Again, my problem is that people look at conflict in the Islamic world as particularly intrinsic or inevitable. It's like if one watched the German Alaric invade Italy and then watched the German Emperor Barbarossa invade Italy and say "Oh look at that, they're back at it again, been doing it forever and it'll never stop." They're complete different circumstances. Shia and Sunni have existed side-by-side for centuries with relatively little conflict, compared to Catholic-Protestant existence, for example. I don't presume to have any useful policy advice on Yemen, just pointing out that we can't simply ignore the stability of countries like Yemen or Saudi Arabia. At a certain point, it becomes a concern.
LOL! I cite sources of the left wing war drum demanding a response to Saddam's WMDs and like a child, the rebuttal is "wrong". I love debating you guys. It's too easy. I think my favorite calls for war were around 2000-2001 when John Kerry got involved. Want me to cite that? I'm happy to.
LOL. After 15 years, still waiting for your "proof" that your hero traitor Bush was correct and that Hans Blix was wrong.
What are your thoughts on all those left wingers quoted, saying, Saddam has WMDs? You keep dodging that. Luckily, because of them convincing the SIC, Bush had an easy time initiating that war. He appreciated your support from the left wing
Al Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi was killed in 2006 and by 2008 20,000 "Al Qaeda fighters" aka ISI (Islamic State Iraq)were killed on the battlefield in Iraq and technically was defeated. What is ISIS ( Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) today was born in 2010 and after Obama armed ISIS to help with Obama's regime change in Syria ISIS reentered Iraq. Dershowitz: Obama support of Arab Spring 'big mistake' http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/09/dersh...-arab-spring-big-mistake/#XXUxVbuL17TfuzAG.99
Dershowitz is a fool. Sons of Iraq joined forces with AQ in Iraq to deal with the Maliki government in 2008.
I have REPEATEDLY answered that by directing to you Hans Blix's quotes which occurred AFTER those you linked to .
The Mongols that controlled parts of the Middle East didn't control it for long, and for most of the time they did they WERE Sunni, so they still fit in the "Shia and Sunni" Venn diagram circle. In other words, that 1/8th of a fact doesn't contradict my statement.
OK, how do YOU explain the fact that today, 1356 years after the death of Ali, the only wars in the Middle East are between Sunnis and Shias?
More people were killed in the Turkey-Kurdistan conflict as the Turks killed more of those people than Saddam did to his own. This war has nothing to do with the Sunni-Shia conflict. It is ethnic in origin. Give the Kurds their own land back to them and the conflict will end.
I think the most interesting thing about this, is that not only did these Democrats call for disarming saddam of his "wmds", they also voted for it.
They're clearly not. Sunni Turks fight Sunni Kurds fight Sunni Arabs fight OTHER Sunni Arabs. Most of the factions fighting one another in the Syrian Civil War are majority Sunni. The situation in the Middle East is much, much deeper than Sunni-Shia sectarianism, though it certainly plays a vital part, especially in Iraq.
It's not as important in either of those countries as people make it out to be, especially Syria. There are tons of Sunni Arabs still loyal to the Assad regime for a variety of reasons. It is really only Iraq where the Sunni-Shia split is what really drove conflict. In both Syria and Yemen it was more general dissatisfaction with the performance of their governments.
It's true that Kurds have moved around for centuries, but their core homeland has remained the same for not just centuries, but millennia. I'm wondering why it even matters. They certainly have a pretty cohesive homeland by this point.
Why does it all matter? Because the Turkish government killed more of them than Saddam did of his own people. Nobody said invading that country and regime change was advisable as that happened. The genocide they have endured has nothing to do with Shia-Sunni conflict. It is about ethnicity and repression.
Did you know that under "Natural Law" aka "Law of Nations" nomadic people can't declare sovereignty over land. They are just considered to be passing through the land they are on.
