Skip to comments.
BREAK UP IRAQ NOW!
NYPost.com ^
| 7/10/03
| Ralph Peters
Posted on 04/18/2004 4:57:03 PM PDT by abu afak
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
1
posted on
04/18/2004 4:57:03 PM PDT
by
abu afak
To: abu afak
Breaking up Iraq would create as many problems as it solved IMO.
Turkey would go ape over a Kurd state.
To: abu afak
Ralph needs to rethink the geography of Iraq.
3
posted on
04/18/2004 5:06:06 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
(REMEMBER FABRIZIO!)
To: DoughtyOne
Yes.. we know Turkey would be unhappy .. The author covers it Thoroughly in the article.
But it would SOLVE more problems than it creates.
Most of the Problems are from the fact that there are 3 distinct peoples in Iraq who just want to run their own Business, and not be run by the other two.
Not to mention the USA would get a friendly ally in the middle of a hostile Arab world.
4
posted on
04/18/2004 5:07:54 PM PDT
by
abu afak
(http://www.israelforum.com/board/)
To: abu afak
You can't say that Peters doesn't think big. Anyway sounds like a workable plan. Bush could say, sadly, well we TRIED to keep Iraq together. We failed and must go to plan B. Federalism has always been on the table anyway and given the number of Kurds in the region, they provide a big enough force to draw upon.
5
posted on
04/18/2004 5:08:49 PM PDT
by
RobbyS
(JMJ)
To: abu afak
Greater Kurdistan must be a long-range goal. My Turkish friends might not like that, but hey, ya'all really f*&ked up last March.
5.56mm
6
posted on
04/18/2004 5:09:13 PM PDT
by
M Kehoe
To: abu afak
It was kind of surprising that Iraq wasn't immediately broken into these three parts. The Admin announced that they would not break up the country, and that was for reasons unknown but probably related to conditions imposed by other countries including those that didn't participate in the war.
7
posted on
04/18/2004 5:10:23 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
To: abu afak
While it undoubtedly would create some new problems, I think--in the long run--it makes the most sense.
8
posted on
04/18/2004 5:11:13 PM PDT
by
Pharmboy
(History's greatest agent for freedom: The US Armed Forces)
To: abu afak
If you think all the unrest in Iraq right now is related to 'holding Iraq together', you're welcome to that opinion. The truth is, that it isn't.
No matter the make-up of Iraq, the Iranians and the Syrians cannot allow a single state to pop up with true republican principles at play.
Self determination is something that will be met with hostility where-ever it is tried. Whether it's one state, three states or ten states, it will NEVER be a smooth effort.
As it is we will have a good ally when this is all over. Afghanistan is an ally. Iraq will be as well.
To: abu afak
This would be the best way of stabbing the Kurds in the back.
Turkey, Syria, Iran and the Sunni arabs can finish them off once and for all.
But why we'd want to do that is as much of a puzzle to me as why we'd want to reward Syria with the Sunni arab areas of Iraq.
10
posted on
04/18/2004 5:14:12 PM PDT
by
mrsmith
("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice... Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
To: abu afak
It's interesting, but I think that Iraqi people should decide in voting if they wont to live in one country or in three.
To: abu afak
HAVE LONG FELT THIS WAY.
It would be tricky.
Complications aplenty. But, I think, in the end, fewer.
Would need to be some way to work out equitable resource sharing and perhaps access to the sea.
But I think one of the craziest things Europeans did there and in Africa was to ignore tribal realities.
12
posted on
04/18/2004 5:52:13 PM PDT
by
Quix
(Choose this day whom U will serve: Shrillery & demonic goons or The King of Kings and Lord of Lords)
To: abu afak
Bad idea. All that oil in Kurdish territory is useless if it has to be exported across hostile territory. The Kurds are literally surrounded and nothing will ever change that.
To: abu afak
A Middle-Eastern Yugoslavia . . . . .
"Most of the Problems are from the fact that there are 3 distinct peoples in Iraq who just want to run their own Business, and not be run by the other two.
14
posted on
04/18/2004 6:00:31 PM PDT
by
Ready4Freddy
(Veni Vidi Velcro)
To: Filibuster_60; abu afak
All that oil in Kurdish territory is useless if it has to be exported across hostile territory. The Kurds are literally surrounded That just means that the Kurds will have to form amicable relations if they want to prosper. Their pipelines go out through Turkey and Syria, and probably south through Iraq.
They will pay for the privilege of shipping oil, which will make them partners in a way with their neighbors.
I don't see that as a deal-breaker.
The Turks won't be happy, but they will be refining Kurdish oil (as they do already), which makes them business partners. We can leave a garrison there to help keep a lid on things for a while. Kurdistan seems to be a safe zone for our troops.
I suggest we continue to call Kurdistan "Iraq" in order to defuse some of the problems. But a defacto independence is what they have and they shouldn't be required to give it up.
15
posted on
04/18/2004 6:06:22 PM PDT
by
marron
To: abu afak
Why not invite the three regions to become the 51th, 52nd, & 53rd states? They could be named Exxon, Shell, and Richfield.
16
posted on
04/18/2004 6:15:37 PM PDT
by
rightofrush
(right of Rush, and Buchanan too.)
To: abu afak
I don't think this solution, or any other, will work as long as Syria and Iran are free to send in agents and stir up trouble. Which means, IMHO, that Bush has to hold things together until November and then topple the Mullahs and the Baathists in Syria. The latter will almost certainly take a full-fledged invasion. Iran may be ripe for internal revolution, but it won't happen unless we intervene again.
And that probably isn't possible until after the election.
17
posted on
04/18/2004 6:28:58 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: abu afak
I think this is a good plan. I would add that we put a big military base around the Kirkuk airfield, we set up a permanent presence there to assure them that the US supports those who support us. Assure the territorial integrity of Turkey at the same time we make it clear we support a free Kurkish area in the former Iraq. I think the Shiites will come around and if they can support direct elections and the democracy that follows then let them. Let the Sunni's do their Sunniland thing, but since there aren't a great number of oil fields there, then its just tough cookies.
18
posted on
04/18/2004 6:39:12 PM PDT
by
Ranger
To: Grzegorz 246
It's interesting, but I think that Iraqi people should decide in voting if they wont to live in one country or in three
WOW! Now there's a radical idea.
19
posted on
04/18/2004 7:25:15 PM PDT
by
Valin
(Hating people is like burning down your house to kill a rat)
To: abu afak
It makes more sense than trying to hold something the British set up to protect their oil interests by force. It would comport with our ideal of self-determination and leave Iraq's future to be determined by its disparate peoples. We can reward our friends and punish our enemies. The Sunni insurgency will wither quickly on the vine if the Sunni Arabs see they can't get the whole country back under their thumb. As far I can see, the only drawback in Ralph Peters' plan is that it would make the Turks, the Eurotrash, the Russians, and the Arabs even angrier at us. But they hate us anyway and its time to be thinking about relocating our troops to Kurdistan and leaving the Sunni Arabs to rot in their little rump patch of Araby - which is about all they really deserve.
20
posted on
04/18/2004 7:34:25 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson