Kurdistan [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

Roguish Lawyer

03-01-2004, 11:34

I am no expert and may change my mind after reading what others have to say, but I will get this thread going.

I never really followed the situation in the former Yugoslavia, so I am not apprised of the general difficulties associated with attempts to draw political borders based on ethnic lines. That being said, my instinct is "yes." It seems to me that they have a de facto state now anyway, and in the long term there may be less upheaval in the area if the Kurds can govern themselves. Plus they're our friends, or they seem to be anyway.

That being said, I don't know how practical it would be given where the oil is, among other things. I'm looking forward to what others have to say, particularly Airborne Lawyer and those who have spent time in or focused on Iraq.

DunbarFC

03-01-2004, 11:40

Are we talking with full support of Turkey, the Kurds delcaring a unilateral independence ?

To me without Turkish support you'll never see a Kurdistan

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 11:48

We're talking about improving the situation in Iraq and sticking it to Iran and Syria at the same time. We're talking about Israel not being the only "pro-US" country in the region anymore (extent is debatable). We're talking about having a watchdog next door to Iraq/Iran in whose best interest it would be to advise us of pending disaster before it happens. We're talking about making good on old promises. We're talking about KURDISTAN! LOL. If we put US troops there, do you really think the Turks will attack?

Did/do the Turks support independence in Greece? Cyrpus?

I haven't been, so my ideas mean nothing, but I'm not sure Iraq is governable without a dictator as is.

Smokin Joe

03-01-2004, 11:48

I in the same spot as RL I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the Kurds but I do know that they have been oppressed for many years. I also think we/ they need to look at Isreal for considerations on what to do and what not to do.

I wasn't around when Isreal was created so I don't know what they did to stabilze the area, if you can call it a stable place. However they should consider the trials and tribulations that Isreal has seen in order to avoid the same problems.

Otherwise there is a huge potential for another Checnyan war it would just be across borders instead of within the same country.

Sacamuelas

03-01-2004, 11:55

I vote No...

FWIW, Turkey would not allow this to occur. It would create an unstable situation in the border region for Turkey.

Within Iraq, there would be fighting over the oil fields and production facilities. It would also be an international failure since we have stated as policy to the surrounding countries that this will not fragment Iraq.

IRAQ should stay united as one country for now. Let them constitutionally divide the country into three separate "regions or states" within a united Iraq. Each with representation in the national legislature. That way, the regional and local leaders could help shape the individual areas as long tolerance of others and freedoms for all were guaranteed on a national level.

NDD- What do you think?
BTW- a "smiling" skull in your avatar? I won't say it... LOL

Guy

03-01-2004, 12:13

You can best believe that they will hold on to the territory they now control.
The region they do control, have the most stability as compared to the Shiites and Sunnis held regions.

Alex F

03-01-2004, 13:22

I have a feeling that the northern area of Iraq is going to become a de factor Kurdistan, even more than it is now, once the US leaves the area en masse.

That's just MHO of course.

D9 (RIP)

03-01-2004, 13:58

IMHO, we have to start asking these questions with an eye towards the long-term. Would an independent Kurdistan cause kicking and screaming in Turkey, Iran, Syria, and every other ME country; would it earn us UN condemnation, and tick off Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites? Yes, unquestionably it would. But, in the long term, is there any viable way to keep these groups from going at one another's throats? I don't think there is outside of dictatorship, and that is a worse alternative.

As NDD alluded, there is nothing practically that anyone could do if we decided to make Kurdistan independent. Furthermore, to the extent that they might run a more liberal, free, and non-menacing country than we will have otherwise in Iraq our self-interest demands that we permit them to become independent.

The latest information out of Iraq about the "compromise arrangement" in the constitution, IMO, bodes poorly for the long-term stability of the region. It is my impression that al-Sistani and his Shia majority have been given official assurances in the law itself that while individual liberties will be protected, no laws will be allowed which are contrary to Islam. This is an enormous contradiction, and I am afraid it will not be long before these two, antithetical and competing bases at the root of the law come to loggerheads. I'm afraid that this constitution is a political timebomb, designed more to make the deadline while appeasing as many parties involved than to provide a basis for stable, enduring governance and rule of law.

A better solution, I think, would be to permit - even force - the country to fragment. While it would provoke an international outrage in the short run, it may at least provide a basis for stability and would go a lot further towards creating a state in that region that is reasonably free and liberal (Kurdistan). If the country spirals again into civil war or dictatorship, we're going to face the wrath of the international community anyway. The bottom line is, most of the international community is so eager to criticize the US that we are going to draw fire for just about anything we do short of becoming the workhorse behind whatever plans the UN contrives.

This is to say nothing of the justice of giving the Kurds a state after what they've carved out of the rubble with their fingernails.

It's time we started looking past what will make it easier for us next year, and start looking at what is going to work over the long haul.

So, yes, I think the idea is a good one.

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 14:31

Good post D9, whether one agrees or not.

In addition to what you stated, I find the issue of examples, both good and bad, interesting. Imagine how Sharia law will look next to a democratic Kurdistan (getting economic help from the US). If the others want Sharia in their part, we just won't deal with them. Imagine if a 1960s Cuba was next door to Haiti instead of the Dom Rep. I think this idea of examples is the problem Turkey has with a Kurdistan and most Muslim countries have with our management of Iraq. They don't want an example next door that makes them look bad and they're not stupid enough to think it doesn't matter. I also believe this is one of the many reasons Israel is so hated.

I would love to see the US form a "American Union". North, Central and South America. Partly to offset the EU, and partly to set the example. If nothing else, I would love to see the US and Canada focus on bringing Mexico closer to parity ( the strategic goal behind NAFTA). In my opinion, history is circular, not linear. Around the turn of the century, Mexico was a huge issue for the US. And to me, it is now again. In order to improve situations such as drugs, illegal immigration, infiltration of terrorists, loss of jobs, etc., we have to bring Mexico up, not build a fence.

I think one of the best ways to stabilize (and conversly destablize) a region is insert a new player into it. Look at what the establishment of Israel as a state has done to the ME in 60 years. Imagine what a democratic Iraq or Kurdistan will do.

Imagine North America with a strong Mexico and the three countries actually working together to resolve issues. Imagine the result of not doing it. Imagine a bio attack in LA, the consequences for Mexico would be catastrophic. Probably worse than for the US.

I would support aiding Mexico ten fold and never giving another dime to Egypt for example.

I support giving, giving parts of Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil and Venezuela to the FARC. Let them grow their coca, run their country their way. Hell they can name Marulanda king if they want. But the first time we find a boatload of coke in Miami, one JDAAM in the air conditioner. We would know where to find them and the collateral damage would be greatly reduced. Put all the rats in one place. No trade agreements, no relations of any kind. How long would it take for the average Joe to move across the street to the good side? I say better to have a bad neighbor next door than a bad house guest living with you.

Security communities is where it should be I think.

Sacamuelas

03-01-2004, 14:37

You guys are right.

We will divide up the territory into a pro-us staging ground with 1/2 the oil reserves of the country in the NORTH (Kurdistan). Immediately start firing ultimatums at Iran and Syria to let them know we mean business. That way we could have a USA supported/OIL producing country that we trained, supplied, and defended after the Gulf war II with Iraq.

We can tell Turkey to kiss off. After all, they are the only NATO member in the area. They don't mean anything to us anymore after we get our new toy - Kurdistan.

All the rest of the world, well, they can get over it which includes most if not ALL of our allies in this war. Obviously, we will be proving the critics wrong because it will definitely not play out in the international media what our critics were saying all along. We didn't attack to get access to oil and create a puppet government that we could control to further spread American interests. Doing this won't look that way to every Muslim in the M.E. will it??

