, death and sheer insanity brewing in Iraq is the (cause >>> effect scenario) results of the removal of central power in Iraq (Saddam, et al). Everyone knew (accept perhaps for Bush, it appears; pun intended!), that if/when Saddam is gone the unstable religion-fabric in Iraq, along with the Kurds, will tip that country into a civil war. Saddam kept the lid on a civil war with a tight fist, something the US is incapable of, or needn’t be (take your pick).
    Bringing outside reasons and into this conflict is perhaps a stretch. Surly it shows that the Arab world is divided as it always been. Surly the Palestinian-Israeli conflict looms in the background and surly making the US look bad is convoluted into this madness. But I think Iraq is torn by an inconceivable hatred between factions that hated each other for years and are willing to kill each other for many years to come.
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    ...Bringing outside reasons and into this conflict is perhaps a stretch.
    Didn't mean to suggest the outside forces contributed to the initiation of the conflict. Rather, outside forces can take advantage of the scenario to achieve other goals.
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    ...
    What "storm" are you concerned about that's not here already?
    The perfect "storm" I see is the emergence of a means to advance the "Palestinian" cause.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    The perfect "storm" I see is the emergence of a means to advance the "Palestinian" cause.
    What is the "Palestinian cause" storm?
  13.    #13  
    Their claim on Jerusalem
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Their claim on Jerusalem
    I believe East Jerusalem is part of the Road Map and not a "storm".
  15. #15  
    Do you really think that if East Jerusalem is offered that the PLO that they would be satisfied with Isreal living across the street from them? Do you think they would stop and change their mission statement to destroy the state of Isreal?
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I believe East Jerusalem is part of the Road Map and not a "storm".
    I only used the phrase "perfect storm" as a means of communicating the sense of all the conditions coming together. I did not mean it as a measure of severity.
  17.    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Do you really think that if East Jerusalem is offered that the PLO that they would be satisfied with Isreal living across the street from them? Do you think they would stop and change their mission statement to destroy the state of Isreal?
    No.

    Now, That factor is more "stormy" in nature.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Do you really think that if East Jerusalem is offered that the PLO that they would be satisfied with Isreal living across the street from them? Do you think they would stop and change their mission statement to destroy the state of Isreal?
    Sigh.

  19. #19  
    So your answer is Yes or No?

    Or did I misunderstand your statement about East Jerusalem?
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    So your answer is Yes or No?

    Or did I misunderstand your statement about East Jerusalem?
    The PLO has embraced a two state solution.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions