Bombs rock Baghdad, raising fears of sectarian war

BAGHDAD (AP) – A terrifying wave of bombs tore through mostly Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad on Thursday, killing at least 69 people and evoking
fears that Iraq could dissolve into a new round of sectarian violence now that American troops have left.

Click to expand...

USA Today

I once said that Iraq should just be divided into two. One side Shiite's the other side Sunni. I think this shows that that assessment is correct. These two groups just cannot get along.

Kal'Stang said:

USA Today

I once said that Iraq should just be divided into two. One side Shiite's the other side Sunni. I think this shows that that assessment is correct. These two groups just cannot get along.

Click to expand...

That 2006 Joe Biden suggestion? Huh... wonder where we'd be if we here in the U.S. had to keep people who don't agree in there separate regions by force because they don't get along. Maybe the 1960's would have seen white only establishments and black only establishments, white only drinking fountains and black only drinking fountains. Yes, an extreme comparison to show how buying into, promulgating and promoting differences does nothing but just that, promulgate and continue their differences. Nothing good in the long term could come out of such a move.

Ockham said:

That 2006 Joe Biden suggestion? Huh... wonder where we'd be if we here in the U.S. had to keep people who don't agree in there separate regions by force because they don't get along. Maybe the 1960's would have seen white only establishments and black only establishments, white only drinking fountains and black only drinking fountains. Yes, an extreme comparison to show how buying into, promulgating and promoting differences does nothing but just that, promulgate and continue their differences. Nothing good in the long term could come out of such a move.

Click to expand...

Biden made this suggestion? huh...didn't know that.

Anyways, it's a very extreme example that doesn't correlate. On one side you're talking about different races, the other you are talking about the same races but different interpretations of religion. One is based upon biology. The other is based upon ideaology. History has shown that when those of differing ideology (to the point of violence) seperate from each other friction between the two eases. Don't believe me? Look at why the US was founded. One of the main reasons was due to persecution from the Catholic Church.

Kal'Stang said:

Biden made this suggestion? huh...didn't know that.

Anyways, it's a very extreme example that doesn't correlate. On one side you're talking about different races, the other you are talking about the same races but different interpretations of religion. One is based upon biology. The other is based upon ideaology. History has shown that when those of differing ideology (to the point of violence) seperate from each other friction between the two eases. Don't believe me? Look at why the US was founded. One of the main reasons was due to persecution from the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

Well historically speaking, Protestant and Catholics in the mid 1800's in the U.S. were not divided to keep themselves at each others throats (Look up the "Know nothing party"), the borders stayed open, and eventually we all got along as time passed. Those who advocated keeping Catholics and Protestants divided by some border back then were not taken seriously even in the nativist movements. Back then they wanted to severely limit influence of Catholics who were seen as a scourge. It's nothing but bald faced discrimination which doesn't exist much today and I suggest that it doesn't because tolerance winning the day, and that people just didn't buy into the notion that Catholics were all that bad as the years went by. The same would occur in Iraq I assure you. Islam in its early form was a very tolerant religion, focused on science and willing to tolerate and even welcome Jewish and other religions together. The sectarian violence and hatred of Sunni vs. Shia is one that is based in the want of power, not in religion. Man, as usual, has twisted what was given to them, for their own vices and this is what we see here. Compounding that by making artificial borders and segregating by Sunni and Shia would be disastrous. Islam needs a renaissance and to kick these two bit dictators out and never let them back in.

Ockham said:

Well historically speaking, Protestant and Catholics in the mid 1800's in the U.S. were not divided to keep themselves at each others throats (Look up the "Know nothing party"), the borders stayed open, and eventually we all got along as time passed. Those who advocated keeping Catholics and Protestants divided by some border back then were not taken seriously even in the nativist movements. Back then they wanted to severely limit influence of Catholics who were seen as a scourge. It's nothing but bald faced discrimination which doesn't exist much today and I suggest that it doesn't because tolerance winning the day, and that people just didn't buy into the notion that Catholics were all that bad as the years went by. The same would occur in Iraq I assure you. Islam in its early form was a very tolerant religion, focused on science and willing to tolerate and even welcome Jewish and other religions together. The sectarian violence and hatred of Sunni vs. Shia is one that is based in the want of power, not in religion. Man, as usual, has twisted what was given to them, for their own vices and this is what we see here. Compounding that by making artificial borders and segregating by Sunni and Shia would be disastrous. Islam needs a renaissance and to kick these two bit dictators out and never let them back in.

Click to expand...

Bold part: If this were true then why is there so much conflict in the ME? I agree that it is true in much of the rest of the world. But it is obvious that these people have no tolerance.

As for the rest, yes there was open borders between the US and European countries. But those borders were seperated by an ocean which took months to cross. Any sort of war was just too expensive to continue. Which is exactly why the British lost and we won.

Kal'Stang said:

Bold part: If this were true then why is there so much conflict in the ME?

Click to expand...

Because the ME is not the mid 19th century United States, which is what the bolded part was describing.

Kal'Stang said:

As for the rest, yes there was open borders between the US and European countries. But those borders were seperated by an ocean which took months to cross. Any sort of war was just too expensive to continue. Which is exactly why the British lost and we won.

Click to expand...

Actually I was talking about open borders between the different States. You see the Protestants and Catholics were separated initially between the North East and South East geographically. We didn't separate Protestants from crossing the Virginia State line, and we didn't prohibit Catholics from traveling up to New York or New England.

Ockham said:

Because the ME is not the mid 19th century United States, which is what the bolded part was describing.

Click to expand...

You're right...they're more like the 1200's.

Ockham said:

Actually I was talking about open borders between the different States. You see the Protestants and Catholics were separated initially between the North East and South East geographically. We didn't separate Protestants from crossing the Virginia State line, and we didn't prohibit Catholics from traveling up to New York or New England.

Click to expand...

Those catholics were not a part of where the power lay.

Kal'Stang said:

You're right...they're more like the 1200's.



Those catholics were not a part of where the power lay.

Click to expand...

And the Protestants wanted to keep it that way - see in the mid-1800's America, the influx of Catholics alarmed the Protestants and the fear was the Catholics were going to gain power. Hence, the marginalization and discrimination which occurred until the 1930's.

Kal'Stang said:

USA Today

I once said that Iraq should just be divided into two. One side Shiite's the other side Sunni. I think this shows that that assessment is correct. These two groups just cannot get along.

Click to expand...

Everyone likes to leave the Kurds out of this equation. They need to get out of whatever is going on in Iraq too. The real problem here is that you can't effectively divide the country up. The minority, the Kurds, have the North eastern part of the country, from Mosul to the Turkish border and Iranian border. Before 2001, the Sunnis would come in and wipe out a town, and everyone would go on with their day. Mosul saw a lot of this. The Sunnis predominantly are in and around Baghdad, they were the ruling minority. They had many of the resources and lived in the nicer cities. The Shiite are the majority. They essentially have nothing, and surround Baghdad and all points south. If you broke the country up into where the people live, the majority would get sand. The minority would get the infrastructure and cities, and the Kurds would get a Christmas Present. As mentioned in this post, Biden wanted to horizontally split the country. That idea was not well accepted.

Why is this an issue? I believe the government of Iraq told us we were no longer needed there. Let them kill each other off.

Tigger said:

Why is this an issue? I believe the government of Iraq told us we were no longer needed there. Let them kill each other off.

Click to expand...

Because we spent 4,487 lives on this. This is not what we wanted for our payment.

Blue_State said:

Because we spent 4,487 lives on this. This is not what we wanted for our payment.

Click to expand...

Then maybe we should have done the smart thing....

1. Just Assassinated Hussein and been done with it.

OR

2. Nuked the entire worthless country back even further into the stone age and been done with it.

Either way there are no dead American soldiers and the same result has been accomplished.

Tigger said:

Then maybe we should have done the smart thing....

1. Just Assassinated Hussein and been done with it.

OR

2. Nuked the entire worthless country back even further into the stone age and been done with it.

Either way there are no dead American soldiers and the same result has been accomplished.

Click to expand...

Thoughts like your second one make me glad that you are the only Tigger. However, I do agree with your first one. Why disguise what we were trying to accomplish in Iraq with a war when we could of just shot the bastard.

Chaddelamancha said:

Thoughts like your second one make me glad that you are the only Tigger.

Click to expand...

You have to realize something very simple here.... I hold the value of the life of a single American above the value of every non-American in the world. You come over here and attack this country and its citizens, I'm all for your country and your people disappearing in a glowing green cloud. On the other hand, three american kids wander across the border from Iraq into Iran and get caught.... Do whatever the hell you want with them. Try them. Find them guilty of espionage. Execute them. Whatever. Wouldn't have happened if they were were they should have been (home, here in the good 'ol USA).

Chaddelamancha said:

However, I do agree with your first one. Why disguise what we were trying to accomplish in Iraq with a war when we could of just shot the bastard.

Click to expand...

Definitely. The War in Iraq was fought to Kill Saddam Hussein for One Reason and One Reason Only.... The fact that Hussein was part of a plot to attempt to assassinate the first President Bush.

Personally I believe had we left 7 years ago, 5 years ago, 3 years ago or now the outcome would be about the same. Like Vietnam, we stayed until the public just tired of it. Only then did a President have the balls to end it. Only when public opinion was solidly over 50% against the war did Obama end it, rather than ending it when he promised he would while campaigning.