This should be interesting. Saddam Hussein, whose gun is a trophy in the Oval Office (am I the only one creeped out by that?) has been sentenced to death, along with several of his co-conspirators, for crimes against humanity.
Obviously I ain’t shedding a tear over his fate. I am reminded, though, that he was once an ally of the United States. And I am also pondering the repeated assertions by the President and all his spokesmen that we cannot “cut and run” and must instead remain in Iraq “until the job is done.”
Well…it’s done. Buh bye.
Our “job,” as laid out repeatedly by the administration, was to disempower Saddam Hussein and get his weapons of mass destruction. Well, there’s no WMDs, so that is never going to happen. And Saddam is slated to be executed. I don’t think you can be more out of power than being dead.
The only other job that remains is to get the Iraqis to stop killing each other. Here’s a news flash: Not going to happen. They’re going to keep killing each other over differences that go back since God-knows-when, and our presence is not going to deter that. The only presence that deterred it at all was Saddam’s, and the way he deterred it was through means so fierce and brutal that he was judged guilty of crimes against humanity. Now he will die but the killing will continue. And with him as a martyr, it will likely intensify. In the meantime there are people in charge of Iraq now who are our allies, but ten years from now, I will not be remotely surprised if they or someone else are using the exact same tactics that Saddam used to try and keep order. I don’t think we’ll ever know whether Saddam shaped the circumstances or if the circumstances shaped him. But we sure know that perfectly decent, upstanding service men and women were thrust into a situation where they had to keep order in a prison and they turned almost overnight into people whose actions were unrecognizable to their loved ones. So don’t tell me that Iraq won’t see the return of executions and secret death camps within the next few years, and then what? We start carpet bombing again?
Here’s what we know for sure: Iraqis are going to keep killing each other, will not be stopping anytime soon, and will doubtless ratchet up the body count once Saddam is a martyr. They’ll do it whether our young men and women are there or not. The ONLY question anyone should be considering is if our people should be killed while the Iraqis are going about killing each other, and whether anything is to be gained from their deaths.
I don’t think so.
Our job is done. Sooner or later, we’re going to have to acknowledge that it’s up to the Iraqis. I opt for sooner. There’s nothing undignified or wrongheaded about cutting and running. The administration has tried to characterize that notion as dirty and stupid…you know, just like they’ve done with the word “liberal.” I find it funny that phrases they don’t want to deal with, such as “death” or “slaughter,” becomes “collateral damage” or “acceptable losses.” But “cut and run” doesn’t get embellished into something acceptable. Me, I have no trouble with it at all. It’s not “cut and run.” Call it “strategic withdrawal.” Call it “organized troop relocation.” Call it whatever you want that will save lives.
In the words of the shepherd, let’s get the flock out of there. Because when Saddam dies, that place is very likely going to erupt whether we’re there or not. I vote not.
PAD
• 
Peter, old friend, we have a reason for being in Iraq, as told to me by Frank, an Army Reservist who works with a construction battalion.
We’re there to protect the oil. Bush is supposed to be building fourteen new permanent bases in Iraq just to safeguard our oil wells.
Never mind that the wells are on foreign soil. They’re our wells. Shrub has said so. Carlyle has paid for them with the blood of American troops, so they’re our wells, and screw the Iraqis. What would they do with all that money, anyway? Rebuild their country? Yeah, right. Can’t have that.
The US has done this repeatedly throughout the twentieth century. We’ll prop up any pissant banana republic on the planet if it’s in our economic interest, and as soon as they’re not happy with us, we’ll topple them and stick another dictator who likes us in power. This country stopped being a true democracy sometime around 1800. Sometime around 1900 it became a corporate autocracy.
And now it’s a dámņëd big banana republic.
Miles
I hate to disagree, Peter, but I don’t think the Iraqis can fend for themselves against the psychos among them who’ve decided Iraq is going to be the new Northern Ireland. What I’d like to see is our president–maybe a NEW president with a brain?–go out to the rest of the world admitting that our government made a horrible decision and then beg for help to get Iraq back into some kind of shape. Maybe that won’t work but at least it might keep a little bit of peace.
I say good riddance to Saddam, may he rot in Hëll, but it’s sad that things were actually better when he was in power. There were reasons, albeit bad ones, that our former governments put and kept him in power. If only we can finally learn to stop meddling in other countries…
Iraquis were not killing each other with Saddam but neither before him. Not so much because of Saddam’s brutal regime keeping shia and kurds down, but because sunni wahabism/salafism was out of the question in a country were sunni lived reasonably well.
During the war Saddam accepted sunni “volunteers” from all over the sunni world that introduced wahabist extremism in Iraq, and the misery that followed the war made local sunni embrace this radical version of their faith, wich includes the extermination of shia as “worse than infidels, heretics”. Shia on their part defended themselves forming militias, not trusting american forces to help them, and with good reasons.
So wahabism, spread from Saudi Arabia with the help of the USA to fight laicist socialism in the arab world enters Iraq thanks to your War, introducing the country to a kind of religious extremism they had not seen before… but the awnser is “let them cope wit it”.
Man, the USA is responsible for the well beign of innocent iraqui civilians, since you wanted to play big Daddy who knows whats best and messed things up. You can either make it work or admit you messed up bad and flee, but the “this was all messed up for starters, its not our fault” message is deeply hypocritical. Also, worrying more for the well beign of volunteer troops than for the innocent victims of the conflict just because the troops happen to be from your country is just the kind of attitude that makes the world stink. Any innocent foreighn civilian should be worth to you AT LEAST the same as any american trooper.
Agree with B
We need to ask the world for help. It won’t kill us and the freaking elections are on tuesday so the parties won’t bicker if its after tuesday.
In my second year of high school I had a friend from Yugoslavia. In my third year of high school he became my friend from Serbia.
The Soviet Union held Yugoslavia together for 70 years. 70 years! And it still fell apart when the Soviet Union fell.
Iraq will fall apart when we leave. There’s no way around that. The only question is, do we let 3,000 Americans die and then pull out or do we let 10,000 Americans die and then pull out?
I don’t think you can be more out of power than being dead.
He’ll just be revived in a future issue, and you know it.
Soviets had little to do with Yugoslavia; they were a socialist country but not a Warsaw pact one. In fact it was one of the main “non Aligned Countries” and kept a fluent trade with western Europe. It is a zone when you cant go to the bathroom without stepping on some frontier or the other. Tito kept it united by sheer charisma but there were 6 distinct national sentiments inside Yugoslavia. That had to blow.
Iraqis on the other hand, although also ethnically diverse (Caldeans, arabs and kurds) doesnt have the same nationalistic problem. Caldeans are scarce and have become over the centuries sort of an urban professional class on their own, much like jews were in europe; although distictive, they arent attached to a soil but rather to the whole country of Iraq. Kurds have a national project but are political savy enough to understand that unless Turkey allows it, it is only a dream.
The two main groups in iraq are simply one and the same but with different religion. They speak the same language, (unlike Serbs and croatians, who speak the same language but with enough differences to tell one apart from the other), dress the same, eat the same…they have different religions but they both feel part of the same country. They just differ on who should rule it. They cant fall apart, because unlike Belgrade, Bagdag isnt so much a sunni city as a Shia one. A sunni Iraqui doesnt feel Basrah less its own because its mainly a shia city. If you want to compare Iraq to Yugoslavia do it, but only to one part of yugoslavia that is pertinent as an example here: Bosnia. Have you seen Bosnia map these days?
El hombre, you’re right about the details, but but those details aren’t the problem. The problem is the memory of hatred.
Speaking the same language or not, people can hate for *generations*. A different religion is not a small thing to these people. They’re going to keep hating each other, and American troops standing around with guns isn’t going to stop that. Even if our troops are walking around Iraq with guns for the next 70 years, these people aren’t going to stop hating each other.
Bosnia three distinct republics are closing ties more and more each year since the war ended. There are hate mongers who use that to get in power but after a while people try to live as peacefully and prosper as possible, and those hatemongers lose their influence bit by bit.
Iraq civil war is not one about creating independent new nations, like Yugoslavia or american civil wars were, but about who and how should rule the country, like Spanish or English civil wars were. And you cant believe the kind of hate there was in Spain, and it still resurface from time to time (these days we have a media group hinting a new civil war would come handy to get rid of the “commies”). But since we all live together, the hate is set aside to keep on living. Foreseeing the wrong scenario in Iraq basing it on the wrong comparisons is dangerous.
I echo the “good riddance” comment above.
Regarding the “former ally” angle that gets repeatedly raised about Iraq, while there’s no doubt it’s embarrassing and awkward in hindsight, such switcharoos have also been a historical fact of life of not only U.S. leaders, but world leaders in general.
A good example in the U.S.’s case is our World War II relationship with Russia. They were our allies during that war even though we knew Lenin and Stalin ruthlessly murdered millions with relentless and brutal purges following their revolution. We also knew they had slave labor camps, their elections were a mockery of the democratic process, that they hated us and our way of life, and that there was a good chance we would have to eventually fight them in a war — yet we sided with them out of convenience to get rid of what was perceived as a greater problem: The Axis powers.
The parallels with Iraq are obvious.
The moral of the story? Any alliance of convenience may, at the very least, end up staining your own hands, and at the very worst, come back and bite you in the butt with an even bigger problem in the future. In the case of our alliance with Russia during World War II, it not only stained our hands dealing with a government that was more murderous than the Nazis, it almost destroyed our country as we know it. For, when Russia quickly became a nuclear power after WW II and built up a nuclear weapons arsenal, our support for them nearly came back several times to bite us in the form of a full-blown thermonuclear war.
This kind of a discussion always cracks me up a little bit.
It’s very humorous in the sense the dialog can be framed by laying the entirety of the current situation at the feet of Junior.
I also find it odd to be in the position of defending the actions of Junior which I believe are entirely suspect to begin with.
Out of Iraq? Sounds good to me. We’ve only been there for 15 plus years.
See, I imagine it was okay when the US and Britain were enforcing the no-fly zone and lobbing bombs or cruise missiles into the country?
Maybe we should go back to that?
Cruise missiles lobbed in at a million dollars a pop makes much more sense as a tool of foreign policy, don’t you think?
I can’t imagine the Iraqis are happy today with the state their country is in. Factional violence between Shiite and Sunni has been stunning to say the least and it’s horrible thing to watch.
The question though is how to effectively use our might in the region. Certainly a withdrawal of troops would be a welcome event, something both the American public and the Iraqis themselves would be happy to see.
Abandoning a nation though may be somewhat akin to compounding a mistake. Whether or not you want to believe the sectarian violence will continue, we are at least obligated as a nation to help those people as much as possible.
Is there oil there?
Yes. Of course.
Does it drive our foreign policy?
Obviously it does, much the same way many Americans making a decision to park their áššëš behind the wheels of Hummers, Navigators and all other manner of SUVs do.
You want to make this a discussion about oil? Are you ready for $5.00 a gallon gas? How about higher prices for your food (if fuel prices go up it affects the price for transporting goods), for the things you buy to increase (plastic is after all a petroleum based product)? How much are you willing to spend to heat your home? Our country has a big fossil fuel-based jones and it transcends party affiliation.
Don’t get confused, I would also like to see troops withdraw from Iraq, the sooner the better. Writing the country off as a big banana republic does a disservice to the people who are over there now trying to do good work.
As far as things being worse off now, somehow I think the Kurds in the Northern part of the country would greatly disagree with you.
Simple solutions are great in a simple world but, unfortunately the world is a very complex place. If you can offer a true solution other than just removing American troops from Iraq, I’m all ears but to abandon the country outright is a non starter in any discussion.
“Foreseeing the wrong scenario in Iraq basing it on the wrong comparisons is dangerous.”
I don’t believe I’m making the wrong comparisons.
We’ve got a situation where a government is being maintained by the outside influence of a much bigger nation. That outside influence is not a stabilizing force, it’s actually a source of anger for the country (which is reasonable, we literally invaded them). Given that, the hatred that is predominant in the country has something to focus on and feed off of. We’ve seen that as the violence has continued throughout our occupation of Iraq, and Al Qaeda has gained a foothold it didn’t have before the occupation.
Keeping a military force in Iraq is not stabilizing the country at all. It will fall if we pull out tomorrow, and it will fall if we pull out 100 years from now. We can talk all day about how other countries have stabilized, but we’ve already seen that it isn’t happening in Iraq.
Right now, the current “stay the course” strategy is betting that I’m wrong, that staying some undetermined amount of time will lead to a stabilized Iraq. Unfortunately, they’re betting in American lives.
Making the news rounds: War simulations were performed in 1999 demonstrating a post-invasion Iraq would need at least 400,000 troops, and still court substantial risk of civil war meltdown. US and coalition forces invaded with 250,000, and didn’t exceed 200,000 post-invasion.
Yessir, that Chimpy McHitlerburton sure is some kind of scumbag.
Also in recent news – between 4 & 8% (depending on report) of U.S. weapons sent to Iraq are missing.
Isn’t it great that under this administration we not only created an insurgency, but that the administrations commitment to mismanagement is arming the insurgents.
Sorry, hit post before the above was done.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=missing+weapons+in+iraq
And before some bush apologist says 4% isn’t so much, 4% is equal to about 14,000 weapons.
That outside influence is not a stabilizing force, it’s actually a source of anger for the country (which is reasonable, we literally invaded them).
But that argues that our pulling out will actually calm things down. I wish that were the case but I doubt it.
Still, what are the choices? We ain’t sending over another 100,000 or more soldiers. Even if it eans the contry descends into chaos, I don’t think there’s enough people who care to do what would need to be done to even have a chance of success (with no guarantee of such).
Then again, the Kurds have done a great job of keeping their part of teh country safe and secure. Can that be replicated? Or is their situation unique to the region?
It’s hard to have any optimism at this point.
Very well said, Peter.
Our job is done. Sooner or later, we’re going to have to acknowledge that it’s up to the Iraqis. I opt for sooner. There’s nothing undignified or wrongheaded about cutting and running. The administration has tried to characterize that notion as dirty and stupid…you know, just like they’ve done with the word “liberal.” I find it funny that phrases they don’t want to deal with, such as “death” or “slaughter,” becomes “collateral damage” or “acceptable losses.” But “cut and run” doesn’t get embellished into something acceptable. Me, I have no trouble with it at all. It’s not “cut and run.” Call it “strategic withdrawal.” Call it “organized troop relocation.” Call it whatever you want that will save lives.
On The Daily Show recently a clip was shown of Bush making a card game analogy, or trying to, with him saying something like “if you have the same cards as the other guy…”
I have a way to describe cutting and running: “folding when you have a losing hand.” Or how about “leaving the table when it’s clear that the game is rigged against you.”
Maybe Bush has never folded in a poker game. Maybe he considers that a sign of weakness. Maybe, since he has always had more money to throw into the pot and never faced the prospect of losing everything, he has been in poker games where he just kept on losing hand after hand after hand and mindlessly kept on betting, confident that a royal flush was right around the corner.
Dubya, real life doesn’t work like that. And the chips you’re throwing away are the lives of human beings, not money (although you’re losing an awful lot of that, too). There are times when you have to acknowledge that it’s a lost cause and quit before things get even uglier.
It’s the difference between losing a couple hundred bucks and losing every penny you have.
I also will not cry when this murderous SOB is dispatched, but I will forever be sickened by the fact that the murderous thugs who propped him up, and supplied him with the very weapons and chemicals for which he has been convicted of using, will never face any judge to answer for the part they played in supporting his crimes.
The only reason I’d rather not see him executed anytime soon is that he would be invaluable witness for such trials — but of course, for that very reason, he must die, because he *does* have answers to questions that the Misadministration do *not* want people to even ask.
Wildcat
But that argues that our pulling out will actually calm things down. I wish that were the case but I doubt it.
Except, I don’t think anybody really believes that if we should leave, things will calm down.
So, since it doesn’t really matter if we pull out now, or we do it later, the situation remains the same. So why not leave sooner?
Or is their situation unique to the region?
Probably unique.
They are their own people compared to the Shiites and Sunnis. Plus, ever since the first Gulf War, they’ve had our protection (at least with the No Fly Zone).
The Shiites have Iranian backing, and they have the country’s resources. They don’t need to bother the Kurds (who would probably be willing allies against the Sunnis anyways), and they don’t want the Sunnis.
I wonder where Saddam’s treasured letter of friendship from Ronald Reagan is now?
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 5, 2006 07:45 PM
So, since it doesn’t really matter if we pull out now, or we do it later, the situation remains the same. So why not leave sooner?
Because a withdrawal from Iraq anytime soon would likely make things a whole lot worse. Our presence in that nation isn’t the only thing setting off the violence. With Saddam no longer keeping control of Iraq with his iron fist, Iraqis now have the opportunity to act on age-old ethnic hatreds; hence the eruption of factional fighting in Iraq.
Iraqi military and security forces are still largely “not quite ready for prime time.” Our forces have not been entirely effective in keeping security, but I’ll warrant that they’re far more effective than the Iraqi military would be if it were on its own right now.
Consider this scenario: the U.S. withdraws, the current Iraqi government falls, and the Shi’a take control of the country and form an alliance with Iran. That could substantially change the balance of power in the region and would be very, very dangerous for us.
It was stupid of us to invade Iraq, and our toppling of Saddam is what brought us to this point. Unfortunately, a rapid withdrawal from that nation won’t change what we’ve done, and would likely create an even more dangerous situation.
Admittedly, even if we “stay the course,” we may do little more than forestall the inevitable. At this point, however, I believe we have little choice but to at least try to stabilize Iraq. The dangers inherent in doing otherwise are too substantial for us to be able to pull a Pontius Pilate. Moreover, we owe the Iraqi citizens a good faith effort to clean up the mess we’ve made.
I would have to agree that pulling out would make things an instant diaster. Staying will also make it a disaster. In short, there are no good options now.
Way to go, George.
Consider this scenario
Maybe it’s just me, but at this point I’m convinced this will be the same scenario tomorrow as it will be next year, and 10 years from now.
Is there any reason to believe that the situation will be better 12-18 months from now than it was in the last 12-18 months? That the Iraqis will be any more prepared to govern themselves? That their police and military will quit killing each other?
It doesn’t matter when we leave, Iraq will fall into chaos.
“The only question is, do we let 3,000 Americans die and then pull out or do we let 10,000 Americans die and then pull out?”
You all are obviously good friends of Peter David. You support his writing by buying his books and comics and watching his TV shows, etc.
What if his writing started to SUCK? Would you, having spent $3000 bucks on his stuff, drop him from your life now, or would you continue to spend $$$ on his work, hoping that his work would get better?
What if his writing started to SUCK? Would you, having spent $3000 bucks on his stuff, drop him from your life now, or would you continue to spend $$$ on his work, hoping that his work would get better?
If his writing started to suck I would stop buying it, but I would nevertheless respect his intelligence. I mean, I don’t care for very much Sting has done since his days with The Police, but he cares about the environment and so do I, so I salute him for that.
You all are obviously good friends of Peter David.
And you’re obviously not putting a lot of thought into your postings.
Folks around here respect someone who can disagree and put together a cogent dissent, instead of just regurgitating mindless ad hominems.
Try harder; it’ll be more enjoyable all around.
“What if his writing started to SUCK? Would you, having spent $3000 bucks on his stuff, drop him from your life now, or would you continue to spend $$$ on his work, hoping that his work would get better?”
Well, that’s a weak analogy to use here. Lots of people on this thread have talked about liking lots of people that slowly fell off their must buy lists as their quality of work declined. Some of us have walked away from the newer works of old favorites without even looking back. If his work took a long term nosedive, PAD would be the same (sorry, PAD).
It’s also poorly thought out in that a few dollars here and there in no way equals lives lost. PAD writes a bad book and I’m out five bucks. Twenty minutes of my (after tax) work day is down the drain. Big deal. I can partially recover the money by trading the book in as part of a buy at a used bookstore and going in for a couple of hours of overtime at work.
A soldier dies in Iraq. His or her family, loved ones and friends have lost a major part of their lives. A child may grow up never really knowing one of its parents. There are no easy fixes for that. There are no easy analogies for that.
——————————————————————————————————
Now, as to the thread topic itself….
I’ve made no secret of my dislike for Bush or for his foolish venture into Iraq. I’ve pointed out more then a few times that I feel that the people in the White House are running this thing in the most inept manner possible. That being said, we can’t just up and leave.
We went into another country that was not attacking us, was not threatening to attack us and was in no way a threat to us. And then we broke it. Now, well, we’re obligated to buy it. Maybe in more meanings then one.
We can never “stabilize” that country in the manner that Saddam did. But we are now responsible for what has been done and what will happen due to our actions. We can not fix the unfixable. However, we must do whatever we can to help Iraq stand up enough to fend off total and uncontrollable chaos. Or at the very least we have to try to give it a fighting chance to do so. To just walk away and let it all go to hëll would be irresponsible as well as immoral.
President Chimp put us in a bad spot. We’re dámņëd if we do and dámņëd if we don’t. Unfortunately, the road to dámņáŧìøņ will be bloody and painful. It’s just a matter now of choosing when the blood will be spilt.
God help us all. Especially the troops. They’re going to be screwed either way.
What if his writing started to SUCK? Would you, having spent $3000 bucks on his stuff, drop him from your life now, or would you continue to spend $$$ on his work, hoping that his work would get better?
At any rate, it’s not a good analogy. Let’s say the stories in X-Factor got boring, or stupid, and it wasn’t worth the price of the issues any more. I’d stop buying the title. But if I was told several months later about a kickass story that took place after I stopped reading, I could always get the back issues.
Deciding whether or not to buy a writer’s work is nothing at all like deciding whether to continue a war. If you buy a comic book every month, you’ll only wind up wasting $5 or so at a time. If I spent my money on a novel that turned out to be disappointing, I’d only be out 10-15 bucks. If you decide to keep on fighting a war, the stakes are obvious MUCH higher.
Heh, I see Jerry C. said it before I did. Great minds and all that…
While its obvious that US military presence in Iraq is doing little in the way of stabilizing the country, it is no less true that a withdrawal would ignite a widespread conflictwith the result of many innocents dying and suffering. Not entering into how much of a mistake is for you to go to iraq in the first place, the fact is the US has a responsability towards the people of Iraq. Does this mean you have to “stay the course”? fûçk, no. The course is obviously wrong since things have been getting worse and worse in the last years. But that doesnt mean you have the right to call it a day and quit. Not even if your boys are dying.
To put it bluntly, soldiers signed in to willingly risk their life, civilians just got caught in the middle. As terrible as the loss of any life is, to put your soldier’s over that of innocent civilians just because they are foreigners is wrong from every point of view.
International efforts can only work if its leadership is not British-American, but neither the European Union nor the Arab league is prepared to do the job. I see this as another chance for the Chinese to step into the role of super-power they demand. They are though on islamic extremism while having really good press among developing countries for beign a much needed counterweight to the US economics. They are increasingly providing troops to UN missions (Lebanon of late) and this would be the kind of military power projection that is expected from a world class potency.
Bad-analogies-r-us
You crash your car on a house. You go through its wall, well into its kitchen and finally stop when you hit a structural pivot. Your car is deeply inserted withing the house, making life in it miserable, hard and messy. Kitchen is unusable, the plumbing and electricity is gone. And your car is damaged too, of course.
You can pull the car off the house, but since you damaged the pivot, the whole house would crumble into rubble. But you would have your car back.
You can also let the car stay while some structural support is built that keeps the house standing when you finally remove the car, but that will take a long time and during that time you cant use the car. Also, all that work comes out of your pocket since…hey, it is you who crashed the car.
Bush obviously decided to let the car stay and pretend life is good in a house with no kitchen, plumbing and electricity.
So, since it doesn’t really matter if we pull out now, or we do it later, the situation remains the same. So why not leave sooner?
I’m a firm believer in the idea that things can always get worse, so I can’t sutomatically assume that it will make no difference if we leave or stay.
Back to something someone else mentioned earlier–why do the Turks have the final say over how the Kurds do? They did nothing to help topple Saddam. The Kurds have in every way behaved as a people who deserve the right of self determination. Why should they be denied this over Turkish paranoia?
I would also argue that it could be good for Turkey to have an independent Kurdisatn on its border. Maybe some of the Turkish Kurds would go there instead of fighting a civil war to carve out their own country. But regardless, I don’t see it as something they should have much say over.
We made the mess.
As I CONSTANTLY tell my 5 year old, make a mess, you have to clean it up.
I wish it was that simple, but once religion comes in, it never is. It’s hard to reason with someone who wants to kill you just because you believe something SLIGHTLY different than they do.
B: I say good riddance to Saddam, may he rot in Hëll, but it’s sad that things were actually better when he was in power.
Luigi Novi: I’ll bet those who found themselves inside one of his torture chambers or one of his sons’ rape rooms might beg to differ.
Jason M. Bryant: The only question is, do we let 3,000 Americans die and then pull out or do we let 10,000 Americans die and then pull out?
Ben Bradley: You all are obviously good friends of Peter David. You support his writing by buying his books and comics and watching his TV shows, etc. What if his writing started to SUCK? Would you, having spent $3000 bucks on his stuff, drop him from your life now, or would you continue to spend $$$ on his work, hoping that his work would get better?
Luigi Novi: It varies. I used to express skepticism at times during his storylines, thinking that “Oh, I’m not going to like this”, one example being when he merged the Hulks, or made Mar-Vell seemingly permanently crazed, etc. But I stuck around, and often he proved me wrong. On the other hand, I often have stopped buying his stuff. I stopped buying Aquaman when I lost interest in the storyline, I stopped buying Hulk sometime during the “Heroes Reborn” storyline (though I later came back to it), I eventually stopped buying Supergirlbecause, IIRC, limited monthly comics money (though now I hope to go back and find all the back issues).
In any event, I’m not sure how this is a pertinent analogy to Jason Bryant’s question. What’s going on in Iraq invovles the foreign policy of the most powerful nation on Earth, our views on how to combat terrorism, the lives of our soldiers, the lives of foreign civilians, and possibly the lives of our own citizens, not to mention billions of dollars are money. Those are not the same stakes invovled in my decision to buy the next issue of Fallen Angel or the next New Frontier novel.
Back to something someone else mentioned earlier–why do the Turks have the final say over how the Kurds do? They did nothing to help topple Saddam. The Kurds have in every way behaved as a people who deserve the right of self determination. Why should they be denied this over Turkish paranoia?
Because majority of kurdish areas lie on Turkish territory. Wikipedia map. As you can see, Kurdistan lies about 50% in Turkey, 20% in Iraq and Iran and 10% in Syria.
If Kurdistan would try to become independent, it would be ripping up areas from other countries, not from one or two but from four. If kurd-areas in Turkey would like to join, civil war would probaply ensure.
You can probaply blame Brits for dividing the countries badly hundred years ago, but too late to cry now..
1Peter, I agree that Bush having Hussein’s gun as a trophey in the oval office is tasteless, but not as bad as the plaster death mask of Dillinger J. Edgar Hoover had outside his office in the old FBI building.
I’d like to add something to Miles’ comment about the oil: We’re not there so much to GET the oil as to KEEP anyone else fromt getting it out. A long time ago it was decided that to keep the price of oil high, Iraq should produce below average. One thing that pìššëd øff Bin Laudin was that in the 90’s the Saudi’s pumped more oil and drove prices down to thank the American’s for protecting them from Iraq. Because of this the Saudi royals were late in paying Bin Laudin for work his company did.
Peter’s right to say, the job is done: America is more hated, the price of oil is near $70 a barrel, there are no more troops in Saudi Arabia, and our forces are in a place were they can be more easily killed by Al-Qadia. Unfortunatly these were the goals of Bin Laudin. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of giving this bášŧárd what he wants.
“I would also argue that it could be good for Turkey to have an independent Kurdisatn on its border. Maybe some of the Turkish Kurds would go there instead of fighting a civil war to carve out their own country. But regardless, I don’t see it as something they should have much say over.”
See, one of the “problems” when talking about these kind of things with americans (and here I am assuming you are) is that you often forget that in most parts of the world people have very strong feelings for the land. The whole national idiosincracy holds as much importance to the soil than to language, religion or women clothing (such an important issue on that part of the world…no joking). For Turkish kurds leaving their land would be a defeat. If they did would be probably to return some time later with weapons, and those abandoned lands would be a casus belli between Turkey and that hypotetical new nation, as Cachemir is for India&Pakistan. People have strong ties to the land.
Also, as to how good the kurds “behave” in comparison with others in Iraq… back when the first Gulf War ended and the no-fly zones were enforced, Kurds and Shia revolted in the knowledge that without air support they had a chance to drive Saddam forces away. Kurds did it and had ten years of factual independence that allowed them to build a state within the state. When the US dismantled Iraq goverment infrastructure, the Kurds had an independent one running that kept everything working.
Shia on the other hand, found that their no-fly zone was temporally cancelled due to pressures from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; they wouldnt tolerate for heretic shia to have any kind of power or autonomy, also some in the pentagon feared they would integrate into Iran. So their rebellion was brutally crushed, thousands died and political repression got much harder. They, of course, dont trust american to protect them anymore.
Still, they had some kind of underground infraestructure going on, and when Saddam regime finally dissapeared they relied upon that to keep things working. But since that underground had ties with Iran, coallition forces actiely pursued it and tried to dismantle it. While Kurds could keep their autonomy Shia would have to wait until a constitution was written, elections held… and any attempt to “build” something in the meantime was labeled insurgency or “Iran meddling with Iraq internal issues”.
If Kurdistan would try to become independent, it would be ripping up areas from other countries, not from one or two but from four.
I’m not suggesting that every place with Kurd become Kurdistan, just the Northern part of what was Iraq.
Turkey seems to feel that any attempt by Kurds anywhere to improve their lot is a threat. If so it’s one of their own making.
“I’m not suggesting that every place with Kurd become Kurdistan, just the Northern part of what was Iraq.
Turkey seems to feel that any attempt by Kurds anywhere to improve their lot is a threat. If so it’s one of their own making.”
Problem is Kurdistan IS every place where Kurds live and for Kurds, to create a Kurdistan that is less than that is to admit that those lands in Turkey, Iran and Syria arent really theirs. And, again, casus belli with every neighbouring country.
Not mentioning that in Iraqi “kurdistan” there are other groups that dont want to stop beign part of Iraq…oh wait, american solution for that uh? “Pack your things and leave, after all there is still plenty of “Iraq for you to live on, no matter where your family did for centuries”
Gosh Mr. Brady, I never thought of it that way. Thanks for making it all so crystal clear! Who knew the guy who created Young Justice could distill national interests, foreign policy, and foreign societies into such wisdom?
Thanks bunches!
Bill Mulligan
Turkey seems to feel that any attempt by Kurds anywhere to improve their lot is a threat.