Then we leave the rest of the country economically weakened, unstable, and ripe to form NDD's favorite topic- little peasant revolutions that all seem to hate the US. That way we can have the really poor oppressed people working under a strict Islamic controlled new government that WILL hate and plot against the USA whether we initially support and created them or not. Can we stop them from forming an Islamic law based government... NO, because we lost our high ground when we let the Kurds start their own government system of their choosing.

In the glorious future we have to kiss Kurdistan's butt with aid, arms, and favors to keep them happy, and we still end up with an enemy country in the former lower 2/3's to deal with. Oh yeah, don't forget we have weakened our former allies position (turkey) and strengthened one of most threatening enemies (Iran) by allowing an Islamic fundamental regime to take over right next door. Let's don't even get into what that does for future coalitions after we â€œcrawfishâ€ on every single policy concerning the area.

Sounds like a good solution.

Since I am by myself, I will have to save some ammo for future posts. I think I will try counter-sniper tactics instead of an frontal assault...:D So, How do things play out in the PRO-kurdistan corner? Let's hear how a Kurdistan makes things better- especially long term since that was brought up. I disagree specifically with the long-term effects for our country over this decision. The near term has a better argument for doing it than the long-term future IMO.

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 14:52

NO, because we lost our high ground when we let the Kurds start their own government system of their choosing.

DAMN! You're absolutely right! We're not all about letting oppressed people start their own government system of their choosing. Why didn't I think of that? We're about forcing them to live as second class citizens under a religious doctrine that they not only don't believe in, but further oppresses them because of some arbitrary lines on a map that were drawn up because Turkey, who has always oppressed them LOST A WAR AND NEEDED TO BE PUNISHED AND DEPRIVED OF OIL TO MAKE MORE WARS!

Giving the Kurds 1/2 the oil wouldn't be fair, better to let the majority, ruled by mullahs (who we have a great track record with BTW) decide what to do with the whole thing.

An Islamic fundamentalist regime will take over eventually. And they will deal with the Kurds eventually, probably with our "ally's" help. Thinking that a democracy ruled by a religious order is not going to become a fundalmentalist state as soon as they think they can get away with it is a dream. They already walked out over differences in such principles as marriage and divorce. Southern Iraq is fundalmentalist Islamic NOW.

How in the hell is Turkey our ally? We ask them for one thing after years of helping them and they extort us for money, then refuse.

The original policy, if I remember correctly, is that the Kurds would have their own state, what about crawfishing on that one?

If 9/11 and OIF taught me anything, its that we have no allies except those who's interest happen to coincide for the moment. And Tony Blair.

Roguish Lawyer

03-01-2004, 14:53

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
NO, because we lost our high ground when we let the Kurds start their own government system of their choosing.

Are you opposed to democratic self-government? :rolleyes:

Roguish Lawyer

03-01-2004, 14:54

Oh, and what NDD said too. :D

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 14:56

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Are you opposed to democratic self-government? :rolleyes:

Obviously so if it pisses our "allies" off and means giving up 1/2 of the oil.

Put the gas mask down and step slowly away from the tank sacamuelas.

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 15:03

Under Sacamuelas' plan, we should still be British subjects because we had half the tea and it might have pissed off somebody in Europe.

Sacamuelas

03-01-2004, 15:08

damn you two... give a man a chance to respond and quit piling on gap tooth. Some of us have to work during these little debates. LOL
A rebuttal is in process.
:D

Roguish Lawyer

03-01-2004, 15:13

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
A rebuttal is in process.

A rebuttal?

You are encircled and CPTAURET is en route with a full load. You sure you don't want to just apologize and confess?

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 15:14

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
damn you two... give a man a chance to respond and quit piling on gap tooth. Some of us have to work during these little debates. LOL
A rebuttal is in process.
:D

Nope, you just made The People's List with GH. Oppresser.

I'll bet he roots for the favorite at sporting events too.

"We shouldn't allow these people self-determination because something that is already happening might happen in the south of the country and people that already don't like us won't like us. And Turkey won't be our friend and might not let us stage troops there if we ever really need to."

pulque

03-01-2004, 15:15

Originally posted by Sacamuelas

[quote]We can tell Turkey to kiss off. After all, they are the only NATO member in the area. They don't mean anything to us anymore after we get our new toy - Kurdistan.

