| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq-Jordan | |
| Kurds’ success provides lesson for rest of Iraq | |
| 2004-04-26 | |
| By Ralph Peters The garbage truck was inspiring. Making the early morning rounds, its energetic crew collected the trash from a tidy residential street in a hopeful city booming with construction sites. That wouldn’t be a big deal in America. But this was in Iraq. While the media concentrate on the combat and confusion to the south, I recently visited the north of the country, where Iraq’s 5 million Kurds have brought off a near miracle: They’ve built a financially efficient, rule-of-law democracy in the Middle East. Elsewhere, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) spends billions to keep a failed state on life support. While the rest of Iraq’s population wallows in the region’s addiction to blame, the Kurds have rolled up their sleeves and gone to work. There is a lesson here for Iraq — and U.S. policymakers, who insist on keeping Kurdistan a part of that blood-soaked country.
Still, the Kurdish government isn’t content. It hopes to build a world-class "American" university to develop its human capital. As the rest of Iraq threatens to implode, the Kurds are racing against time to develop their infrastructure and provide opportunities for their population. International business is welcome, contractors aren’t murdered, and even the Turks, longtime opponents of the Kurds, are investing. If only the Kurds had a disaster or two, then someone might tell their story. Of course, the Kurds do face significant problems. After decades of underinvestment, a growing economy has overtaxed the power system. Refined petroleum products have to be imported — in an oil-rich country. And hundreds of thousands of internal refugees, displaced by Saddam Hussein, face uncertain futures. The biggest problem, though, is Washington’s insistence that Kurdistan remain part of Iraq. The Kurds are doing their best to support our policies, despite skepticism about the country’s future. They’re determined that, if Iraq disintegrates, they won’t be to blame. They want to make us happy, almost desperately. If anyone believes that no good came of deposing the old regime, he or she should talk to the Kurds. For them, generations of oppression, ethnic cleansing, torture and massacre ended when Saddam’s statue fell. But with hostile powers on their borders, their future security depends on America’s goodwill. As terrorists campaign to drive the U.S. from the Middle East, the Kurds are begging for U.S. military bases on their territory. When American politicians of either party describe the Middle East they’d like to see, they’re describing the Kurdistan that already exists — in fact, if not in law. Yet, coalition authorities in Baghdad devote their efforts to holding a Frankenstein’s monster of a country together — just as we and our allies earlier tried to force Yugoslavia to remain whole — while ignoring what the Kurds have already achieved. Instead of supporting our only friends in Iraq, we try to please implacable enemies by pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into cities whose people assassinate U.S. soldiers. An ironclad military rule is "Don’t reinforce failure. Reinforce success." In the attempted reconstruction of Iraq, our policy is just the opposite. Diplomats always have plenty of "good" reasons for doing the wrong things. Borders can’t change; stability must be achieved; regional sensibilities must be taken into account — the list of reasons why we cannot live up to our own professed ideals and support Kurdish self-determination is nearly endless. But a moment of truth is approaching: Either we support democracy, or we don’t. Why not hold a referendum? Why not let the Kurds decide their own future? The United States needs to be clear: America isn’t failing the rest of Iraq. The Iraqis are failing themselves. The war to depose Saddam handed them an opportunity no other power would have or could have given them. If, despite the U.S. investment of blood and treasure, Iraq’s Arabs decide to squander their chance for a peaceful and prosperous future, there may be painfully little the United States can do about it. But where freedom, the rule of law and democracy already exist, the United States should offer its support. There are three things the United States can and should do for the Kurds: guarantee their long-term security against neighboring countries; ensure that they receive their fair share of reconstruction aid and Iraq’s oil revenue; and, if the rest of Iraq pursues bloodshed and destruction, support an independent Kurdish state. Kurdistan isn’t Iraq. Go there and see. | |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #39 I'd like to add that this thread has been mostly unreadable. Please, please, use italics or something to set off all of your opponents words from your own. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-04-26 10:40:03 PM |
