 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:25
|
|
quote: Kurdish leaders have already said that they support being part of a democratic Iraq. They would prefer to be independent, but they understand that the realities of the situation prevent that. |
You really think that the Kurds would meekly go back to submission to Baghdad after Rumsfeld gives them lots of weapons and liberate the Iraqis to the South, given the penchant for ethnic cleansing among the states in the region? Who's going to take away their guns?
quote: Why would the US be totally opposed to a democratic Iraq that is friendly to Iran? The point of democratizing Iraq is to encourage democracy in other states in the region and Iran in particular. A Shiite-led democracy in Iraq would provide a great example for Iranian democracy proponents, possibly hastening the removal of the Ayatollahs. Sounds like a great thing from a US perspective, as long as the Iraqi government is friendly to us as well as Iran. |
We've already given up on the reformists. Hence, the reason for dumping Khatami, "Axis of Evil," etc. Shrub is taking a hard-line stance towards Iran, there's no indication that this policy will change. Furthermore, we're not about to alienate the Sunni interests already in power. Not only would that royally piss off the Saudis, it would turn Iraq into a bloody Civil War. We aren't about to committ are resources into that fight or let Iran play a part.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001 time: 14:25
|
|
quote: The third strike against a policy of containment, according to those who have called for war, is that such a policy is unlikely to stop Saddam from getting nuclear weapons. Once he gets them, so the argument runs, a host of really bad things will happen. For example, President Bush has warned that Saddam intends to “blackmail the world”; likewise, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice believes he would use nuclear weapons to “blackmail the entire international community.” Others fear a nuclear arsenal would enable Iraq to invade its neighbors and then deter the United States from ousting the Iraqi army as it did in 1991. Even worse, Saddam might surreptitiously slip a nuclear weapon to al Qaeda or some like-minded terrorist organization, thereby making it possible for these groups to attack the United States directly. |
The article brings up these reasons and never really disproves them. He uses the Soviet Union as an example of how deterrence would prevent this, ignoring the large differences between Iraq and the USSR. North Korea is a better example of what a nuclear Iraq might be like and they've certainly managed to blackmail the world and are a significant threat of selling weapons to Islamic fundies.
All in all, there are few good reasons to continue a costly containment policy when Saddam can be removed so easily.
Of course, what would one expect from Foreign Policy? Foreign Affairs is sooo much better... 
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|