Five Years

[Starslasher]

Most of my views on Iraq coincides with a certain professor on History named Mark Levine, who has written several books on the region, speaks Arabic, Hebrew, Turkish and Persian, and has even met with those Anti-American mullahs like As-Sadr, and even with Hamas and Hizbullah.

One of the things that makes it hard for most of us to give an opinion on the Iraq War, i feel, is that most of us has never been anywhere near Iraq, had a first hand in Occupied Iraq, to give an opinion on the situation there. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give our opinions on the situation at hand.

One of the issues that was interesting me the most was the Kurds in the region. My eyes were open to the topic with a documetary on the Kurdish section of the country (i forget the name of it), how it was seen as the success story of the war, considering how well it's been doing in comparison to the rest of the country. It made me look further into the plight of the Kurdish people (which inlcuded, being the video gaming freak that i am, the monologue from Sniper Wolf in Metal Gear Solid :P ), not only the Saddam's Iraq, but also in Iran, Syria and especially Turkey. The Kurds, with their Peshmergas, have been striving for their independance or at least their autonomy within these countries, and having a Kurdish section of Iraq is one step further towards them reaching that goal. This of course does not make Turkey happy, who i believe fear that the development of the Kurds in Iraq would increase the sentiment for independance there in Turkey, or would serve as a base for kurdish separatists, hence the raids across the border. I would actually support an independant state for the Kurds, as i learn more and more about the history.

To comment on my opinions about the Presidential candidates, i am a bit pessimistic about them all. I would not agree with McCain's policy for them to stay, but i have a feeling that neither Hillary or Obama will be able to keep their promises to withdraw troops from Iraq should wither of them become President, even if they serve for two terms. I feel that even if they become President, they would find some extra reason for them to postpone their withdrawal, such as "insurgent attacks increasing", or even "preparing for war against Iran (should it come down to it)". This is simply a feeling that i am having, i'm no political expert or anything, but given the rhetoric conveyed by these candidates, they seem to be preparing for war against the second member of the "Axis of Evil" Iran, or believe that Iraq would be their ally in the war agaisnt terror.

And i definitely agree with Vextor's last statements. Decmoracy isn't something that can be imposed on another; it's something for one country to establish by itself.
_________________
Guardian of Greenhill & Devoted Protector of Oulan



Bork! Bork! Bork!

[Calvin]

I did a research project on the Kurds several years ago, and I agree with you on the issue of the Kurds having an independent state. I don't feel sorry for Turkey over it either, since Turkey was originally supposed to be a joint Turkish and Kurdish government, but eventually devolved into a Turkish government that oppressed the Kurds. Its no wonder they hate Turkey so much. It's one reason why I'm skeptical of the current government setup, wherein the Kurds, Sunni, and Shiites are all supposed to have government representation. I wonder how long that "equality" would last were we to leave.
_________________

I changed the number on my phone so you can't call me up at home, and you can't say those
things to me, that make me fall down on my knees.

[Vextor]

Oh yes, the Kurds should be allowed to have their own state considering how they have historical justification, and by the fact that much of their own people's blood has been spilled on that land. Excluding the PKK, they've been highly diplomatic as well. However, if Kurdistan spearates from Iraq, they'll also be taking a oil-rich region away from the rest of Iraq, partiucally the resource-poor Shiite south. That can lead to other problems...

And about democracy, the USA also has to respect and appreciate the democratic process in other countries even if the people in those countries choose leaders that are not particulalrly US-friendly. The USA was heavily involved in the coup that ended up in the death of the elected Salvador Allende, and ended up in the brutal dictatorship of Auguste Pinochet. The USA meddled in Iranian politics for decades under the Shah, helping remove politicians who were not friendly towards the West. This probably helped bring about the Islamic Revolution. Now we have a democratically elected president (Ahmadinejad) who the USA probably wishes to remove by some way.

The same is true with how Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people, but the USA won't deal with them.

We also stopped recognizing Taiwan as a country in favor of Communist China-- when Taiwan is a sophisticated democracy and Communist China remains to be oppressive with little respect given to human rights.

A champion of democracy we sure are!

[Jowy Atreides]

I'm not sure how I feel about the Kurds. Obviously they've been treated badly, but isn't this how we wound up with Israel? Furthermore, isn't this how we end up with racist policies like the Law of Return, where a Jew from any other country gets a "Get in Israel Free Pass"? It goes without saying that something needs to be done, but what if I want to move to this new Kurdish state? Will I be denied because I am not Kurdish? Will I have to wait longer than an ethnic Kurd? Will the next Kurd in line be allowed in simply because of his race, even if he doesn't know the Kurdish language? These are questions that should be asked before advocating a new race-based state because someone's been wronged. These aren't rhetorical questions either. But, this is not an opinion of mine that is set in stone, so don't get too angry.

