Quote:
Originally Posted by steeljack
#2 Wether they like it or not Bush/Blair are going to have to talk to the Iranian and Syrian Govts and get their help (thats right I said help) to sort out the mess. If Bush/Blair insist on a fully democratic Iraq (majority rule , one man one vote etc.) it means a Shia Govt. with ties to Iran, and that means upsetting the major oil suppliers the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States .
#3 Months ago I wrote in another thread that in my opinion Iraq should revert to its natural historical borders , the modern day Iraq is an artificial British creation, (Gertude Bell and Winston Churchill )at the end of WW1. The 500 odd years under Turkish rule as three distinct provinces prooved to be much better, Mosul, Baghdad and Basra (Kurd, Sunni and Shia)
|
So, we should go cap in hand to Iran and Syria, major sponsors of terrorism? What help would they offer, pray tell, that wouldn't involve blackmail? They LOVE what's going on in Iraq right now - which is the reason they are feeding the violence!
To which natural, historic borders do you refer? When the area was under the control of the Ottoman Empire - or prior? There have been many changes over the last few thousand years. Post WWI, occupying European powers carved up the region under a mandate system established by the League of Nations. In 1920 it authorized Britain to set up a postwar government in Iraq. Britain drew the new boundaries according to its strategic needs, largely around the old Ottoman provinces. The victors call the shots. Thus it has been throughout history.
The Iraqis don't concur with your opinion. They prefer a united Iraq and have voted for a unity government.