You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #1: It means he was required to keep control of Iraq. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-06-06 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. It means he was required to keep control of Iraq.
Without him, and without a suitable replacement, the present situation was largely inevitable. The US complicates matters by its presence but stands no chance of changing the ultimate context: the Shiites want their pound of flesh and unquestioned rule. The Sunnis don't want to be turned into a permanent persecuted minority in "their" country. The only way to keep control of both was through an iron fist. (The Kurds escaped that control but the USAF had a little to do with that.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC