Anti-War Signs

[Drake Tungsten]

You really think that the Kurds would meekly go back to submission to Baghdad after Rumsfeld gives them lots of weapons and liberate the Iraqis to the South, given the penchant for ethnic cleansing among the states in the region? Who's going to take away their guns?

Do you really think the Kurds would be so stupid as to declare independence, encouraging the Turks to invade and wipe them out once and for all? Their future lies in taking part in a democratic Iraq and they understand this.

We've already given up on the reformists.

Not true. We've simply been less vocal about our support, as it was hurting the democracy movement. The democracy movement in Iran can't afford to be see as an American puppet.

it would turn Iraq into a bloody Civil War. We aren't about to committ are resources into that fight or let Iran play a part.

Lisa, I'd like to buy your crystal ball...

[Clear Skies]

"How do they plan on democratising the Middle East?"

So imposing a military ruler on the place for seven or so years is democratising? Wow. Just like you redemocratised the Dominican Republic.
Damnit. Someone buy America a dictionary.

[Drake Tungsten]

So imposing a military ruler on the place for seven or so years is democratising? Wow. Just like you redemocratised the Dominican Republic.

Or Japan...

[Ramo]

Do you really think the Kurds would be so stupid as to declare independence, encouraging the Turks to invade and wip them out once and for all? Their future lies in taking part in a democratic Iraq and they understand this.

Whether they formally declare independence or not is irrelevent, but they won't accept submission to Baghdad. I wouldn't if I were in their place, given that it's their only shot at freedom.

Not true. We've simply been less vocal about our support, as it was hurting the democracy movement. The democracy movement in Iran can't afford to be see as an American puppet.

That's not true; they weren't seen as an American puppet. We've simply undermined the credibility they had, and set the movement back years. We wrote them off as ineffectual and impotent, despite the progress they have made.

Lisa, I'd like to buy your crystal ball...

You really think that the Sunni interests in power in Iraq would simply give it up, completely? You really think we want to play a part in this Civil War? You really think Iran wouldn't? If you do, you're dreaming.

[Az]

Do you really think the Kurds would be so stupid as to declare independence, encouraging the Turks to invade and wipe them out once and for all? Their future lies in taking part in a democratic Iraq and they understand this.

no they wouldn't. Unless they don't want to join the EU.

[Drake Tungsten]

Whether they formally declare independence or not is irrelevent, but they won't accept submission to Baghdad.

Since when is participating in a representative government "submission"?

That's not true; they weren't seen as an American puppet. We've simply undermined the credibility they had, and set the movement back years. We wrote them off as ineffectual and impotent, despite the progress they have made.

Bull****.

You really think that the Sunni interests in power in Iraq would simply give it up, completely?

No, that's why American forces will have to oversee the transition.

You really think we want to play a part in this Civil War?

Of course. A stable democracy in Iraq is worth dealing with a possible civil war.

You really think Iran wouldn't?

How are they going to intervene with US troops in Iraq?

If you do, you're dreaming.

At least I'm not attempting to predict the future based on faulty assumptions...

[Drake Tungsten]

no they wouldn't. Unless they don't want to join the EU.

Like Turkey's ever going to get into the EU...

[Ramo]

Since when is participating in a representative government "submission"?

1. Representative gov't doesn't automatically preclude ethnic cleansing (*cough* Turkey *cough ).
2. A representative gov't won't happen for the reasons I've already pointed out.

Bull****.

What an illuminating response.

Of course. A stable democracy in Iraq is worth dealing with a possible civil war.

Yes, just like US troops are taking out the warlords in Afghanistan and why Afghanistan is a democratic place with the gov't in Kabul fighting for the rights of Afghanis all over the country. Oh my mistake, that isn't happening.

How are they going to intervene with US troops in Iraq?

Because they won't be there. Besides, an intervention can take non-militaristic forms - i.e. subsidizing certain Shia factions.

At least I'm not attempting to predict the future based on faulty assumptions...

Yes, the best position is to have absolute faith in the gov't to do the right thing. My bad.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, just like US troops are taking out the warlords in Afghanistan and why Afghanistan is a democratic place with the gov't in Kabul fighting for the rights of Afghanis all over the country.

Afghanistan isn't nearly as important as Iraq. We're trying to reform Afghanistan on the cheap because it doesn't really matter that much.

Yes, the best position is to have absolute faith in the gov't to do the right thing. My bad.

I hardly have absolute faith in the government; to do so would be as stupid as having no faith in the government as you do...

[Ramo]

Afghanistan isn't nearly as important as Iraq. We trying to reform Afghanistan on the cheap because it doesn't really matter that much.

Reforming Iraq doesn't really matter that much as far as "US interest" go. The BoP would be insured and ME would be stable if we install another US-friendly Sunni dictator in Saddam's place. Democracy in Iraq would unleash a huge can of worms Shrub wouldn't want to deal with. Much simpler and much better for "US interests" if we don't rock the boat.

I hardly have absolute faith in the government; to do so would be as stupid as having no faith in the government as you do...

No, I have faith in the gov't. But I have faith that it will act in its interests, which is not to say it would never act in a morally acceptable manner, but this is a situation where the two conflict.

[Buck Birdseed]

It's interesting to note that the people who think Imperialism and bringing down violence on poor nations is a good, potentially beneficial thing are usually the same people who say that Communism is now a proven failure because of how it ended up in Russia or China. Considering the absolutely stunning rate of impoverishment, destruction and chaos caused by every previous attempt some poor fools are taught to believe involves "civilising savages", you'd think they'd have abandoned it by now. But no, they presist in their blind, revisionist historical idiocy, believing outright lies like "western colonisation has helped peoples in the third world", and "you can create sustainable, democratic regimes in other countries by bombing their population to pieces and destroying all infrastructure", not to mention that the motivations of their leaders are altrusitic and about being nice to the world.

[Drake Tungsten]

Much simpler and much better for "US interests" if we don't rock the boat.

Except for the fact that the root cause of terrorism will go unaddressed. I don't think the Bush foreign policy team is stupid enough to waste this opportunity. I really hope they're thinking long-term on this one...

[Ramo]

What does eliminating Saddam have to do with the root cause of terrorism? Saddam is secular, so he only supports Islamist terrorism in secular contexts (i.e. against the secular Kurds), just like most states in the world.

[Drake Tungsten]

What does eliminating Saddam have to do with the root cause of terrorism?

The reason that Islamic fundamentalism is so popular is that it is the only viable political movement in the region. People who are unsatisfied with their governments (and there are a lot of them) have no political movement to turn to other than fundamentalism. If America can successfully create a functioning liberal democracy in Iraq, it would help the region out immensely by creating a real alternative to fundamentalism. The only way to defeat terrorism is to dry up its popular support and you can't do that if there is no political movement other than fundamentalism for the masses to subscribe too.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Much simpler and much better for "US interests" if we don't rock the boat.

Except for the fact that the root cause of terrorism will go unaddressed.

The root cause is US support for Israel and support for the despotic regimes of the ME as well as the perception that the US cares nothing for the people and only about the oil (and a very apt perception it is).

Attacking Iraq will only outrage those who are not already siding with the terrorists. Far from dealing with the root cause of terorism, it will further enflame terrorism against us. Which of course, means that the War on Terrorism goes on, which means that the necessity for the national security state continues. In other words, it ensures we continue to have an enemy to justify our insane military budget and our growing police-state.