View Single Post
      01-31-2007, 01:25 PM   #78
Private First Class

Drives: 335i coupe
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

My comment was regarding losing the overall War on Terror (a name I disagree with but the one we seem to be stuck with) rather than simply the current battle in that war in Iraq but lets look at what would happen if we pull out now. It is highly probable that Iraq would fracture into three pieces; a Kurdish state in the north, a radical Sunni state in the west, a fundamentalist Shi'ite state in the south, and a bloodbath in Baghdad. What would the consequences of each of these new entities be for the West?

The Kurds would be nominally pro-Western but an independent Kurdistan would pose problems for our NATO ally, Turkey. If the Kurds proved themselves unwilling or unable to deal with the Turkish Kurds who attach Turkey and take refuge across the border, Turkey may feel it necessary to deal with the problem themselves and we have a war between this new Kurdistan and Turkey. There would also be clashes between the Kurds and the Sunni Arabs over control of the Kirkuk oilfields.

The Sunni state in the western desert bordering Syria and Saudi Arabia would be dominated by radical Wahabist Sunnis similar to the Taliban and sympathetic to 'al Qaeda. This regime may well allow 'al Qaeda the safe haven the Taliban did to recruit and train their members. It would also pose a great danger to the Saudi regime which despite all its flaws is pro-western and keeps the oil flowing.

The Shi'ite state in the south would most likely be an Iranian puppet and would greatly enhance Iranian prestige and power in the region as well as increase Iran's power in the oil market as they would control the southern Iraqi oil production as well as their own.

The situation in Baghdad would be a nightmare that would make Darfur or Srebrenica look mild by comparison as this religiously diverse city of 6 million people descends into anarchy and sectarian slaughter.
With this in mind, Saddam did a great job controlling all these entities! With a iron fist albeit, but he did have Iraq under control. Now you suggest that we stay because there would be a bloodbath......ok maybe I see your point here.
However, do you see that the rest of the world looks at this scenario not as a "humanitarian" mission, but a greed issue? We attacked a country, cause we were upset that we got hit in NY. How convenient also that there was incorrect information on WMD's. How convenient that there is oil there. Come on mask it all you want, if this happened on your soil, wouldn't you be mad for a very long time? God forbid the US publicly issue a formal apology for the mistake of attacking Iraq. Now you are saying that its protection from Freedom of speech and Democracy, again a political smoke screen.
It's no different than the Soft wood lumber issue and the free trade act......Canada got screwed.....I suggest you read up on that. No this dosen't make me hate Americans, cause i truly believe that the administration in Washington is to blame.

Last edited by Iguy; 01-31-2007 at 01:48 PM.