Bill, it’s not that simple. If the Iraqi Kurds became an independent country, the Kurdish Turks would demand independence as well. Possibly to be part of the Iraqi Kurds nation, but also possibly their own.
Turkey doesn’t want that.
And when is the last time you saw a country willing giving up territory in this part of the world?
Its a very similar situation as Chechnya: the rest of the Soviet countries broke away, and now Chechnya wants the same. Soviets don’t want to let them break away.
Only, the Kurds cover a lot more ground than the Chechnyans do.
Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 09:03 AM
Problem is Kurdistan IS every place where Kurds live and for Kurds, to create a Kurdistan that is less than that is to admit that those lands in Turkey, Iran and Syria arent really theirs. And, again, casus belli with every neighbouring country.
Actually, Iraqi Kurds have been lobbying for independence because they’ve been treated like šhìŧ by the rest of Iraq. They believe that having their own homeland would would improve their lot in this world.
Unfortunately, our government has decided that in order to appease Turkey, we will discourage Iraqi Kurds from doing that.
Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 09:03 AM
Not mentioning that in Iraqi “kurdistan” there are other groups that dont want to stop beign part of Iraq…oh wait, american solution for that uh? “Pack your things and leave, after all there is still plenty of “Iraq for you to live on, no matter where your family did for centuries”
The United States did not create the problem of people being displaced from their homelands. Throughout human history, borders have been altered as the result of armed conflicts, creating refugees who were forced to settle in places other than their homelands.
By the way, why is it OK for Kurds to live under Iraqi rule, but not OK for non-Kurds to live under Kurdish rule?
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 6, 2006 09:43 AM
Bill, it’s not that simple. If the Iraqi Kurds became an independent country, the Kurdish Turks would demand independence as well. Possibly to be part of the Iraqi Kurds nation, but also possibly their own.
Turkey doesn’t want that.
You know, it’s interesting to me that today it is de rigeur to condemn U.S. imperialism but it is perfectly OK for other nations to deny people self-determination.
I’m not saying that Turkey is wrong, per se. If latinos in this country wanted to form their own independent nation-state in a portion of California, for example, I highly doubt our government would accede to their wishes.
That said, it seems that other countries get a free pass such things whereas the United States is roundly condemned.
Lem:
“Gosh Mr. Brady, I never thought of it that way. Thanks for making it all so crystal clear! Who knew the guy who created Young Justice could distill national interests, foreign policy, and foreign societies into such wisdom?”
You need to learn to differentiate between the words on the screen and the little voice in your head as to whom you are commenting.
Gosh Mr. Brady, I never thought of it that way. Thanks for making it all so crystal clear!
I know, it just makes you want to run out and vote Republican, doesn’t it?
“I know, it just makes you want to run out and vote Republican, doesn’t it?”
In your case, ‘Hope Springs Eternal’ Mr. Ries
Hmmm. Did you realize that to an Asian, your last name would be spelled “Lies”?
“The United States did not create the problem of people being displaced from their homelands. Throughout human history, borders have been altered as the result of armed conflicts, creating refugees who were forced to settle in places other than their homelands. “
I didnt say that is a problem created by the US, just expressed my frustration when speaking with americans (and now I am generalizing, of course), as their take on ethnic/border disputes its allways the same “so what? move some other place”, i.e; “there is a lot of arab countries palestinians can go, no need to cling to that little piece of dust”. Again on this thread someone suggested Turkey should welcome a Kurdish independent state ’cause their own kurds would migrate there, and I just pointed the naivette of that theory.
“By the way, why is it OK for Kurds to live under Iraqi rule, but not OK for non-Kurds to live under Kurdish rule?”
I never expressed an oppinion against the existence of Kurdistan, I just pointed out the facts that make such occurence difficult. Personally I think a Kurd state, lead by kurdish main political force, the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, would be at least interesting to behold and probably a good influence in the area. But I highly doubt the USA would allow a socialist state against the interests of their closest ally in the area. Not to mention they are still considered a terorist organization by both USA and EU.
Just another fact I checked… less than 10% of Kurds in Turkey vote for nationalists parties, the rest vote for mainstream parties.
Hmmm. Did you realize that to an Asian, your last name would be spelled “Lies”?
Wow. A personal attack AND a racial slur, in one tidy package. How economical of you….
Did you realize that to an Asian, your last name would be spelled “Lies”?
Except, it’s German.
Or does that just make me a Nazi?
I can never tell with trolls like you.
Well, that would explain why you insist on denying genocide, Craig….