| #38 Jen> "And if you're not here to account for Greece's actions in the world, why ARE you here?" As a human being interested in the happenings of the world? As a member of the western civilisation? B> "I think you did read it." Just skimmed it, enough to know it wasn't worth reading. 11A5S> Translator? No, you probably misunderstood a chance remark I once made about the translating job they did on the Harry Potter books -- I'm a grad Computer Science student, almost finished my Master's degree, not a translator. Dan> "what has greece done for the WOT, besides ask for help in protecting the olympics?" Greece has probably done no more than provide a hundred or so troops in Afghanistan. And bag some local terrorists ofcourse, but those were of communist, not Islamofascist persuasion. Now, how is this relevant on the question of whether the war on Iraq was wise or not? BMN> if you actually articulate these positions in public, you have my respect (and if you don't, you have my understanding). I've not had much of a chance at public speaking lately, but do you perhaps remember some violent demostrations and such incidents on Greece when Clinton had come to visit, several years back? At the time I was the only student in the whole university assembly that had vocally argued against such demonstrations, since I thought it deeply hypocritical to demonstrate against the US president when nobody had cared to demonstrate (nor would in the future care to demonstrate) against much more unsaviory characters like the president of Russia. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-26 9:47:54 PM |
| #37 damn ex-lib....where's the couch |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-26 9:27:42 PM |
| #36 Aris says: "I've left forums before when I found out they frustrated me more than they served me." Oh, please Aris, don't go! We exist only to "serve" you. |
| Posted by: docob 2004-04-26 9:18:10 PM |
| #35 I like Aris, too. He's a smart guy and according to Google is already an accomplished translator. I am somewhat familiar with the Southern European culture. I know that you don't have an argument without a lot of cussing and personal insults. The problem, Aris, is that that kind of crap doesn't cut it in American culture. It generally leads to fist fights. Furthermore, it is completely unacceptable in cross-cultural communications. You catch a lot more ants with honey than vinegar. It's an old saying. It's my advice. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-04-26 9:16:37 PM |
| #34 A note to Aris Katsaris Dear Aris: The thing that sets you apart as a person, here, is that everyone sees that you have a great need to discharge negative emotion. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I suspect it is a legitimate need. But discharging it the way you do clouds your ability to see others clearly, and even to know youself, because you haven't dealt with what's actually bugging you. You must find out why you feel these things. It's not about what's going on here. Not really. What you're talking about is not what you're talking about, if you get my meaning. Your anger isn't about this or that politcal situation. It's not even about Dan calling you what he did (he was pretty mad at that point because you'd been railing at him in angry meaness for quite a while--and I could try and explain why it wasn't an the kind of insult you thought it was--why it was more good-natured than you can fathom now--but another time, perhaps.) And Jen is not out to "get you" or misrepresent you. Not at all. Your perceptions, which I know feel very real to you, are part of the construct you're stuck in. Like it or not, you are vulnerable (like anyone else) to the world's hurts. You are hurt. You have been hurt. I can see it. You get angry. You are always angry--most of the time. Am I right? This stops you from being as sensitive as you would truly like to be, to be able to care about other people's feelings and needs in a direct way--in the way you might like. Instead, you are on a hair-trigger and find it difficult to relax. You said you weren't going to read B's post. But I think you should. Here's why. It actually might help you, in a weird, round about way. B outlines the pattern you use in interactions. I have seen it over and over again from you. I'm sorry to tell you that, because it might cause you to feel even more threatened than you already feel. But the reason B's post might help you is because, if you can stand the heat of it, it could point the way to self-discovery. You are torked out of your mind at somebody(s) somewhere, and don't know what to do about it. You have developed a substitute pattern for trying to deal with it. Your need to defend youself at the level you do, points to something, or many things, that caused you to adopt a super defensive posture in the first place. You weren't always like this. Think back. I really hope you find out about the bad stuff that hurt you originally, and work it through, because it's messing you up. Politics won't help you feel better. Participating in chat rooms won't help you feel better. Once you tell somebody off, you will get nothing more than a temporary sense of relief. Then it will start again. Nothing will help, except coming to terms with what is really eating at you. We have spoken before, and I think if you try, you may remember the suggestion I made. I sincerely hope you follow it, because it might help. Before I go I want to tell you that I thought you were a lot less angry and mean in your post to me this time, and I commend you on that. This is all I'm going to be able to write to you, for now, Aris. Remember, you are not alone. Peace. Respectfully, ex-lib |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-04-26 9:02:39 PM |
| #33 aris my apologies if i offended you with the "Butt Slamming" statement..but you need to understand this site is for discussion...and we were having a discussion until it got ANGRY and i was, to say the least, pissed! i do understand that people have a difference of opinion..but does that make them an idiot? an idiot would be post by Anti-War. i have rarely agreed with you but at least your post's were of merit and thought..but not this one. have your opinions but keep it civil... still would like to know your thoughts on what Greece is doing in this conflict. she is on the front line and will be in range islamofascists(as you put it) missles well before America. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-26 8:38:37 PM |
| #32 blonde and type A if have an idiotic response for this...still think your a dumbass...we were having a meaniful discussion...but since i cannot see it your way you get, as put by others, ANGRY.... still did not answer my question, which i believe is a justified question, what has greece done for the WOT, besides ask for help in protecting the olympics? |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-26 8:22:45 PM |
| #31 and Aris...oh..I think you did read it. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-26 8:11:05 PM |
| #30 AK, my personal opinions are the same as that of my government and my President...as are most of the other posters here. This is a political forum. We talk politics and foreign policy. To shift the argument--a tactic which you employ chronically--and say that you are merely attacking posters who express their political and ideological opinons for their personal beliefs is disingenuous and a lie. And if you're not here to account for Greece's actions in the world, why ARE you here? If you can't see why there wasn't a causus belli to wage war on Syria, you haven't been paying attention AT ALL to the conversation we've all been having since 9/11. Syria's in trouble. Make no mistake. Both Bush and Colin Powell have issued numerous warnings to Syria of late (particularly due to firefights on the Syrian border in Iraq) and we're about to impose more sanctions on Syria for their support of terrorism. Syria means Lebanon and that means Israel is involved, too and has their own battle plans for the Bekka Valley. Syria's number will come up soon--probably after the November election, if not before. You have to remember that before 9/11, the position of the United States was to leave other nations in peace, regardless of their support for Islamist terrorism. With regard to countries like Syria, whom we have reason to suspect are up to no good but against whom we have no definite beef (as yet), we're not going to be aggressive and "start something." If you can't figure out US foreign and war policy this far, you just don't understand who we fundamentally are as a country and as the world's lone hyperpower. And the situation as I described it for Syria applies to Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, too. We have to take this War against IslamoFascism one step at a time and right now, the Front is in Iraq, where Syria is doing us a favor by sending their bad guys (Hezbollah, Hamas, AQ, Islamic Jihad, etc., etc. ) to Falluja and Najaf where we can kill them without invading Syria. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-04-26 8:09:30 PM |
| #29 I don't won't us to look back when the clorox bomb goes off in Athens and think..... geee if we'd just been a liitle nicer to Aris :-) well...good point. I've always wondered if that's what happened to our original Murat. Even though he posts occassionally, it's never been quite the same. I certainly don't want Aris on my conscience!! HE's a somewhat likeable troll and a darn shame it would be. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-26 8:05:38 PM |
| #28 Aris-- I think you're a good guy even when I don't agree with you. I also think you're a hell of a lot more realistic than the people I dealt with when I lived in Italy for four years. In fact, Aris, I bet you're not winning any popularity contests over there...if you actually articulate these positions in public, you have my respect (and if you don't, you have my understanding). Yep, Syria and Iran are an issue. Pakistan too. Don't see any way around that. It may well have been cleverer to deal with them instead of Saddam. Are the people on this board really unable to take this kind of criticism? Aris has a much tougher skin than most of us then. |
| Posted by: BMN 2004-04-26 8:04:52 PM |
| #27 Jen> "quit raking us here over the coals because you don't "like" what America's doing and demand we explain national policy and change it." I've never raked you over America's doings. I've raked you over your *personal* opinions. The same way that I don't need to account for Greece's doing, I only need to account for my personal opinions. And my personal vote, of course. That's yet one more example, Jen, of how deeply you have failed to get me, and constantly represent me as the exact opposite of what I am. And if Syria's support of terrorism wasn't a sufficient casus belli, then I don't know what kind of "War on Terrorism" this is supposed to be. I'll be ignoring the rest of your post also. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-26 7:54:05 PM |
| #26 B> I'm a guy. And I didn't bother to read the rest of your post. ex-lib> How do you think a jewish person would react to someone who uses "we should of left you to die in the concentration camps" as an argument in a debate? Or a black person might react to a comment like "we should of kept you in slavery"? They'd probably be pissed off. Possibly they would even mock the other guy for using "should of" instead of "should have". Why do you therefore think I should react differently to "Truman should of left Greece to fall to the commies"? When people ask me my nationality and then use it as an insult, I'll treat them the same way as if they had asked me if I had Jewish blood and then used *that* as an insult. What about people that'd ask about someone's race and learning he's Asian they commented "Wow, most Asians are commies, right?" or learned they were black and asked "How is Africa doing in the