At 09:02 PM Wednesday 3/22/2006, David Hobby wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
...
This doesn't fit in with our geo-political plans, or those
of Turkey, etc. So what? It would be best for the Iraqi
people, and doing what's best for them is about the only
remaining excuse for the whole war in the first place.
I disagree, because any Kurdish state would, quite honestly, fprce
Turkey's hand.
The answer which makes the most sense to me is semi-autonomous
regions, with a strong centrally-controlled army and single foreign policy.
That way, each of the groups gets to set many of their own domestic
policys, but they are tied into oen umbrella for controlling inter-
factional violence and for foreign policy.
Andrew--
So Turkey has a right to oppress its Kurdish minority?
If the USA cares so much about increasing freedom in
the world, then it should be right there, telling
Turkey that it had better let its Kurdish regions
secede, or else. : ) (There are a lot of wrongs to
be righted, aren't there?)
"Semi-autonomous regions" might be a polite way of
saying "countries", anyway. The regions would still
struggle to control that strong centrally controlled
army, wouldn't they? So I bet that this would reduce
tensions some, but maybe not solve all the problems.
(By the way, exactly who would be paying for that
army?)
Ask yourself that question again in about three weeks.
--Ronn! :)
"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country
and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER
GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that
would be eliminated from schools too?"
-- Red Skelton
(Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
