Toggle sidebar

senior congressman calls for withdrawl

TexasTide said:
I don't understand the need for a unified Iraq. Who cares if it is divided into 3 countries? Worst case they fight against each other but at least that would keep them occupied and that's what they are going to do anyway. And, if it's 3 seperate countries there is a chance of protecting one faction from another. As it is, the dominant party will oppress the others which will lead to retaliation by the minorites. This just sets the stage for another dictator to step in and take control. They blame all their problems on the West so they ignore their own differences and the cycle begins again.

If the Kurds want to continue to be somewhat civilized and peacable then we may at least gain one ally and one stable country. I just don't see a stable unified Iraq as being plausible.

I say we stay there until after the election then get out. We've done what we said we would do. The only way to "win" is to level the country, which we could do if we desired.
Click to expand...

interesting take.
 
TexasTide said:
I don't understand the need for a unified Iraq. Who cares if it is divided into 3 countries? Worst case they fight against each other but at least that would keep them occupied and that's what they are going to do anyway. And, if it's 3 seperate countries there is a chance of protecting one faction from another. As it is, the dominant party will oppress the others which will lead to retaliation by the minorites. This just sets the stage for another dictator to step in and take control. They blame all their problems on the West so they ignore their own differences and the cycle begins again.

If the Kurds want to continue to be somewhat civilized and peacable then we may at least gain one ally and one stable country. I just don't see a stable unified Iraq as being plausible.

I say we stay there until after the election then get out. We've done what we said we would do. The only way to "win" is to level the country, which we could do if we desired.
Click to expand...
The Turks do cheetah flips whenever they hear about an independent Kurdistan, because of all the "Mountain Turks" (Turkish government euphemism for Kurds) that live in Turkey and hate the Turks' collective guts. If there is an independent Kurdistan, Turkish Kurds will want to join them, (and probably Iranian Kurds, and possibly Syrian Kurds). Not exactly a recipe for long-term regional stability.
Also, the population of Iran is around 69 million, compared to 25 million for a unified Iraq, 15 million Shi'ites, 4 million Kurds, 6 million Sunnis. If you think that dividing that into three seperate countries, ranging in size from 15 million to 4 million, will induce the Iranians to pursue regional stability, I would suggest that you are mistaken.
Bottom line, dividing Iraq, as screwed up as it is now, will only be like pouring gasoline on a burning building.
 
Tidewater said:
The Turks do cheetah flips whenever they hear about an independent Kurdistan, because of all the "Mountain Turks" (Turkish government euphemism for Kurds) that live in Turkey and hate the Turks' collective guts. If there is an independent Kurdistan, Turkish Kurds will want to join them, (and probably Iranian Kurds, and possibly Syrian Kurds). Not exactly a recipe for long-term regional stability.
Also, the population of Iran is around 69 million, compared to 25 million for a unified Iraq, 15 million Shi'ites, 4 million Kurds, 6 million Sunnis. If you think that dividing that into three seperate countries, ranging in size from 15 million to 4 million, will induce the Iranians to pursue regional stability, I would suggest that you are mistaken.
Bottom line, dividing Iraq, as screwed up as it is now, will only be like pouring gasoline on a burning building.
Click to expand...

My optimism for regional stability is waning, regardless of the course of action.
 
Queasy1 said:
Remember when Afghanistan was a 'quagmire' with no hope for a democratically elected government.....

ahh...the good ole days.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is claiming there is no hope for a democratically elected government in Iraq. The question is, what happens after.
 
TexasTide said:
I don't think anyone is claiming there is no hope for a democratically elected government in Iraq. The question is, what happens after.
Click to expand...
I don't know. Nobody anticipated the need for the Marshall Plan to save West Berlin or a wall that seperated the city. Nor did anyone anticipate for the Japanese to become a huge economic force in the world after two of its cities had atomic bombs dropped on them. Yet they did.

All we can do is plan as best as possible for forseeable events, make contingencies based on probable events, and prepare to adapt for the unexpected. Beyond that, keep moving towards a democratic Iraq and give the people and officials there the help and guidance to get it running.

Since the Afghan elections, the 'insurgents' there have realized their futility and pretty much ceased their attacks beyond a few die-hards. Hopefully, the Jan 30th elections will do the same in Iraq. Syria and Iran may do all they can to prevent that though.
 
Tidewater said:
The Turks do cheetah flips whenever they hear about an independent Kurdistan, because of all the "Mountain Turks" (Turkish government euphemism for Kurds) that live in Turkey and hate the Turks' collective guts. If there is an independent Kurdistan, Turkish Kurds will want to join them, (and probably Iranian Kurds, and possibly Syrian Kurds). Not exactly a recipe for long-term regional stability.
Click to expand...

If there were any regional stability I would lament its passing. But there never has been. One fact is undeniable: the Kurds like us, and we like them. That's something to build on. We need dependable allies, very scarce in the Middle East. We should after departure spend a fraction of occupation costs on arming the Kurds militarily and economically. Let the Turks flip --- they deserve it for that cute trick they pulled on us during the invasion. Ditto for Iran and Syria, for a multitude of reasons.
 
Tide and True said:
Thanks for your insights, Wisten. Apparently you're kindergarten class, to the envy of us all, is equipped with internet access. It's not fair, really. All we had were those crummy wooden blocks and crayons.
Click to expand...

What point did you not get about my statement that this thread reaks of being a troll.
 
TexasTide said:
I say we stay there until after the election then get out. We've done what we said we would do. The only way to "win" is to level the country, which we could do if we desired.
Click to expand...

What exactly was the reason for going in? We could have left Saddam in power, killed one of his sons (like we did Khadaffi), and told him to quit any WMD programs and let him continue to rule...and sell us all the oil we want.

Why did we go in if we are going to pullout and all hell break loose through total chaos?
 
Pachydermatous said:
If there were any regional stability I would lament its passing. But there never has been. One fact is undeniable: the Kurds like us, and we like them. That's something to build on. We need dependable allies, very scarce in the Middle East. We should after departure spend a fraction of occupation costs on arming the Kurds militarily and economically. Let the Turks flip --- they deserve it for that cute trick they pulled on us during the invasion. Ditto for Iran and Syria, for a multitude of reasons.
Click to expand...
I guess stable is a relative term. The region could be a lot more stable than it now is, but then again, it could get a lot worse, too. Which way it goes may depend, to a certain degree, on what we do.
I have worked with the peshmerga. They are good folks, tough, loyal, reliable, and motivated.
As for the Turks, I have never been a big fan of them. Tough, it is true, but so darned suspicious and not very reliable. They are unbelieveably brutal to the Kurds in Turkey. When we really needed them in the spring of 2003, they were not there for us. But seriously, if you want to get a Turk to do cheetah flips, talk about an independent Kurdistan. That idea drives them bonkers.
There is a book about the region and the post-WW I peace talks with an appropriate name: A Peace to End All Peace. We should tread carefully, or we will be writing the sequel.
 
Displaced Bama Fan said:
What exactly was the reason for going in? We could have left Saddam in power, killed one of his sons (like we did Khadaffi), and told him to quit any WMD programs and let him continue to rule...and sell us all the oil we want.

Why did we go in if we are going to pullout and all hell break loose through total chaos?
Click to expand...

Oil, Rumsfeld and Cheney's New American Century, Rumsfeld and Cheney's megalomania, Rumsfeld and Cheney's Cold War world-view, Rumsfeld and Cheney's fixing their mess (like Noriega, et al).

Given that I'm 15+ years younger than these two, one thing I have to look forward to in my old age is reading their obituaries.
 
TexasBama said:
The reverse being conservatives views should be taken prima facie? :eek2:
Click to expand...


Of course not. Never said that. In general though the conservative line of thinking is the closest to common sense, the idiot poitician notwithstanding.
 
Queasy1 said:
Or a realization after 9/11 that the status quo was no longer acceptable...
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I think that's a pretty short-term view.

Those thing I listed - actually those views, and thier predecessors, going back to Wilson & T Roosvelt, are culpable to 9/11.

We've had the biggest guns for the past 100 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back