OT- US AIRSTRIKES AGAINST IRAQ - This is too familiar...
02-16-2001, 12:03 PM
#37
Elder Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best explanation I have been given as to why we are still patrolling Iraq and Saddam Hussein
is still alive. This was from, of all places, CNN.COM.
The gist of it is this:
If we oust Saddam and his family, the next group vying for leadership of Iraq are a Muslim sect that are loyal to Iran. There are a lot more of that sect than the sect that Saddam's family belongs to. This = big war and Iran is relatively powerful. The most likely scenario in that case is that south and central Iraq would become part of Iran. Then, in the north, the Kurds, who are oppressed by Iraq and the Turkish people would take northern Iraq. This would aggravate Turkey and they are a key US ally in the region.
So basically, the best situation is to let Saddam stay in power and castrate his ability to make war for the long term. Hence, the no-fly zones and the risks to American (and British) soldiers.
These are not my opinions, but my paraphrasing of the opinion and research on CNN.COM. It is the best explanation I have ever seen. Usually, TV news assumed we are morons and does not explain the complex political ramifications of American foreign policy.
I think many of us agree why the Gulf War happened, or at least agree on two potential reasons: oil prices and protecting the stability in the region. Just a guess, not trying to put words into anyone's mouth.
I, to am a student of history and I see lots of precedent for long-term military involvement to prevent nation-states with long time disagreements from mixing it up. Rome wasn't built in a day.
We'll see how this topic extends. Politics is a touchy subject among even the best of friends.
The gist of it is this:
If we oust Saddam and his family, the next group vying for leadership of Iraq are a Muslim sect that are loyal to Iran. There are a lot more of that sect than the sect that Saddam's family belongs to. This = big war and Iran is relatively powerful. The most likely scenario in that case is that south and central Iraq would become part of Iran. Then, in the north, the Kurds, who are oppressed by Iraq and the Turkish people would take northern Iraq. This would aggravate Turkey and they are a key US ally in the region.
So basically, the best situation is to let Saddam stay in power and castrate his ability to make war for the long term. Hence, the no-fly zones and the risks to American (and British) soldiers.
These are not my opinions, but my paraphrasing of the opinion and research on CNN.COM. It is the best explanation I have ever seen. Usually, TV news assumed we are morons and does not explain the complex political ramifications of American foreign policy.
I think many of us agree why the Gulf War happened, or at least agree on two potential reasons: oil prices and protecting the stability in the region. Just a guess, not trying to put words into anyone's mouth.
I, to am a student of history and I see lots of precedent for long-term military involvement to prevent nation-states with long time disagreements from mixing it up. Rome wasn't built in a day.
We'll see how this topic extends. Politics is a touchy subject among even the best of friends.