Is there some reason you shouldn't tell Turkey to kiss off? U.S. hasn't been introspective about how its actions are perceived. Why start now?

In the glorious future we have to kiss Kurdistan's butt with aid, arms, and favors to keep them happy, and we still end up with an enemy country in the former lower 2/3's to deal with.

We already have a form of relationship with the Kurds to consider.

I too would like to hear specific long-term benefits of U.S. supporting independant Kurdistan. I have heard it said that the american dream will keep giving us support no matter how badly we "screw up" politically. If thats not true, we have a BIG problem.

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 15:16

DAMN! I'm changing his titl..whoops, I promised I wouldn't do that, didn't I?

TEAM SERGEANT!

DunbarFC

03-01-2004, 15:23

Well if US troops are going to remain in Kurdistan to appease the Turks then maybe, just maybe this works

However, what are the borders of KURDISTAN as you see them ?

Solely in the north of Iraq ?

Sacamuelas

03-01-2004, 15:24

You change it NDD and I am going to put the dental GOD hex on you too. Ask RL how that is working out for him!! LOL

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 15:27

Originally posted by DunbarFC
Well if US troops are going to remain in Kurdistan to appease the Turks then maybe, just maybe this works

However, what are the borders of KURDISTAN as you see them ?

Solely in the north of Iraq ?

No, we should pre-emptively attack Turkey, Iran and Syria to pre-emptively protect our new best friends the Kurds. No appeasing.

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 15:30

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
You change it NDD and I am going to put the dental GOD hex on you too. Ask RL how that is working out for him!! LOL

Go ahead. I have skills and since I am already married to the best woman in the world, I don't care what I look like. She sure doesn't or she wouldn't have said yes twice times after she saw me in person.

Kurd oppressor. Turk appeaser.:D

DunbarFC

03-01-2004, 15:31

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
No, we should pre-emptively attack Turkey, Iran and Syria to pre-emptively protect our new best friends the Kurds. No appeasing.

Oh well in that case why not

Nuke em all so the Kurds can live in squalor safely :D

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 15:35

There are other reasons. Turkey - because they wouldn't let us use bases. Iran - we haven't gotten payback for the hostages. Syria - well, its Syria. The Kurds are a bonus.

I know! We can resettle the Kurds in Thailand to work in sweatshops and in India to answer Dell's customer service lines (I can not understand Kurdish as well as I can not understand Hindi). Hell, they'll probably do it for half what the current guys are getting (since they settled for half their own oil). Two birds with one stone!

Roguish Lawyer

03-01-2004, 15:39

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
There are other reasons. Turkey - because they wouldn't let us use bases. Iran - we haven't gotten payback for the hostages. Syria - well, its Syria. The Kurds are a bonus.

I know! We can resettle the Kurds in Thailand to work in sweatshops and in India to answer Dell's customer service lines (I can not understand Kurdish as well as I can not understand Hindi). Hell, they'll probably do it for half what the current guys are getting (since they settled for half their own oil). Two birds with one stone!

You were winning this thread. Why do you want to bring up a topic on which you were soundly defeated? Humiliated by Greenhat, in fact. LOL

DunbarFC

03-01-2004, 15:39

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
There are other reasons. Turkey - because they wouldn't let us use bases. Iran - we haven't gotten payback for the hostages. Syria - well, its Syria. The Kurds are a bonus.

I know! We can resettle the Kurds in Thailand to work in sweatshops and in India to answer Dell's customer service lines (I can not understand Kurdish as well as I can not understand Hindi). Hell, they'll probably do it for half what the current guys are getting (since they settled for half their own oil). Two birds with one stone!

LMAO !

As long as the Kurds don't become software developers that I can't understand then we have a deal

What if we moved the Kurds into the old embassy in Tehran ? That way they have a place to call their own, it makes the Iranians pissed off and gives them even more domestic troubles to contend with ?

