...as for the Sunnis, "It's hard to identify anything they got" (re: Iraq)

[bpilgrim]

Knight Ridder

Shiites may benefit from a proposal that gives the biggest say in most matters to the numerical majority.

"The constitution places fairly weak checks on the majority," Brown said....

Islam will have a strong role in Iraqi government. It's the official religion of the state and no law can be passed that contradicts the "undisputed laws" of Islam, according to the constitution. And the Supreme Federal Court, which is given the job of interpreting the constitution, will include Islamic law experts.

"It there are losers, it's secularists, particularly secular and religious minorities," such as the Sunnis, Morrow said.

...

Revenue from oil fields developed in the future will be controlled by regions, said Jonathan Morrow, an adviser to the drafting committee from the United States Institute of Peace, a nonpartisan conflict-resolution group. Regional control helps Kurds in the oil-rich northern part of the country. Shiites who dominate southern Iraq have considerable oil too, but not Sunnis who are in the middle.

_The draft sets a 2007 deadline for settlement of the fate of Kirkuk, the oil-rich northern city that Sunnis, Kurds and Turkmen each claim.

"My guess is they'll get Kirkuk that way," Morrow said, meaning the Kurds.

source...
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/world/12500977.htm

i know they got 'NO-ONE' to blame but themselves (according to conventional wisdom (M$MWs) but we surely realize that ain't gonna work, cept for the divide and conquer strategy.

how many dem leaders will go along with this strat?

at what point will china, india & russia get more heavily involved... after Iran?

shouldn't we be working to ensure human rights in international law and getting future world powers to sign on, instead of stripping then from proposals (BOLTON) and threating the world with our military and 'diplomatic' aggression?

can we get our leaders to get behind this and actually speak OUT and stand UP for it?

or is it way past time for that kinda optimism :shrug:

BTW: here is an interesting article that sparked this question posted by one of DU's old-timers, Jack Rabbit...

Stagger on, weary Titan

The US is reeling, like imperial Britain after the Boer war - but don't gloat

Timothy Garton Ash in Stanford
Thursday August 25, 2005
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1555819,00.html

peace

[enigma000]

1. I liked the Timothy Garton Ash article

China and India are to the United States today what Germany and America were to Britain a hundred years ago.

I confess, I never thought of it this way. The parallels are striking, if not quite identical.

This may explain the interest in the US for creating a strategic alliance with India.

An emerging alliance with India

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_050701.htm

Would the best option for the US to pursue be developing close relations with India (read America circa 1905) to encourage this democratic, non-imperialistic country to become a "superpower-lite". At the same time contain China (read Germany circa 1905) and wait for this communist-capitalist imperialistic country to reform and democratize.

It would take decades for India to turn into a superpower; but it would be a powerful democratic ally for the US and the Western World.

[wli]

2. India's part of the BRIC alliance, and an observer at the SCO

They're not quite as buddy-buddy with the US as this would make it appear.

[bpilgrim]

3. and increasing our troops in the ME and Asia isn't helping our GLOBAL

'image' problem.

how long before this becomes part of the national debate :shrug:

peace

[enigma000]

4. Not at the moment, but things are changing

I think India and the US are far more natural allies than Russia or China. India is a democratic nation with a western oriented population with many english speakers. Indeed, it is one of the few countries that still holds a positive image of the United States.

Joining the BRIC alliance with authoritarian Russia and totalitarian China strikes me as a move that India would find ideologically unappealing. Besides, in the long term Russia has a shrinking population and China may suffer from political instability as it grows economically. I foresee a Soviet Union like fragmentation of the country 20 to 30 years down the road.

Found good info on BRIC
http://www.gs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf