Is the strategy in Iraq the British method of divide and conquer?  Aren't we at war with Sunnis? Why not Iran?
832158
Simply put... NO.\n\nFirst off, the British method is "divide and rule."  We definitely don't want to stay in Iraq any longer than we have to.  Sure Bush's buddies at the oil companies are getting rich and Cheney's Halliburton is getting a kings ransom in defense contracts, but even they have limits to their greed.  \n\nI don't think that the the American military was sophisticated enough to distinguish between Sunni and Shiite.  They have people that could, but I doubt they listened to them.  We don't want to touch Iran because we have not proven ourselves against them.  How could we hit Iran when Iraq is just sitting there ripe for the picking?  Iran is too big of a fish to fry at this point.  If we overwhelming succeeded in Afghanistan and Iraq we would have Iran cornered on two sides, then we might think about going after the ayatollahs.  This is not the case, I think we want to get out as soon as possible (which could be never).
732308
Uh, duude, we're not "attacking" Iraq - we conquered their armies 3½ years ago. What's been going on for the past 2½ years is that we've been helping the democratically elected Iraqi government protect their people and train their troops and establish their new government. \n\nThanks for noticing!\n\nOh, and the reasons we went there:\nhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
793412
I would involve Iran and Syria in all talks about Iraq's future.  Because if we pull out too early, or if their government just crumbles anyway those two countries will most likely be involved anyway.  Syria is mostly Sunni and Iran is mostly Shiite.  If we can get those two countries to work together to make a better Iraq, then we may be able to put an end to the sectarian violence.  As for our active roll, I'm torn.  As a member of the US Army I don't like the idea of just giving up.  Our biggest problem right now is that we don't have enough troops in Iraq to do the job correctly.  A lot of people know this but it is political suicide to send more troops to an unpopular war.  If we keep the current troop levels in Iraq, we will never win this thing, the sectarian violence will turn into an all out civil war, and more innocent people will die.  I think if we're not going to send more troops, then we should just pull everyone out now.  Because if we're not win this war, there's no point in dragging it out only to pull out 5 years from now and have everything go wrong.  In the mean time more Americans will die and for nothing.  We need to either do it right, or leave because in the mean time we're just sending more of our soldiers into harms way.  And I'd hate to see more people die for nothing.  It's unsettling to me.  All or nothing.
523838
If we invade Iran it will be a grave mistake for one they can fight back ,its not as easy as invading Iraq (and we've turned that into an impossible situation). Also my personal opinion is that whilst were pointing the finger at Iran and getting all above ourselves there are bigger nuclear issues  that are being avoided like North Korea and China that have nuclear capability and would without a shadow of a doubt, whilst every ones focus is off them attempt to take over the world. (and could quite possibly succeed)
400998
I think you mean Bush does not want the Iraqis to be united in order to control them. This is right, but USA should not be blamed Iraq is made of two major ethnic groups and two major relgious groups and already divided.
413236
Iraqi's are like fleas.  Have you ever seen a flea circus?  Fleas in a closed jar will fly up as far as the jar lid and back down again.  They learn not to hit the jar lid through repetition.  If you take the lid off the jar, the fleas will do exactly the same thing.  They will fly up to where the lid was and back down again.  This explains why Iraqis are being attacked in their mosques. Because this is where the Shiites congregate in large numbers and at the same time of day, everyday.\nAs far as Islamics killing Islamics, think again.  Is it too hard to comprehend that the bombers are fanatical Baathist from Syria, or at least they are fanatics recruited by the Baathists to go to Iraq and blow themselves up along with as many Shiites as they can.  Why?\nShiites are pro Iran and Sunni's are pro Syria.  It is my guess that they are both wanting the spoils of war and don't want the other to have any of it.  As long As these clueless Iraqi's think they can have an Islamic government, this nonsense will continue.  They must get religion out of the equation, especially Islam.  This is the most divisive religion known to man and it will continue to exacerbate the problem.  \nThe US is trying not to side with either faction, yet most of these bombings are Sunni affiliated.  The Syrians seem to want a civil war in Iraq and they are determined to continue stirring the pot until it happens.
