Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Aug 4, 2006.
It seemed like a good idea at the time. :coffee3:
Two can play Iran's game. We should fund and arm the Kurds that live in Northwestern Iran.
At this point I'm not so sure. It would be another front, upsetting both Iran and Turkey.
Iran must be made to realize that there is too big a price to pay when it funds terrorism against America and its allies (whoever they might be at this juncture). Where is the USS Vincennes when we need it? It was the ship that blew away the Iranian airbus. Supporting the Kurds would deliver our message loud and clear. Right now, the Iranians think that they can do whatever they want (especially through their (Hez)Ebola proxy. Regarding Turkey, the population of that country is virulently anti-American. The Turkish press routinely lies about American activities, making up atrocities that we have supposedly performed and printing the lies in their newspapers. I would tell the Turks that unless they change their foreign policy we will fund the Kurds and oppose their membership in the EU (right now, we support their membership; probably because it upsets France so much). The Kurds were screwed by early 20th century English cartographers, who drew Middle East boundaries without regard to the cultures living in the region. Much of the Middle East mess is a function of having to clean up after English and French colonial crashes.
I agree with all you say. We have a large army, able to become much larger if necessity warrants. However, most do not want that. I don't see that we will be opening fronts as much as answering them. Iran may soon be the exception, though how it will become so, remains unclear to me. No doubt they need to be dealt with, but we are not willing to do so, yet.
First Sadddam had to go because he had nuclear weapons or something. Or, wait - no, it was because he wasn't democratic. Right. Or something - what did Bush say? Now he's gone. But now what rises after the secular leader goes - a popular figure supported by the masses - also must go. But not, obviously, because he has "weapons of mass destruction". Nor could it be because he's not "democratic," because, in the strict sense of the word, he is, because a majority support him.
What's the goddamn goal here, again?
I think it was to start wiping out Islamo-terrorists and countries that train and finance them.
Separate names with a comma.