Fred Dehl wrote:
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?

I wasn't going to comment in this thread- but I'll make an exception
since for maybe the first time in a zillion I *agree* with Fred. :-)

Nations form when people have common bonds of language, religion,
tradition, and other values. Trying to make a nation from three groups
like the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is like pouring crankcase oil,
water, and honey into a gallon jug and then wondering why it doesn't
all blend together nicely. The Brits probably thought, "Hell, nobody
lives out there but a bunch of sand people anyway- so let's just lump a
big area together, give it a name, and make it easier to administer."

The only reason it hadn't fallen apart in the last 20 years is that
Saddam insisted on a secular government and also scared the crap out of
all sides. The US has allowed the people to vote in a constitution that
is at least semi-religious, and we can't scare the crap out of
*anybody* without playing into the propaganda program of the religious
fanatics.... we're in a tough spot. We should have looked at a bigger
picture before invading this place, but now that we're there it's
obvious that *nobody* has a good solution for resolving matters and
getting out. Too bad.

wrote in message
oups.com...


Nations form when people have common bonds of language, religion,
tradition, and other values. Trying to make a nation from three groups
like the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is like pouring crankcase oil,
water, and honey into a gallon jug and then wondering why it doesn't
all blend together nicely. The Brits probably thought, "Hell, nobody
lives out there but a bunch of sand people anyway- so let's just lump a
big area together, give it a name, and make it easier to administer."

The only reason it hadn't fallen apart in the last 20 years is that
Saddam insisted on a secular government and also scared the crap out of
all sides. The US has allowed the people to vote in a constitution that
is at least semi-religious, and we can't scare the crap out of
*anybody* without playing into the propaganda program of the religious
fanatics.... we're in a tough spot. We should have looked at a bigger
picture before invading this place, but now that we're there it's
obvious that *nobody* has a good solution for resolving matters and
getting out. Too bad.

Chuck,

Good job. You have hit the nerve of this problem and you are 100% correct,
IMO.

RCE

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Nations form when people have common bonds of language, religion,
tradition, and other values. Trying to make a nation from three groups
like the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is like pouring crankcase oil,
water, and honey into a gallon jug and then wondering why it doesn't
all blend together nicely. The Brits probably thought, "Hell, nobody
lives out there but a bunch of sand people anyway- so let's just lump a
big area together, give it a name, and make it easier to administer."

The only reason it hadn't fallen apart in the last 20 years is that
Saddam insisted on a secular government and also scared the crap out of
all sides. The US has allowed the people to vote in a constitution that
is at least semi-religious, and we can't scare the crap out of
*anybody* without playing into the propaganda program of the religious
fanatics.... we're in a tough spot. We should have looked at a bigger
picture before invading this place, but now that we're there it's
obvious that *nobody* has a good solution for resolving matters and
getting out. Too bad.

Chuck,

Good job. You have hit the nerve of this problem and you are 100%
correct, IMO.

RCE

If we didn't have a president who was so inexperienced in the ways of the
world, so unread, so naive, and so easily led by those with an agenda too
cerebral for him, we might not be in this mess.

Recall, please, that prior to his ascendancy to the presidency,
Bush had only traveled to one foreign country, and that country was...
Mexico. He also bragged about NOT being a reader.

Perhaps if Bush had been a bit more sophisticated, he would have listened
to his father, who advised him NOT to take over Iraq and occupy it.

I don't think there is a ghost of a chance of Iraq surviving as a nation
as it is presently configured. There's going to be a *lot* more killing,
and you know what? We're going to take the blame for it for as long as we
are there and for generations afterward.

We've now "rebuilt" the Iraqi defense forces and poured billions into
their training and equipment. It's time for Itaqis to decide what they
want their country to be and, if they want to hold it together, let them
fight for that.

But I don't believe it is something they value. As Chuck and others have
pointed out, Iraq really is a sham nation and it was held together by a
strongman.

It's not uncommmon. Some readers here might remember there was a nation
called Yugoslavia. It was also held together by a dictator. But Tito
wasn't the monster Saddam is. Still, after the fall of the Soviet Union,
Yugoslavia dissolved and warfare broke out.

We're stuck with Bush and his crew of incompetents for three more years.
Unless he and Cheney resign for the good of the nation and the good of the
world. A caretaker government here might help us get to the next
elections.

