Korean Job Discussion Forums

[madcap]

If our policy is to be non-involvement I think we might be starting a little too late. I'm curious, if we pull out and a ruthless warlord takes over, killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Sunni or Shia (depending on which way the civil war goes) should we go back in and oust him too? Reinvade the country? (is "reinvade" a word? well, it is now) What if he tries to develope WMDs? I know, "what if", "what if", I could do that all night and not even come close to the mark. My point is, we went there for a reason, no matter how bogus it was, of "spreading democrcy" and "securing the region". All the kings men tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together again and ended up with one hell of an omelett.

So, if we can't get out of Iraq, where are we going to get the troops to invade Iran? If you look over the troop deployment levels and the number of active personel required to sustain an occupation (support, relief, rotation, reserves, civilian, etc) we are already streched as far as we can go.

[Junior]

The US can get out of Iraq, and honorably so. Partition it and leave.

Stopping iran getting nukes is far more important than Iraq.

Iraq is returning to its natural state: divided along sectarian/factional lines. Good. Its a stable system that should be restored as quick as possible. The British empires arbitrary delineation of a country called "iraq" was little more than a fantasy of geometry.Preferably the US should oversee the division of Iraq into 3 states. It will occur naturally anyway. the only thing that could halt it would be if that a ruthless warlord does take over- and hold the territory together by brute force. that could be good, or bad news for the US.

[cbclark4]

If Iraq were to be partitioned:

I would expect the Kurdistan would be immediately invaded by Turkey.

Sunniraq (or Sunnyria) would become a Saudi (or Syrian) pawn.

The Shi'itte region (or Shitistan) would still be in turmoil between the pro Iran and anti Iran factions and would become subject to Iranian invasion.

I think any withdrawal by the US would be subject to a re-invasion clause, a very loosely construed re-invasion clause.

cbc

[Nowhere Man]

Agree

[madcap]

So then, what would the point be of leaving now? The only reasons I can come up with for leaving now are financial and to leave now and come back later would waste billions more.

[contrarian]

Partitioning is the right answer. The US can then go to Kurdistan where they are loved and wanted, and where they will scare the hell out of the Iranians (and the Turks). Keep a big base around Basra, again scaring the hell out of the Iranians.

Let the Shia and the Sunni duke it out. If they are busy killing wach other they ain't killin' us.

Give the Israelis a refuelling base (very quietly of course) and let them take the Iranian nuke centers out. I have no problem with a couple of low yield nuclear bunker busters. That would be a real attention getter!

Notice that under my plan the Sunni ain't got no oil.

Turkey is not going to invade Kurdistan if there are American bases there.

[ddeubel]

[contrarian]

DD:

Yes! Let's llok at it realistically and noe with the blinders of "correct thinking".

Thousands of years of contamination thousands of deaths etc. Now look a Chernobyl. Less than 80 confirmed dead from the melt down itself. About 5% of the loss of life on 9/11. And abandoned town and countryside out of fear and hype. A new wilderness full of completely normal plants, animals and a few people that didn't leave.

There are some cases of increased cancer risk but no direct connection to radiation.

The dirty bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima are nor 60 years later clean, healthy and full of people. There was more cancer, there was radiatiion sickess.

Now look at what I said: A low yield bunker buster, Not in the middle of a city but in a nuclear facility. The alternative based on the threats made is a nuke on Israel. That would bring down on the middle ast the Sampson Optio, where an wounded Israel responds with over 200 warheads. The middle east would be a parking lot.

[ddeubel]

[Junior]

[Junior]

[Nowhere Man]

[contrarian]

DD

Are you sure you teach English? Your thought processes need a little tightening up. Your sentence structure and logic need a lot of work too. Look at this as you said:

"Have you been to Chernobyl? I have, lived 2 years in Kyiv. Horrific and continues to this day. I won't go on. ...... people who advocate "low level nuclear strikes" are off their rocker. Really. Should not be an option or at most, a last option against pure evil and horrific death. Not a casual, pre emptive, push button, military superiority, no moral second thoughts act.

[Yes Chernobyl was abandoned without need and in panic - just like the Palestinians in 1948. ]

"You remind me of the kid who just thinks that if he puts a little gasoline on the grass, he'll see a little fire. And then the house and farm are burnt down and his brothers and sisters with it."

[You sound like a sky clad Jain sitting on a roadside pointificating on the meaning of life. I would say a little more but I hear this forum is a bit touchy on decorum.]

[ddeubel]

[contrarian]

DD:

Here is the addendum: I had previously researched Chernobyl and stick by everyhting I have said. Further when you learn to say anyhting rational please let me know.