Iraq must end the sectarian mess.

Secretary of State Kerry's visit to Iraq.Secretary of State Kerry's visit ot Iraq

While it is reported that Secretary Kerry's visit was to get cooperation from Iraq's leader Maliki to end the dubious overflight of the persian apostate infidel Khameni's supply of troops and weapons for persia's pet dog assad in Syria, Secretary Kerry is not blind to the sectarian mess in Iraq.

George Bush, Blair and allies in the Iraqi war are not to be blamed for the mess right now. They acted responsibly within the rules of international law. NONE can deny the belligerances of Sadam, his barbaric treatment of his own people and neighbours, and his defiance in the face of worldwide's community concerns over WMDs.

If he just cooperated and came clean, Iraq war would never had happened. But...thanks to Sadam, it happened.

The only thing that is moronic of what Bush, Darth Vader Cheny had done, was that they FAILED to have an exit plan, and left Iraq in a mess with their stupidities.

And after trillions of dollars spent along with precious american blood spilt there, this failure is also contributed by the Iraqis themselves for FAILING to take the opportunity with the death of Sadam and USA's egalitarian help, to unite and govern the nation responsibly.

Right now, the issue in Iraq is sectarian violence.

Bush should not have bleedingheartedly allowed the minority Shia's to rule. He, like many others, had been blind to the machinations of the persian leaders to swallow Iraq whole.

There is NO country on Earth whereby the minority rules a democratic nation, unless under tyrannies and dictatorships. The only chance whereby a nation can exist with minority as rulers is when during of peace whereby EQUALITY is adopted by all.

Voting is a numbers game. And the numbers do not favor the minority groups unless in elevated equal societies, of which the middle east has yet to progress upon.

But those equality focussed nations and times are few in our current world, as some neighbours will sought to incite either racial, religious or wealth as means to divide a nation's People for their own barbaric egoistical power lusting agendas.

The persian apostate Khameni had long shown his desire to rule our world through his misuse of the 'Mahdi's' appearance and portends to the end of the world, which no mortal or divine will know except Allah alone. Yet, infidel Khameni continually preached the end days a fact in these times which is heresay.

He manipulated events and had ordered, cause and supported the killing of innocents around our world, admitted by him with his support of the terorist Hizbollah group. It was such manipulated events around our world that we see instabilty everywhere, from Buddhist Bangkok to Kenya.

Maliki is just another puppet dog of infidel Khameni, and thus widespread anger against him.

He should decide what is more important to the nation - he, khameni or the People?

Minority groups within an unstable nation will always fear, that their rights and even rights to exists will be taken away. This is a reality that had happened since our civilisation began.

The only way to resolve this issue is throught the implementation of societally agreed upon laws and constitution, that minority rights will be uphold at all times. The sunnis in Iraq should have their own elected leader-PM, while the president of the nation will be elected, BUT he cannot be an existing member of any party ruling the nation today.

Once elected, he will behave as a constitutional monarch, whose concerns during his time are - uplifting those left behind, watch over expenses and full protection of minorities, in Parliament, under the British model of governance.

In that manner, Maliki can be assured of Shias being protected by the Constitution, and at the same time know that peace will come when the Sunni majority rules. Sunnis too are only fellow humans, just that they need more honest syriah teachings to comprehend truths within the Koran - which is a religion of peace.

The sectarian mess can end, and need not continue another thousand years more as before, for we mankind today are far more educated and know the truths of the Koran than the ignorant camel breeders of ancient middle east past. easily misled by out of context qoutes and misinterpretations. Change..is evitable, so too is Allah's plan for peaceful arabs in the middle east to share our world and progress, as taught by prophet Muhammad.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Bush should not have bleedingheartedly allowed the minority Shia's to rule.

Um Shiites ARE the majority in Iraq. Always have been. Sunni are the Minority.

Can you provide some links that claim the invasion was legal and justified especially after the accusations have been proven false?

I am going to show you a few things about Iran because from what I can muster up, they have been rammed from behind ever since the closing of WW2..And because you dislike them also.

After the conference in Tehran in 1943, the governmets of Britain, the USA and Russia had this to say.

Tehran conference 1943

Finally, the three leaders issued a "Declaration of the Three Powers Regarding Iran." Within it, they thanked the Iranian Government for its assistance in the war against Germany and promised to provide it with economic assistance both during and after the war. Most importantly, the U.S., British, and Soviet Governments stated that they all shared a "desire for the maintenance of the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Iran."

My my how things change quickly. It would seem the West have brought this problem on themselves.. Remember 1953, only 10 years later? Oil must not be included in sovereignty.

Iranian Coupe 1953

In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup díetat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt.

In 1951, Prime Minister Mossadegh roused Britain's ire when he nationalized the oil industry. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves which had been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company later became known as British Petroleum (BP).

After considering military action, Britain opted for a coup d'Ètat. President Harry Truman rejected the idea, but when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, he ordered the CIA to embark on one of its first covert operations against a foreign government.

All because they wanted their oil, Their bein the key word. But then we move along to 1979 after 26 years of Western backed oppression.. And here we are today, still trying to justify how to get their oil back in our control.. I'm glad you support the murder of innocents for some pesky black gold.. Maybe they don't like us because of what we have done to them in the past and continue to do to them right now..

Now who are the international terrorist ring again?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

George Bush, Blair and allies in the Iraqi war are not to be blamed for the mess right now. They acted responsibly within the rules of international law. NONE can deny the belligerances of Sadam, his barbaric treatment of his own people and neighbours, and his defiance in the face of worldwide's community concerns over WMDs.

I read that paragraph and thought.....WOW......That's enough for me I'm outta here.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Sorry this post is stupid.

George Bush, Blair and allies in the Iraqi war are not to be blamed for the mess right now. They acted responsibly within the rules of international law. NONE can deny the belligerances of Sadam, his barbaric treatment of his own people and neighbours, and his defiance in the face of worldwide's community concerns over WMDs.

The most stupid comment I have read on ATS. Firstly, yes they can be blamed for the mess. If they never caused a power vacuum, the mess would never have existed.

Secondly, to act responsibly within international law would suggest that they followed international law. Considering the fact that the invasion was illegal, it wasn't in self-defense and wasn't approved by the UN security council, then it wasn't responsible.

Furthermore, it is important you do your research. Iraq has a majority Shi'ite population, not Sunni. en.wikipedia.org...

I don't know your understanding of Khameni and the regime in Iran, but there is certainly no evidence that they were inciting presidential riots in Kenya, and riots in Thailand. And your assertion that he wants to rule the world is laughable, let alone representative of the actual power structure in Iran itself.

And now you want a British style constitutional monarchy imposed on Iraq? The original problem was that foreign powers tried to impose a FOREIGN governmental system on Iraq and it's native population. Do you really think doing the same thing again would fix anything?

Iraq was once part of the brutal Ottoman empire from the 16th century to the 19th century, and they were sunnis.

Even after the ottomans were booted up, the sunnis ruled Iraq, despite 65% of the muslim community are Shias.

The shias were largely concentrated in the countrysides, while sunnis whom controlled the nation, were from the urban centres.

Even though iraqi shias are muslims, they are not persians, but arabs.

There is no denying the fact that the shias had been discriminated in the past, but during its war against persia in the 1980s, majority of the shias supported the sunni led and control effort in its war against Iran.

After the american LIBERATION of Iraq which booted out Sadam, both the sunnis and the shias FAILED to unite and build up their country, instead preferring to let millenia old hatred rise to the front, killing each other even till today.

The sunnis were the more educated and urban folks whom had enjoyed the priviledges of living in a MAJORITY SUNNI DOMINATED WORLD. And they are not going to give it up so easily to Shia rule, more so when its leader proves to be a puppet to the meddling and nations interfering persian apostate Khameni instead of allegience to the sunni arabs in the middle east.

And this fight will continue on and on, UNLESS out of the box international thinking and shaping of foriegn policies are utilised.

The root problems are:-
1.MIddle east majority sunni arabs will not allow the shia sect to grow.
2. Shias long discriminated seeks justice and equality today.

Therefore, a compromise must be found. To expect overnight Freedom and Equality for ALL iraqis is a pipedream. Nothing happens overnight, but only overtime. Even racism in USA took 200 years to be eradicated. How more the schism between shias and sunnis of thousand years?

An example of a compromise:-

a. The national constitution will be solely based upon SECULARISM for the nation to progress and prosper, following BASIC Islamic Principles that Shias-Sunnis share, as those Islamic principles are not the same in TOTALITY between those 2 religions.

b. The State will then be governed under a Prime Minister, Cabinet and Judiciary based upon those common ground principles.

c. A Constitutional President will then be elected, with the role to look after the country's reserves and prevent discrimination to ANY religious groups, given an excutive power to punish anyone who infringes the rights to worship, or be sacked if he failed in his oversight duty.

One day, shias and sunnis, and all other faiths will be united in peace. But that day has not come...yet, thus, we best be pragmatic inorder to save precious human lives by applying acceptable and fair Rule of law.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


The blame ca be put on Bush and his side kick. This article only came out last week.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

So how can you say that the Western leaders at the time were blameless? It's the same scenario today when we are speaking about Iran. After seeing this report do you think it would be wise to launch a strike on Iran and allow the same violence to overrun that country also in the name of resources? Or to be more exact, because they are turning away from the Western resource giants?