Four years ago the USA invaded Iraq on the pretext to liberate people of Iraq, at that time we believed them although we weren't occupied country but we were happy because we used to consider Saddam and his followers occupiers who exhausted Iraqi's fortunes to their own benefit and deprive Iraqi people from their rights.
Now we realize that in spite of everything we were happier with our former occupier, at least we were a unified country, suffer as ONE body, live together and love each other. We weren't hearing of dividing or separating even though Kurdistan enjoyed autonomy but we knew that Kurdistan is an indivisible part of Iraq. No one dare to think of separating it.
Today the liberator plans to divide the country into three Petty Countries?. Why? Because they can't protect it as one piece, they must divide it to control it? I wonder how Saddam governed it as one piece.
How we supported each other in sorrow and in joy?
What happened now?
What make us separate our neighborhoods from each other?? This Sunni neighborhood and this Shiite neighborhood..
These belong to Saudi and those belong to Iran - why??
We used to belong to Iraq all of us. Who will gain benefit from this division? Certainly not Iraqi people. Iraq today is occupied and divided country, occupied according to UN decision and divided according to US' decision. They took decision to divide Iraq into three areas Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd.
I wondering - they liberated us ????? Or they bought us?????? Oh God if they bought us that mean we are slaves now. When they talk and decide as if Iraq is private property not sovereign state.
they look so real that it becomes really difficult to distinguish the real
http://www.watchestoo.com/
Iwc http://www.watchestoo.com/iwc-c-138.html
Replica watches http://www.watchestoo.com/
Cartier http://www.watchestoo.com/rolex-c-129.html
Omega http://www.watchestoo.com/rolex-c-141.html
Tag heuer http://www.watchestoo.com/rolex-c-156.html
Rado http://www.watchestoo.com/rolex-c-144.html
Rolex http://www.watchestoo.com/rolex-c-145.html
Posted by: watches | May 02, 2010 at 03:17 AM
thanx fo rthis analysis and honesty - as an Australian I am appalled my troops are in your country. Forgive our nations we are lead by lackeys and spineless liars.
Posted by: peter robertson | September 30, 2007 at 08:02 AM
Bush has disgraced America and committed atrocities to the Iraqui people to a degree that he must be brought up on war crimes!Why have the world leaders been so quite? All can do is pray for you and keep expressing our opinions against this madman bush!
Tkatz
Posted by: Terrance Michalski | September 30, 2007 at 05:54 AM
George Bush will go down history as the worst Commander in Chief: he sent only 160,000 Americans to divide Iraq, while 5,000,000 Sunnis plus al-Sadr’s followers are against Iraq being divided.
No wonder Iraq is not secure!
George Bush said: I am for a Unity Iraqi government! Yet he turned around and asked Kay Baily Hutchinson to co-sponsor the division of Iraq.
If we truly want to help Iraqis build a prosperous Unified country, we need to have a honest and honorable Commander in Chief with a honest and COHERENT policy!
Posted by: f16poor | September 29, 2007 at 03:52 PM
My husband is being called up AGAIN to ensure the freedom of Iraq, and hearing your opinion makes me feel empty and angry! I have to trust that what the troops are doing in Iraq is for the good of the world. And in turn, the good of Iraq--
I am sorry for what it is doing to your country, but please know what it is doing to ours as well!!!
B~
Posted by: Barb | September 29, 2007 at 10:36 AM
The Bathist government under Saddam Hussein was based on increasing foreign debt which was unsustainable in the long-term. The amount of Iraqi foreign debt that has been forgiven since 2003 is staggering, and what is remaining is now manageable. Also in Kirkuk I read they were using a 1957 map to try to settle competing land claims. Aren't the Arab families in Kirkuk being paid to leave?
As to the partition plan it's ridiculous, if not illegal, and the Iraqi government was right to say so. A Norwegian commentary said "it does not bode well for the future that the potential successors to President Bush seem to converge on a scheme (partition) that would be even more unpalatable to the Muslim world than Washington’s current policy":
http://historiae.org/biden.asp
Posted by: Chris Baker | September 29, 2007 at 01:59 AM
By the way, from what I've read about the current Iraqi constitution, it allows for fairly autonomous regions for the Kurds in the north and the Shi'a in the south already. It's the Sunnis who are disenfranchised in the current Iraqi constitution.
Posted by: ljm | September 28, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Don't panic. The vote in the US senate was called "the sense of the senate." It has no power to divide Iraq. It only says they support Iraq being a federation divided in three areas along sectarian lines, which Iraq has been doing on their own now for years through the criminal attacks of the militias and AQI. It's what happened in Bosnia so they could achieve peace. Only now is Bosnia coming together more as a nation. Before Churchill, Lawrence and Bell cobbled together what is now Iraq after WWI, the area functioned as tribal areas and at best, city states, which is pretty much what is going on there now. The senate didn't say there wouldn't be an Iraq. Just that the regions would govern themselves for most things, but the oil revenues would be shared and managed by a federal government as would national defense. Anyway, the people in the Iraqi parliament have said they don't want the division, so it can't happen. Iraqis do have to decide to come together if that is what Iraqis want.
Posted by: ljm | September 28, 2007 at 10:23 AM