Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (17622)	11/24/2003 11:22:25 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793681

I see nothing inherently wrong in Kurdish separation. And I am at a loss to understand why the assumption regarding a separate Kurdish nation is problematic for so many people. Nations divide all the time. Croatia and Slovenia are better places now because they've separated. Why couldn't the same be true regarding the Kurds?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (17622)	11/25/2003 1:02:45 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793681

When the United States invaded Iraq, the expectation was that the destruction of Iraq's conventional forces and the fall of Baghdad would end resistance. >>Did anybody really believe that? I wish I didn't believe that, but yes, I believe that some number of people in the Bush admin and people here in the US believed it. "Shock and Awe" would, well, shock and awe--that was the feeling. It would shock and awe those who weren't dancing in the streets enough so that they would submit. I don't think that they foresaw anything like the resistance that they are now seeing, I think that their predictions of a force of 30,000 by September were sincere, and that however reluctantly, the Baathists would accept US rule. I even think some of these guys believed that Chalabi would be able to insinuate himself as an Iraqi leader, if not the Iraqi leader. I think they were seduced by a great many sweet fantasies, even while they were saying things like, "We have to act on the world as it is, not as we hope it to be." A faux realism dominated their thinking, IMO. It is, of course, entirely probable that the end result of the American occupation of Iraq will be a Shiite-dominated Islamist government, allied to Iran, hostile to Israel, and very likely supportive of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, though possibly not of Al Qaeda. Such a government would likely bring very hard times for the Sunnis, and could spark a Kurdish separation. All of these possibilities were predicted well before our invasion, so nobody can say that they weren’t warned. That would have been "real" realism, and required a far-sightedness that they do not possess. It is also the reason why I personally believe Kerry or, if he were running, Biden, would be a better choice than Dean for the country and the Democrats--because I think that they think better about these matters than anyone in the Bush admin. But I am even more pessimistic, because I don't see how they will avoid a civil war, and a very bloody one at that. But of course, if it pretty much only involves Iraqis killing Iraqis, it won't dominate US news, anymore than the many civil wars in the countries that made up the former Soviet Union made much news here. Most people here had no idea that several millions of people died in those wars. Of course, since we will bear at least a little responsibility for the civil war in Iraq (presuming it happens), it will make more news here. But not much. And certainly not much soul searching. It will be more like, can't those stupid shortsighted Iraqis get their act together? Unless, of course, it affects oil prices, or spreads into neighboring countries. Always possible. No good will come of this thing, IMHO. Sam