Bush...the worst president EVER.

Oh, bull****! The last president got us in to Somalia. Another country
cobbled together for administrative purposes. And now it is pretty much
like it was before the Italians cobbled it together for administrative
purposes. A land spit and ruled by warlords and supplies an abundance of
real pirates to attach passing ships and boats. We have not learned from
out mistakes, no matter which side of the aisle is in charge of the
Whitehouse.

"RCE" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


Nations form when people have common bonds of language, religion,
tradition, and other values. Trying to make a nation from three groups
like the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is like pouring crankcase oil,
water, and honey into a gallon jug and then wondering why it doesn't
all blend together nicely. The Brits probably thought, "Hell, nobody
lives out there but a bunch of sand people anyway- so let's just lump a
big area together, give it a name, and make it easier to administer."

According to Churchill's grandson, his grandfather favored the creation of
"Kurdistan". It was the rest of the British parliament that opposed the
creation of Kurdistan.

I have to wonder what effect that would have had on the region over the past
eight or nine decades.



The only reason it hadn't fallen apart in the last 20 years is that
Saddam insisted on a secular government and also scared the crap out of
all sides. The US has allowed the people to vote in a constitution that
is at least semi-religious, and we can't scare the crap out of
*anybody* without playing into the propaganda program of the religious
fanatics.... we're in a tough spot. We should have looked at a bigger
picture before invading this place, but now that we're there it's
obvious that *nobody* has a good solution for resolving matters and
getting out. Too bad.

So in other words, we're back to where things were early 19th century...and
Bush is in the position to play Churchill's role all over again. Maybe this
time he'll do it right and carve the country up into three separate regions.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Nations form when people have common bonds of language, religion,
tradition, and other values. Trying to make a nation from three groups
like the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is like pouring crankcase oil,
water, and honey into a gallon jug and then wondering why it doesn't
all blend together nicely. The Brits probably thought, "Hell, nobody
lives out there but a bunch of sand people anyway- so let's just lump a
big area together, give it a name, and make it easier to administer."

The only reason it hadn't fallen apart in the last 20 years is that
Saddam insisted on a secular government and also scared the crap out of
all sides. The US has allowed the people to vote in a constitution that
is at least semi-religious, and we can't scare the crap out of
*anybody* without playing into the propaganda program of the religious
fanatics.... we're in a tough spot. We should have looked at a bigger
picture before invading this place, but now that we're there it's
obvious that *nobody* has a good solution for resolving matters and
getting out. Too bad.

Chuck,

Good job. You have hit the nerve of this problem and you are 100%
correct, IMO.

RCE

If we didn't have a president who was so inexperienced in the ways of the
world, so unread, so naive, and so easily led by those with an agenda too
cerebral for him, we might not be in this mess.

Recall, please, that prior to his ascendancy to the presidency,
Bush had only traveled to one foreign country, and that country was...
Mexico. He also bragged about NOT being a reader.

Perhaps if Bush had been a bit more sophisticated, he would have listened
to his father, who advised him NOT to take over Iraq and occupy it.

I don't think there is a ghost of a chance of Iraq surviving as a nation
as it is presently configured. There's going to be a *lot* more killing,
and you know what? We're going to take the blame for it for as long as we
are there and for generations afterward.

We've now "rebuilt" the Iraqi defense forces and poured billions into
their training and equipment. It's time for Itaqis to decide what they
want their country to be and, if they want to hold it together, let them
fight for that.

But I don't believe it is something they value. As Chuck and others have
pointed out, Iraq really is a sham nation and it was held together by a
strongman.

It's not uncommmon. Some readers here might remember there was a nation
called Yugoslavia. It was also held together by a dictator. But Tito
wasn't the monster Saddam is. Still, after the fall of the Soviet Union,
Yugoslavia dissolved and warfare broke out.

Would it be such a bad thing if Iraq unravelled into ethnic regions the way
that Yugoslavia unravelled into Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Serbia, and Montenegro?

Create a region in the north called Kurdistan. Carve out most of the West
and South and give it to the Sunnis. Give the East to the Shia...and let
them join Iran if they choose. And then bomb Iran.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

Bush is in a position to do nothing except sacrifice more lives of US
troops. And your comparison of Bush to Churchill is odious and insulting.
Churchill, though flawed, was a great leader and an inspiration. Bush is a
drunken, incompetent buffoon.


