[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Ahh the blab, blab don't know what I'm talking about king continues.

Yes Johnny YOU are continuing on. Keep your head tilted to the right, it makes your crown look nicer.

In fact the partioning of IRAQ is now referred to as a loose federation.

A "loose federation". Uh huh. Is that what you call it when each side is trying to kill the other? WWII was not really a war, it was just a collection of countries in a "loose federation". Wow, you'll buy anything that comes with snazzy catch phrase!

As for Turkey Richard Holbrooke said that in fact Turkey would like American troops in the Kurdish state and that the Kurds would agree to it. He also states that the plan is the basis for a solution.

They did, did they? Turkey wants US troops there so they can look after the mess the United States started and stem the flow of refugees into Turkey. They want nothing to do with a Kurdish state. Nothing.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...6_kurds05.html

1. Three loose states in a Union

Three states that can't agree on anything but to try and kill each other. To form a union there has to be some level of cooperation and understanding between the parties. None of that exists in Iraq in any shape or form, unless killing Americans is the goal.

2. Tax policy that shares the wealth.

So one autonomous region is going to share its wealth with another? You actually believe this crap? These people are presently killing each other for who has a certain last name, and some how they are going to agree to being taxed and that money going to another "state"? What a pipe dream.

3. American troops in Kurdish state to stabilize the

Already pointed out that this won't happen. The United States will not jeopardize its relationship with Turkey to establish a Kurdish state, one that will **** off not only Turkey, but Syria.

Yep you have a bi-partisan and Congressionally created committee backed by the former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke that thinks the plan will work. Yeah you know the guys who have actually been in government or are and those who have actually been involved in diplomacy.

Are these the same guys who designed and implemented US foreign policy, the same policy that has the region on the verge of coming a part at the seems? Diplomacy is a foreign word to these hypocrites. They enforce the will of the United States, not do what is best for the region in question.

But yeah it's flawed cause well Lanny says so --- LOL what a joke!!!

No, its flawed because it does not answer the needs of the region. Keep dodging the questions Johnny, but they aren't going to disappear.

1) How does this magical plan work in answering the obvious regional inequity?

2) How does this brilliant partitioning strategy create security in Iraq when there is economic and infrastructure inequity existent in the proposed regions?

3) How does partitioning create regional stability, when the neighboring nations are not having their wishes observed?

4) Who is going to support the initiative of partitioning in the region when it has the potential to affect their own internal national security and promote ethnic discord?

5) What is going to prevent this partitioning from being a land grab by certain neighboring nations and immediately break out into a larger and much more aggressive war?