in a conflict between the two. Probably, both will turn on us.

The FUBAR, it burns.

A Cop once told me that the situation he was afraid of the most was a Domestic Violence call because you never knew when both parties would turn on you.

This will not end well.

Classic cluster fuck lining up.

See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014412542

from US meddling in the region (especially Syria)...





This is ominous.

AGAINST the side we're supposedly backing?

Does this make anybody else's head hurt(not counting the people in Syria who's heads hurt because they have head wounds, of course)?

Just another opportunity to boost his portfolio's of helliburton stocks again, for more, more, more arm sales.

Cheering suicide bombings, celebrating massacres.

Of course this is not different than before fundamentally. The objective seems to be the annihilation of sovereign states and their replacement with open-ended chaos.

They now get a Shia client state in Iraq after we did all the crimes against humanity dirty work. Sweet.

Domino theory?

Assad/Hezbollah/Iran/Iraq/Russia vs. FSA/Turkey/NATO/US vs. Jihadis/Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Yemen vs. Syrian Kurds/PKK.

Did I leave anybody out?

who's resources?

Is Iraq now our bitch?

But they're not engaging Syria, they're taking some pot-shots at rebels on the border. And who knows what else...

I wouldn't be surprised if Iran isn't helping them out. They're kind of like Iran's junior partner now, not ours.

I think we kind of screwed ourselves in Iraq.

I just hope the Muslims have mercy on our kids.

What Condi Rice assured us would become, "Our stable, democratic ally in the war on terror," has actually become a sectarian, dictatorial client regime aligned with Iran. I wonder why our one billion dollar "fortress" embassy in baghdad (employing 15,000 people and costing two billion annually to maintain) wasn't able to prevent this kind of thing. I guess, after all, we should have made it a little bigger?

It was SO worth it!

Recall that Bush I at the end of liberating Kuwait stopped short of invading Iraq. Instead he let Sadaam keep his helicopters and kill a lot of "marsh Arabs". He was letting the Sunni minority put down the Shiites. Bush II wasn't as smart as his old man.

Yes Shiites are the majority, but with Sunni money and weapons coming in from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States (as well as the CIA, one assumes) Sunni Iraqis can still stage a viable power grab. It has, of course, been done that way before.

aligned with Iran and so are the Alawites. Syria participated in the overthrow of Saddam. Then you got the Kurds who want their own state. Everything goes back their their different sects of religion. The only way you can keep other sects under control is by force. The opposition wants Western Weapons to gain superiority because they can't match Assad. This applies to Israel also. Whomever has the best equipped Armed Forces will only be the next oppressor. It is the biggest reason I disagree with U.S. Policy of meddling in the Middle East. We just supplanted the British Empire. Unless you know the history of the Middle East, it is too complicated for a less informed person to know. Congress is playing on that for their own interests. And some of that are resources in the Middle East, that enrich the top one percent in this country. That resource is Oil. And those resources also enriches the group that has power in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein was just a product of that environment. In order for his own possession of power, he had to govern with an iron fist.

Relying on a purely sectarian analysis also has its own dangers. It can lead to the mass demonization of one group, the Shiites for example, and glossing-over of crimes and abuses committed by others (the Kurds and Sunni Arabs, perhaps). When the US needed Shiites to counter Saddam, we were more than happy to encourage them. Now that Israel is so alarmed by Shiite Iran, we seem ready to blame Shiites for everything bad in the Middle East. Religious sects are led by individuals, those individuals are responsible for what their followers might do at their urging.

The fears of Sunni minority in Iraq of a Shia-dominated government are understandable particularly after decades of repression against the majority Shia by a Sunni dictatorship. The same can be said of the fears of the Shia minority in Syria. They understandably fear reprisal after decades of repression of the Sunni majority by a Shia (Alawite) dictatorship.

The long term answer would seem to be democracies that learn to respect minority rights, but in the short run dictatorships seem to bring more peace (albeit with varying degrees of repression which can create more problems than they hide).

Create an Alawite/Christian/Shiite state in the Northeast, possibly under Turkey's protection (since a large fraction of the Alawites already live in Turkey).

Join the rest of Syria, Jordan and western Iraq in a new greater Syria run out of Damascus.

Establish a Shiite Iraq from Bhaghdad south and east.

Establish a Kurdish state in northeast Syria and northern Iraq.

Exchange populations consistent with new borders.

And I seriously doubt Iraq's.