Speaking of falling off the wagon ....


RCE

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Nations form when people have common bonds of language, religion,
tradition, and other values. Trying to make a nation from three groups
like the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is like pouring crankcase oil,
water, and honey into a gallon jug and then wondering why it doesn't
all blend together nicely. The Brits probably thought, "Hell, nobody
lives out there but a bunch of sand people anyway- so let's just lump a
big area together, give it a name, and make it easier to administer."

The only reason it hadn't fallen apart in the last 20 years is that
Saddam insisted on a secular government and also scared the crap out of
all sides. The US has allowed the people to vote in a constitution that
is at least semi-religious, and we can't scare the crap out of
*anybody* without playing into the propaganda program of the religious
fanatics.... we're in a tough spot. We should have looked at a bigger
picture before invading this place, but now that we're there it's
obvious that *nobody* has a good solution for resolving matters and
getting out. Too bad.

Chuck,

Good job. You have hit the nerve of this problem and you are 100%
correct, IMO.

RCE

If we didn't have a president who was so inexperienced in the ways of the
world, so unread, so naive, and so easily led by those with an agenda too
cerebral for him, we might not be in this mess.

Recall, please, that prior to his ascendancy to the presidency,
Bush had only traveled to one foreign country, and that country was...
Mexico. He also bragged about NOT being a reader.

Perhaps if Bush had been a bit more sophisticated, he would have listened
to his father, who advised him NOT to take over Iraq and occupy it.

I don't think there is a ghost of a chance of Iraq surviving as a nation
as it is presently configured. There's going to be a *lot* more killing,
and you know what? We're going to take the blame for it for as long as we
are there and for generations afterward.

We've now "rebuilt" the Iraqi defense forces and poured billions into
their training and equipment. It's time for Itaqis to decide what they
want their country to be and, if they want to hold it together, let them
fight for that.

But I don't believe it is something they value. As Chuck and others have
pointed out, Iraq really is a sham nation and it was held together by a
strongman.

It's not uncommmon. Some readers here might remember there was a nation
called Yugoslavia. It was also held together by a dictator. But Tito
wasn't the monster Saddam is. Still, after the fall of the Soviet Union,
Yugoslavia dissolved and warfare broke out.

We're stuck with Bush and his crew of incompetents for three more years.
Unless he and Cheney resign for the good of the nation and the good of
the world. A caretaker government here might help us get to the next
elections.

Bush...the worst president EVER.

Oh, bull****! The last president got us in to Somalia.

Actually our troops were in Somalia before Clinton took office.

But pulling out was the big mistake. As an aside, have you noticed that
Clinton has a habit of pulling out...and it always seems to cause him
trouble (ie--there'd have been no stain on the dress).

IN bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against the U.S., he specifically
cited Clinton's 1996 withdrawal of US troops as an act that emboldened al
Qaeda.



Another country
cobbled together for administrative purposes. And now it is pretty much
like it was before the Italians cobbled it together for administrative
purposes. A land spit and ruled by warlords and supplies an abundance of
real pirates to attach passing ships and boats. We have not learned from
out mistakes, no matter which side of the aisle is in charge of the
Whitehouse.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com...
Nations form when people have common bonds of language, religion,
tradition, and other values. Trying to make a nation from three groups
like the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is like pouring crankcase oil,
water, and honey into a gallon jug and then wondering why it doesn't
all blend together nicely. The Brits probably thought, "Hell, nobody
lives out there but a bunch of sand people anyway- so let's just lump a
big area together, give it a name, and make it easier to administer."

According to Churchill's grandson, his grandfather favored the creation
of "Kurdistan". It was the rest of the British parliament that opposed
the creation of Kurdistan.

I have to wonder what effect that would have had on the region over the
past eight or nine decades.


The only reason it hadn't fallen apart in the last 20 years is that
Saddam insisted on a secular government and also scared the crap out of
all sides. The US has allowed the people to vote in a constitution that
is at least semi-religious, and we can't scare the crap out of
*anybody* without playing into the propaganda program of the religious
fanatics.... we're in a tough spot. We should have looked at a bigger
picture before invading this place, but now that we're there it's
obvious that *nobody* has a good solution for resolving matters and
getting out. Too bad.

So in other words, we're back to where things were early 19th
century...and Bush is in the position to play Churchill's role all over
again. Maybe this time he'll do it right and carve the country up into
three separate regions.



Bush is in a position to do nothing except sacrifice more lives of US
troops. And your comparison of Bush to Churchill is odious and insulting.
Churchill, though flawed, was a great leader and an inspiration. Bush is a
drunken, incompetent buffoon.

It wasn't *my* comparison. It was a comparison made by his grandson:


'My Grandfather Invented Iraq'

By WINSTON S. CHURCHILL

HOUSTON -- As thunderclouds gather over the Middle East, America and Britain
stand once again shoulder to shoulder preparing to draw the sword in defense
of freedom, democracy and human rights. A line has been drawn in the sands
of the Arabian desert. By this week, we will have deployed some 200,000
American troops, together with more than 40,000 British, who will shortly be
committed to battle.

Meanwhile, I have a confession to make: It was my grandfather, Winston
Churchill, who invented Iraq and laid the foundation for much of the modern
Middle East. In 1921, as British colonial secretary, Churchill was
responsible for creating Jordan and Iraq and for placing the Hashemite
rulers, Abdullah and Feisal, on their respective thrones in Amman and
Baghdad. Furthermore, he delineated for the first time the political
boundaries of Biblical Palestine. Eighty years later, it falls to us to
liberate Iraq from the scourge of one of the most ruthless dictators in
history. As we stand poised on the brink of war, my grandfather's experience
has lessons for us.

***

The parallels between Saddam Hussein's repeated flouting of U.N.
resolutions -- 17 over the past 12 years -- calls to mind the impotence of
the U.N. forerunner, the League of Nations. In the 1930s, the victors of the
First World War -- Britain, France and the U.S. -- fecklessly allowed the
League of Nations' resolutions to be flouted. This was done first by the
Japanese, who invaded Manchuria, then by the Italian dictator Mussolini's
invasion of Ethiopia and, most gravely, by Nazi Germany.

Had the Allies held firm and shown the same resolve to uphold the rule of
law among nations that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are
demonstrating today, there is little doubt that World War II, with all its
horrors, could have been avoided. Indeed it was for that reason that
Churchill called World War II the "Unneccesary War." Tragically, the same
sickness that infected the League of Nations -- a feebleness of spirit, an
unwillingness to face the realities of the world we live in, and a
determination to place corrupt self-interest before the common good -- now
afflicts the governments of France, Germany and Belgium.

I can think of few actions more shameful than the recent vote by these three
nations in the counsels of NATO to deny the Turks -- the only NATO country
to share a common border with Iraq -- the protection they need against the
very real possibility of an Iraqi missile attack. This region, in
particular, was one of the great disappointments of my grandfather's career.
After the creation of Iraq, Iran and Palestine, he wanted to create a fourth
political entity in the region, Kurdistan. Against his better judgment, he
allowed himself to be overruled by the officials of the colonial office, a
tragic decision which, to this day, has deprived the Kurds of a nation of
their own and caused them to be split up under Iran, Iraq and Turkey, each
of which has persecuted them for their aspiration to self-determination --
none more so than Saddam.

My grandfather's resolve and leadership offer a second parallel to today's
situation -- one that confronted the world 55 years ago, when America was on
the point of losing her monopoly of the atomic bomb. As leader of the
opposition in the British parliament, Churchill was gravely alarmed at the
prospect of the Soviet Union acquiring atomic, and eventually nuclear,
weapons of its own. He said at the time, "What will happen when they get the
atomic bomb themselves and have accumulated a large store? No one in his
senses can believe that we have a limitless period of time before us."

As President Bush and Mr. Blair intend today in the case of Iraq, Winston
Churchill in 1948 favored the threat and -- if need be the reality -- of a
pre-emptive strike to safeguard the interests of the Free World. Aware of
the dangers ahead, Churchill believed that the U.S. -- while it still had a
monopoly of atomic power -- should require the Soviet Union to abandon the
development of these weapons, if need be by threatening their use.

The Truman administration chose not to heed his advice. The result was the
Cold War, in the course of which the world -- on more than one occasion --
came perilously close to a nuclear holocaust.

It is no great surprise that the nations which long toiled under the yoke of
communism during the Cold War are our greatest supporters today. Unlike the
French, Germans and Belgians, the East Europeans have not forgotten the debt
of gratitude they owe to the United States, first for liberating them from
the Nazis and, most recently, from Soviet domination. With absurd Gallic
arrogance Mr. Chirac has threatened to block next year's scheduled entry
into the EU of some 10 East European nations as punishment for their support
of the Anglo-American position on Iraq. Beneath the protests of the French
and the Germans, we can discern in the current crisis, the fading of the old
Europe dominated by the Franco-German axis.

Messrs. Chirac and Schroeder, in urging delay, know full well that if the
impending attack is not launched in the next two to three weeks, it cannot,
realistically, take place until the end of the year, granting Saddam an
eight-month reprieve. In whose interest would that be, I wonder? No doubt
they imagine that, by their delaying tactics, they can save Saddam's bacon
and with it their own arms-for-oil contracts. But I have news for these two
shabby peace-mongers who know no shame: By their failure to join in the
coalition of the willing -- indeed, by their deliberate attempts to
frustrate the removal of Saddam -- they will forfeit both their arms
contracts and their Iraqi oil. And it could not happen to nicer people!

LIKE PRESIDENT REAGAN BEFORE HIM, GEORGE W. BUSH HAS WHAT MY GRANDFATHER
WOULD HAVE CALLED "THE ROOT OF THE MATTER" IN HIM. HE IS ABLE TO DISCERN
THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF THE DAY AND TO STAND FIRM IN HIS BELIEFS.
Likewise, Tony Blair. On Iraq and the Anglo-American alliance, the British
prime minister has got it absolutely right: He is pursuing the true national
interest of Great Britain, which is to stand at the side of the Great
Republic, as my grandfather was fond of calling the land of his mother's
birth.

***

The time has come for the world community -- or such of it as has the
courage to act -- to deal with this monster once and for all. Were we to
shirk from this duty, the U.N. would go the way of the League. More gravely,
a marriage of convenience would be consummated between the terrorist forces
of al Qaeda and the arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities
which Saddam possesses.

We have business to do and I believe that together, America and Britain, and
those of our allies who share our sense of urgency and strength of
commitment, will soon rid the world of this demented despot, liberate the
Iraqi people from tyranny, and strike a further blow against the ambitions
of fundamentalist terror.

Mr. Churchill, a former British M.P., is the editor of "Never Give In!" a
collection of Winston Churchill's speeches, due in November from Hyperion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIKE PRESIDENT REAGAN BEFORE HIM, GEORGE W. BUSH HAS WHAT MY GRANDFATHER
WOULD HAVE CALLED "THE ROOT OF THE MATTER" IN HIM. HE IS ABLE TO DISCERN
THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF THE DAY AND TO STAND FIRM IN HIS BELIEFS.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


Would it be such a bad thing if Iraq unravelled into ethnic regions the
way that Yugoslavia unravelled into Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Montenegro?

Create a region in the north called Kurdistan. Carve out most of the
West and South and give it to the Sunnis. Give the East to the
Shia...and let them join Iran if they choose. And then bomb Iran.


Here's a scary thought for you. My intellectual underpinnings are strong
enough for me to understand that I am in no position to decide what is
best for the ordinary people of Iraq, and I know far more about that
country and the Arab world than George W. Bush did for at least the first
year of his presidency. I've visited several Arab countries, two for
extended periods, and almost went into an import-export business with an
Iraqi friend and an Egyptian friend, both Moslems, that would have been
built around the export of Iraqi agricultural products. The only place
Bush went prior to his ascendancy was Mexico.

You do realize that what you are proposing vis-a-vis the division of Iraq
is admission that the "Bush policy" is a failure.

Not really. If Bush came out and said "we're going to get rid of Saddam,
and then carve Iraq into three regions", do you think anybody would have
gone along?

It is more likely that this scenario was foreseen as an acceptable
possibility (heck, you and I mentioned it 3 years ago)...or perhaps it was
the plan all along.



As you know, I have said here for several years that I thought Iraq would
bust up into two or three separate mini-states.

And I stated that I agreed that the country would be better off split up.

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

Bush is in a position to do nothing except sacrifice more lives of US
troops. And your comparison of Bush to Churchill is odious and insulting.
Churchill, though flawed, was a great leader and an inspiration. Bush is
a drunken, incompetent buffoon.


Speaking of falling off the wagon ....

I told all of you that it would only take time for his regression.