After Iran crumbles we move the Kurds to France where the effect another regime change in our favor

D9 (RIP)

03-01-2004, 15:40

This thread is moving faster than I am, but in response to the question about long-term:

As NDD pointed out, I think the country is headed towards religious totalitarianism anyway. I think it will either be ALL of the country, or the 2/3 of it that is dedicated to that goal. IMHO, we're better off carving out as much of it as a free state as possible. And if they have oil, so much the better.

There is no way, in the long run, that we are going to "finesse" an end to the clash of cultures. All we are going to do if we try, is hold on to the status quo for maybe a decade or two longer, while American's die in fits and starts in terrorist incidents and small wars, until there is enough nuclear weaponry in the region to shift the strategic balance (which could be sooner rather than later). There are BIG cultural rifts that we cannot talk away or ignore, and solving them IMO is going to require us to be confrontational and unyielding on some points. It is precisely the opposite set of policies, fifty years of pragmatic compromise and appeasement, that have preserved an ever more bloody status quo on the way to grand scale conflagration.

I see the appropriate historical analogy to what is happening today in the Middle-East to be Nazi Germany in the late '30's. The militant Islamists, led by Iran, are testing our resolve all over the region. They are working on nuclear weapons, helping to fund and man an insurgency in Iraq, and doing everything they can covertly muster to test our resolve and undercut our aims. But as it is now, they would be powerless to resist an American invasion and regime change. I know, I know, the NYT promises THIS one would be bloody. But remember, we defeated Iraq in three weeks, and Iran couldn't beat them in almost a decade. Yet we wait, hoping that Iraq will become the exemplar that will lead them to the water of freedom. I don't think, however, that this is compatible with the timetable in which they will have nuclear weapons, and when they do, we will have lost an opportunity to deal with this threat at a time when we held every advantage. Just as Hitler remilitarized and slowly but aggresively tested the resolve of Europe in the late thirties, when they could have crushed him but refused, so are we being probed today. With the nuclear weapons will come the confrontation, as they will then be emboldened take their fight against the West out of the shadows under the cover of the threat of nuclear strikes - most likely against Israel.

In my opinion, we will only be able to head off this conflagration long term if we become forceful and unyielding today. An independent Kurdistan would be one step down that road. We must press the cause of freedom without acquiescence or compromise in that region, and we must back our assertions with the serious threat of force. I think this is the only thing that will convince our enemies that the cost of their evil intentions is too high for them to bear. Maintiaining the status quo over there, or even trying to change the region passively by setting up Iraq as an example for others to follow, is in my opinion akin to a policy whereby we made Okinawa a free and democratic exemplar in the hopes of changing Japan. Okinawa was a good start, as Iraq is, but we must press our case further - and fast - because when Iran gets nuclear weapons we will have a serious problem on our hands.

Those are the long term consequences as I see them.

I agree with NDD on the other points he has made about the Middle-East in this thread.

Roguish Lawyer

03-01-2004, 15:42

I am looking forward to the Team Sergeant's views on this topic. And others who know the subject matter. AL? TR?

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 15:45

Good post D9. I agree with you. although I am by no means an expert. I just like the underdog.

I don't see anyway that Iraq is NOT an Islamic fundalmentalist pain in the ass in the future. Iran, the Saudis and others are going to see to it. And since they have much more pull in the region than we do, its going to happen. The question to me is, how do we save those that deserve saving. I have very little doubt that their second act after passing their laws would be to attack the Kurds.

D9 (RIP)

03-01-2004, 15:49

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Good post D9. I agree with you. although I am by no means an expert. I just like the underdog.

I don't see anyway that Iraq is NOT an Islamic fundalmentalist pain in the ass in the future. Iran, the Saudis and others are going to see to it. And since they have much more pull in the region than we do, its going to happen. The question to me is, how do we save those that deserve saving. I have very little doubt that their second act after passing their laws would be to attack the Kurds.

Thanks. I am not an expert either, and look forward to hearing the views of others who may have more direct experience in the region. This is just the best I can come up with from what I get out of the papers.

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 15:50

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
You were winning this thread. Why do you want to bring up a topic on which you were soundly defeated? Humiliated by Greenhat, in fact. LOL

WHAT? No way. I won that one. I just let him think he won out of deference. Besides, he's on The People's List.

I fixed that double tap for you D9. I don't think I erased anything else.

Sacamuelas

03-01-2004, 16:01

To bad, I won't get mad NDD. :D I won't post a point/point argument. It will take way to long and most of you have contradicted yourselves already. LOL "freedom and democracy for all!!! Talk about Kumbaya singers... you guys are falling for the everyone should be happy and get what they want attitude that is ruining our country and kids. That is not democracy or real life.

Exactly why are you guys so Pro-Kurd in the first place. 1000000:1 they will be demanding the same things TURKEY does right now in less than three years. I guess you think they really like the USA and want to be just like us huh?

IMO, You guys are being very blind to reality. They are extorting us RIGHT NOW. They have refused to disarm their little warlord commanded/USA supplied and trained militias. They are being politically obstinate to every US policy to help Iraq reform under one nation. They are being divisive even after promising to help the US rebuild and stabilize the country after the war.

All of this has happened within 6 mos. of us kicking the crap out of their oppressor and giving them freedom from persecution. Without our air patrols, there would be no Kurdistan infrastructure...yet they have no interest in helping us diplomatically solve this in the best way for ALL Iragi's. How quickly they forget our help and how easily you turn a blind eye to its reality.

There are power hungry warlords right now that will become problems in your beloved state of Kurdistan. There is absolutely no guarantee that democracy will take hold in that area.

You guys disappoint me in your belief that the easy way is the best way. That has always been proven to be the wrong course of action in complex situations like this.

Jimbo

03-01-2004, 16:06

Here's the deal:

We have some good stuff in Turkey, we don't want to piss them off unless we have to. So we tell Turkey that in exchange for them yeilding on the Kurdistan issue we we help them get into the EU. Call Germany and France on the carpet and tell them that despite their superior airs, they are, in fact, racist fucks and teh only way to avoid South-African like sanctions is to let Turkey into the EU.

Meanwhile, clean out Oclan (sp?) and his family with the rest of teh PKK or whatever they are calling themselves nowadays. Make whole the Kurds we screwed on the last go around. Get whoever is advising the Shiek of Dubai to give similar advice to the new Kurd state.

Combine this with some other nefarious plans I have in the offing and maybe I can open my bar before I hit 50.

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 16:18

IMO, You guys are being very blind to reality. They are extorting us RIGHT NOW. They have refused to disarm their little warlord commanded/USA supplied and trained militias.

Well, given our track record with them, I would probably be more than a little wary about disarming myself.

Where have we contradicted ourselves? I would rather see another Turkey, as bad as it is, than another Iran, which is where Iraq is headed.

There are power hungry warlords right now that will become problems in your beloved state of Kurdistan. There is absolutely no guarantee that democracy will take hold in that area.

I didn't hear anybody say democracy, I heard self-detemination. If warlords is their brand of choice, I say go for it. I haven't seen any power hungry warlords blowing up buildings in NYC.

I don't think this is the easy way, i think its the hard way.

You know you've already lost this one. Girl with a man's gun.

Jimbo, you think Turkey wants in the EU bad enough to risk it?

Jimbo

03-01-2004, 16:37

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Jimbo, you think Turkey wants in the EU bad enough to risk it?

From what I know, most of Turkey has their future pinned on it.

Sacamuelas

03-01-2004, 16:45

Since NDD agrees and edits D9's posts, I can assume all you other bandwagon jumpers and he agree with D9 also. :p

Based on D9's definition of success, would it be wise to take the action you suggest? Success for you guys is having to fight Gulf war III in four years? Boy, what you guys call success baffles me. That is direct from the Bill Clinton instant gratification politics course.

Taking your predictions as fact, instead of having to reinvade the country and defend Kurdistan, why not simply refuse to turn over power right now?

Me: " Lets see, we could take the hard road and possibly not turn over the country on schedule. That would enable us to control the factional fighting and create enough infrastructure to possibly allow for democracy to take hold in ALL areas of Iraq. It will be difficult, but we already control the country and have troops in place. We no longer need the level of international cooperation it took to invade because we are already in control on the ground.
Worst case scenario, the shiites and sunnis revolt and attack the newly formed governement. It is much cheaper in lives to keep things stabile than to have to REINVADE the country in four years from scratch and with fewer if any allies. We could always put down the rebellion much easier as things are now than if we had to reinvade from scratch.

Or

Yâ€™all: We could get out now and crawfish on our obligations and policy. Let the Kruds bully us into giving them exactly what they want at ours and the rest of Iraqâ€™s expense. By creating Kurdistan, we will give up ALL our military basing rights and staging areas in the surrounding countries, logistical support already developed in the country of Iraq, and simply pull out. Then we could get a couple of hundred thousand more US troops engaged in GULF WAR III after our prediction that they will be invaded by lower/middle IRAQISTAN in four years comes true. But hey, we will have stuck to our original timeline and looked good for about four years. By then it won't be our problem. To me, all this sounds like a solution worth trying, even when WE predicted that the Gulf war III would absolutely occur if our plan is followed. Therefore, our solutionâ€¦take the easy diplomatic solution now in exchange for the more difficult and life costing military problem that we will face in the future without adjacent country basing, troops already deployed and dispersed in country, airbases within the country, and without any international support.

To me, with your admissions and predictions of what their future is going to be if we make your nice little Kurdistan, you guys are naÃ¯ve about what success should entail. Maybe instead of arguing about creating Kurdistan, we should be looking for a better alternative to create a different overall outcome other than Gulf War III.

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 16:59

I didn't edit his post, I cleaned up the thread by deleting his apology for a double post.

This isn't GW I, II and the next one won't be III. This is Gulf War the Saga continues since the time of Christ. We are the newcomers. The only way, IMO, to avoid the next round is a complete switch to alternative fuel so we don't care like we didn't before we needed oil to begin with.

IMO, it doesn't matter when we turn the country over, now, next year or next decade. As soon as we do, they'll be ready. These people are patient. We're not.

Again, IMO, you could make Iraq an exact model of Vermont, infrastructure and all. As soon as we hand it over and leave, they will tear it all down and make it an Islamic fundalmentalist state.

Understanding that, I think you are swimming against the tide by hoping "if we build it, they will come."

1/4 want a Kurdish state. 1/3 want a secular state and half want Sharia and have the support of every fanatic in that part of the world and are willing to bomb women and children into oblivion to get it. Who's going to win?

D9 (RIP)

03-01-2004, 17:04

Sacamuelas:

I'm not advocating ANY of what you're taking for granted that I am. I do not support handing over power to them according to any timetable, or letting anything but our interests dictate our agenda over there. I think the rush to meet the deadlines is awful, weak-kneed pragmatism - primarily because the deadlines were not established according to a timetable dictated by our interests, but one set up to satisfy world opinion.

And, I'm not convinced (especially after seeing what was recently approved in the Iraqi constitution), that the Islamization of Iraq is avoidable even if we do stay there for a decade. It has already, in fact, happened under the occupation in places like Al-Sadr City (5+ million people) which is now uder Sha-ria law.

My point is that if we are not willing to take the hard line to force the whole country to live under individual rights, then it is best at least to carve out those regions which will not gravitate on their own towards Islamic theocracy.

Our obligations in my opinion are ONLY the safety of the American people. No other standard should dictate our policy.

That would enable us to control the factional fighting and create enough infrastructure to possibly allow for democracy to take hold in ALL areas of Iraq.

I think this is only a blind wish at this point. To do so would require us to boldly declare the principles on which rights stand, and we are not. Instead we are making concessions to Islam as the basis for government, and IMO this is a slippery slope. I think the above statement, given reality, is such a long shot as to be our of consideration until we see some changes in policy.

Not trying to offend anyone here - just my 0.02.

Sacamuelas

03-01-2004, 17:06

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

I didn't hear anybody say democracy, I heard self-detemination. If warlords is their brand of choice, I say go for it. I haven't seen any power hungry warlords blowing up buildings in NYC.

You know you've already lost this one but you are more the man than I so I respect you.

First off, Thanks NDD. I like you too but I didn't lose. LOL

Secondly, your first two sentences in this are about as naive as RL's "polls indicate HAMAS has strong support in Palestine"[ statement that you blasted not to long ago. Come on... as if the people with US air support, US weapons and ammo, US training, and absolutely no problem with the use of violence to obtain their own goals are going to be "chosen" by the KURDish people. It won't be self determination.... we(USA) determined who was a strong leader by giving them power and support for the last 12 years. WE giveth and we can sure as hell taketh away if it is in our interest.
Self determination... I have heard it all now. LOL

Sacamuelas

03-01-2004, 17:10

D9 and NDD-
Would it change anything if you change my stated goal from democracy to stability? I always type democracy as a habit without it making it to my "what the hell are you trying to say" sensor when editing...

I really don't care about the final form as long as the area is stabile and slightly neutral to the USA.

Sacamuelas

03-01-2004, 17:18

Why not let the MTV and Leviâ€™s insurgency take over in that area while we occupy the country a little while longer. I know I have read the Team Sergeant and NDD discuss the powerful effect of that on the population. I believe I have read on Aprof.com where one of the two has stated that this alone will be the only possible solution to the Islamic war with the western culture (USA).

If it works that well, then friggin start the Superbowl commercials on al jaheerra TV and start pumping in the half shirts and low cut Levi blue jeans.

By the time we leave in five years, the kids will be staying out til 2:30 am on school nights and wearing makeup at four years old. Like a Shiite cleric will have ANY influence over that generation.
LOL :D

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 17:23

From what I understand, Kurds work on a tribal system. Warlords are how they've always done it. So while everybody doesn't get a vote, it is self-determination by the group if not the individual. We didn't invent the warlords, we just made them more efficient. I'm sure they hacked dissenters up with swords before we gave them M4s. To me, self-determination doesn't equate to one man one vote. It simply means we, the gypsy, Kurd, Indian, whatever people, decide we want to chose our leaders like so, live like so, and have our laws like so and according to out beliefs, religion, traditions, whatever. Without the outside interference from gypsy haters, Iraqi Islamic fundalmentalists or cowboys.

As far as the US support determining the leader, you're probably right right now. But what about when we leave? If their internal system is that they pick a leader by seeing who can stand on his head the longest - that's self-determination. Not by having the Muslim cleric tell terrorists to blow them up becuase they are non-believers. And don't forget, they wouldn't be Iraqis if external forces hadn't intervened. Iraq wasn't even a country until 1932 (I think that's right). Kurdistan is much older than Iraq. So if I'm a Kurd, I'm thinking I'm a Kurd, not an Iraqi just because you say so.

Stabile and highly neutral to the US in the ME? I've heard it all now.

NousDefionsDoc

03-01-2004, 17:24

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Why not let the MTV and Leviâ€™s insurgency take over in that area while we occupy the country a little while longer. I know I have read the Team Sergeant and NDD discuss the powerful effect of that on the population. I believe I have read on Aprof.com where one of the two has stated that this alone will be the only possible solution to the Islamic war with the western culture (USA).

If it works that well, then friggin start the Superbowl commercials on al jaheerra TV and start pumping in the half shirts and low cut Levi blue jeans.

By the time we leave in five years, the kids will be staying out til 2:30 am on school nights and wearing makeup at four years old. Like a Shiite cleric will have ANY influence over that generation.
LOL :D

From what I've been told, the Kurds are doing it some already. But as soon as we leave, the clerics and the terrorists will fix it.