Birth of a Nation?

**bmolsson** · 10-19-2005, 06:04

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Or seriously they can say you can stay in Turkey and be a Turkish Kurd or you can go south into the independent state and be a New Iraqi Kurd. The choice is yours. However under no circumstances can the Kurdish state take any Turkish land. That last bit should be backed by the US, NATO and the UN.

The Kurds in Turkey will be one big problem to crack. Neither the Turks nor the Kurds will give in on this one.....

**Tribesman** · 10-21-2005, 01:21

The Kurds in Turkey will be one big problem to crack. Neither the Turks nor the Kurds will give in on this one.....
Or for a bigger nut to crack , what about the Kurds and the Kurds ?
The "good" Kurdish terrorists are still fighting the "bad" Kurdish terrorists , and there is a real possibility that the "good" Kurdish terrorists will go back to fighting each other again .
I wonder which of the "good" ones will be considered the "bad" ones then ?
This "Birth of a Nation" thing is complicated stuff innit

**screwtype** · 10-21-2005, 05:18

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Are you of the mindset that says, "They can't govern themselves. They need a Dictator to keep them in line."?

I believe they can. And I believe they will. And I believe our current course of action is the best possioble solution, regardless of how difficult the entire situation is to digest. Iraq is a strategic imperative, vital to the future of global stability.

Yada yada yada. They said all the same things about Vietnam. But the world conspicuously failed to end when America departed the scene.

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

As President Truman once said, "we fight not for conquest, but for the peace of all mankind".

Iraqi oil has nothing to do with it of course!

**screwtype** · 10-21-2005, 05:35

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

we settled for a hasty ceasefire

No, it wasn't a "hasty ceasefire". The limits of the action were decided upon well before the US went in. It was agreed amongst all parties that the operation would not go as far as toppling Saddam. And there were very good reasons for that. Those reasons are only too evident in the news coming out of Iraq every day.

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

leaving Saddam free to deal with uprisings

Er, no, excuse me, the US didn't leave Saddam "free to deal with uprisings", the US actively assisted Saddam in putting those uprisings down. (Helicopter gunships, anyone?) George Snr, who is almost as dumb as his son, suddenly realized after calling for revolt that the result would be a Shi'ite state allied to America's No. 1 regional enemy, Iran.

Pity the sprog didn't think of that when he hit upon his grand plan to upstage Dad.

**Red Harvest** · 10-21-2005, 06:20

Originally Posted by screwtype

No, it wasn't a "hasty ceasefire". The limits of the action were decided upon well before the US went in. It was agreed amongst all parties that the operation would not go as far as toppling Saddam. And there were very good reasons for that. Those reasons are only too evident in the news coming out of Iraq every day.

Wrong. It was hasty and poorly considered. Destroying the Republican Guard was still a valid goal. We had already swept through Iraq to do so, finishing the military victory was not outside the bounds. Going to the capitol was outside of the bounds. Cutting off and destroying the armies that had supported the invasion/occupation was not. It is a case of the leader balking, rather than carrying through. Hence the hasty ceasefire.

Er, no, excuse me, the US didn't leave Saddam "free to deal with uprisings", the US actively assisted Saddam in putting those uprisings down. (Helicopter gunships, anyone?) George Snr, who is almost as dumb as his son, suddenly realized after calling for revolt that the result would be a Shi'ite state allied to America's No. 1 regional enemy, Iran.

Pity the sprog didn't think of that when he hit upon his grand plan to upstage Dad.

Some elements of truth in that, not sure about assisting. However, it was obvious at the time that Sr. feared the fall of Iraq as much as anything else. It was moral failure of the 1st order.

The fact that neither Bush thought this through to its logical conclusion is not at all surprising.

**Lehesu** · 10-22-2005, 06:04

Birth of a nation? I thought Iraq was already a nation before we invaded.

**bmolsson** · 10-23-2005, 07:16

Originally Posted by Lehesu

Birth of a nation? I thought Iraq was already a nation before we invaded.

Looks better in the history books with "birth of a nation" compare to "pesky invasion"......

**screwtype** · 10-24-2005, 07:17

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Wrong. It was hasty and poorly considered. Destroying the Republican Guard was still a valid goal.

Okay, you are talking about the military decisions. I was referring to the diplomatic ones.

However, it really makes no ultimate difference to my argument. Destroying the Guard would have been tantamount to destroying Saddam's regime in any case. The most likely result of which would have been a Shi'ite fundamentalist State allied to Iran.

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Some elements of truth in that, not sure about assisting. However, it was obvious at the time that Sr. feared the fall of Iraq as much as anything else. It was moral failure of the 1st order.

I don't agree it was "moral failure". As I said before, there were perfectly good reasons for leaving Saddam where he was - a case of "the devil you know". Saddam was very effectively contained after the war by sanctions and the inspection regime. There was no *need* to overthrow him - just as there was no need for Dubya to invade.

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

The fact that neither Bush thought this through to its logical conclusion is not at all surprising.

Hard to argue with that!