This is topic Good move on behalf of the Bush admin. in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:

Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
"U.S. Is Suggesting Prominent Posts for Iraq's Sunnis" (Even if they don't score them in the elections)

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 ]
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
Ricky....are you feeling quite alright? I hope you're not terminally ill or anything, I've enjoyed your perspective thusfar. [Razz]
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
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.
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
Yeah, you know you're really a dyed-in-the-wool Bushie at heart. [Wink]
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
Uh, mmkay... [Smile]
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
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.
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
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.
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
Why not gerrymander the districts? If it's good enough for the US, why not there?
Posted by witless chum (Member # 1643) on :
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.

Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
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.
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
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.
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
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.
Posted by ATW (Member # 1690) on :
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 ]
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
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.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1