Glenn Beck: Obama/Biden pro segregation?

September 9, 2008 - 13:21 ET

GLENN: Joe Biden is kind of under fire right now because the people in Iraq are really unhappy with him. Apparently he is one of the only guys who can get the Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds to actually agree. Unfortunately it's not really in a good way. It is on his proposal to divide Iraq into three separate states based on racial and religious boundaries, okay? What he did now, this is a year ago. The Senate passed a proposal. It was his proposal calling for an international conference on dividing up Iraq. So let's just think about this now. What we wanted to do is divide up Iraq into three separate states but the Biden said not only that, not only did he want to do that, he wanted to call on the people who were against us in the Iraq war in the first place to come and now help solve and divide the power in Iraq. That sounds like a good proposal. By the way, Obama didn't vote. So he's not on the record.

All right. So now Iraq is saying this guy is a nightmare. He's the guy this is the last guy that the Democrats should be picking for their vice presidential nominee. The head of Iraq said that the Biden plan would be a disaster for Iraq. Not only a disaster for Iraq but the entire region. Now, here's what I find interesting. As I understand this, as I understand this proposal, the vice presidential nominee of the one that was selected by the first African American is actually for segregation. Not only did he propose segregation and it's not just segregation. It's not like they just go home what he proposes is forced segregation. So if you're of a different race, you've got to move up north and you have to I mean, just move you out of your home and you've got to move up north. He's not only for segregation, he's for forced segregation and Barack Obama is neutral on it.

quote:

Originally posted by LMM:
Glenn Beck: Obama/Biden pro segregation?

September 9, 2008 - 13:21 ET

GLENN: Joe Biden is kind of under fire right now because the people in Iraq are really unhappy with him. Apparently he is one of the only guys who can get the Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds to actually agree. Unfortunately it's not really in a good way. It is on his proposal to divide Iraq into three separate states based on racial and religious boundaries, okay? What he did now, this is a year ago. The Senate passed a proposal. It was his proposal calling for an international conference on dividing up Iraq. So let's just think about this now. What we wanted to do is divide up Iraq into three separate states but the Biden said not only that, not only did he want to do that, he wanted to call on the people who were against us in the Iraq war in the first place to come and now help solve and divide the power in Iraq. That sounds like a good proposal. By the way, Obama didn't vote. So he's not on the record.

All right. So now Iraq is saying this guy is a nightmare. He's the guy this is the last guy that the Democrats should be picking for their vice presidential nominee. The head of Iraq said that the Biden plan would be a disaster for Iraq. Not only a disaster for Iraq but the entire region. Now, here's what I find interesting. As I understand this, as I understand this proposal, the vice presidential nominee of the one that was selected by the first African American is actually for segregation. Not only did he propose segregation and it's not just segregation. It's not like they just go home what he proposes is forced segregation. So if you're of a different race, you've got to move up north and you have to I mean, just move you out of your home and you've got to move up north. He's not only for segregation, he's for forced segregation and Barack Obama is neutral on it.

I'm no expert, but I'm wondering if you know any of the history of Iraq. First, this doesn't have anything to do with race, it is about religion. Iraq is a kludge of separate religous territories that were brought together by the British. It would have fallen apart long ago had not Saddham been so ruthless. It's why they are on the verge of civil war now, and the segregation would probably occur naturally were we not there now.

I'm no fan of Biden's, but trying to pin racial segragationist on him is just too much.

On the surface, the proposal in question would be an attempt at a peaceful setting of boundaries similar to those prior to British Rule. Iraq would probably cease to exist, much like Yugoslavia no longer exists, and the USSR no longer exists. Politically, it could be a whole nother thing.

