George W. spoke his piece, with candor and a certain eloquence, I think, On 60 minutes recently.Video: “If we do not succeed in Iraq we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America in the future.”He has admitted making mistakes. Those …

MayBee on January 16, 2007 at 12:41 AM

A better and more accurate analogy.

And please, cut the juvenile tactics. I doubt seriously anyone on this list has read everyones rants and raves.

ritethinker on January 15, 2007 at 7:39 PM

And please, develop a sense of humor. I was poking fun at myself. Save the chastisements.

I would simply point the honorable honora to the former Yugoslavia and of course India and Pakistan. I would hardly call these partitions success stories. It looks easy from this part of the world to say ah the hell with it, take the pie slicer to the country. And please, cut the juvenile tactics. I doubt seriously anyone on this list has read everyones rants and raves.

You want to believe partition will work, fine, but I notice you stated that this would get us out of this. I didn’t notice the words win or victory in your post. I seek victory, not a way out…..

ritethinker on January 15, 2007 at 7:39 PM

There are just as many success stories; I would hardly call India and Pakistan a failure.

If by victory you mean an Iraq that is our ally and can stand on its own, I believe you are living in a dream.

My fear now? That Bush won’t rest until he attacks Iran. Iran of course having a very sizable portion of its population that is pro-West. Arguably the only country save Israel in the mideast with this situation. Which could turn quickly if we attack.

It’s really like being in a roomful of people, saying you’ll break open an egg if a majority of those people agree you should. So they take a vote and most vote to drop it.

The majority of Dems in House voted against breaking the egg. In the Senate, the Dems voted 26 yea, 21 nay (think that’s right).

To keep up the analogy, perhaps the moral is, be careful who you let handle the eggs.

(With a little effort, you could have weaved in “out of the frying pan, into the fire” ;^) )

Good questions. Answers perhaps less so. But let’s not forget what the comparison is, it’s compare to the current plan. Perhaps we are looking for the less bad solution.
1) Some areas (Baghdad for instance) are mixed areas. Do these areas need to be ‘cleansed’ in order for the partitioning plan to work? If so, will Iraqi’s be alright with being relocated away from their homes simply so they don’t have to have neighbors who are different? If the partitioned areas are not ‘cleansed’, what is to stop the people in the still mixed areas from continuing to kill each other?

I understand that there has already been significant movement. Putting aside the million or so who have emigrated, a lot of the Sunnis are moving to Sunni enclaves, effectively leaving the Shiite to the majority of land. If people don’t relocate, they would be taking their chances.2) Assuming the partitioning happens, what keeps the partitioned ’states’ from warring on each other?

Our military, for a closed end period.

3) Turkey has made it quite clear that they are not alright with an independent Kurdish territory. They’ve mentioned a willingness to use a military force to subdue a Kurdish territory in Iraq (based mostly on a fear that their opressed Kurdish minority will declare independence). If we partition Iraq into three states and one of them is an independent Kurdish state, how do we avoid the war spreading into Turkey?

Well, again, how do you avoid that now? The suggestion is a loose confederation, basically 3 states under the Iraq umbrella. Which is de facto what you have now, only much less orderly.
4) The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are not the only people in Iraq. How does the 3 state solution guarantee the protection of smaller minority peoples and religions in Iraq?

Don’t know. Have these lesser groups been targets to date?

Forgive the bold, trying to separate Q from A

JadeNYU on January 15, 2007 at 6:10 PM

3) Turkey has made it quite clear that they are not alright with an independent Kurdish territory. They’ve mentioned a willingness to use a military force to subdue a Kurdish territory in Iraq (based mostly on a fear that their opressed Kurdish minority will declare independence).

And we should respond, we don’t have a problem kicking your arse, we aren’t the British. When we roll through the straight, you won’t stop us.

This is like cracking open an egg and then turning to the person who told you not to do it and asking them what their plan is to put it back.

It’s really like being in a roomful of people, saying you’ll break open an egg if a majority of those people agree you should. So they take a vote and most vote to drop it.
Then, when the egg breaks open, some of the people that told you to go ahead and break the egg now say, “Woah. I didn’t know it would get messy. That needs to get cleaned up”. And while everyone stands around watching, the egg starts to drip onto the floor.
So you start to clean up the egg with paper toweling, and the yolk breaks and smears, and most of the people say “It is taking too long! I’m sorry I ever supported this egg breaking. Clean it up now!”.
So you think about it and then say, “In addition to the paper toweling, I’ll get a mop. And I’m going to cordon off the room so that nobody else comes in and steps in the egg”.

And everyone says “NOOOO! We won’t pay for your mop. And we don’t support the way you want to cordon off the room. Just clean up the egg, it’s all your fault!”

Bush’s plan hinges on the Iraqis coming through on their promises.

And the partitioning plan hinges on what, exactly?

You want to believe partition will work, fine, but I notice you stated that this would get us out of this. I didn’t notice the words win or victory in your post. I seek victory, not a way out…..

1) Some areas (Baghdad for instance) are mixed areas. Do these areas need to be ‘cleansed’ in order for the partitioning plan to work? If so, will Iraqi’s be alright with being relocated away from their homes simply so they don’t have to have neighbors who are different? If the partitioned areas are not ‘cleansed’, what is to stop the people in the still mixed areas from continuing to kill each other?

2) Assuming the partitioning happens, what keeps the partitioned ‘states’ from warring on each other?

3) Turkey has made it quite clear that they are not alright with an independent Kurdish territory. They’ve mentioned a willingness to use a military force to subdue a Kurdish territory in Iraq (based mostly on a fear that their opressed Kurdish minority will declare independence). If we partition Iraq into three states and one of them is an independent Kurdish state, how do we avoid the war spreading into Turkey?

4) The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are not the only people in Iraq. How does the 3 state solution guarantee the protection of smaller minority peoples and religions in Iraq?

[...extends warranty...]

Highlights of Bush on 60 Minutes…

[extends hand...]

And yes, the words you use do make a difference to the point you are making. This is a written forum. Words mean things.
RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 2:49 PM

RushBaby, this could be the start of a beautiful friendship!!!!

I mistook you for a serious poster. My mistake.

This is the type of post she uses to excuse herself for not being accurate. She attacks the accuser for calling her out.

PIMF, ahem.

Honora, since you’re not impressed with my Latin, here’s a quote in English you can use:

“What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchins

And yes, the words you use do make a difference to the point you are making. This is a written forum. Words mean things. Armageddon, in the context you used it, is hyperbole.

Well, you do have to admit Armageddon does ring a little sensational, no?

You tell me: from the President’s speech:

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.

On the other hand, Mother of All Battles has a certain elan.

Does it make a difference to the point I was making?

honora on January 15, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Well, you do have to admit Armageddon does ring a little sensational, no? Why not, Mother of All Battles. Worked so well for the guy that coined it.

Honora, I can assure you I am a serious poster. I was going to ask the same question RushBaby did. Please provide a link where Bush used the term Armegeddon.

Glynn on January 15, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Oh for the love of God.

Armegeddon:

–noun 1. the place where the final battle will be fought between the forces of good and evil (probably so called in reference to the battlefield of Megiddo. Rev. 16:16).
2. the last and completely destructive battle: The arms race can lead to Armageddon.
3. any great and crucial conflict.

No he did not use that exact term. Here’s a fun thing to try: go back to my post and insert “great and crucial conflict” for “Armegeddon”. Does it make a difference to the point I was making?

Link to Bush et al using the term “Armegeddon” please.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I mistook you for a serious poster. My mistake.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Honora, I can assure you I am a serious poster. I was going to ask the same question RushBaby did. Please provide a link where Bush used the term Armegeddon.

You said it, not me!!

Vincula de linguae vel tibi linguae dabit.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Burma Shave.

What is the point exactly of being strictly literal? No, Bush did not say “Armegeddon”. Does this render my point any less valid?

If that’s the best you can do, it would appear you have no response to my argument.

Unless you were sarcastic in this comment, I took you for getting serious, until you attacked RushBaby’s ‘seriousness’.

…something interesting is taking place. The sunnis think of us as the lesser of two evils and the shia are not attacking us…

ritethinker on January 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM

I also find it ironic and interesting that the Americans turn out to be the protectors of the Sunnis, and that they are beginning to regret the insurgency.

I mistook you for a serious poster. My mistake.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 1:40 PM

You said it, not me!!

Vincula de linguae vel tibi linguae dabit.

Link to Bush et al using the term “Armegeddon” please.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 12:52 PM

I mistook you for a serious poster. My mistake.