"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote in news:05adnVDg0K195mLeRVn-
:
...on Iraq...
How bad or good for the United States as a nation would it be if Iraq
devolved into a much larger scale, ongoing civil war that resulted in
the dividing of that country into Sunni and Sh'ite sectors?
You mean like how it actually WAS before Churchill f%xked it up?
Churchill only screwed up *one* thing...
When he created Iraq, Iran, and Palestine, he failed to create
"Kurdistan".
We ought to carve away the northern oil-rich section of Iraq, create a
"Kurdistan", and get them to agree to allow US troops to be stationed
there. We'd have our needed access to Iran, Iraq, and Syria, and we can
let the Sunnis and Shia fight one another.
Uh, try to understand this: we are NOT going to be allowed to have
permanent placement of US troops in Iraq, or whatever Iraq becomes. I know
this is *the* pipe dream of you and your fellow neocons, but it isn't
going to happen.
Further, our supporting the creation of a new state of Kurdistan would
infuriate our "ally," Turkey.
Turkey is the reason for a lot of what went wrong in this war. Their last
minute decision to block our 4th ID's advance from the north led to the
escape to Syria of Baath Party officials, the money that funded the early
stages of the insurgency, and WMD's. We owe Turkey nothing.
If (or, more likely, when) Iraq disintegrates into three states, it damned
better well be without our direct "help" or interference.
Agreed. It's time to pull back to our bases, let them battle it out, and
then faciliate the creation of three regions.