Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:31 pm    Post subject: Iraq parliament to debate federal break-up Reply with quote

Sounds like a good plan to me...

Quote:
Iraq's parliament has reopened after a month-long recess marred by mounting sectarian violence, with deputies expected to discuss breaking up the country into semi-independent regions.

At the top of the agenda was the controversial issue of whether to allow Iraq's provinces to merge into larger autonomous regions, a move which some Sunni Arab lawmakers fear could tear the country apart.

Other groups, however, strongly support a plan which would create virtually independent zones in the oil-rich Shiite south and Kurdish north, and leave Sunni Arabs economically isolated in the barren western desert.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20.....t_afp/iraq
Blackstone





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 5
Reputation: 13
Location: Oceania

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hear, hear!
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could this be the "out" the Americans are looking for. In fact, are they behind it?
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Explain "out." It recognizes that the country is fragmented, that their plans on uniting it have failed horribly, it would paralyze the national army further and freeze in many sectarian disputes within a framework that is likely unsustainable. As long as occupation forces joined with national government forces continue their shell game of destruction around Iraq, both insurgent violence and local militias will persist, at the least. The Kurds are even refusing to flying the Iraqi flag anymore, apparently. It is also very easy to imagine an autonomous Kurdish state using some (more?) of its oil money to support separatist campaigns in Turkey and Iran, which would inflame things even further. At least a national state would locate that problem within criminal terms. That's just one thread of the whole story, imagine how much more empowered the al-Sadr movement would be, for example, if it had legitimate claims to autonomy and oil resources within the framework of a federal state (which it of course already claims) instead of simply semi-autonomous militias and Ministries that at least have to enter into temporary or political alliances with SCIRI and other factions. Given how criminal and fragmented the forces are already, it isn't hard to imagine the federal government trying to deny funds for regions or groups it thinks are dangerous to it, making a full regional war against a central government even more likely.

I don't know enough about it, though, it might help accelerate the departure of the occupation forces and leave the national army stranded in a handful of places, making for a possibly much more peaceful collage of militia-ethnic states that coalesce over time into a sort of crude balance-of-power grudging peace.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
Explain "out." It recognizes that the country is fragmented, that their plans on uniting it have failed horribly


Oh please. American citizens have spent hundreds of billions freeing Iraq from a brutal dictator and they get nothing out of it. Quit being so critical. If Clinton had Bush's balls 1 million people wouldn't have died in Rwanda. Bush is doing the job that the UN should be doing.

Yes, it is going poorly. Whose fault is that. You blame America because America is the source of all the world's problems in your eyes. I blame the foreign terrorists who are trying to keep things instable in Iraq.

This is an "out" because the animosity created between ethnic groups largely by Saddam himself through his genocical actions against both the Kurds and Shia have made a peaceful co-existance in the same country undoable. It makes sense to break the country up.

Quote:
As long as occupation forces joined with national government forces continue their shell game of destruction around Iraq, both insurgent violence and local militias will persist, at the least.


Yes, the wonderful "insurgents" and the evil occupiers :roll:

I'm done with this debate...
McGuire





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 369
Reputation: 20.2Reputation: 20.2
Location: Soviet Pictouwestistan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what shoudda been done in the first place. Iraq is nothing but Yugoslavia with a more pleasant climate. It was an ill conceived nation born out of the aftermath of WW2. Having each side go their own way is what's best.
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
American citizens have spent hundreds of billions freeing Iraq from a brutal dictator and they get nothing out of it.
The total will end up being in the trillions. Also, they have got something out of it, thousands of dead and injured citizens and a modest distortion of the economy towards militarism. Also, getting rid of the Baathist regime was a relatively simple part of the mission. It is wholly separate from occupying the country for years as part of a strange and progressively fragmentary theory about how to transform the Middle East.
Quote:
Quit being so critical. If Clinton had Bush's balls 1 million people wouldn't have died in Rwanda. Bush is doing the job that the UN should be doing.
Please extend this comparison as far as you like. For example, should Clinton have invaded Rwanda and assumed police control of the country, destroying the exisitng government? Or should he have done so with the support of the rebel forces? Would this had led to the youth militias turning on the occupiers? What kind of government would be set up, one that tried to arbitrate between Hutus and Tutsis, or what? The standard answer, of course, would have been to say, "No, don't get involved politically, just seize weaposn you think contradict UN agreements like the machetes destined for the Hutu youth militias." But then your answer is completely different for Iraq, isn't? Because that would be the equivalent of saying, "Don't attack the regime, just send in coercive inspectors."
Quote:
You blame America because America is the source of all the world's problems in your eyes.
I've never said that. Don't project. I believe that America is a leading force in a militaristic reactionary trend in the world, and that it takes a position that should be considered unacceptable if not state terror in many places in the world. It is overwhelmingly powerful in a number of categories, and also considers itself the most progressive in many areas such as liberal freedoms. The gap between the rhetoric and the reality is an incredibly important topic for anyone who wants a better America, not just to attack it.
Quote:
I blame the foreign terrorists who are trying to keep things instable in Iraq.
"Foreign" doesn't make sense in this case.
Quote:
This is an "out" because the animosity created between ethnic groups largely by Saddam himself through his genocical actions against both the Kurds and Shia have made a peaceful co-existance in the same country undoable. It makes sense to break the country up.
If it made sense to break it up, why not do it in 2003? What was incorrect about the plans that it thought this would not happen? What was incorrect with the ideology supporting it that they said none of this kind of violence would take place and the occupation would last only a few weeks or months?
Quote:
Yes, the wonderful "insurgents" and the evil occupiers
I never said that the insurgents were wonderful. I also never said that the occupiers were evil. I suspect that the occupiers are usually poorly informed people who think they are fighting for some abstract ideal of freedom. Many of them are criminals of various kinds, of course, as are most insurgents / evildoers / whatever you want to call them.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
If it made sense to break it up, why not do it in 2003?


Because perhaps there was hope that a unified and democratic Iraq would be a possibility. They haven't invented crystal balls yet.

Quote:
What was incorrect about the plans that it thought this would not happen?


I guess the Americans underestimated the hatred instilled in many arabs through their state, culture, and education programs. I guess they thought they would celebrate the fall of Saddam for longer than 24 hours before turning against them. I guess they thought the Iraqis would realize that a presence would be required to maintain stabiliity until an Iraqi statibility force could be trained.

Quote:
What was incorrect with the ideology supporting it that they said none of this kind of violence would take place and the occupation would last only a few weeks or months?


I don't think anyone thought that there wouldn't be ongoing violence - just not to this extent.


And it is a LIBERATION. Part of the reason there is so much resistence is because the fans are flamed by the portrayal of the situation as some sort of hostile occupation by many media outlets and by people like you.

The Americans have made it clear that they will be gone as soon as an Iraqi force capable of maintaining security is in place. But you insist on fanning the flames with your rhetoric.

If the Americans left right now there would be millions of deaths. So why don't you suck it up and say "okay, Bush was wrong, but how can we move forward and make Iraq a great country". Instead, for partisan reasons you just keep hammering the point home that we are "occupiers" and the invasion was wrong. OKAY! We get it. For the sake of Iraq what do you suggest happens now?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think some of you realize what an actual war costs. Look at some graphs of US spending before, during, and after the 2 big wars. Total government spending doubled or even tripled year over year. Sure the US is spending money in Iraq, but the comparison for a normal person would be like buying store baked bread versus Wonderbread. One is more expensive, but not much.
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I guess the Americans underestimated the hatred instilled in many arabs through their state, culture, and education programs. I guess they thought they would celebrate the fall of Saddam for longer than 24 hours before turning against them. I guess they thought the Iraqis would realize that a presence would be required to maintain stabiliity until an Iraqi statibility force could be trained.
Invasion and occupation does seem to make people ungrateful.
Quote:
And it is a LIBERATION.
Personally, I think that "liberation" is more about content than forms, although the two inevitably merge at some point. If you have a state that is elected but enforces all sorts of repressive laws (or is unable to enforce the ones that would preserve order), then you aren't much better off. This applies to the economic sphere, too, but that is a whole other ball of wax. Clearly this has caught up with the West in various ways, for example when Israel attacks groups that have some democratic legitimacy (Hamas, Hezbollah).
Quote:
Part of the reason there is so much resistence is because the fans are flamed by the portrayal of the situation as some sort of hostile occupation by many media outlets and by people like you.
Well, you can shop around your stab-in-the-back theory for takers, but I'm not going to bite.
Quote:
If the Americans left right now there would be millions of deaths.
What specific localties would spring into the level of violence required for millions of deaths? What forces would shift from region to region to reach this level of deaths? I think it is plausible to think that there would be a sort of "shake out" that would continue, but I doubt it could escalate or sustain itself for much longer unless it regained a truly international character (like, Turkey or Iran invading for some reason).
Quote:
So why don't you suck it up and say "okay, Bush was wrong, but how can we move forward and make Iraq a great country". Instead, for partisan reasons you just keep hammering the point home that we are "occupiers" and the invasion was wrong. OKAY! We get it. For the sake of Iraq what do you suggest happens now?
I believe that the occupation force should leave, like the people of Iraq seem to want. I believe that there should be reparations for the destruction wrought on Iraq, although if we want we can call it additional development assistance. I believe we should then reorient ourselves towards assisting people in their everyday struggles, through wider support for social and economic assistance worldwide and also through support for "civil society" sorts of groups and worker's organizations. I further think we should "heal thyself" when it comes to sharply reducing our prison populations, ending the war on drugs, abolishing the death penalty, etc.
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't think some of you realize what an actual war costs. Look at some graphs of US spending before, during, and after the 2 big wars. Total government spending doubled or even tripled year over year. Sure the US is spending money in Iraq, but the comparison for a normal person would be like buying store baked bread versus Wonderbread. One is more expensive, but not much.
That'd look great in a letter to a soldier's family.

"Look, we're sad he died, but keep this in mind when you grieve: It's a lot like store baked bread versus Wonderbread. Sure, thousands have died, but in an actual war there would be hundreds of thousands dead. So rest assured that your son didn't die in an actual war."

Keep this man away from a microphone.
brianlemon





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 11
Reputation: 13
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the Ceeb this AM, they did a little feature on folks in Frobisher Bay, and I had a moment of clear thought.
I thought Kayaks.
Kayaks are now used in the bloody Olympics and were invented by stone age Inuit.
It's one more invention than the Arab Muslims have ever thunk up. (suicide bombing and burqas don't count).
Who can blame the Persians from wanting to section these folks off.
CharlesJH





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1
Reputation: 12.8

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Once the almost inevitable happens and Iraq breaks up into sectarian fractions there will be many people who will accuse the Americans of having instigated this break-up. We will never know for sure either way. The USA would do well to consider this break up a good reason to vacate the territory. Of late they seem to have become the referees in intra muslim sectarian violence. The USA is simply not equipped to handle that role with the historically required ferocity. Once the troops are home from Iraq the American public might support a pre-empive strike against Iran. Such a strike could be handled by precision bombing of selected targets by the US Airforce without any ground troops involvement.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

brianlemon wrote:
On the Ceeb this AM, they did a little feature on folks in Frobisher Bay, and I had a moment of clear thought.
I thought Kayaks.
Kayaks are now used in the bloody Olympics and were invented by stone age Inuit.
It's one more invention than the Arab Muslims have ever thunk up. (suicide bombing and burqas don't count).
Who can blame the Persians from wanting to section these folks off.


They may not have invented the kayak, but muslims have contributed to civilization...

http://www.geocities.com/mutma.....ntors.html
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
I believe that the occupation force should leave, like the people of Iraq seem to want. I believe that there should be reparations for the destruction wrought on Iraq, although if we want we can call it additional development assistance. I believe we should then reorient ourselves towards assisting people in their everyday struggles, through wider support for social and economic assistance worldwide and also through support for "civil society" sorts of groups and worker's organizations. I further think we should "heal thyself" when it comes to sharply reducing our prison populations, ending the war on drugs, abolishing the death penalty, etc.


So we should ignore brutal dictators and allow them to violate human rights?

Did you support the Bosnian war? Did you support WWII?

Should we be paying reparations to the Germans?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Iraq parliament to debate federal break-up

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB