Talk:Iraq's President supports U.S. Senate plan to decentralize Iraq/Comments

Sounds good...
It's a Non-binding thing, and neither Bush or Iraq's PM agree with it. Does this mean that it won't happen? Or is it just something they are reluctantly doing? Contralya 13:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Being non-binding it makes it the Senate's way of making a statement about what they believe is the solution to the problems in the country. There are issues with this solution, but if implemented it would allow US troops to pull out. If they're prepared to accept that regions of the country will end up under Sharia law and Iranian influence. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So it isn't a rule then. I don't think it would mean all the troops could come out (though it may be a step towards that), and the latest estimate by Iraqi leaders said that the U.S. can pull out 100,000 troops by the end of next year. But the objective is to have a government that can survive and can reject Terrorist/Iranian influence, and not end up like Saddam's government. If federalizing Iraq would make a portion of it support Iran, than that is no good. Iran's goals in Iraq are uncertain, I wonder if what they want is to have that portion of the population be their puppet? Or are they just supporting terrorist in general? Contralya 11:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Division of Iraq might strengthen the ethnic conflict by creating political divisions to go along with the ethical ones already in existance. This could hasten civil war, not hinder it. --66.210.78.86 13:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)