Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
As to Clinton, I'm not sure what he really accomplished, or how his influence led us to this day. Good intentions, huge ambitions, but, in the end, sort of ineffectual, at least in this arena.

The huge effort and negotiations at the end of his administration (and in the negotiations at Sharm el Sheikh(?) just as the Bush administration was transitioning in) were grand failures which were essential in creating the conditions that ultimately lead to this day. This wasn't some brilliant, intentional plan, but it was still essential to laying the groundwork.

Many of these things were happening at the same time, but remember how Israeli PM Barak was offering the Palestinians about 90% of what they sought, and Arafat still did not or could not accept (said he'd be killed)? Those negotiations created huge expectations, and their failure led many more Israelis to believe that a negotiated peace with the Palestinians was not possible. The failure also lead to increased violence by the Palestinians. About this same time, Sharon goes on his little trip to the Mount, sparking the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada. So, Sharon is elected -- probably wouldn't have happened otherwise.

It was only after this last extended round of killing and suffering that enough Palestinians and their leaders came to believe that violence wasn't going to get them there, that the al-Aqsa intifada had been a huge mistake, and that the PA was a piece of crap and democratic elections were essential. Sometimes failures are necessary to create the conditions for success.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
However, I think the Odds are that a stable federated republic will form. Much better for everyone.

Where are you getting a line on this, and what odds are you giving?

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The huge effort and negotiations at the end of his administration (and in the negotiations at Sharm el Sheikh(?) just as the Bush administration was transitioning in) were grand failures which were essential in creating the conditions that ultimately lead to this day.

Well, I think you make the case for stating that Clinton's actions had large impact on the process that eventially brought us to where we are today, but going any further sort of sounds like "Franz Ferdinand played an important role in the resolution of the first world war."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
This weekend's election fails. The country falls apart and you get three states.

1) The Kurds (completely pro U.S. and probably demnocratic and respectful of human rights)
2) The Shiites (could be moderately -pro US, could be anti US) but will probably be some sort of democracy with some rights.
3) Sunnis - who know. Worst case scenario - virulently anti U.S.

In this scenario you have the Kurds and the Shiites free of Baathist opressoin. These two groups of people will no longer have to worry about being exterminated. No matter what happens this will be the case. That in itself justifies the invasion.

Even if the Southern Shiite regime turns into a theocracy, the people will not be threatened by mass executions and opression by the Baathists.

If the Sunni regime is anti US it will have no oil and be very small and will be surrounded on all sides by hostile enemies. Kurdistan, Iran and Souther Iraqi Shiite state.

Saddam's regime was virulently anti US so we have reduced in size and power the state that stood against us. So even in the worst case scenario we are better off and the Iraqis are better off.

* * *
So what is the problem?

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"?

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.

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".

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.

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

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky

Like I said. Win. Win.

Will you still feel this way if they Shiites and/or Kurds use their oil revenues to finance a socialistic state?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Will you still feel this way if they Shiites and/or Kurds use their oil revenues to finance a socialistic state?

Hmmmmm. Saddam or . . . Sweden? Equally bad in the ME?

People still vote in socialistic states. (See Mass.) We deal with socialistic states all the time, in a friendly manner.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Curb your enthusiam. Ty will be here before the night is out to explain why this is ultimately W's fault.

This is ultimately W's fault. He is responsible for all that is ill in the world, like when a butterfly flaps its wings.

Sorry I was late.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is ultimately W's fault. He is responsible for all that is ill in the world, like when a butterfly flaps its wings.

Sorry I was late.

You are wrong. Nothing is W's fault. He is blame-free. He has done everything right, and anything that has gone wrong is the fault of the Dims, who use their powers to frustrate him at every turn.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
Hmmmmm. Saddam or . . . Sweden? Equally bad in the ME?

People still vote in socialistic states. (See Mass.) We deal with socialistic states all the time, in a friendly manner.

I'm not comforted. We have dealt with Saddam, in a friendly manner too.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I'm not comforted. We have dealt with Saddam, in a friendly manner too.

Put up a pic of Kennedy, and you've made your case in spades.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
Put up a pic of Kennedy, and you've made your case in spades.

No can do. That's Penske's schtick.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Franz Ferdinand played an important role in the resolution of the first world war."

His assassins are ultimately responsible for the Holocaust, you know.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
His assassins are ultimately responsible for the Holocaust, you know.

S_A_M

And Volkswagon Tourags. So, they weren't all bad.

[Spanky]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

Where to begin?