global confrontation?" Do you have Jewish blood, ex-lib? Whenever I disagree with you, may I use "you Jew" (the same way people here have used "you Greek") as a means of emphasis or perhaps say that the Christians should have left your people to die in the concentration camps or anything like that? But I wouldn't do that, you see. The same way that I wouldn't use someone's race as an insult. Or someone's nationality. --- "think somewhere deep down he's actually a very sensitive guy but has learned to cover it up with this tempermental "fighting" type of angry meaness in an attempt to protect himself from feeling a magnified sense of threat" Are you using "sensitive" as in "sensitive to people's needs" or "sensitive" as in "vulnerable to world's hurts"? The two meanings of the words always confuse me. I think I'm sensitive as to the former meaning, not to the latter. But I don't see what either of these meanings of "sensitive" has to do with whether one is mild or aggressive in a debate -- whether one is willing to back down from a fight or whether he isn't. Another thing--you might not understand that American "cut downs" are, for the most part, firmly ensconced in attitudes that are pretty good-natured. Not like the Greek poison that's intended to really destroy the other person. (No, I'm not talking about you, here, Aris--although you can be poisonous too, sometimes. So just stop it, okay? I don't want to see you become like the people that did you wrong. ) It's all up to you. Hmm. I'll think about what you said, but I'm not certain how "butt-slamming Greek" can be viewed as good-natured. And comments such as .com and B have made in the past were most definitely not good natured. *shrug* I've left forums before when I found out they frustrated me more than they served me. If I reach that point with Rantburg I'll just leave here too, which is probably easier than actually hearing people use "you Greek" as an insult and not vocally compare them to the people that'd use "you Jew" or "you n*gger". |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-26 7:47:15 PM |
| #25 Leave Aris along he is the RB Alpha Troll. I don't won't us to look back when the clorox bomb goes off in Athens and think..... geee if we'd just been a liitle nicer to Aris. So be nice now! Life is short! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-04-26 7:31:54 PM |
| #24 "Which means that I supposedly have to give account for my nation's doings. As if I'm to blame for my country's actions or inactions." Katsaris is too much to make this confession when he berates every one of us and demands that we account for America's "doings....as if we are to blame for our country's actions or inactions." Regardless if we are to blame (which in a democratic society we are, by voting and paying taxes), we all gladly take responsibility here at RB. Katsaris, the US wasn't going to invade and effect regime change in Syria--not yet. We had no causus belli there, we hadn't fought Gulf War I there, there weren't 16 UN Resolutions against Assad. Everything AK says about Saddam and his Iraq was FALSE. Saddam had the "best" army, had defied those UN Resolutions, had committed genocide and ethnic cleansing twice against his own people, had shot missiles at Israel and was supported in his fights by the rest of the Arab League, even though he waged an 8-year Sunni war against the Shiite Iranians. He had numerous ties to Islamist terrorism, many of which have since been uncovered. Iraqis were behind the first WTC bombing in '93 and there's much evidence that he was behind (financially, technologically, logistically) behind the 9/11 attacks, if not directly. Syria and Lebanon are going to be dealt with and they lie down the road. But our waging of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the liberation and democratization of Iraq--right next door to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia--was the next logical step in the GWOIT, right after deposing the Taliban in Afghanistan. America and her allies will be victorious in Iraq and will successfully establish democracy in the Middle East. Then, we'll deal with the others, including Syria. And AK needs to make a decision: either don't account for being Greek and Greece's action as a country or quit raking us here over the coals because you don't "like" what America's doing and demand we explain national policy and change it. "What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander." So, you must choose, AK but you can't continue to do both. And right now, your country has a big problem with Cyprus and the Turks...not to mention the shambles of the US Olympics. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-04-26 7:28:37 PM |
| #23 a typical discussion with Aris. Aris posts an article that has a kernel of truth with an anti-American slant. S/he leaves it out there with a whiff of anticipation and superiority...see! I have the nerve to post this here!! Someone points out where the kernel of truth and reality part ways. No matter how absurd her argument, Aris posts her first post...showing great effort and pain to respond to the criticism with feigned politeness. The person comes back, annoyed but not fooled by the feigned politeness and points out the flaws in Aris's argument. Aris begins to wind up...ignoring the actual points made by the poster, s/he bares her teeth, and says something along the lines of ..."that is not what I said..you are stupid if you think that is what I said. Then the person comes back with points that Aris did not address and s/he is really wound up now...strapping on the suicide belt, hir head begins to spin...."you are a stupid liar if you say that I said that, I've tried to be polite, but now, because you are such a heathen, I must call you a f*(*&ing liar". If the subject is foolish enough to attempt to continue the conversation...Aris spins hirself into orbit..."you stupid liar..I never said that!! Prove that I said that!! You hear a wooshing sound as s/he implodes. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-26 7:16:09 PM |
