Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
it was so partitioned i believe by the british empire, which sectioned off kuwait as a "nipple" from which to draw oil.
(that's why when saddam invaded kuwait he said that "kuwait doesn't exist"-- this was not understood in its historical context by the media).
|
What was to be understood in a historical context? Are you suggesting that Kuwait is an illegitimate country whose terrain should be part of Iraq, so Saddam's invasion was merely a not so nice try for a legitimate reunification? It changes absolutely nothing about the fact that Saddam invaded an independent neigbouring country to get it's oil, and raped and killed lots of civilians down there.
I remember that back in 1991, everyone was protesting against America with the slogan "No Blood for Oil!". Noone ever protested with that slogan against Saddam's aggression.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
anyway, the country was held together with the iron fist of tyrannical governments. remove the tyrannical government and the country will splinter-- simple enough.
|
Remove the tyrannical government, replace it with a federal government and things could work out. A federal government which shares administrative rights among the different parts of the country, giving equal power to Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. This way it can still be one united country without having to face the horrors of ethnic parcellation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
iraq cannot be held together without force. but then there are all sorts of pressures, like
a) turkey does not want a free kurdistan
|
Neither does Iran, Syria or any other neighbouring country with a kurdish minority. Actually, it's not very smart of Syria and Iran to do their best to destabilize Iraq. A break-up of Iraq along ethnical lines would destabilize the entire region and would fuel oppressed minorities in neighbouring countries to increase their strife for independence. Kurds in Turkey and Iran would want to join a free post-Iraqi Kurdistan, a nightmare for both Ankara and Teheran. If Kurds can get their own state, other minorities will want one too. For example Balochs in southern Iran and southwestern Pakistan. Irans Azerbaijanians, who are the second largest ethnic group in Iran and make up 25% of Iran's population might increasingly want to join Azerbaijan, etc.
Ethnical parcellation of Iraq or any other country in the region will lead to catastrophy and should be prevented at any costs!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
as long as there are u.s. troops in iraq they will be seen as invaders and catalyze the insurgents, i'm afraid. this is a humpty dumpty situation-- "all the king horses, & all the king's men / couldn't put humpty together again".
the point is that for the u.s. to stay there is kinda pointless. and the longer the troops stay, the greater the impulse towards insurrection.
|
If the US troops leave, the real slaughtering sets in. Already now, the majority of victims of so-called insurgents are Iraqis. A premature withdrawal of the US will give neighbouring countries the opportunity to increase their influence on Iraq, which will basicly be a proxy war of shia Iran and sunni Saudi Arabia + other arab states. It's better to have a "neutral" force present that is neither shia nor sunni nor kurdish.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
u.n. troops maybe... they are not so politically polarizing (unless of course you're in idaho).
|
U.N. troops will either be seen as much as occupying infidel foreigeners as US troops, or they might come from a muslim country which will prevent them from being neutral in the sunni-shia conflict. Not to forget that the UN usually fails miserably when trying to prevent civil war parties to slaughter each other..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
ps- in my diseased mind, the best possible outcome is for a peaceful disintegration of iraq in which the kurds have their own state, the sunnis have their own little triangle, and the shias have their own state under the aegis of iran. if everyone is lucky, this would happen peacefully and without much ethnic cleansing. but we'll see...
|
If Iran strengthens it's influence on shia Iraq, the sunni arab states will freak out even more about Iran's strife for local hegemony. Iran already has a proxy and allies who pushes it's influence on the arab world far west: Syria, Hezbollah and it even supports sunni Hamas with weapons. What we are facing in the region now is some sort of a cold war between arabs and persians, between shias and sunnis. A cold war which has already turned hot in Iraq. Not to forget that Iran's nuclear program is frightening arab states alot. If it's not stopped, there will be a nuclear arms race in the region. If Iran gets the bomb, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia will have to get it too. And then the real fun starts.