The PRC/ROC issue is a complex one, and, for the most part, we conduct diplomatic operations with both countries while recognizing various PRC policies such as "One country, two systems," the "One-China policy," and other assorted phrases. The ROC allows countries to negotiate with them if they recognize the PRC, but the PRC will not negotiate with countries that recognize the ROC's legitimacy, so that's just how it has to be, pragmatically-speaking. The vast majority of sovereign nations do the same: conduct negotiations with both, while officially recognizing PRC sovereignty over the mainland and Taiwan, but de facto recognizing both countries, without actually saying it. This is why the Taiwanese embassy is called the "Economic and Cultural Representative Office," and the American embassy in Taipei is called the "American Institute in Taiwan."

But, yes, officially we only recognize the PRC. President Bush, and most other Presidents, have only said that they wish to "maintain the status quo" in regards to China and Taiwan. The Taiwanese electorate is also much more moderate than the pro-unification KMT, and the pro-independence DPP. They just want to live their lives; seems like a pretty common goal.

Of course, before democracy was restored in the ROC, the KMT was known to be a pretty repressive party. But, that was before democracy, so perhaps it is not relevant.

[Starslasher]

I understand where you're coming from, Jowy. But while we're talking about the hypothetical and the comparison with the founding of a state for the Kurds to Israel, Israel needn't have been a state exclusively for Jews, and this "Kurdistan" need not be a state exclusively Kurdish. Before Israel came to be, people like Gandhi and Albert Einstein were pushing or at least hoping for a binational state where the Jews and the native populace would be given equal rights. So why can't "Kurdistan" work in that sense where non-Kurds are given equal rights as well?
It's ideal for most people. At least for me, but i also udnerstand the reality that most countries are founded by political parties with an extremely strong sense of nationalism and don't neccessarily hold "equal-rights-for-all" as one of their top priorities. But i can do nothing except hope for the best that the government of the autonomous Kurdish region will not try to take a nationalist approach concerning the non-Kurds.
_________________
Guardian of Greenhill & Devoted Protector of Oulan



Bork! Bork! Bork!

[Jowy Atreides]

Yeah, most modern nation-states were founded upon a common identity (usually involving an ethnicity), but that doesn't mean we (as humans) need to keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

And, as someone else has already mentioned, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and other countries that currently control the Kurdistan region won't allow the nation to be formed anyway, and even if the Kurds miraculously manage to pull it off, they'll be invaded and treated even worse than they are today. I think it's important to be pragmatic in these situations.

Although, to be fair, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate. While I do follow IR very closely (seeking a career in international politics, after all), I've never seriously contemplated a Kurdish state, because I've never thought it could happen, and so haven't bothered to wander off the deep end of "What if's?"

[Acheron]

Here's my thoughts. I don't like being in Iraq. I think military action was taken before diplomacy had completely failed. Had we continued to make attempts of using economic and diplomatic stresses back in '03 perhaps we wouldn't have already lost 4000 American service men and women.

That said I'll continue in a liberal rant by saying I hate Bush. He sucks as a President and it's no surprise that the arguably worst President in American history is a direct ancestor of Barbara Pierce Bush, dubya's mum. While Bush may not be our worst President ever (he didn't start the Civil War or something, heh heh...) he's clearly not been a good one. His campaign has been riddled with criticism and mostly been turned into a giant joke. A great time to be a comedic, political news host.

Don't get pissed or anything but I'm voting McCain I think. Barack is a great candidate but I don't see how Barack knows anything about military. You could say he will rely on his advisers but we see these situations painted in film where military men do military, not politics. We need the President to serve as a balance of diplomacy and war, requiring a great familiarity with both. McCain has a good familiarity with war and has been exposed to diplomacy with the last 20 years serving in Congress.

Obama is a better speaker and I think overall I would say I align with his domestic policy a bit more strongly than I do with McCain however compared to how much weight I feel is in the war, my vote is swayed by international policy. McCain has experience in war and knows the horrors of war. No more would we have to worry about our troops being allowed to commit war crimes since McCain was a POW and has shown his strong adversity to torturing war prisoners.

Back on point, I'm voting for McCain for the sole reason of his wartime experience compared to his competitors.

[Jowy Atreides]

Personally, I have never understood the phrase "diplomacy has failed." The only time someone like Bush can say that is if someone's military is heading straight for America, hellbent on war, which will probably never happen. He placed North Korea on the 'Axis of Evil,' but the way we got them to quit their nuclear ambitions was through the Six-party Talks, not a war. Let's be realistic here: can anyone topple us, militarily? Maybe, if every other military in the world joined up or something. But, that's not going to happen, and, even if it did happen, there's still NATO, which was designed to make war against the north atlantic countries unappealing to other countries. Yes, we are vulnerable to terrorism, but that is just a fact of life people.

War crimes will continue to be committed by American troops in Iraq because they can't tell who's the enemy and who's the friend. I don't blame American servicemen or anything, but I'm not some jingoistic "Support the troops yeehaw!!" type of guys. The candidate can say, "My administration will not allow war crimes to be committed on the ground," but it's not quite that simple. It's like President Bush saying that "America doesn't torture," when it's plainly clear that we do. But, practices like waterboarding will probably end under a hypothetical McCain administration, yes.

[Amyral]

[Tullaryx]

[Jowy Atreides]

Yes, you are both correct in saying that China played a large role in stopping North Korea's nuclear ambitions. However, this was still done through the Six-Party Talks, so I'm not sure what the point is. That's the whole concept behind the Six-Party Talks: quit your nuclear plans, and we'll (the PRC included) give you aid.

China and Russia have the capability, with nuclear weapons, but they would also be destroyed, per Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD, a fitting acronym). They don't want this, so they won't do it.

Maybe the World War II example is good at showing how inferior militaries can defeat military giants, but the U.S. has forces on every corner, as well as 11 aircraft carriers, whereas the Chinese and Russians have zero. The ratio is on a totally different scale. Neither the Germans nor the Soviets had either. Aircraft carriers form the backbone of any modern blue-water navy, and they don't have any, nor do they have military bases anywhere near us (excluding Alaska). However, I don't want to get into some fictional war between the U.S. and China or Russia, when I don't think they stand a chance. Numbers tend to not matter that much either.

If NATO were to be abolished, it means that countries that aren't covered by the EU may start fighting again, as they wouldn't have a reason not to. The problems between Greece and Turkey are an obvious example of this. Turkey isn't covered by the OSCE either. It plays an excellent role in enforcing Security Council resolutions when peacekeeping forces would be inappropriate, such as the problems in Kosovo (and the wider former Yugoslavia area). The Partnership for Peace and Mediterranean Dialogue subgroups also play a large role in those respective areas (European countries that cannot join NATO, due to neutrality, and countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea that aren't European). It also helps the U.S. military establish bases in Europe without seeming like they are invading.

I've never been concerned with the global war on drugs, and I think it un-necessarily infringes on individual rights, so I have no problem with Afghanistan's poppy production.

I wholeheartedly agree that Afghanistan is quite unlike Iraq, although they are both currently failed states (although on completely different scales).

I don't think North Korea ever had plans of actually using its nuclear weapons, it just wanted to show off, it seems. It's a good threat, even if it's empty. Nowadays, with conscription in South Korea (and the U.S. forces stationed there), they could probably handle North Korea on their own.

[Amyral]

[Jowy Atreides]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diplomacy

"Diplomacy: the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations."

That's it. Even if threats are involved, as long as they are not acted upon, it is still diplomacy, in every sense of the word. Diplomacy cannot fail for America, because no one poses a decent military threat. When it comes to talks involving the United States, the only group that can make diplomacy fail is the United States itself.

[ViktorFan]

[Jowy Atreides]

I think that's a little misleading.

Here are the numbers that coincide with that data:

Belgium: 370
Bulgaria: 420
Canada: 2,500
Czech Republic: 135
Denmark: 780
Estonia: 130
France: 1,515
Germany: 3,210
Greece: 150
Hungary: 230
Iceland: 10
Italy: 2,880
Latvia: 100
Lithuania: 260
Luxemburg: 9
Netherlands: 1,650
Norway: 495
Poland: 1,100
Portugal: 160
Romania: 535
Slovakia: 70
Slovenia: 70
Spain: 740
Turkey: 675
United Kingdom: 7,800
United States: 15,000

I won't post the numbers for how large these nations' militaries are, but, suffice it to say, some are doing a lot more than others. Turkey in particular stands out, as their military is the second-largest in NATO (behind only the U.S.), and, as Muslims, they could probably be more effective in bridging the gap between civilian and invader.

I wouldn't necessarily that they have "failed their commitments," as they are providing troops, but they could do a lot more.

Actually, has this topic gone too far? It really doesn't have much to do with the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War anymore.

Edit: sorry about the double post.