Two U.S. military leaders say sectarian violence in Iraq is a growing threat.

shave saddams beard off and chuck him back into power... problem solved within a week, guaranteed.

---

Originally posted by britoca
I'd rather just see the US get off its high horse and bring in an UN-sanctioned force like it should have done right from the start instead of playing world cop once more.

The problem with our troops there is that from the very first day the US troops have been seen as the occupying country.  It's colonialism.  My country did it.  The Brits did it, the US has done so in the past, and now it did the same mistake once more.   Let's face it, It's too late to change their minds on this.
At least a UN force is seen as a peace force, a neutral force, a worldly concensus on the issue.  As long as it is the US calling the shots, we'll have war.  There's just no way around it.  It'll only get worse.

We don't even have to worry about whether if there's going to be civil war or not.  It's already in civil war.  It's been going on right since the first insurgents started attacking back.  This was so obvious that it would happen this way....

And let's not even think about partitioning that county, lol, that's the most offensive thing that anyone could do to any one nation.  The British did it all over the middle east and Asia and the mess lingers on till today.

All you have to do is ask the iraquis if they still want us there.  Then let their own government handle their own county.  If they need help, there's a place already set up to plea for help.  It's the UN, remember?  That one thing CREATED BY THE US to prevent war?

Why is it that just about all nations in this world still trust and have faith in the UN, and the one nation who pushed for its creation has so suddendly given up on its own dream?  The US is acting towards the UN like Germany was towards the League of Nations.  SOmething is VERY wrong in this picture.

---

So why do all the arab countries blow up the U.N. missions right at the beginning of every war?

The U.N. is not seen as a world consensus be any except a few powerless western countries. Places like Iraq simply view it as western interference. It makes sod all difference to a population whether or not a load of diplomats from countries they have never heard of agree with their way of life or not.

They have more important things to worry about like the bloke on the otherside of the road with a machine gun.

Iraq was naturally partitioned until the British artificially unified it into it's current modern boundaries. They did the same to many countries across Asians the Middle East. The mess that exists in many of these countries today is no worse than the mess that existed before. For a few of those countries the peace that existed in the interim wasn't so bad, and (in my unresearched opinion) more have prospered under colonial influence than have failed.

I almost agree with the earlier poster. Give it back to Saddam. Neither the U.S., the British nor any coalition from the U.N. have the balls for the level of brutality required to keep a country like that pacified. (It's probably too late to return it to Saddam, his infrastructure has been too damaged).

---

Originally posted by cumbom
The US has a responsibility to make Iraq at least as liveable as it was under Saddam.  Even if that means they have to seperate it into three seperate countries to do so.

This mess is their fault they took the pin out of the grenade and just let it explode.

---