Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Good move on behalf of the Bush admin.

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Good move on behalf of the Bush admin.
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"U.S. Is Suggesting Prominent Posts for Iraq's Sunnis" (Even if they don't score them in the elections)


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/international/middleeast/26diplo.html?hp&ex=1104037200&en=dc34a08c61975e6d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

This kind of thing doesn't usually last for long, but it may be a way to avoid some of the violence here and now.

[ December 25, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ricky....are you feeling quite alright? I hope you're not terminally ill or anything, I've enjoyed your perspective thusfar. [Razz]
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, yeah.
I keep telling you people that I'm not a "Hate Bush and call him a failure at all costs and regardless of evidence" guy. I do despise his politics, his personality, his lack of curiousity and most of the people he surrounds himself with, but whenever he does anything right (according to my lights) I feel beholden to Lady Truth to point that out.

For instance, you rarely hear me criticize anything having to do with the war in Afghanistan. Why? Because that was a just war. I may take issue with certain aspects of conducting the war (mainly the diverting of resources from it), but my differences with the administration on that front are infinitely more minute than regarding Iraq or domestic policy.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, you know you're really a dyed-in-the-wool Bushie at heart. [Wink]
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uh, mmkay... [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't that what Fallujah was about? From the analysis I read on the subject, the Sunnis want to go back to the bad old days, therefore supporting terrorists and issuing fatwahs against the election.

The Sunni leadership is now facing the unpalatable choice of staying the course, slowly losing cities as the US military "cleanses" them of terrorists; or go back on their initial support and accept a (much) lesser voice in government. Either course could make the population overthrow the leadership.

I think the offer to the Sunnis was always there. They just thought they could win...until November 3rd that is.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Sunnis? As in, a unified front? A single coherent entity?

As for the offer always being there - no. There has not always been an offer of guaranteeing the Sunnis rpresentation beyond whatever they can win at the ballot box.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why not gerrymander the districts? If it's good enough for the US, why not there?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem with this idea is how the Shia see it and if they'll live with it.

I think there's a general sense of the election being seen as the Shia finally getting their due to run Iraq. If too much Sunni power is pushed in by the US/the Allawi gov't, the majority of the Shia might lose what little patience they still have for us.

Not the easiest tightrope to walk, it looks like.

Dan

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe a break up into three distinct countries isn't such a bad thing. Even I find it arrogant that we are letting long dead Englishmen let the borders stand where they are without regard to the people there.

Give the Kurds their country. I am sympathetic to the Sunni PEOPLE, the leaders (who won't even renounce the Baathist party) made their own bed. If you are going to be a d*** to the people, payback is distinctily a female dog. The Shiites might be better people then the Baathists. Who knows.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
flydye - the elections aren't regional. People aren't elected as representatives of an area, but as members of a slate.

As for 3 separate countries - the main problem is that the Sunni (middle of the Iraq) country will be terribly poor, having no oil or other resources to speak of.

Also, an independent Kurdish state might de-stabilize the surrounding countries with large Kurdish populations (Syria, Turkey and Iran). I'm in favor of a Kurdish state myself, just telling you what the considerations are.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
an independent Kurdish state might de-stabilize the surrounding countries with large Kurdish populations (Syria, Turkey and Iran).
I'm not sure I understand this statement.

I've heard that Kurds aren't treated well in those countries and so they would want to emigrate to Kurdistan if it became its own country.

But even if the Kurds didn't become its own country and Iraq simply treated Kurds decently, wouldn't the Kurds of other countries want to move there? So does that mean that to prevent destabilization we need to make sure that Iraq treats Kurds as poorly as Syria, Turkey, and Iran do?

Also, if Kurds are so hated in Syria, Turkey, and Iran, why don't those countries simply WANT them to go? Are the kurds slave labor or something? I'm woefully ignorant in this area but I'm trying to learn.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:


I've heard that Kurds aren't treated well in those countries and so they would want to emigrate to Kurdistan if it became its own country.


The concern is that you might have a pre-wwii situation. Ethnic germans in Austria didn't choose to move to Germany.

Germany alleged that ethnic germans were being mistreated in other countries, exerted pressure including the threat of war against those countries, and was eventually given more land from those countries.

So no country in the region is wild about the idea of a Kurdish state arming itself while at the same time being unhappy about how Kurds are being treated in neighboring countries.

At best it'd be an explosive situation. At the worst, the UN could side with the Kurds and start proposing land-for-peace deals like they did against Israel. None of the existing countries want to take that chance.

[ December 30, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: ATW ]

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LoJ - Your error is assuming that the Kurds from neighboring countries would simply pack and move to the new Kurdish state. Why should they? the lands where they live are no less "Kurdistan" than the part of it that happens to be in Iraq. Middle Easterners are particularly loathe to leave their lands. It is infinitely more likely that they would agitate to have their regions annexed to the new state.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1