[!@#$%!]

bastian, excellent post & thanks for your thoughtful replies; you obviously know more about this than me, so i have some answers and mostly further questions.

Originally Posted by Bastian

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.

that is "objectively" true, and i agree every time tanks are involved it's a bad scene. i was not justifying saddam's action, i simply pointed out how they were misunderstood. understanding doesn't mean compliance. the american media often promotes ignorance and historical near-sightedness, which is one of the reasons why americans are so ignorant of the world around them. along those lines, i would be very much opposed by a chinese invasion of taiwan, but i would be able to understand why china would want to do that.

Originally Posted by Bastian

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.

excellent point. however in 1991 there was an ongoin problem in east timor & nothing was being done about it because there was no oil. the liberation of kuwait didnt happen because people were nice, it happened because of oil-- part of the carter doctrine. which was undoubtedly a good thing for kuwaitis. i don't think the majority of the world had a problem with kuwait's liberation however-- american troops acted in accordance to u.n. resolutions and in compliance with international law.

the real fuckup i suppose was to encourage minorities to rebel agains saddam without backing them up. but backing them up would have resulted in the mess we have today. they should not have been encouraged to rebel if there were no plans for an invasion.

Originally Posted by Bastian

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.

a federal government is perhaps yes the best possible outcome but i wonder if it can be put in place without bloodshed. the u.s. federal government had its own crisis during the civil war. there are other cases of more peaceful federal governments (like germany) but i don't know if this could work in iraq which has a long history of centralism. these things are in part cultural and difficult to impose form the outside.

Originally Posted by Bastian

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.

interesting about the azerbaijanians. and yes, iran or syria are not always very smart, countries ruled by ayatollahs and inherited dictators aren't models of anything good in my mind.

Originally Posted by Bastian

Ethnical parcellation of Iraq or any other country in the region will lead to catastrophy and should be prevented at any costs!

any costs? sure there has to be a limit-- the question is where is it and who should bear those costs? the only way that i can see this happening (and i might be wrong) is by having another strongman supressing dissent-- i am not sure that a democracy would be able to hold the country together, in great part because iraq does not have a culture of democracy, and in part also because democracies are traditionally "weaker" in dealing with internal conflict-- democracies are harder to hold together than police states. the u.s. armed forces cannot become dictators of iraq though.

Originally Posted by Bastian

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.

i agree, and that is a reason for the troops to stay. but for how long? on the subject of preventing carnage, sudan presented more immediate reasons to send troops in. but i agree... problem is that historically the "neutral" force has been the baathists!! and can u.s. troops stay indefinitely? should irq be "pacified" and ruled as a colony?

Originally Posted by Bastian

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..

probably right. that's the reason why i mentioned humpty dumpty-- things fucked beyond repair.

Originally Posted by Bastian

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.

yes, excellent & well-informed points. those conflicts exist above and beyond the u.s. presence there, underneath as well, and they were only masked by saddam's regime. but do you think this is a conflict that can be resolved peacefully, or do you think that things will inevitably come to a head in iraq? i am a rather pessimistic about this situation-- i think that democracy in iraq will bring on the splintering of the country and eventual civil war, and that only a return to a nationalist tyrant could possibly hold the country together. of course im not prophesizing, and i'm no expert.

thanks again for your excellent post & i look forward to continuing this conversation.