721061
You are a smart cookie!  Our fiasco in Iraq has given Iran the guts they needed to challenge the US.  After seeing how we're getting our asses kicked by a ragtag bunch of jihadists, they figured it was time to kick some sand in the bully's face.  And yes, anybody who's been paying attention knows that Saddam didn't want to admit he didn't have WMDs because he didn't want to appear weak to the Iranians.  Just another example of how stupid and self-absorbed some Americans can be.  We stumble into areas of the world where we don't have the first clue what's going on.
817372
Watch or listen to CSPAN now. There is a hearing on that. The General just said We need more troops, another said, We need an exit strategy. \nIn one month the Baker meet will be over and then and only then will we will know anything. \nMy opinion is that there should be 3, one Sunni, one Shiite and one Kurd. Each with their own accepted borders, and all sharing equally in any oil revenues from all 3 Countries or States. \nThe Shia and Sunni are never going to get along, and the Kurds just add an extra element of dispute. So give them all 3 equally shares of land, in relation to their original lands and with some acknowledgment as to Census Status, i.e. 3million Shia, 3million acre, 2 million Sunnis 2 million acres, 1million Kurds, 1 million acre. Or something like that. Seems fair, they all get Oil Revenues equally, and no one is or can take anothers land.
161945
Sometimes the entire Iran situation looks like Iraq, the current Iranian president 9being an independent candidate) seems like a perfect target to be the next Saddam Hussein. \n\nPolitically, the US is pressurizing the opposition to join them, as it is the governing regime will definitely go weak and then like in any other progressing economy they will have their foot in the door to make sure that there is a well paved road for them to commute whenever they want.\n\nI think only time will tell what exactly is the major game plan here, but one thing is sure it is not going to be a smooth ride and eventually the US will gain something substantial.
240846
Wow, there's an 800 year old question!\n\nWithout going into a doctorial dissertation, it all started right after the death of the Profit. The question was who would be his successor. Shias believed one way and Sunnis another. They have been fighting ever since.\n\nAdd to this that most Shia are Persians and most original Sunni are Arabs and the cultural morass becomes deeper. When entering the Arabian/Persian Gulf, ships and planes must call it different names depending on if they are talking to an Arab or a Persian (Iranian).\n\nYou must understand that tribal and clan allegiances trump all others in the Arab world. Some would argue the tribal nature is prevalent throughout the world and that cultures like the US and (modern) Western Europe are the exceptions, rather than the rule. Others will agree but state the West has evolved away from tribal warfare and that is why they are so successful. But back to the topic.\n\nThese tribal/clan ties can cause massive intercine wars within a country and are sometimes confused by culturally ignorant journalists as "civil wars", when in fact they may be nothing more an retribution killings or turf wars over some resource.\n\nTribal/clan systems are also highly unstable and can be easily fractured. Even within the Sunnis and Shia, there are subclans and subsects which may even war with each other. This is how the Afghan war was won and how the terrorists in Iraq are being alienated from their supporting tribal leaders. Yeah, it never made the news, I know. Go figure.\n\nThis brings us back to the Sunni/Shia issue. Iraq is the crossroads of cultures in the Arab/Persian world. Bothe Shias and Sunnis have holy sites here. The ignorant media just simply claim every city is a "Holy City" without even trying to figure out WHO it is holy for. Iraq's population is roughly Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%, and Christian 3%. Into this, add the Kurds, who are also Islamic, but of a different tribe/clan.\n\nFor his entire reign, Saddam brutalized the Kurds and Shia within Iraq. Roughly 6-7 million people were killed with untold numbers imprisoned and truly tortured (not just embarrassed). His Army was made up of Shia conscripts serving under brutal Sunni officers. We never "disbanded" the Iraqi Army, it disintegrated en mass after Saddam fell and thousands of Shia deserted.\n\nSo, after years of abuse, the Shia and Kurds have a score to settle. You must understand, there is no "forgive and forget" here. The culture does not allow for it. The US military knows this, but also knows they must stop the violence. Their are massive efforts to bring the sides together and create conditions where local Sheiks (tribal leaders) and Imams (religious leaders) can help the people work together for a better Iraq. This effort is more difficult than any ever attempted. It is succeeding, slowly, but most Americans, or the world, would never know about it from the media.\n\nI hope this helped. This is a huge question and one that most Western cultures cannot comprehend since it makes no sense to us. However, much of the world is divided along these tribal lines. We are seeing this all over from China, to the Caucuses, through the old Soviet Union, in the Balkans, and throughout Africa. It is the cause of a lot of the 100s of "brush wars" going on throughout the world.
