On 22 Mar 2006 at 22:02, 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?)
Nope, but deliberately setting up something which is likely to explode into violence is wrong. It is why, for example, that while tensions in Israel were building at the time, Sharon was wrong to visit Temple Mount and spark the Intafada early. And, well, let's just say that I'm more of "if you funded them 20 years ago and got them into power, clean your mess up" school of thought. > "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?) I'm not saying it'd be perfect, or even good. I just think it'd be better than the current situation. AndrewC _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
