Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ScottinVA

I never really understood what the Neocons had against it. It could have been done a long time ago with little bloodshed. Now it will happen with a lot of bloodshed. Maybe they feared a Sunni state and a Iran-leaning Shiite state? Maybe they, in their stupid Neocon minds, thought one state would allow checks and balances.


71 posted on 06/12/2014 9:59:36 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: demshateGod

The problem with partition is that it left the Sunni Arab region landlocked with no natural resources, an oil rich Shia region with even stronger ties to Iran and an independent Kurdistan which would drive Turkey nuts. The worst part was that having a bitter(at being deposed by us), dirt poor and loosely governed Sunni Arab state on the Syrian and Jordanian borders wasn’t an ideal outcome for our purposes. We were afraid they might become infiltrated dominated by Islamist elements that would leak back over into Jordan and Syria.

Of course the current situation is far worse, so hindsight is making partition look like the best bet.


74 posted on 06/12/2014 10:13:13 AM PDT by Blackyce (French President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: demshateGod
When the Ottoman Empire was divided 100 years ago, it was common knowledge that Kurds, sunni and shiite did not play well together - still they insisted on dividing it for long term chaos. Perhaps to keep them all third world.
79 posted on 06/12/2014 10:31:27 AM PDT by SisterK (behold a pale horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson