Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Very simplistic.
The Turks have repeatedly said that they will not tolerate an indepdent Kurdish state. The EU negotiations are a complicating factor, but do you think that has changed? What happens if Turkey invades and occupies "Kurdistan"?
|
Turkey has abused the hell out of Kurdistan forever. Now the worlds focus will be in Turkish Kurdistan. And since they want to be a part of the EU they are going to have to play nice. Things are going to better for the Kurds in Southeastern Turkistan. Peace and the Status quo was what they had before (which was awful - randome executions, not allowed to speak in their language etc.), now they are going to get some rights.
In any event the Kurds in North Eastern Iraq are better off because of the invasion. Isn't more of the world living free better for the U.S?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man The "southern Iraqi Shia state" you speak of would need Iran to survive, and would be dominated by Iran in all likelihood, if not eventually subsumed into Iran (still unlikely due to historical enmity). As the Iranian leadership is still virulently hostile to the U.S., that is not a good thing.
|
Influences, maybe. But dominated? If you think that you don't understand the ethnic Persian Arab issue. Right on the border of Iraq in Khosistan, Arabs form the majority in that province. Lots of Arab nationalists. If an Arab Shiite state were formed it would be logical for Khosistan to be part of it (along with all its oil). That is why the Iranians have been supporting the idea of a federation.
Iran is becoming more democratic all the time. It has a serious democracy movement. Iraq had no democracy movement. Now that Southern Iraq is free from Saddam, and is being influenced by the US and Iran, its chances for Democracy are much greater. In any event, the people, no matter what happens, are better off, not being ruled by Saddam.
Isn't a self determining unoppressed people in Southern Iraq better for the US? More people living free and democratic in the world is better for the U.S. No matter what short term goals you think have been compromised.
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The broken down, rump Sunni state would be completely ineffective -- as you note -- and a hotbed for terror. The lesson of Afgahnistan should show the peril of failed states. The recently published letter from Zawahiri to Al-Zarqawi targets that very region for the formation of an "emirate" after the U.S withdrawal -- with the ultimate goal being conquest of Iraq and the establishment of the greater "caliphate".
|
Assuming there is a failed state, that is better than an organized state with its sole purpose of nailing the US. Somalia is a failed state. Afghanistan was a state whose sole existence was focused on terror.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man There is absolutely no way that the failure of these upcoming elections, and/or the dissolution of Iraq into three states, and/or a civil war in Iraq, and the resulting instability in the region could be considered a "win" for the U.S.
|
It would be if all three states formed were democratic and respected human rights, it would be a huge win. Why is a unified Iraq necessarily in the US's interest. If just two make it has free and democratic, then still a pretty good win.
QUOTE]
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
In fact, it would be an abject failure. The long-term results are difficult to forsee, but in the short to medium term effects would probably be way worse for the U.S. than if we had just left Hussein alone in Iraq. Plus, oil prices would go through the roof -- which has significant bad effects on our economy.
S_A_M [/QUOTE]
Anything that happens will be better than Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein had it in for us and he had the full resources of the Iraqi state to back him up. We took him out with little cost. Any good now is just frosting on the cake.