Yes, I do know some of its history. I think the fact that Biden wants the US to control the three parts is the main problem. He and all the dems have complained about US occupation, but Biden wants us to federalize Iraq into three parts. As you know, if that happens, the middle group gets nothing. The Kurds have oil in the north and the south which is a mix of Shia and some sunni have oil, the sunnis in the middle get nothing. I know Biden is not a racist. Just getting tired of the Palin bashing.

quote:

The Sunni-Shia struggle in Iraq is largely political. Sunni Arabs had dominated the country since its independence in 1932, despite making up only a fifth of Iraq's population. Saddam Hussein's regime brutally repressed the Shias, who constitute 60 percent of the country's 25 million people.

After the U.S. invasion in March 2003, Sunnis began to lose their grip on power. Most Sunnis boycotted the Jan. 30 election, either as a protest or for fear of the insurgents. Only 17 of the 275 members of parliament are Sunnis, and Sunnis complain that they are also under-represented in the government set up by Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari. Like parliament, Jaafari's cabinet is dominated by the two blocs that swept January's election: Shia religious groups and Kurdish secular parties.

Many Iraqis argue that the best way to avert sectarian fighting is to bring more Sunnis into politics, and especially the drafting of Iraq's new constitution. "The terrorists are raising the specter of Sunni disenfranchisement," said Sheik Hussein Shaalan, a member of parliament and leader of a Shia tribe in southern Iraq. "We must involve more Sunnis in the process."

quote:

I'm no expert, but I'm wondering if you know any of the history of Iraq. First, this doesn't have anything to do with race, it is about religion.

You are both right and wrong Crusty. The Kurds are a different group from the Arabs and are mostly Sunni muslim. Should Iraq be forced to separate and segregate by religion and racial group, some people in areas with mixed populations would have to move.

It was formerly considered sufficient to describe the Kurds as the descendants of the Carduchi (Gordyaei), who opposed the retreat of the Ten Thousand through the mountains in the 4th century BC. Kurds now consider themselves to be Indo-European[citation needed] who are descendants of multiple groups (including many non-Indo-European) believed to have settled in what they now refer to as Kurdistan, over a period of thousands of years.[20]

From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds Link

Indo-European only refers to language, not "race." One might refer to "Indian culture" and members of the Caucasian race, but not "Indo-European race," per se, even though the majority of the speakers of Indo-European languages are Caucasians.
The Kurds are from an Indo-European culture, their languages are classified as Eastern Indo-Persian. Their tongues are not either an outright Iranian language such as Tat or Dard or Farsi, but related, like Gothic is related to English and German and Icelandic.
Their indigenous religion, that of the "Cult of the Angels" is pre-Zoroastar and has many cognates with both Avestan and Vedic early Indo-European religions, with a veneer of Zoraoastarian and Islam smeared of late on them.
They clearly are not Persians by culture, as their language precludes that, and they are certainly not Indians, and they sure aren't Arabs! They are Kurds. The Kurds live in Iraq, Iran, Azerbijan, Syria, Turkey, and in exile in the US, Canada, France, the UK, Australia, etc.
The Kurds had an autonomous kingdom for a very short while after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, but it was quashed and the Hashemites imported from Mecca to rule from Baghdad by Whitehall.

Iraq is an artificial country. It was made up of three Ottoman villayets, Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra; roughly corresponding to Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, but all three groups always lived in the area. Britain "rewarded" the Sharif of Mecca for his support during the First World War by giving one of sons Syria, another Transjordan, and the other "Iraq" as they did not know what to do with the Arab lands there -- the Turks didn't seem to put up too much of a fuss at the peace, either, the Young Turks were then in charge and the process of Turkification had begun, and there was no place for Arab or Kurdish nationalism in the New Turkey.
Later on the French carved up Syria, giving Mt. Lebanon to the majority (then) Christians and the rest made a republic. The monarchy in Transjordan became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan after the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of the State of Israel. Iraq stayed together, but the king and his entire family were assassinated by the Baathists in 1953 and made a nominal "republic."
The Sharif of Mecca was overrun by the desert raiders of the House of Saud and ended up dying in exile in Baghdad at his son's house, happy at least that one of them had a throne as his was gone!

A very ignorant and pointless thread and full of misrepresentation