Kurdistan as a state? - Page 2




 
--
 
March 9th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
That was the point .. in a perfect world, where things were black and white, that would probably be a good idea. In the real world, while we could probably keep Kuwait on a friendly note .. we would certainly lose Iran, Turkey and the KSA. No matter what we do, it seems as if Gulf War: The Saga is going to continue, with us as the new players in the game.
March 10th, 2004  
Gunner13
 
 
I do not believe that the Turks or the Iraqis can afford to let the Kurds form a new a seperate state. Turkey because, as I understand it, the Kurds are in an area that controls much of the water for the rest of the country and Iraq because of the natural resources (primarly oil) in the north. God knows what the Kurds sit on in Iran.

I say again - further fragmenting the area will not help things get better, only worse!
March 10th, 2004  
diplomatic_means
 
I didn't bother reading anything because too much has happened since I was last here. I think the Kurds should have their own country. They are all already together in one portion of Iraq. None of the other muslims like them and they aren't fond of anyone else in Iraq. This leaves two main other groups for the US to deal with. Still nearly impossible, but much easier than three. And if either group in Iraq feels like attacking Kurdistan we can support the Kurds since we like them better than both groups anyways. That way we kill two birds with one stone.
--
March 10th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
further fragmenting the area will not help things get better, only worse!
No matter what we do, things are going to get worse, IMO. A united (once they execute dissidents), but Islamic fundamentalist Iraq (which is where we are headed) is going to strengthen that which we have sought to kill off in the first place. Splitting Iraq into two, or even three different states will cause problems because of the natural resources (Oil) creating small wars within the country. Giving areas of Iraq to different countries as a mandate (history repeating itself) will potentially strengthen our enemies further and ruin any chances of political and monetary profit from the region.

I don't see the US granting the Kurds an independant state, even if they deserve one and with US support could benefit everyone (the US and her true allies) in the long run. It would create too much conflict in the short-term, forcing the US to possibly fight on more fronts that we can handle, not to mention international and homeland support hitting rock bottom. I do see the Kurds keeping control of the north, they have already stated they aren't willing to give it up and will fight to keep it. And that means more fighting.
March 11th, 2004  
diplomatic_means
 
Quote:
Originally posted by RnderSafe:
Giving areas of Iraq to different countries as a mandate (history repeating itself) will potentially strengthen our enemies further and ruin any chances of political and monetary profit from the region.
That's why we divy it to our allies and not our enemies and we weren't supposed to be in this war for the money anyways so that part shouldn't matter.
March 11th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
That's why we divy it to our allies and not our enemies.
Again, that would be history repeating itself .. and we see where that has left the Middle East. If we were going to seperate Iraq, we would have no choice but to give the sections off to other Arab/Muslim countries, with the idea of forming a new friendship. Highly unlikely, but it would be safer than giving part of Iraq to the Brits, etc.

Quote:
we weren't supposed to be in this war for the money anyways so that part shouldn't matter
We are in this war to benefit the United States, first and foremost. Did we enter this war solely on the grounds of making a monetary profit? No, I don't believe so, but you better believe we would like to get something out of it. At this point, with so much money in .. we almost have to. We need the oil, we need cooperation concerning the oil. Venezuela is unstable, and almost dry .. the KSA is unreliable at least, and an enemy in disguise at most. Russia is about to begin production, and if we don't act .. we will be left behind.
March 12th, 2004  
diplomatic_means
 
So why can't we doing something just because its good for humanity? Why do we always need to get something out of it? AND WHY ARE WE STILL SO OBSOLETE TO BE MESSING WITH OIL!?! Their are better fuels than oil and the governmetn won't fund those because supporting oil is a huge part of foreign policy. Screw foreign policy if we were really trying to "benefit the United States, first and foremost" we'd get off this oil crutch.
March 12th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
You're into conspiracy theories, aren't you?

We're not doing it to benefit, but if there is a benefit we can get from this situation, then why is it wrong to take advantage of it?
March 12th, 2004  
diplomatic_means
 
If we're not doing it to benefit than why on earth would we take advantage of the situation?
March 12th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
You do realize there can be more than a single reason for doing something, right?