My Iraq Opinion.

[PanzerJaeger]

I believe that America failed to realize how much the Sunni factions in Iraq had invested in Saddam's regime.

We see very low levels of violence in the northern Kurd areas and the southern Shia areas.

The main source of home grown terror is the sunnis. Not only do they attack coalition forces but now they have started slaughtering Kurds and Shias in the streets.

Most analysts seem to think the reason for the shift from attacking coalition troops to attacking iraqi civilians is to cause a civil war.

I say let them have it.

Thus far, we have tried our hardest to keep the shia and kurds from responding with violence, and they have.

I say we arm the Shia and Kurds and let them do our dirty work for us. They speak the language, they know the streets, and they're mad as hell (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1698308,00.html). I feel they would do a better job prosecuting this war than we ever could.

Some people see civil war as the worst possible option, but in reality that isnt the case. Often times throughout history civil wars have corrected the wrongs of a country.

My guess would be that a civil war would last about a month as the sunni have no real power or control over the nation anyway. The Kurds and Shia backed by the Americans would quickly "rectify" the situation and put the Sunni in their place.. the place of a 20% minority in a democracy, not an overthrown aristocracy throwing a temper tantrum.

Well thats my small-minded opinion. Of course since it wreaks of the kind of real politik Americans arent willing to accept anymore and the media have built civil war up into the worst kind of disaster that could befall the country, it will never happen.

Any opinions on the "let them fight it out" opinion, or any alternate opinions? :book:

[discovery1]

Interesting. It would decrease US involvement and possibily solve our problems. Of course it would result in mountains of bodies, although we have that anyway. And what if the kurds and Shia go at each other(not that I can think of why they would, aside from Kurdish nationalism)? And what about the possibilty of the genocide of the Sunnis(oddly I'm not really bothered by this prospect)?


Of course since it wreaks of the kind of real politik Americans arent willing to accept anymore and the media have built civil war up into the worst kind of disaster that could befall the country, it will never happen.

*sighs* Actually I think we've always been averse to it, just the gov could do a better job keeping it secret. I wish we weren't though.

Edit: And I wouldn't be surprised if it last longer than a month.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't know if a civil war would really be a flash in the pan. While it might not be too hard to put down the Sunnis. destroying all the foreigners would be hard, especially if a civil war begins and the recruiters can say "Hey, you can shoot at the infidels and not just blow up children!".

And if it boils over to other countries...say hello to the real WWIII.

Crazed Rabbit

[Franconicus]

Panzer,

don't you think that a civil war would
- seperate the Iraq in several areas each controlled by a warlord
- make other countries like Iran and Turkey interfere and fight for their own interests
- be the ideal ground for terrorists of every color
-- ruin the economy of Iraq and esp. the oil business?

[Tribesman]

say we arm the Shia and Kurds and let them do our dirty work for us.

~D ~D ~D What do you think they have been doing these past couple of years .

Was that you making the speech in the Iraqin Parliament Panzer ?
The governmnet has failed , the Americans have failed , turn Baghdad over to the militia and let them protect us . ~;)

[JAG]

So Panzer, do you know what happened over the weekend in Turkey?

If so, why have you not accounted for it and don't you think it kinda screws up your whole nice, cosy picture?

[discovery1]

Kurdish bombers? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4691755.stm)


So, yeah, Kurdish nationalism would be a great problem caused by this.

[sharrukin]

Most of the army officers of even the new Iraqi security forces are Sunni. Most of the Iraqi army officers were recruited from the Sunni Arab minority and many of them are still out there. One of the reasons the current officer corp has more Sunni's is that the officers recruited initially wouldn't fight the insurgents during some of the unrest (Falluja). This forced the American military to turn to the former officers of Saddam's military. Those officers in high positions not from Saddams army, have little experience and are not well regarded by the Americans on the ground.

The current Iraqi police and army units that do exist are fragile in both training and morale. Remove a significant portion of the officers and galvanize the unemployed Sunni ex-officers and men to action and you would get a civil war that might turn out to be very bloody indeed. Even as it stands the current army troops have shown little motivation compared to that of the militia's.

In addition you have the problem of Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait who are predominately Sunni in religion are they would begin funneling arms, volounteers, and money to the Sunni insurgents as the massacres began. Other nations farther away such a Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, and Algeria would pose more of a political problem than a military one.

The civil war would also make the Turks and the Iranians very nervous and they might also begin to assist in ways that might at first seem counter-intuitive.

This map shows the Kurdish regions of the middle east and if a civil war erupted the Kurds would in all likelihood make an attempt for the long awaited dream of independence. I doubt a direct intervention would be likely, but the Turks might assist the Sunni's in their fight as an independent Kurdish homeland would be a disaster for them.

https://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3523/iraqdissidentmap8sx.th.jpg (https://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iraqdissidentmap8sx.jpg)

The Iranian to a lesser degree would have many of the same worries, though being predominately Shia they would be tempted to play the radical shia card in the turbulence of a civil war. Radical Shia Muslims would be attracted to the American backed Shia groups. War tends to radicalize people and there would be a real danger of the American faction becoming something we might not care for. The militia's that would spring up would be far more difficult to control than they currently are.

"You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said the American colonel.

The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."

Conversation in Hanoi, april 1975 (april 30th, Saigon surrenders)

[PanzerJaeger]

Thanks for the well thought out and informative perspectives. ~:cheers:

At this late night juncture, i will only address the Kurdish bombing of Turkey.

In my opinion, the Kurdish and the Turkish have always been at odds, and that really doesnt have anything to do with Iraq. We have seen very little trouble from them in Iraq.

Also, for those worried about genocides... Im not suggesting the US leave the country, only that we step back and let the Shia/Kurds go in and fight this dirty war for us, as they could probably identify the good sunni from the bad better than us.

I would certainly give them a broader leash than American troops currently have, but that would not extend to any kind of genocides.

[JimBob]

Hold on a second. Since when are cultural wars short and efficient? Catholics and Protestants in Ireland for Centuries, The Crusades, though spread out, the warfare and hatreds existed over hundreds of years. Rwanda, Pogroms, Bosnia. We tried the "let the newly liberated Shias do it" strategy soon after the fall of Baghdad, short version is that armed groups ruled the streets, long version is in Generation Kill. Another problem is that the Kurds and Shias are pissed, and they will not just 'hunt down militants' they will hunt down Sunnis, I mean if people of one ethnicity had blown up people of yours, would you not take bloody vengence, and would the other side not respond? Now I dunno about you but I don't want to be from the country that supports the commiting of genocide.

[Al Khalifah]

The survivors of this blatant genocide of Sunnis would surely be the next generation of terrorists. If this plan were to go ahead, for the US to be in any way involved would be an international relations disaster and they would lose all credability.


However, on a variation of your idea: Why not seperate Iraq into three countries if they can't all get along?
Sunnistan
Kurdistan
Shiastan
Or even one country with three semi-autonomous states. The United States of Iraq.

[rasoforos]

[QUOTE=PanzerJager]I believe that America failed to realize how much the Sunni factions in Iraq had invested in Saddam's regime.

1)We see very low levels of violence in the northern Kurd areas and the southern Shia areas.


2)Most analysts seem to think the reason for the shift from attacking coalition troops to attacking iraqi civilians is to cause a civil war.

I say let them have it.


3) I say we arm the Shia and Kurds and let them do our dirty work for us. They speak the language, they know the streets, and they're mad as hell (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1698308,00.html). I feel they would do a better job prosecuting this war than we ever could.


4) My guess would be that a civil war would last about a month as the sunni have no real power or control over the nation anyway. The Kurds and Shia backed by the Americans would quickly "rectify" the situation and put the Sunni in their place..

My view:

1) Thats not exactly true is it? We have seen Major Shia uprisals, often on a city scale. In addition, Kurds HAVE been spending their time blowing up oil pipes n stuff. Sunnis might be representing the biggest resistance force at the moment but if the Shia organise themselves well enough they will be able to create a new Iran.

2) Actually this has been tried in Iraq a long time ago. As I remember, the Shia and Kurds were supposed to 'welcome the ''liberation'' forces and offer assistance'. A civil war in Iraq WAS the plan. Of course as we know the Shia were too closely associated with Iran and they had their own plans of a theocracy. The Kurds on the other side were rather tired of getting killed for 25 years by American weapons ( In Turkey ) and they couldnt care less....

3) Once upon a time Uncle Sam asked an ambitious young man named Shaddam to do this to Iran. This nice fellah knew the area well and he didnt like Iranians much. It all went well and Iran does not pose any threat anymore. In addition Shaddam ruled his country wisely and fairly, everyone had enough to eat and no-one was suffering and they all lived hapilly ever after.

This just would not do.

Fist of all 75% of the Kurds live in Southeast Turkey. Give em weapons and they will use them there as well. If this happens then the US will not only destabilise the area but will also anger one of their major allies in the area...and when I say anger I mean they will totally genuinely make them mad...

Now the Shia also have their own agenda, a theocratical state where religious leaders rule, something like Iran really. Thats a bit no-no.

4) The US has been, with no success whatsoever, to make a proper occupation out of Iraq for 2 years now and things are getting progressively worse. I do not think that results can be achieved in a month. Also I think that even if this works you will get : a) a bunch of really angry Sunnis all around the globe b) 2 larger and armed resistance groups instead of 3 smaller and non-armed and organised by Uncle Sam's money....I just dont think it would make things better....

....actually I doubt there is anything that can make things better. This might last longer than Vietnam.


P.S And yes, I m kinda back... ~;)

[Kagemusha]

I think that one big problem in the Middle East is that Kurds doesnt have their own state there are big minorities of Kurds in Iraq,Turkey and Iran.In Iraq they are considered as US allies,In Turkey they are considered as separatist terrorists and in Iran i dont really know.I believe that in order to bring peace to the area the only good solution is to creare National states there first. :bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

P.S And yes, I m kinda back...

Wow, I havent seen that screen name in a long time.

Good points.. The US would have to work very hard to assure that other surrounding nations dont get involved if this plan were put into action.

[Spetulhu]

In my opinion, the Kurdish and the Turkish have always been at odds, and that really doesnt have anything to do with Iraq. We have seen very little trouble from them in Iraq.

Perhaps so, but they've certainly seen Turks in Iraq. Even with the US/UK No-Fly Zone in operation the Turks were hunting Kurdish separatists in Iraq. Yup, the innocent victims of Saddam were despicable terrorists when our brave allies hunted them. Any guns given to the Kurds WILL end up used against their real enemy, Turkey. It's not that many years since Kurdish was a forbidden language there.

[Tribesman]

We have seen very little trouble from them in Iraq.
Thats funny , since Ansar al Islam is an Iraqi Kurdish group . They have been responsible for nearly 10% of all the suicide bombings .
But of course they have only recently become "terrorists" , they managed to bomb the UN Headquaters , the Italian Military headquarters , the Jordanian Embassy , the Najaf Mosque and Shia shrines in Baghdad and Karbala before the State Dept. finally designated them as "terrorists" .
Then of course there are the "good terrorists" of the KDP and PUK who are condemned in the State Depts. report for their attacks and assassinations in Iraq , yet they are not designated as terrorists for some reason , and then you have the PKK who are listed as terrorists .

So if you are not seeing much trouble from them it must be because of the "Liberal bias" in your media sources ~;)

[Stefan the Berserker]

I believe that America failed to realize how much the Sunni factions in Iraq had invested in Saddam's regime.

We see very low levels of violence in the northern Kurd areas and the southern Shia areas.

The main source of home grown terror is the sunnis. Not only do they attack coalition forces but now they have started slaughtering Kurds and Shias in the streets.

Most analysts seem to think the reason for the shift from attacking coalition troops to attacking iraqi civilians is to cause a civil war.

I say let them have it.

Thus far, we have tried our hardest to keep the shia and kurds from responding with violence, and they have.

I say we arm the Shia and Kurds and let them do our dirty work for us. They speak the language, they know the streets, and they're mad as hell (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1698308,00.html). I feel they would do a better job prosecuting this war than we ever could.

Some people see civil war as the worst possible option, but in reality that isnt the case. Often times throughout history civil wars have corrected the wrongs of a country.

My guess would be that a civil war would last about a month as the sunni have no real power or control over the nation anyway. The Kurds and Shia backed by the Americans would quickly "rectify" the situation and put the Sunni in their place.. the place of a 20% minority in a democracy, not an overthrown aristocracy throwing a temper tantrum.

Well thats my small-minded opinion. Of course since it wreaks of the kind of real politik Americans arent willing to accept anymore and the media have built civil war up into the worst kind of disaster that could befall the country, it will never happen.

Any opinions on the "let them fight it out" opinion, or any alternate opinions? :book:

1. What you say is the final proof the USA aren't able to control the Iraq.

2. That Civilwar would have no other Result than this:
- Kurdistan declares Independance and causes Kurdish uprises elsewhere
- The Sunni are slaughtered
- The Shia control the South and degrade the Minority
- If you leave the Shia alone you'll have a Godstate in Result
- All three will hate each other and the USA even more
- Iran and Syria supporting their Factions in a Civilwar

3. "Realpolitik" is a term by Otto von Bismarck you have never understood, stop useing it.

4. Finally what "Realpolitik" means with the Iraq.
A) The "Realpolitik" Wargoals of the USA have been:
- Takeout Weapons of Massdestruction (Legitimation)
- Create domestic Tensions in the European Union
- Divert the Population from internal troubles (Recession, unemployment)
- Save the Anti-Islamism in the Population to justify boosted Armament
- Turn the Iraq by force into a Democrathy and Puppet of the USA
- Put the Iraqi Econnomy to Puppetstatus as an open Market

B) The "Realpolitik" Result of the Iraqwar is:
- The Weapons of Massdestruction have been a fake to justify the action
- The War caused extremely negative impact on the USA's global Relations
- Tensions between London-Rome and Berlin-Paris-Moscow created
- The War causes domestic unrest with the Population
- The Worldrecord Arnament is pushed through
- The creation of a "democrathic Iraq" Puppet succeeds
- The Puppets is totally dependently and would collapse without the USA
- The Puppet-Econnomy of Iraq is unable to work and produces cost

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

- Create domestic Tensions in the European Union
Really. Bush wants 2000 dead Americans to screw up... Europe? :dizzy2:


- Put the Iraqi Econnomy to Puppetstatus as an open Market
So countries with open markets are puppets? Or do you mean make the open the market using Iraq's alleged puppet status?

[econ21]

I agree with some of PanzerJaeger's analysis but not the conclusion. To the extent that the insurgency is devolving into a Sunni rebellion, I wonder if it is possible to defuse it by greater decentralisation - rather than civil war? Give the Sunnis greater autonomy - make Iraq into a Belgium - and you might reduce their willingness to align with al-Zarqawi and fellow Jihadis.

But I do agree that getting the Iraqi security forces to fight the insurgency is probably better than relying on the Coalition troops. It makes it harder to portray the insurgency as an nationalist/anti-Western struggle and again should help isolate the hardcore.

[Hurin_Rules]

Just one quick note:

Many people, including within the CIA, knew that the Americans weren't going to be cheered in the streets. The Analysts within the Pentagon knew this. But of course Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney didn't want to scare the American people away from the war by telling them that. So Cheney said that the Iraqis would welcome the Americans with flowers and candy. But many people, myself included, noted repeatedly, long before the war began, that it wasn't going to be the cakewalk Cheney and Rumsfeld were making it out to be. The insurgency was predictable; in fact, it was predicted.

[Redleg]

3. "Realpolitik" is a term by Otto von Bismarck you have never understood, stop useing it.



Now this is just humorous - accusing one individual of not know what "realpolitik" is and go off on a tanget that just proves you don't know what it means either. How funny.

Now to the "Realpolitik" Issues - first one must define "realpolitik" - not what you think it means but what the common usage of the term is.

Realpolitik in many cases has been for the advancement of the national interests of a country over ethical or principled concerns. and from a United States prespectiveIn this context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics — for instance, Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China, despite the U.S.'s purported opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment.



. Finally what "Realpolitik" means with the Iraq.
A) The "Realpolitik" Wargoals of the USA have been:
- Takeout Weapons of Massdestruction (Legitimation)
- Create domestic Tensions in the European Union
- Divert the Population from internal troubles (Recession, unemployment)
- Save the Anti-Islamism in the Population to justify boosted Armament
- Turn the Iraq by force into a Democrathy and Puppet of the USA
- Put the Iraqi Econnomy to Puppetstatus as an open Market


Now you went into an analysis stating several key things as being "Realpolitik"

So explain how Divert Population from internal troubles fits within the defination of "Realpolitik?" How does the War in Iraq draw the national interest of the people away from their own troubles with the economy and focus on what is going on in Iraq. In the modern world of instant news services and communications - A government would not be very successful in convincing the average citizen to take National interests over their own pocketbooks. When engaging the discussion of Tax breaks and other economic policies of the Bush Adminstration along with the War with Iraq- one can successfully argue the case of "Realpolitik" but as a stand alone case of "Realpolitik" the case does not truelly fit within the model.

Then lets discuss the "Anti-Islamism" statement that you just made. Where the nation's leaders of both United Kingdom and the United States have made it clear that the fight is not with Islam.

There are others - but your statements about "Realpolitik" toward one individual - leads me to conclude that you only accept the term as defined by yourself - which according to other researchs and experts in diplomacy - your defination is not accurate either.



B) The "Realpolitik" Result of the Iraqwar is:
- The Weapons of Massdestruction have been a fake to justify the action
- The War caused extremely negative impact on the USA's global Relations
- Tensions between London-Rome and Berlin-Paris-Moscow created
- The War causes domestic unrest with the Population
- The Worldrecord Arnament is pushed through
- The creation of a "democrathic Iraq" Puppet succeeds
- The Puppets is totally dependently and would collapse without the USA
- The Puppet-Econnomy of Iraq is unable to work and produces cost

Again - many of your comments don't fit into the term "Realpolitik" on these outcomes either.

You make an allegation of weapons of mass destruction being faked - but leave out the little crucial bit - that Saddam's government provided the illusion of WMD for his own reasons. That the majority of the world's intelligent services while not all agree that Iraq definetly had WMD - all were sure that they did not truely know if he did or not. Saddam practiced "Realpolitik" better then any other nation when it came to the WMD issue.

It seems to me that you are intermixing consequences of "Realpolitik" as being in actuallity "Realpolitik" when they are not - they are seperate consequences based upon the "Realpolitik" policies attempt by the United States and Great Britian


http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol11/0409_kraig.asp

An interesting quote from the above link


To summarize these diverging schools of thought:

• The traditional, competitive Realpolitik model of international security can be thought of as a balance of interests based upon a rough balance of power.

• The more recent U.S. strategic evolution can be thought of as an imbalance of power and interests (hegemony) based upon both offensive (compellant) and defensive (deterrent) threats used in conjunction with one another.

• The relatively recent cooperative model can be thought of as a balance of interests based upon mutual reassurance.


And at the end of a rather long read - but worthwhile in trying to understand the author's conclusion.



In sum, there are two major contending approaches to Gulf security: U.S. hegemony and principled multilateralism. If the United States were to adopt the Bush administration's approach, Gulf relations would be patterned along the following lines:

• Gulf security would be exclusionary, with U.S. "friends and allies" on one side, and U.S. enemies such as Iran on the other. The United States would make a decision on who is excluded, based on factors such as internal regime structure, support of terrorism and WMD aspirations.

• Confidence-building measures in the military realm (such as arms limitations, cooperative military exercises or transparency on arms buildups) would only apply to friends and allies.

• The ultimate goal would be to target those "rogue" states outside the established order, isolate them, and bring about a "regime conversion" or regime change.

• The legitimate right to self-defense would not be recognized for all actors, but only for those who agree with U.S. policy approaches and the U.S. definition of security threats.

• WMD would not be viewed as dangerous in and of themselves. Rather, the character of the state obtaining WMD would be the primary criterion for counterproliferation efforts. Implicitly, Israel would not be the target of nonproliferation efforts, and "friends" next door to the Gulf, such as Pakistan and India, would not be pressured to moderate their nuclear behavior because of the potentially negative effects of their nuclear arsenals and missile programs on Gulf states' security.

• Arab friends and allies would not base security on their own indigenous capabilities but rather on continued dependence on the United States as an outside power, through bilateral agreements.

The hegemonic strategy does not deviate from U.S. policies in previous periods and thus risks more policy failure. Bilateral ties, by themselves, will neither solve outstanding political conflicts nor prevent new conflicts from arising among the Gulf states. In fact, dependence on the United States is only going to increase the domestic pressures against current Arab regimes.

In stark contrast to the approach of hegemony, a principled multilateral approach to Gulf security would have the following attributes:

• Gulf security would be inclusive. Even if Iran were not integrated into the collective military structure of U.S. allies, Iran would still be included through myriad economic or security ties, as opportunities for common action arose.

• Gulf security would be built on a rule-based order in which universal principles would apply to all actors in the Gulf, including the United States.

• There would be basic recognition of the inherent right to legitimate measures for self-defense on the part of all states in the region, whether or not the United States considered those states to be friends or allies. Thus, Iran's right to self-defense, including the maintenance of a viable military, would be recognized and allowed. The demand side of WMD proliferation would be addressed, because every actor's security concerns would be taken into account.

• The goal would not be to end competition through regime change, but rather to manage competition between all governments as they are currently constituted.

• WMD would be viewed as a general problem requiring equal rules and constraints that apply to all parties, including the United States, Israel, Pakistan and India.

In general, the central assumption of the strategy of principled multilateralism is that security is sought with other states, rather than against them, and that domestic developments in the Gulf will follow a more beneficial course if all states are gradually intertwined in a web of military and economic agreements that create strong interdependence. Time will tell whether the United States and its global and regional partners have the foresight to adopt this revolutionary strategy for providing security in the Gulf in the twenty-first century. Whatever approach is adopted, a genuinely new set of policies for security and prosperity in the region is desperately needed – before the status quo practice of Realpolitik bilateralism breaks down once again, with predictably negative results.

[PanzerJaeger]

By Simon


I agree with some of PanzerJaeger's analysis but not the conclusion. To the extent that the insurgency is devolving into a Sunni rebellion, I wonder if it is possible to defuse it by greater decentralisation - rather than civil war? Give the Sunnis greater autonomy - make Iraq into a Belgium - and you might reduce their willingness to align with al-Zarqawi and fellow Jihadis.

Thats an interesting point. It seems in recent news weve been getting information that seems to indicate the homegrown iraqi insurgency doesnt want to be associated with the foreigners.


By Stefan


3. "Realpolitik" is a term by Otto von Bismarck you have never understood, stop useing it.

I used the word correctly. To incite and support a civil war to actually fix the situation would be:


for the advancement of the national interests of a country over ethical or principled concerns.

Redleg brought up some strong doubts as to your own usage and understanding of the word. :inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

To incite and support a civil war to actually fix the situation would be:

Quote:
for the advancement of the national interests of a country over ethical or principled concerns.
Just one problem with that , how the hell would inciting a civil war advance the national interests of the country ?
You write earlier
My guess would be that a civil war would last about a month
Perhaps you should take that timeframe and change it to ....
The current ceasefire between the two main Kurdish groups would last about a month in a civil war , before they went back to their usual role of killing each other with their well armed and intact militias .
So a civil war within a civil war next to other civil wars together with a foriegn occupation and foriegn insurgents would advance the national interests of which country exactly ?

[Kagemusha]

This is something else Panzer. ~;) You think it would be a good strategy to conguer an country and then leave it to chaos.How do you explain this to yourself?It is better to live in a country in civil war then under a dictator?The problem with iraq is there are those three major groups The Sunnis,The Shiias and the Kurds.If they cant live together, how hard would it be be to dispand Iraq and have them rule themselves.

[Al Khalifah]

The Turkish will not permit the creation of an independant Kurdistan because they know what that would mean for their own country.

[PanzerJaeger]

By Tribesman


Just one problem with that , how the hell would inciting a civil war advance the national interests of the country ?

Read the initial post.


By kagemusha


How do you explain this to yourself?

Its about the greater good.

[Kagemusha]

The Turkish will not permit the creation of an independant Kurdistan because they know what that would mean for their own country.

I think if Turks think so,they are doing a huge mistake.I like to to divide reasons behind terrorism in two separate categorys.First people who think of themselves as freedomfighters like the Basqs with Seta,The Tzechenian separatists and the Kurdish PKP.I sympathize these peoples goals but they are doing it the wrong way by attacking also civilian targets.I believe that these organizations would disappear if they would get their own countries.The second group are the religious terrorists like Al Qaida,Hamas,Hizbollah,IRA and the Oranian brotherhood.I have no sympathy for these organizations ,because i think they are only people who have been corrupted by their own hatred and should be stopped by any means nessesary. :bow:

[Al Khalifah]

But if you start giving a nation to every group who wants to be independant where do you stop? The Basques and ETA in Spain would like their independance too.
Also, what happens what the definition of independance of two terrorist groups conflicts, such as in Northern Ireland?
And surely there will be people living in the newly created nation who were happy with the previous arrangement, surely they are then marginalised.

I forsee a world of 1,000 nation states if this were done.

[Kagemusha]

But if you start giving a nation to every group who wants to be independant where do you stop? The Basques and ETA in Spain would like their independance too.
Also, what happens what the definition of independance of two terrorist groups conflicts, such as in Northern Ireland?
And surely there will be people living in the newly created nation who were happy with the previous arrangement, surely they are then marginalised.

I forsee a world of 1,000 nation states if this were done.

Whats wrong with Nation States?Yes i would give idependancy also to Basques and Tzecheens.If democracy is about giving people freedom why cant they get it?

[Al Khalifah]

Because where do you draw the line? How small can one nation be and as I said before, surely there will be settlers in the new nation who prefered things the way they were before?

I thought democracy was about pleasing the majority of the population rather than removing those from the system who are unhappy with it.

[Kagemusha]

Because where do you draw the line? How small can one nation be and as I said before, surely there will be settlers in the new nation who prefered things the way they were before?

I thought democracy was about pleasing the majority of the population rather than removing those from the system who are unhappy with it.

A nation is people who have a common culture,History and Tradition.In Europe the Basques are a disgrace for France and Spain they are the only European Nation without a country of their own.The Nation is there where i draw the line.I dont speak about some bloody settlers.

[Tribesman]

A Civil War in Iraq would turn into the Proxy War for every nation in the Middle-East to go have it's say.
I thought that was already the case , and has been the case for many years already .

Read the initial post.
Yes .... and ?????
Its a stupid idea , it will not bring any benefit , it would threaten the "stabiity" of the whole region and it would further impact on the whole worlds economy .

Whats wrong with Nation States?Yes i would give idependancy also to Basques and Tzecheens.If democracy is about giving people freedom why cant they get it?
Can you guarantee freedom or democracy ? When you create new nation States based on ethnicity what happens to those whose ethnic make up is not compatible with the new State ? Take a look at this last centuries "new States" for some examples .

[Azi Tohak]

What a great idea! The Allies just pull back to the bases, only coming out to arm the Shia and Kurds and keep the other Sunnis in the area from causing problems too.

Maybe there would be genocide, maybe not. To be honest that does not bother me. More dead people. We've got that anyway. What would really help is if the Sunnis could just leave when retribution starts. Send them to Iran or Syria. Oh wait, already tried that once with the 'palestinians'. Shoot, so much for religious support.

But of course, Bush would be castrated for allowing it. But then...would he care?

Azi

[Kagemusha]

[QUOTE=
Can you guarantee freedom or democracy ? When you create new nation States based on ethnicity what happens to those whose ethnic make up is not compatible with the new State ? Take a look at this last centuries "new States" for some examples .[/QUOTE]

Countries like Creece,Hungary,Finland,Romania,Bulgaria,Ukraina,Finland,Estonia,Latvia and Lithunia.If i would be still citicen of Empire of Russia,You can bet i would do anything to get under that yoke.
There are always minorities they can stay or they can leave. :bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

Its a stupid idea ,

And you know how much that means to me coming from you. ~;)

Really though, as stated its just an opinion, no need to get so hostile.

[Tribesman]

Hey Panzer I am not being hostile , just stating that its a stupid idea in my opinion .
If you have a civil war with different religeous and ethnic factions , who are variously backed by surrounding nations who also have different religeous and ethnic factions in their own populations , what do you think the result will be ?
A regionwide war .
Since the region supplies huge amounts of the substance that keeps the industrial world working , what do you think would be the result on the worlds economy ?

[L'Impresario]

The 19th century principle that declares that every nation is justified to pursue the creation of a state isn't compliant with international practices during the 20th century and even with self-determination as proclaimed after WWI. There isn't any internatonal law rule (whatever that means;)) that recognises the right of a nation to form a state. Self-determination was the legal basis for the decolonisational proccess, the right for the people of a state to choose the political and social system they prefer and in extreme cases where national borders aren't clear and there is a severe violation of basic human rights of solid ethnical entities. Any other secessional tendencies are not supported by international law (whatever that means;)) and more like a political problem that trascends legal questions.


Countries like Creece,Hungary,Finland,Romania,Bulgaria,Ukraina,Fi nland,Estonia,Latvia and Lithunia.If i would be still citicen of Empire of Russia,You can bet i would do anything to get under that yoke.
There are always minorities they can stay or they can leave.

Bulgaria, Greece and Romania were state before WW1, acting in a completely different world political environment than today's. It's hard to consider Latvia and Estonia nation-states. Democracy has more to do with citizens than with ethnicities. Federal states/ regions with autonomy are indeed the approved method when dealing with concetrated "non-ethnical" population and not every one of them has a separate state in Europe (apart from the people in question). Violent or otherwise removal of minorities away from their regions is considered naturally an inbreachment to their rights and that's when they can make a good case of further autonomy in order to protect themselves. Now how this will be achieved is another questions. But forced migrations and exchange of populations between states is hardly the appropriate answer , their tragic results widely acknowledged.

[Al Khalifah]

In Europe the Basques are a disgrace for France and Spain they are the only European Nation without a country of their own.
Many Cornish would like to be a seperate nation.
The Italian North/South divide means many would like the nation to be seperated again.

We shouldn't just divide nations because people can't get along. We should work together towards resolving our differences rather than just retreating into our own little fortresses whenever decisions go against us.

Argueing that regions were once nations is hardly grounds for new nation-hood. In the dark-ages there were thousands of nations accross Europe alone that would provide justification for just about any region to be split into tiny fragments.

Iraq however, is one situation where I believe splitting the nation into states would be a good idea. We shouldn't create 3 new nations because then violence between these groups can then be authorised as warfare rather than terrorism.

[Kagemusha]

Okay where should i start. ~;) First of my rugged belief is still that National are key to succes,but only when the people want them.First USA is not good comparison in this matter.They are Federal State because they want to be.They have their states that agreed to join forces against Colonialist efforts Of British Empire.
About countries of Balkan like Creece,Bulgaria,Romania,Serbia and Albania.Before their independancy they were vassals or part of the Ottoman Empire.The christian part.From which they freed them selves from it with help of other western countries who felt empathy towards them.The muslim parts Turkey excluded werent that lucky ones because they were already occupied by France and Britain,that didnt care about the souverinity of those peoples wishes.
Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire before WWI and they gained their independancy when Austrian Empire crumbled during the war.Here i would like to remind that the final reason why WWI started was that an Serbian separatist "terrorist" killed the Grand Duke of Austria.
Countries like Finland,Ukraina,Poland,Estonia,Latvia and Lithunia gained their Independancy because another empire,The Empire of Russia crumbled during WWI.Unfortunetuly the Socialist revolution eated up Ukrainas Independancy.All the other mentioned countries also experienced communist rebellions or even civil wars.
About British Empire.The separation went down more peacefully,thanks to Britains more democratic stature.Canada,Australia,New Zealand and Ireland had their own governments because i think Britain had learned her lesson with USA.The scotts and Wellsh even decided to be a part of Britain.But i dont think thats an excuse to deny other Nations their independancy.
If you look at that development,you can clearly see that many of our European or American forefathers could have been accused to be "terrorists".
There were also lots of revolutions in South America but i didnt addres them because of my little knowledge about the actual events.
Someone stated that it would be against International law that Nations would try to form their independent states.Do you really think that our forefathers did give a crap about international law.
The thing with middle East and Africa is that they hadnt experienced that kind of wawe revolutions.Most of the countries there are still Kingdoms or relics of European Colonialism.My opinion is that if we really want to help these fellow human beings.We as more powerfull and developed Nations should provide them a chance to decide themselves what they want.Not to overlook them because they are less developed then we are.
That was my 5 cents. :bow:

[Meneldil]

Basques does not have a distinct history. Their lands were owned either by France or Spain for centuries. They are no different from, let's say, the Britons or the Welsh.

Furthermore, I don't really agree with your idea PJ. The Kurds' main goal is to create their own state (the Great Kurdistan). It looks like they're already trying to get their own state in northern Irak and don't really care about Irak itself.

[L'Impresario]

Someone stated that it would be against International law that Nations would try to form their independent states.Do you really think that our forefathers did give a crap about international law.
It's quite evident you didn't understand what I wrote and the role of international law in the shaping of national practices and what behaviours are considered acceptable at the time. Your forefathers did give an excrement about standard practices, esp. in the context of your paradigm. The Congress of Vienna did set some "rules" regarding what would be tolerated by the "Holy Alliance". And the creation of new countries was out of the question. The Great Powers didn't help Greece (the events of the Greek revolution in 1821 being the first to challenge the above mentioned decisions) out of the goodness of their hearts, protection of human rights by imbreaching a state's sovereignity was many many decades away. The debate about what motivated 19th and early 20th century "superpowers" from helping out nations that pursued independance (in the end they got only freedom, not independance) isn't a very complex one. Maybe because diplomacy at that point was a secret process where the public had no say in it, thus no need for intricate rhetoric or the need to please the voting masses. Eitherway I 've putlined what *today* is considered acceptable and don't forget that all actions need somehow to be justified. Among the legal services that government , esp. the White House, employ are the ones entrusted with molding the current standards to fit future actions by presenting a logical and defendable case. Ofcourse as power differences increase between nations, the need to find concrete legal ground is downplayed. Anyone starting from E. H. Carr could tell you that.

[Kagemusha]

It's quite evident you didn't understand what I wrote and the role of international law in the shaping of national practices and what behaviours are considered acceptable at the time. Your forefathers did give an excrement about standard practices, esp. in the context of your paradigm. The Congress of Vienna did set some "rules" regarding what would be tolerated by the "Holy Alliance". And the creation of new countries was out of the question. The Great Powers didn't help Greece (the events of the Greek revolution in 1821 being the first to challenge the above mentioned decisions) out of the goodness of their hearts, protection of human rights by imbreaching a state's sovereignity was many many decades away. The debate about what motivated 19th and early 20th century "superpowers" from helping out nations that pursued independance (in the end they got only freedom, not independance) isn't a very complex one. Maybe because diplomacy at that point was a secret process where the public had no say in it, thus no need for intricate rhetoric or the need to please the voting masses. Eitherway I 've putlined what *today* is considered acceptable and don't forget that all actions need somehow to be justified. Among the legal services that government , esp. the White House, employ are the ones entrusted with molding the current standards to fit future actions by presenting a logical and defendable case. Ofcourse as power differences increase between nations, the need to find concrete legal ground is downplayed. Anyone starting from E. H. Carr could tell you that.

I know powerfull nations didnt help Creece because of the godnes of their heart.But from their own intrests.States arent invidual humans.States operate in ways that benefit their purposes.

What i tryed to say that international law can be read in multiple ways.Almost every state or federation have broke it somewhere along their history.By the way what is your alternative solution? :bow:

[L'Impresario]

International law isn't something tangible anyway and it's rapidly changing during periods like this one where the new world system after bipolarity hasn't yet matured; I just mentioned that you can't base the creation of a new state on the existence of an ethnicity without a home state. So, say, an hypothetical intervention by the US to enforce upon the Iraqi state and its neighbours a new kurdic state with full autonomy and representation in world organisations won't be easily accepted by almost anyone, as it's a bad case to make. Besides it isn't necessary in the best interests of the current US administration to do so. A solution I don't offer, simply because what is "good" in such a situation varies for every participant in this scenario, plus I can't make accurate predictions regarding the reactions of the kurdish and turkish element involved there.

[Azi Tohak]

He he he he! Sorry. He he he! I can't stop laughing!

International law? What a joke. Might as well call it what it is: "Might makes right". You think Kim Jong Il gives a crap about international law? Who is going to enforce it? The corrupt UN?

Of course international law is in flux. The one nation capable of enforcing it is riven by political fights about the one attempt that nation has made at enforcing 'international law'.

If the political fights would cease (aided and abetted by the left-wingers that control the media) , and the people in charge of the rebuilding could proceed without relentless second guessing by the liberals at home, methinks the process of rebuilding would go much faster. Just let the military do what it is supposed to do. Kill people. And I'm sure the Mossad would love to help out too. Get some 'on the job' training for the operatives. But because of the media covering, smothering the country, the Allies cannot fight the kind of dirty war needed to finish off the terrorists.

Would it be a dirty war? It already is. But I would love to see what SEALs, Mossad, MI6 could do in that country if given free reign.

Azi

[Kagemusha]

International law isn't something tangible anyway and it's rapidly changing during periods like this one where the new world system after bipolarity hasn't yet matured; I just mentioned that you can't base the creation of a new state on the existence of an ethnicity without a home state. So, say, an hypothetical intervention by the US to enforce upon the Iraqi state and its neighbours a new kurdic state with full autonomy and representation in world organisations won't be easily accepted by almost anyone, as it's a bad case to make. Besides it isn't necessary in the best interests of the current US administration to do so. A solution I don't offer, simply because what is "good" in such a situation varies for every participant in this scenario, plus I can't make accurate predictions regarding the reactions of the kurdish and turkish element involved there.

Sorry mate.but can you point out a single state that have emerged without someone condemning it.So if i follow your logig right way.For example creation of Israel was illegimite because Arab states objected it.More reacent scenario could be Kosovo.If we would follow strictly the international law.The Kosovos Albans were only rebels,because they where part of the legimite State of Yugoslavia.So Natos intervention was illegal one.We should also remember that Saddam attacked Kurds with Chemical weapons because he was controlling their separatist efforts.In Turkey,Turkish goverment is also controlling Kurdish separatist efforts by using military forces.Is that legimite?

[L'Impresario]

International law? What a joke. Might as well call it what it is: "Might makes right". You think Kim Jong Il gives a crap about international law? Who is going to enforce it? The corrupt UN?

*sighs*
I don't think the concept is so hard to comprehend. Why do people have to connect international law at its basis (the justification proccess) with the effects that its possible enforcement has? Its enforcement I might add is used a lot for UN-accusations, that mostly aim in finding reason for its abolition by pointing out its shortcomings at intervening, while it's clear that the same people wouldn't like those interventions in any part of their national foreign policy. International organisations are as powerful as their members want them to.
Noone said that it's a concept similar to domestic law, for more then obvious reasons, and this won't change for a long while. But otoh it can complicate things and unilateralism isn't looked upon favourably. Iraq might be one good example of that? Consensus is what this is about and "might makes right", but if you misuse it for a long time then your might starts withering, as today "soft power" can be the way to ensure your dominance (in the case of the US) long-term. Power as you probably know is classicaly divided into 3 categories: military, economic and diplomatic or soft power. You need the first to survive short-term, the second long-term and the last to ensure that your current status will be respected after you start abusing the first two.
Kim-Jong Il's disregard for what you mean as "international law" gives North Korea the status it enjoys right now. An outcast if you may.

EDIT: Answers regarding the questions kagemusha set in the previous post can be found above, sorry I'm not eager in going into circles.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

You break it, you own it. Now you fix it.

Thinking about another thread, that's accountability in international relationship for you...

Louis,

[Louis VI the Fat]

A nation is people who have a common culture,History and Tradition.In Europe the Basques are a disgrace for France and Spain they are the only European Nation without a country of their own.You mean to tell me that the Saami got their own nation-state recently? ~:rolleyes:

[Kagemusha]

You mean to tell me that the Saami got their own nation-state recently? ~:rolleyes:

Are they bloving up things in Finland and Killing people or even demanding self government?No, they are not.And you know at as tiny country as we are the island of Ahvenanmaa(Åland) where majority of people are from Swedish origins,have their own parliament and self-government. ~:eek:

[Tribesman]

Basques does not have a distinct history.
Meneldil , just out of curiosity , as Basques do not have a distinct history , then could you tell me where their language comes from and which other european language (or world language for that matter)it shares its origins with or is derived from ?

[Kagemusha]

EDIT: Answers regarding the questions kagemusha set in the previous post can be found above, sorry I'm not eager in going into circles.

Sorry mate,but i dont see any answers there all you have stated have been about the theory how international law works.Basicly you just say no.You havent given any alternative solutions to those problems that i stated before.Problem with so called international law is that you cant please everyone at once. :bow:

[L'Impresario]

Sorry mate,but i dont see any answers there all you have stated have been about the theory how international law works.Basicly you just say no.You havent given any alternative solutions to those problems that i stated before.Problem with so called international law is that you cant please everyone at once.

Nope, answers are up there and I think it can't get clearer unless I start chopping the things I mentioned into little digestible pieces heh. Particularly look at my initial #40 post in this thread. But I won't try to further explain it as there seems to be here a mutual lack of understanding and radically different approach on the systemical works of the international community ~:)

[Kagemusha]

Nope, answers are up there and I think it can't get clearer unless I start chopping the things I mentioned into little digestible pieces heh. Particularly look at my initial #40 post in this thread. But I won't try to further explain it as there seems to be here a mutual lack of understanding and radically different approach on the systemical works of the international community ~:)

Okay.I understand.We will never turn eachothers heads on this subject. ~:)
Altough,I have enjoyed this conversation. :bow:

[GonZ]

Yeah go on arm the Shia... but don't be surprised when they bite you on the arse in 2 years time.

Pull out. Invest all that cash in alternative fuel sources and watch the whole problem disappear up its own backside.

[Kagemusha]

Yeah go on arm the Shia... but don't be surprised when they bite you on the arse in 2 years time.

Pull out. Invest all that cash in alternative fuel sources and watch the whole problem disappear up its own backside.

To whom are you talking to?

[Azi Tohak]

Mmmm...alternative fuels...mmmm...

I do rather like the idea of letting the middle east become the cess-pool is should be sooner rather than later...but still, I don't know how long it is going to take to develop alternative fuels.

Ethanol is not cheap to make. Hydrogen is @#*$ dangerous. Fuel cells are not bad, but right now efficiency is dismal. And you still have to make the H2 and O2. Hydrides could be fun...but then that takes electricity (and a lot of it) to make any useable amount. Natural gas is SSDD (well SSDSource in this case).

And I don't know what else is out there. Hamsters maybe?

Azi

[Productivity]

To whom are you talking to?

It would appear to be the original thread starter, PanzerJaeger.