wait I know....Dubya did it!

wow, see what this does. ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

yep its the periods!!!

I'll be!!!

Today's Mirror: August 15, 2007

THE CHALLENGE OF FEDERALISM
Iraq Set to Disintegrate, New Study Warns

It's no secret that Iraq is a politically, ethnically and religiously fractured country. But a new study released in Berlin on Wednesday argues that federalism remains the country's last, best hope. Otherwise, it may fall apart completely.

According to a new report, Iraq's future is not too bright.

"Already today, the main priority is to prevent Iraq from breaking apart completely." That is the sober conclusion of a new study released Wednesday in Berlin on the situation in Iraq. Called "Iraq Between Federalism and Collapse," the study argues that there is little hope of a centralized power in Iraq and that the country's future depends on walking the fine line between decentralizing power and civil war.
The report, written by terror and Middle East expert Guido Steinberg under the auspices of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, says that a far-reaching decentralization is the country's only hope. And if it fails, the result could be devastating, including the possibility of full-scale civil war complete with foreign intervention.

"The basic assumption of this study," Steinberg writes, "is that a federalist solution will be the only possibility to maintain Iraq as a single country. The most important role of German and European policies should therefore be that of supporting steps toward a peaceful federalist solution."

That Iraq is threatening to break apart is, of course, nothing new. The Kurds in northern Iraq have established an autonomous Kurdish region. In the south of the country, the Shiites are interested in doing the same. Meanwhile, in the center of Iraq, violence remains part of everyday life as Shiite and Sunni extremist groups continue campaigns of car and suicide bombings.

Fractures, in other words, are not difficult to find. And the fractures are made all the worse by the fact that the groups involved rarely have the best interests of Iraq foremost in mind. In northern Iraq, the study points out, the two leading Kurdish political parties are demanding that the city and province Kirkuk be joined with the Kurdish dominated region -- a demand, Steinberg writes, that is likely to increase violence in the until now largely quiet north.

Indeed, the massive attack in the Kurdish area near the Syrian border on Tuesday seemed like proof that sectarian violence is rapidly spreading north. Four truck bombs exploded in villages killing at least 200 people. The bombs were likely detonated by Sunni groups angered by a Kurdish-speaking sect called the Yazidis. In April, a Yazidi woman was stoned to death for dating a Sunni Arab.

Elsewhere, the Sunnis are wary of attempts by the numerically superior Shiites to consolidate political power in the south and center of Iraq. And a large group of Shiites, Steinberg points out, are likewise against an autonomous Shiite region, meaning that there is a threat of an escalating intra-Shiite conflict as well.

The sectarian wrangling means, the study says, that the best solution -- that of a federalism free of ethnic and religious divisions -- has largely been rendered impossible. But even a federalism resting on the ethnic divisions that have been established seems challenging given the opposition from within the Shiite and Sunni factions to such a solution.
And that's not to mention the opposition of other countries in the region. "The discussion within Iraq is influenced to a large degree by the interests of neighboring countries," the report states. "Due to their potential to become involved, the Iraq federalists have to take their positions into account. And Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria all reject the ethnic-religious federalism model out of hand." Military intervention from Iraq's neighbors to protect their interests, particularly from Turkey in the north, is a very real possibility, the report warns.

The US has been pressuring parties on all sides of the discussions to come up with a compromise agreement and to solve a number of divisive issues, including the explosive discussion over sharing oil revenues among regions and groups. But the current Iraqi government under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is struggling to make any headway at all, with 11 cabinet ministers recently having quit in protest.

All of which makes the immediate future in Iraq look bleak, Steinberg writes. The alternative to a successful federalism solution, he indicates, is chaos, more violence and a Shiite dictatorship. "Iraq is a failed state," the report concludes, "and will remain unstable for the foreseeable future."

cgh

Searchin-

Where's the rest of that article? For example another paragraph reads:

"In some parts of the country, especially Baghdad, the situation is even worse than was feared, and in others, it is much better than anyone could have hoped. Traveling through Iraq, four years, four months and a few days after the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 20, 2003, one encounters a country undergoing radical change, not just a country in decline, not just a country falling apart, but also not a country that has been saved.

The situation is so complicated that even the leaders of Operation Iraqi Freedom are sometimes at a loss for words and can do little more than shrug their shoulders. General David Petraeus even has to suppress a nervous laugh when he talks about the immense task he faces."

I had a hard time reading it here because of all the scrolling, but for those who didn't see the original it is many pages, some with positive aspects to what is happening in Iraq (there can always be some kind of postivie since everything is relative) but that same article certainly has a lot of negatives to say as well...

- He can't even spell "Saddam"...
He thinks killing over a million civilians is worth deposing a dictator we installed, armed AND supported fully during the worst of his reign.

DayV said ....."as reliable as a cheating spouse"



but that's very reliable!!!!

everybody knows , cheaters always cheat!!!

oh sorry...as trustworthy as a cheating spouse......well they are trustworthy to do it again...lol


the real stats can be found...indeed you may have to do some personal research...but to me that's just logical.

Damn, I love smart women!!!

Reply...First..Fanta..you seeem to keep saying insisting that our soldiers death toll is so high...however I would argue it is extremely low for war standands E.g 60,000 died in 10 year war vietnam..at those levels we would be at 30,000 deaths in Iraq not @ 4000....8000 killed in one day during D-Day...20,000 Americans killed in just the liberation of France..3700 troops Killed in a TRAINING excercise for D-day..I could go on..but you get the picture...for a 5 year war we have had very little casualties. (no one like to see even 1 soldier killed...but war is war.)

anoasis, and Fanta...Fanta you said you traced this article to some "right wing Blog site"..I took it directly from "Der Speigel" a "left wing" german publication...and anoasis...I think the paragraphs you are relating to is not from the same that I saw...however to be perfectly honest..one small paragraph seemed to "disappear" from my post ..quite by accident..I was trying to "censor" some language that a soldier was saying..and the whole paragraph(small one) disappeared...to paraphrase it ..it was how a soildier "could not Fu&&ing walk on the streets before and now it is Fu*&ing great"...But I think the point of what I posted is still accurate...sorry anoasis for my poor cut & paste

it's ok searchin....it 's my fault remember??

cbx could you please post the source of your figure killing over a million civilians? And I particularly love the way some people start to nit pick spelling etc when information does not support their argument and beliefs.

Sure, gardenforge - check out red cross figures for all who died of starvation and disease as a direct result of Clinton's sanctions alone - not counting all who perished during Kissinger's
manipulated Iran/Iraq war.
So over a million (mostly women and children) dead BEFORE the '03
invasion, about a half million dead SINCE '03.

Now that all those evil women and children are dead, do you feel safer?

gee and that couldn't have been the fault of Saddam's lining his pockets with the money for the oil that he was allowed to export by the U.N. and the extra oil that he bribed Cofi Annin et al to be allowed to sell on the black market. He could have spent that money on food and medicine but gee I guess it's all our fault that he didn't. I guess we are also responsible for all the people he murdered over the years too.

Well yes, we ARE responsible for his running amok - we put him
in power and gave him the means and then we allowed him to get as nasty as he wanted.
regarding his "missapropriation" of the oil revenues - Is THAT a reason to wipe out half a million of his innocent citizens?
Why didn't we just wipe HIM out? - If the "mafia" wanted just him or just Osama - do you doubt they could have nailed either?
Be real - ALL governments "missapropiate" funds.
We run the global drug trade, while we "fight" it. five hundred BILLION a year gets laundered through wall st., courtesy of
uncle sam. That seems worse to me than pocketing oil revenues.

..and he COULDN'T spend money on medicine - the sanctions forbade medicine.

Isaw fiqures that since the war began that almost 700 thousand Iraqi civilians have died!
More than Saddam killed in 20 years!

I'll get ya links tomorrow. I have posted them before!!
G-night everyone!!!