| #22 Aris sometimes can have some very smart, good points to make--but then he goes and ruins it all by being angry and mean at people, which alienates them. (Probably because people in his life belittled him a long time ago, and were angry and mean at him. ) Now, I think being really angry and mean kind of gives Aris an energy surge, because he does it so often without any provocation. I think somewhere deep down he's actually a very sensitive guy, but has learned to cover it up with this tempermental "fighting" type of angry meaness in an attempt to protect himself from feeling a magnified sense of threat. Everything gets so emotional for him. I still have some hope for Aris, and often would like to DISCUSS his politics. But that's why I don't talk to him anymore--he'll probably just be angry and mean at me, and I got enough trouble. But (this one last time), since I was interested in the topic of discussion before it devolved into angry, meaness attacks . . . Peace, Aris. You're totally misunderstanding Dan, and yeah, after you bite and chew somebody up, they're going to snap back at you. But if you don't, they probably won't either. At least not here. Another thing--you might not understand that American "cut downs" are, for the most part, firmly ensconced in attitudes that are pretty good-natured. Not like the Greek poison that's intended to really destroy the other person. (No, I'm not talking about you, here, Aris--although you can be poisonous too, sometimes. So just stop it, okay? I don't want to see you become like the people that did you wrong. ) It's all up to you. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-04-26 7:04:24 PM |
| #21 Come on! I need to know whether I should insult you as an O-type black-haired Bulls-lover, or a B-type brunette Celtics fan! You AB-typed red haired Laker. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-26 7:01:29 PM |
| #20 Blood type will also do. Or favorite team. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-26 6:12:23 PM |
| #19 Thanks that you proved my point. What hair color are you btw? I'd like to insult people belonging in your hair tribe. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-26 6:10:57 PM |
| #18 your right greece is right up there in abilities with rwanda and uruguay..which you spelled wrong! why should we expect anything less. Since the EU doesn't have a common foreign policy, it can't do anything to you as yet, not even spit...this points to the real reasons why the euros are so pissed.... you idiot..huh well put..you butt slamming greek! |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-26 6:03:50 PM |
| #17 "Just what countries do you suggest we should of used to get to syria? israel? now that would've gone over good with the countries of the middle east. " As opposed to now, when all the countries in the middle-east love you you mean? Not to mention that this reminds me of the old joke: A woman comes across a man crawling under a street lamp. "I've lost my car keys," he explains. The woman tries to help the man find his keys. After a few minutes of searching, she asks "Where exactly did you drop them?" "Down the street, next to my car." Puzzled, she asks "Then why aren't you looking over there?" "The light is better here." "Now we feel the EU is spitting on us." Since the EU doesn't have a common foreign policy, it can't do anything to you as yet, not even spit. "just tell me what is Greece doing in this global conflict?" If you ever ask me a relevant question, I will answer it. Why not ask me "what are blonde people doing in this global conflict"? Why not ask me "what are agnostic people doing in this global conflict"? Why not ask me "what are fans of Panathinaikos" doing in this global conflict? Or "what are A-Blood types doings in this global conflict"? Or "what are white people doing in this global conflict"? Oh, that's right -- it's because you are not a hair fanatic, a religious fanatic, a sports hooligan, a blood-type fanatic or a racist, you are simply a nationalist. Which means that I supposedly have to give account for my nation's doings. As if I'm to blame for my country's actions or inactions. No, I don't. You idiot. Why not ask me what Malaysia or Rwanda or Urugay has been doing in this global conflict? It'd be just as relevant to the issue at hand. You idiot. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-26 5:55:02 PM |
| #16 oh by the way nice ending to your post - idiot... is this a grammar class or a page for ranting? just tell me what is Greece doing in this global conflict? besides asking the US for assistance in protecting Olympics? |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-26 5:37:18 PM |
| #15 ok aris - i am not trying to agrue. but i do firmly believe that history has a relevence on current events and are not some irrelevant cliches. it all matters and i pointed out yugoslavia because it was a dismill failure from a european perspective. You could have kept the status quo remain status quo until you had taken out Syria, geographically isolated (and much smaller) as it was, and once that part of the WOT of terror was finished, and *if* it became necessary, you could perhaps have proceeded to Iraq. Just what countries do you suggest we should of used to get to syria? israel? now that would've gone over good with the countries of the middle east. Turkey? Like you said syria is land locked? You had a FOURTH choice which was "Ignore Saddam for the moment, and keep your attention on the ACTUAL Axis of Terror. Which was Syria-Iran." This is the path to victory. In your view we should of just done a frontal assult on iran? There is still a chance for iran to be settled without war. Unlike saddams iraq there is other voices in iran. But we now have a very good staging ground for any confrontation with iran/syria. If I was like you, Dan, I would indeed not give a damn about American lives and I would indeed not give a damn about the fact the War on Terror is being lost in Iraq. But I do. I care very much. And that's the only reason I'm here. And it's "should have" you idiot, not "should of". How old are you? Well maybe you do sincerly care - but the majority of the EU (ok i said it) does not hold your opinions. And I am very grateful you do care but you ignore the larger world which does not care. GET IT IN YOUR HEAD, Saddam was NOT a part of the global Islamofascist axis! Terrorism is not just Islamofascist..it is on many levels. But still there is lingering doubts about this statment. After the fall of the talibs there is hard intel that members of alqueda leardership went to iraq. and there is also intel that the iraqi armed forces went on a high state of alert on 9-10. So tell me how would the citizens of the EU reacted if we partnered with Saddam? Translation: I have to be so grateful that I should shut down my brain when your country's policies are moronic. Second translation: You've lost the argument and that's why you must play the "gratitude" card. Well no aris - but you have to understand the depth of ingratitude Americans feel. We sacraficed our young men and women, treasury, put our cities at great harm from nuclear attack just so the countries of the EU could live free. Now we feel the EU is spitting on us. And yes we do make mistakes. Do no misunderstand resolutness with arrogance. And this is not a grammar class - i am very busy during the day but i feel compelled to voice my opinions - and well sometimes i spell wrong or use improper grammar. so what - my point gets across just as yours. By the way I am 35 and work fulltime supporting my family. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-26 5:26:49 PM |
| #14 "funny how it is ok to abuse the US " Who said that it was okay to abuse the US? "iraq was never neutral " On regards to the war against global Islamofascism, yeah it was. With more sympathies on *their* side ofcourse, but it wasn't part of any axis. "we are going to take ALL TERRORIST NATIONS OUT. PERIOD REGARDLESS OF THE DIFFICULTIES." And since success is certain, as you claim, there's no actual need to debate the course of action, right? Wake me up when it's over, if all that remains is a mere mop-up operation, right? "And please we are not surrounded - we have a forces placed in a very strong position versus iran/syria." When you have enemies on all sides and you are in the center, that's being called "surrounded" by definition. "We had three choices 1. Give up and stop the no-fly zones. saddam then would be seen as winning. 2. Get cozy with saddam - which the euro's would've of been all over (they want thier cake and ice-cream) 3. Take him out and setup for the next part of the WOT. " You are really Saddam-fixated, aren't you? GET IT IN YOUR HEAD, Saddam was NOT a part of the global Islamofascist axis! You had a FOURTH choice which was "Ignore Saddam for the moment, and keep your attention on the ACTUAL Axis of Terror. Which was Syria-Iran." Saddam didn't have anything to do with it. You could have kept the status quo remain status quo until you had taken out Syria, geographically isolated (and much smaller) as it was, and once that part of the WOT of terror was finished, and *if* it became necessary, you could perhaps have proceeded to Iraq. More to the point the benefits of taking out Syria would have been *immediate*, as Syria is the headquarters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah -- the benefits would NOT have been dependant on some democratization domino process that would take decades and decades before it bore any fruit at all. "Just look at the former yugoslavia - the euros could not take care of thier own backyard." You keep on with the irrelevant cliches, don't you? What does any of this have to do with whether invading Iraq was a wise course of action? Oh yeah, it doesn't. "Truman should of let Greece fall to the commies - your world would be a much different place." Translation: I have to be so grateful that I should shut down my brain when your country's policies are moronic. Second translation: You've lost the argument and that's why you must play the "gratitude" card. Because if I'm grateful to your country, that must ofcourse mean that you can never make a mistake, and I must never call your attention to it. You know what? If I was like you, Dan, I would indeed not give a damn about American lives and I would indeed not give a damn about the fact the War on Terror is being lost in Iraq. But I do. I care very much. And that's the only reason I'm here. And it's "should have" you idiot, not "should of". How old are you? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-26 5:01:44 PM |
| #13 well to me it is spelled euro - short for weasel....and i will use any version i like. isn't funny how it is ok to abuse the US but when you abuse a euro country well that is just insulting! please Iraq is the most strategically important country in the region." Which is why you shouldn't have gone in there, when the regional array of enemy countries and forces meant that you most likely couldn't keep it once you had it. You should have kept it almost-neutral territory for the moment. iraq was never neutral and just because the fight is tuff is no reason for us shriek and run from it. Bring it on as Bush said..and I know that irriatated the euro-weasels.. we are going to take ALL TERRORIST NATIONS OUT. PERIOD REGARDLESS OF THE DIFFICULTIES. And please we are not surrounded - we have a forces placed in a very strong position versus iran/syria. And there is not much they can do except to try and disrupt, which they are trying but not succeeding. Syria-Sadr-Iran axis. - Exactly more reason to take them out. And Sadr is a small time punk fully supported by iran. But when things got tough for sadr - where is iran? they are scared and rightly so. take out saddam and we seperate our enemies. " NO!! Take out Saddam and you are *uniting* your enemies. Now there exists a huge unbroken Syria-Sadr-Iran axis. Before, with Saddam inbetween, a Saddam that was supporting the anti-Iranian insurrectionists doesn't matter what/who saddam was supporting. We had three choices 1. Give up and stop the no-fly zones. saddam then would be seen as winning. 2. Get cozy with saddam - which the euro's would've of been all over (they want thier cake and ice-cream) 3. Take him out and setup for the next part of the WOT. Bush chose the the third and most difficult route. But the route that pay huge long term dividends. only due to American support. Not eruo that is for sure. - the eurors " You know, for starters the UK is part of the EU - yes aris you are correct - but once again with half truths. Without the active military/political support of the US nothing would happen. Just look at the former yugoslavia - the euros could not take care of thier own backyard. they needed the US to do the fighting. And why? First logistically they cannot move enough forces. Second when they do move forces they do not have the right mix. Third the euros picked different sides. French/Greeks the serbs - Germans the croats. Seems like a little repeat of history. and secondly how much I owe to the sacrifices of your grandfather's generation is quite irrelevant to the issue of whether invading Iraq was wise or stupid. History has everything to do with iraq. Truman should of let Greece fall to the commies - your world would be a much different place. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-26 4:14:28 PM |
| #12 well..ok..I'll wait to see how things pan out....but yes, I'm going wobbly on the idea that Iraqi's have what it takes to separate church and state in order to make a free Iraq. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-26 4:11:15 PM |
| #11 I'm amazed at how many posters have gone wobbly on the idea of a democratic Iraq because a handful of psychos in Falluja & Najif. Partitioning is a viable backup plan but its hardly the time to give up on Iraq yet. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-04-26 3:58:22 PM |
| #10 Dan> "you are always negative" No, I'm the one who's saying you still have a slim chance at success. And I'm the one who thinks that the sky won't necessarily fall if Kerry gets elected. "What country are you from?" Oy vey, here comes Jen redux. As I said to her just two days ago: I'm Greek and I am posting from Greece. "Iraq is the most strategically important country in the region." Which is why you shouldn't have gone in there, when the regional array of enemy countries and forces meant that you most likely couldn't keep it once you had it. You should have kept it almost-neutral territory for the moment. Now you've just been used to crush Saddam and the Iran-Syria axis is picking up the pieces. "We needed to prove to our enemies that we were serious and put our forces in a position to take out the heads of the snake - iran and syria" What you mean is that you went into a place where they've got you surrounded, and you nonetheless think that *you* got *them* surrounded. Your forces are in a place where they can't act to take out anything else because all their attention is occupied at Iraq. You played the game as if your opponents would be standing *still* and got caught with your pants down when they started moving. "take out saddam and we seperate our enemies. " NO!! Take out Saddam and you are *uniting* your enemies. Now there exists a huge unbroken Syria-Sadr-Iran axis. Before, with Saddam inbetween, a Saddam that was supporting the anti-Iranian insurrectionists, you could have taken out Syria and there'd be no regional neighbour to infiltrate you in mass. Saddam was your enemy --- but he was also Iran's enemy. He wasn't part of any Axis of Terror -- he was alone and isolated. Sadr isn't. And even if Saddam chose to broke his isolation in order to help Syria or Iran, you'd only have one border to watch for, not two. "only due to American support. Not eruo that is for sure. - the eurors " You know, for starters the UK is part of the EU, even if none of us want it to be. Secondly when you can't spell any of the usual diminutives (insulting or normal) of "european" why not spell the whole word? Is there some kind of rule in Rantburg that you ain't allowed to use the word "european", you must use an alternative instead? "Your whole arguments on this thread and in past threads are based on a world the US left behind after 9-11. " Which is evidence enough that you've not read anything I've said in past threads. "Because if it is euro what you have today is soley due to the sacrafices of my grandfathers generation. " First of all it's spelled 'europe', and secondly how much I owe to the sacrifices of your grandfather's generation is quite irrelevant to the issue of whether invading Iraq was wise or stupid. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-26 3:18:25 PM |
| #9 Aris - you are always negative. What country are you from? Do you think freedom and prosperity are a given right? You need to be constanly fighting for it. The idea of a free and democratic Iraq is a failure. Depends on what you are comparing to. A western country or an arab country. A comparison to an arab country would show Iraq is already there. You should have never gone in there - you really do not understand why we went. It was not for WMD or Saddam. Iraq is the most strategically important country in the region. We needed to prove to our enemies that we were serious and put our forces in a position to take out the heads of the snake - iran and syria. The US has been a victim of a war of proxy conducted by these states for over 20 years and we did not confront it vigoursly until 9-11. During the cold war it was almost impossible and after the cold war we were consumed with, naively, that the world was changed and we could reap the benifits of winning the cold war. Osama proved us wrong and it took a massive attack on our homeland to shake the cobwebs in our collective phyce. Now we will take the fight to the enemy. If Iran and Syria were defeated first Iraq is easier - take out saddam and we seperate our enemies. These two states are less agressive publically now - though not behind the scenes. They know if Bush succeeds they are doomed- at least the rulling asshats. That is why countries in the region are seeing a huge increase in terrorist activity. Bottom line after the nov elections syria and iran will pay for thier actions and they will not control iraq. US forces will be in tehran. Divide it up and the *only* free bit will be Kurdistan (which was already free) - only due to American support. Not eruo that is for sure - the eurors would've rather worked with ole saddam and reaped the benifits of the Oil-For-Food fiasco at the expense of the iraqi people. And no matter what we say here or the media says the people of iraq know better. Your whole arguments on this thread and in past threads are based on a world the US left behind after 9-11. We will not allow these countries to pursue the policy of the last 20 years, we will take the fight to the enemy regardless of world opinon. Our security will not be dictated by the amoral ecomomic calculations of world powers. Still curious where you are from. Because if it is euro what you have today is soley due to the sacrafices of my grandfathers generation. Like it or not it is the truth. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-26 1:44:55 PM |
| #8 Ah..Aris...what a shame. Although you and I might have had experienced a brief moment of agreement..that moment has sadly passed us by. I used to agree with what you write, but now, sadly...short of some bizarre show of Muslim unity in support of freedom and democracy ..I believe that we need to divide Iraq up into at least three separate countries. To bad..I look forward to the day when you and I can sing Kumbaya together. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-26 1:43:18 PM |
| #7 One of the cool things about partition is that Kurdistan and Shiastan would have lots of Oil. Baghdadstan would have industry and Sunnitrianglestan would have sheep and sheep shit. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-04-26 1:23:01 PM |
| #6 B> "The idea of a free and democratic Iraq is a failure. " The chances for success are slim (as I've said before and have been insulted by you because of it) but they are all we got. Iraq is an artificial country, but it's what you chose to work with. You should have never gone in there, but now that you did go you must stay the course -- there's no other choice any more. Divide it up and the *only* free bit will be Kurdistan (which was already free) -- the other two bits will fall to Iran and Syria. If Iran and Syria were defeated first, *then* a divided Iraq might have a chance not to become their puppet. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-26 12:47:20 PM |
| #5 RC, Sounds like another good argument for partition. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-04-26 12:34:32 PM |
| #4 Let's not forget that Murat would sooner castrate himself than say something nice about the Kurds. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-04-26 12:21:25 PM |
| #3 The worse part is the treason of the media. While they are busy rebuilding and establishing rule of law our media is focused entirely upon body-bag counts. Contrast this with the Palistinians. I wish them the best and feel we should give them their own state -- they damn well deserve it. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-04-26 12:18:45 PM |
| #2 murat...murat...no comments...should of guesed no american dead so no need for you to comment........ iraq is an artificial country and we should play to that...if the shites want to play hardball reinforce to them that they can lose just like they did 80 years ago and 30 years ago... this so called insurgency is very small with many outside elements...if we gave the govt to the sunnis the shites would be out in the cold again... |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-26 12:07:11 PM |
| #1 Time to divide them up into separate states. The idea of a free and democratic Iraq is a failure. Time to cut our losses and be realistic about the possible postive outcomes. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-26 12:01:57 PM |