And this time, the Iraqi government seems to be responsible. Just when I read the details, I couldn't help but feel irrevocable contempt for a government that is aiding the forces that seek to divide and conquer Iraq by actually promoting the divide. The headline here speaks for itself:
And what's the issue? The fact is that we have three ethnic groups claiming Kirkuk as their own. Three cheers for this form of "democracy" that Bush has implemented on Iraq. But what's the deal with removing the Arabs especially? Apparently, some Kurds can't forgive and forget Saddam's inhumane atrocities that were committed on the Kurds. That's a possibility, but let's be honest here. It's apparent that several reasons might be responsible for this policy. One is the intent of the Coalition to divide and conquer Iraq. Through peddlers like Khalilzad, this could be done without them having to worry about the Iraqi government faltering in its loyalty. Another is the possibility that the government itself is made up of a bunch of totalitarian !@#$%^&* (and trust me: you wouldn't want to know the word I censored).
Either way, if Iraq is to unite, a measure like this is the last one could implement for such a seemingly evitable goal, especially since the form of goverment that was supposedly imposed is a form of "democracy". What do you think? Is this policy a move towards a united Iraq, or is it fanning the flames of discrimination and hate?
Salaam, from Saracen
It is a volatile city, but one that is vital to Iraq's future, and Kirkuk is now facing its toughest test yet. Just weeks before a scheduled referendum on the city's future, Arab residents are being paid to pack up and leave. It is a controversial scheme, tied up in the struggle over which community should have control of Kirkuk and its huge oilfields. The so-called jewel of the north lies around 250km northeast of the Iraqi capital, and has always been a valuable prize.(Al-Jazeera, 11-06-07)Un-!@#$%^&believable. What the hell are they thinking?
And what's the issue? The fact is that we have three ethnic groups claiming Kirkuk as their own. Three cheers for this form of "democracy" that Bush has implemented on Iraq. But what's the deal with removing the Arabs especially? Apparently, some Kurds can't forgive and forget Saddam's inhumane atrocities that were committed on the Kurds. That's a possibility, but let's be honest here. It's apparent that several reasons might be responsible for this policy. One is the intent of the Coalition to divide and conquer Iraq. Through peddlers like Khalilzad, this could be done without them having to worry about the Iraqi government faltering in its loyalty. Another is the possibility that the government itself is made up of a bunch of totalitarian !@#$%^&* (and trust me: you wouldn't want to know the word I censored).
Either way, if Iraq is to unite, a measure like this is the last one could implement for such a seemingly evitable goal, especially since the form of goverment that was supposedly imposed is a form of "democracy". What do you think? Is this policy a move towards a united Iraq, or is it fanning the flames of discrimination and hate?
Salaam, from Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment