Posted on 10/12/2006 5:58:42 PM PDT by neverdem
“three highly autonomous regions.”
Asking for trouble down the road if you ask me.
Maybe it is a quicker solution, but long term it sounds like we would end up having to go back in again.
Money is the big issue. There is oil in the Kurdish North, Oil in the Shiite South, and bupkis in the middle where the largest population the Sunni live. They are not going to accept it if the oil revenue isn't divied up. It's reality.
This committee can recommend whatever it likes. Iraq now has a sovereign government. It's what that government wishes that will happen.
Why on earth would we need to "go back in?"
Leave the Muslims to their own devices, in their own lands.
And kick them out of the West.
Wasn't there a published poll recently that said that 70% of the Iraqis don't want their country split up? Does that count or mean anything?
Maybe they prefer to relentlessly kill each other as one nation under Allah.
We should definitely strive for permanent basing. We need this for future wars against Iran other middle east targets.
Perhaps first mentioned here on FR by yours truly, circa 1998!
"Why on earth would we need to "go back in?" "
Radical nutters running a nation that enables terrorists.
There is a far simpler solution, but PC and Multiculturalism won't allow it.
Wasn't Baker (along with Colin Powell) the reason Saddam was left in power after the 1st Gulf War?
You said -- "Asking for trouble down the road if you ask me."
Yep, I think so, too.
There was a commercial that said -- "You can pay me now, or pay me later." And that's what this is about. We can pay for the job (to be done in Iraq) now -- or we can do it later. It's going to be paid for, one way or another, though. It might be worse later.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said -- "Wasn't there a published poll recently that said that 70% of the Iraqis don't want their country split up? Does that count or mean anything?"
I would guess not, especially since we're paying a big bill on everything.
Regards,
Star Traveler
But if they don't want it, how can it be successful?
There is no easy answer to the Iraq issue. That is something we should all agree on.
But I say, we give our troops better protection and better protection orders and we keep burning through all the Islamic Hotheads in the Middle East with our firepower.
That is also something we should all agree on.
"Wasn't there a published poll recently that said that 70% of the Iraqis don't want their country split up? Does that count or mean anything?"
Yes, I think that was also called the CONSTITUTIONAL ELECTION.
Geez, this is not good news if it becomes another exercise in State Dept style handwringing.
There is violence in Iraq because violence terrorists are making it so. Break Iraq up and they still will be there.
Far better if we simply left Iraq to a strongman dictator. I hate saying that, but these kooky ideas that ignore what Iraqis themselves want are dangerous.
Partition is dangerous because it would leave a rump Kurd state that will agitate turkey, a rump Sunni state that will harbor terrorists and a rump Shiite state that will be under Iran's influence ... how does that help us *at all*? It doesnt! Biden is a block head and so are those who take this kind of colonial line redrawing seriously. Let Iraq decide!
"But if they don't want it, how can it be successful?"
As an entire nation, I believe they do as evidenced by so many that voted and participated in the elections. As a nation divided, I fear exactly what you say above, those that wont want it will dominate the divided nations.
Blech
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.