The Saudi's are members of the Watabi sect of Sunni, and their right to "protect" the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina has been challenged by Iran, which is Shi'ite. Shi'ites inhabit the south of Iraq, and are widely viewed as having ties to Iran. Therefore, the Saudi's wanted to keep the country united, and able to hold the Shi'ites down. Similarly, Turkey fears a rump Kurdish state, and therefore would not have tolerated the break up of the country. They preferred a weakened Saddam to the break up of Iraq........
Oh really? Then, how come the Saudis do not get more pro-active and DO something about it. I mean something POSITIVE, not just sit back and watch. I think I know the answer to that...
I say the whole region is so mixed up, [not to say fdup.]
This was precisely the scenario for Operation Desert Storm. Though the exact circumstances that would trigger such a war were not known, the military response had in effect been planned for more than a dozen years prior to the Gulf War and was designed in part for domestic political impact. From Washington’s strategic vantage point, it worked well. The massive international mobilization led by the United States forced Iraqi occupation forces out of Kuwait and severely damaged Iraq’s military and civilian infrastructure in less than six weeks and with only several dozen American casualties. The war was a dramatic reassertion of U.S. global power, just as its former superpower rival was collapsing, and it consolidated the U.S. position as the region’s most important outside power.
Ironically, the United States had been quietly supporting Iraq’s brutal totalitarian regime and its leader, Saddam Hussein, through financial credits and even limited military assistance during its war against Iran in the 1980s, including offering components and technical support for programs bolstering the development of weapons of mass destruction. Washington downplayed and even covered up the use of chemical weapons by Saddam’s armed forces against the Iranian military and Kurdish civilians during this period, and the U.S. opposed UN sanctions against Iraq for its acts of aggression toward both Iran and its own population. It was only after Iraq’s invasion of the oil-rich, pro-Western emirate of Kuwait in August 1990 that Saddam Hussein’s regime suddenly became demonized in the eyes of U.S. policymakers and the American public at large.
foreignpolicy-infocus.org
Meanwhile, what should be done with these people ? (28 million Kurds)
Although the United States clearly wants Saddam Hussein removed from power, the U.S. and other countries may not want to risk Iraq’s total disintegration. Washington wants neither a victory by a radical Kurdish movement in the north nor a successful rebellion in the south of the country, where an Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim movement has challenged the authority of the Sunni Muslim-dominated government in Baghdad. At the same time, the totalitarian nature of the Iraqi regime renders prospects for internal change unlikely, at least as long as the population is suffering so much economic hardship from the sanctions.
In 1998, the United States successfully pressured Syria to expel Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a radical Kurdish nationalist guerrilla group fighting Turkey for greater autonomy. In February 1999, the United States assisted Turkish intelligence agents in locating Ocalan in Kenya, where he was kidnapped and brought to Turkey to face what virtually all outside observers (the Clinton State Department being an exception) see as unfair judicial treatment.
The U.S.-backed Turkish regime has used the PKK’s sometimes brutal tactics as an excuse to crush even nonviolent expressions of Kurdish nationalism; for example, speaking the Kurdish language or celebrating Kurdish cultural life has been severely repressed. Kurdish civilians have been the primary targets of Turkey’s counterinsurgency campaign. The United States has been largely silent against the Turkish government’s repression but active in condemning what is sees as Kurdish terrorism.
foreignpolicy-infocus.org
Actually... You know what? in view of yesterday's events and in view of this... ( Notice: I make reference to the $$$ of aid)
The growing movement favoring democracy and human rights in the Middle East has not shared the remarkable successes of its counterparts in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia. Most Middle Eastern governments remain autocratic. Despite occasional rhetorical support for greater individual freedoms, the United States has generally not supported tentative Middle Eastern steps toward democratization. Indeed, the United States has reduced—or maintained at low levels—its economic, military, and diplomatic support to Arab countries that have experienced substantial political liberalization in recent years while increasing support for autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Morocco. Jordan, for example, received large-scale U.S. support in the 1970s and 1980s despite widespread repression and authoritarian rule; when it opened up its political system in the early 1990s, the U.S. substantially reduced—and, for a time, suspended—foreign aid. Aid to Yemen was cut off within months of the newly unified country’s first democratic election in 1990.
foreignpolicy-infocus.org
foreignpolicy-infocus.org
I do not understand why all these ancient tribe-like feuds in the 21st century should continue.
I do not buy for a minute all these sacred ancient-religious-royal rubbish. Open the countries to democracy and allow these feuds [that do somehow remind me of a bunch of hillbilly cousin-brother-inbred fighting], go the way of European royalties. Let them exist as figures of diplomacy, but take the teeth-power away from them.
There has to be a way of forcing this. One would think that the Western influence would spend the same degree of energy holding on to the status quo as they would attempting to crack open these pathetic little shit-sandy-kingdoms.
I mean the consequences of the current ways is not yielding any benefits, all this semi-mystical-religious bs that allow all kinds of cockroaches to hide from the light of day and commit all kinds of atrocities, starting with how they view women, following with their g-damned religious war bullshit.
Unless we force the issue, we will continue to be dependant on their whims and zealotry. And..... wooooooo only because they have gazillion barrels of oil? Or worse, because they harbor some wide-eye-sonofabitch-terrorist(s) who will do what happened yesterday.
Let them drink their oil, they want to trade with the western world? Fine, change your ways; use reason to DEAL with the Western world.
Do not misunderstand me or misrepresent me; we can also accommodate to their customs and respect them where appropriate, I am not opposed to that. But allow the current bs to continue? No. I am tired of it I am not willing. Look at where we stand today. Dependant upon the whims of the few and their ancient feuds between their tribes and petty kings.
I say we stop. There has been progress and we should aim at a better life. To hang on to these ridiculous 2000 year old bickering has GOT to stop.
To demand the Western world to "give aid" so these little kings can continue to perpetuate their lifestyles and whims is also absurd. These people are THEIR leaders; THEY are the responsible parties for the welfare of these millions of miserable people. Why should the Western world be responsible.
If they are so bent in keeping their sacred customs, well then either be willing to pay the cost that this represent, including the welfare of their subjects, or else they should change their ways. I do not see why we should be respectful of these customs when all they really yield is more poverty, ignorance and holy wars?
This has NOTHING to do with disrespect for their valid ancient customs. This has to do with common sense and attempting to improve the quality of life of many.
I have ZERO respect for people like this, who use the "ancient-tribe-kingdom-religious-bs excuse" as a shield for what really goes on and all they have to show for are the current results.
Just like the Latin American Simeo-Presidentes who used all kinds of corruption and death squad vigilantes to hide and perpetuate their pathetic little juntas. Luckily, most were disposed of back in the 70's.
It is high time to be rid of cockroaches all over the world. Regardless of the excuse they use to retain power.
columbia.edu
I understand there is an imbalance of aid between the one given to Arab countries and Israel. By the same token, I do not see any Israeli terrorists hell bent in destroying the US.
So far, U.S. policy has largely been successful in extending American strategic, economic, and diplomatic interests in the region. However, as the Romans, Crusaders, Mongols, Ottomans, French, and British all learned, such hegemonic relationships with the Middle East can be short-lived and even disastrous for the once-hegemonic power. Given the growing resentment over America’s role by much of the Middle Eastern population, there will likely be continued conflict between the United States and the peoples and governments of the region unless there are some dramatic changes in U.S. Middle East policy.
I say we end it. Over with.
I realize it is not simple.... but I do not want to see what happen yesterday in this country again.
If these maniacs cannot get hold of themselves and come to some sort of negociated peace, I say let them all kill each other on their own.
The [Western] world is NOT going to miss them. We can get oil elsewhere, or better yet, once those maniacs are done killing each other we will simply come and get it even cheaper and with less hassle.
Enough !
more stuff...
foreignpolicy-infocus.org |