44910
The majority party in Iraq is run by Iranian sympathizers.  Iran has a greater interest in Iraq than we do.
142565
Before the US can consider attacks on other countries, it would be smart to get out of the quagmire it has in Iraq. I used to believe the insurgents simply wanted us out of Iraq and that they would quit when we left.  I no longer believe that. I believe they are deliberately keeping us bogged down over there, and keeping us busy putting out fires, so that we can't leave.  We must feel some obligation to stay until we see at least one commencement ceremony from their new government.  That would allow a clean break and this will probably never happen.  It is now time for a serious exit strategy.  It is time to give Iraq a short term timetable.  It is time for our troops to come home, lick our wounds, and get ready for the next round, wherever that will be.  I seriously doubt that it will Pakistan as long as Musarreff is in charge. Iran, on the other hand, or Syria????
714292
Define winning.  We are killing Islamic expansionists in Iraq as opposed to on our own streets.  They are expending their resources against us there as opposed to here.  \n\nI would support a pull out on the condition that for every Westerner that is killed by a Muslim, we nuke a muslim city.  Also all Muslims living in the Europe, Australia or the Americas go back to the Islamic world.
204478
aiight bro. I just got back from living in korea and deploying to iraq with the US army. Nobody is going to mess with north korea without some serious backup. They invest almost all thier gross domestic product as a country into strengthening thier military. They have a standing army of over two million people. Iran is just another iraq except for the fact that during the 70's we supplied them with arms and were trying to make them a puppet state of democracy, (sounds familiar huh) but jimmy carter let the sha of iran fry when he needed our help during the islamic revolution. so iran is now the bad guy and for a while was a puppet of the soviet union and got arms from there. So they have been hooked up big time and got some good equipment, but they dont have the military leadership that can compare or the precision strike capabilities or special operators like we do. North korea does and is therefore a completely different animal. we can go into iran and knock heads, but if we need to hit up north korea, we need like everybody to have our back.
1011723
attack Iran and N. Korea at the same time and win?\n\nlike you are "winning" in Iraq?\n\n.. NEWSFLASH both the aforementioned have better equipped armies than Iraq, possibly nukes - and seeing as how the US has squandered most of its post 9-11 int'l good will, you won't have many allies..\n\nstudy your history.. too many fronts, overextended - taht's always how the Empires fall, from Genghis Khan to the Romans to Hitler to Napoleon....
1138015
Zarq was in Irak, has nothing to do with US or UK safty. Wanna make USA and UK safer remove Bush and Blair.
128918
I would argue that we are already at war with Iran. Iran is the major reason for the fighting in Iraq today. Iran has a great interest in seeing that Iraq is not stabilized and we continue to concentrate our efforts there. With Afghanistan being relatively stable, a stable Iraq means that attention will be focused elsewhere. Like Iran and their nuclear program (which the United Nations has condemned and passed resolutions that Iran must stop it). If Iran has stable democracies with American soldiers in them to their east and to their west, they'd be mighty nervous.