Kurdistan - Page 3

**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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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.