View Single Post
Old 11-07-2006, 01:48 PM   #178
JohnnyFlame
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald View Post
Yes Johnny YOU are continuing on. Keep your head tilted to the right, it makes your crown look nicer.



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!



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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?

Ahh I love letting you hang yourself. Holbrooke also pointed out how implementation could be achieved through real threats to remove American troops. Nice to see that you have accepted the American troops in the Kurdish state as a stabilizing force. But hey you go on thinking you know about partition/loose federation. I'm seeing minds with some actual experience and knowledge and success in diplomacy/negotiations about to reccomend this plan to Bush after the elections. That and it has bi-partisan support.

Yours is the shrill "nothing can work" cause I hate Republicans argument. Frankly I bet you are hoping IRAQ gets worse so the Republicans are ousted.

Meanwhile despite your shrill and of course unsubstantiated rubbish that neighboring countries would take over and that diplomacy/negotation is impossible and other mindless blather those who are actually in the know are working on it.

Frankly I find that they think it will work far, far more compelling than your armchair opinion.
JohnnyFlame is offline   Reply With Quote