If Turkey invades Iraq, what happens

[mviale]

They take the kurdish region and act as an occupier - unless they have kurdish "permission"
Sunnis, shiites, and kurds ally to repel the outsider - the corrupt turk
Sunnis ally with Turks and create a new Iraq led by sunnis
full blown war btwn Turks, Iran, US and Syria?

[Phi Iota Gamma 84]

Turkey is an ally, democratic, and a NATO country.  Maybe we could work out a deal where they "occupy" (liberate, rebuild, germinate a democratic republic in the heart of the arab world, depending on an individuals personal political myopia)

Sounds like a win win except for the Kurds that get squashed.  Iran would skulk away with their tails between their legs and Syria would run and hide.

[Murffieus]

Mvail----Turkey is unlikely to invade Iraq as long as we are there----but should we be forced out like your liberal bretheren are trying to do there is no doubt that Turkey will then invade----that's only one of the hellish developments that will take place if we are forced out----the others are Saudi Arabia aiding the Sunni's and Iran aiding the  crapes in all out civil war (with Al Quida in the middle)  with the possibility of all 3 countries becoming embroiled in a mideast war.

Ideally, if we stay and win-----we set back radical islam bigtime----if we are forces out by liberals----there will be a bigger fight down the road with many, many more casualties! The liberals aren't thinking of the consequences here----it's all about emotion!

[mu_hilltopper]

Pfft.  If we leave Iraq before January 2009, it won't be because the "liberals forced us out".  It'll be the Republicans who, one by one, are getting off the train.   While the Democratic party has slim control of congress, they can't do diddly without a large chunk of Republicans forcing Bush to change course.

[mviale]

no longer a dem/republican issue.  For the majority of americans, it has become a question of right and wrong.  Ask that flaming lib Richard Lugar.

[Murffieus]

Republicans up for reelection are grumbling ----have said though they aren't going to vote immediate pullout.

It certainly is the liberals who want us out without thinking of the consequences----just want to make Bush look bad. Liberals think that terrorism is a law enforcement issue----Republicans look at it as a war issue. The liberals will change their mind quickly when the first dirty bomb is planted in NYC!

60% of the American people want us out----now I ask you----who has access to the better information on "war on terror", which includes battling Al Quida in Iraq----the President of the United States or the averge Joe in Kalamazoo?

[mviale]

Is James Baker a liberal?

[Phi Iota Gamma 84]

I think he is a tired old man who misses the limelight. 

[mviale]

some would say a wise old man.  Wisdom and knowledge of history is in short supply of late.

[mviale]

excerpt from the british involvement in Iraq in the 20s - sound familiar?
With the signing of the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty and the settling of the Mosul question, Iraqi politics took on a new dynamic. The emerging class of Sunni and Shia landowning tribal sheikhs vied for positions of power with wealthy and prestigious urban-based Sunni families and with Ottoman-trained army officers and bureaucrats. Because Iraq's newly established political institutions were the creation of a foreign power, and because the concept of democratic government had no precedent in Iraqi history, the politicians in Baghdad lacked legitimacy and never developed deeply rooted constituencies. Thus, despite a constitution and an elected assembly, Iraqi politics was more a shifting alliance of important personalities and cliques than a democracy in the Western sense. The absence of broadly based political institutions inhibited the early nationalist movement's ability to make deep inroads into Iraq's diverse social structure.

The new Anglo-Iraqi Treaty was signed in June 1930. It provided for a "close alliance," for "full and frank consultations between the two countries in all matters of foreign policy," and for mutual assistance in case of war. Iraq granted the British the use of air bases near Basra and at Al Habbaniyah and the right to move troops across the country. The treaty, of twenty-five years' duration, was to come into force upon Iraq's admission to the League of Nations. This occurred on October 3, 1932.

[Murffieus]

Well I can see how a democracy would have trouble taking "root in the early 1930s which coincided with the great Depression------established democracies had their problems at that time.

May I remindyou of another piece of history-----and that is because there was such a huge diversity of opinion it took 5 years after the revolutionary war ended in 1782 to write a constitution and then it took 2 more years after that to get that constitution ratified by all 13 states.

Because of that experience and the USA experience since, democracies are a lot easier sell now than they were back then. What's more democracy is the eventual answer to terrorism and to the economic problems in the mid east. Egypt is beginning to have elections on a local level----Lebanon is a democracy albeit fragile. The alternative is eventual Taliban style rule with strict shira law application-----have to fight an idea with an idea----we have a better mousetrap to offer!

[Phi Iota Gamma 84]

So what is your point.  That the only successful way to govern in Iraq is to brutally crackdown on any opposing view like Saddam.  

Then I think when we leave the Shiite's under Iranian direction will "successfully" govern Iraq in the same way they "successfully" govern Iran.

You could compare 1920 Irish Catholic and Protestants to Sunni and Shiite.  If the argument is that because a group of people  are acting like their forefathers acted and thus there should be no expectation for change then why try to change any cultural, racial, or nationalistic behaviors.  

I refuse to accept that there cannot be a improvement in the human treatment and respect for each other.  I do beleive progress is being made in many areas, and yes there is work yet to be done.  But talking in platitudes is not going to accomplish anything.

[mviale]

I am saying that we will repeat history in less than 100 yrs

[mu03eng]

And so what is your solution to prevent a repeat of history?

[ChicosBailBonds]

no longer a dem/republican issue.  For the majority of americans, it has become a question of right and wrong.  Ask that flaming lib Richard Lugar.

You're right, it is about RIGHT AND WRONG

[ChicosBailBonds]

some would say a wise old man.  Wisdom and knowledge of history is in short supply of late.

In 2000 during the election, I don't recall you or other libs saying James Baker was a wise man.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Actually, Murff...the Revolutionary war entered it's 9th year before ending.  1775-1783. Treaty of Paris signed in 1783.


Now Mviale, you talk about history repeating itself and I'd like to know what history.  Yes, you can argue your point of view but someone can easily argue that DOING NOTHING as we've also done in years past, produced dreadful results against tyranny and that mistake should not be repeated either. 

So which history are you referencing?

[mviale]

And so what is your solution to prevent a repeat of history?

Unfortunately due to our fateful decision - we will learn the same lesson that britain learned.  Dont occupy and place a firm leader in control to keep things under control.

[Murffieus]

We didn't place a "firm leader in control"-----we didn't put any leader in control----the Iraqi people did-----the overwhelming participation in the electoral process by Iraqis proves that they want democracy-----the problem is Al Quida who has stoked the sectarian violence----they have to be destroyed in Iraq!

[ChicosBailBonds]

And so what is your solution to prevent a repeat of history?

Unfortunately due to our fateful decision - we will learn the same lesson that britain learned.  Dont occupy and place a firm leader in control to keep things under control.

Mviale, you're entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts.  The Iraqi people have elected their own government...THREE TIMES they have voted.  Exactly what leader was "placed" there?  That is ridiculous.

[mviale]

pics are cute, but time for plan B as Richard Lugar has suggested.  British figured this out in the 30's

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6262292.stm

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well if the British figured this out in the 1930's, then why did they go in with us in 2003?


I'm waiting to hear about the leader that was placed there, or was that just a "typo" by you.

[muwarrior87]

I have no idea Chicos, care to explain Mviale. It seems that in Iraq, some things weren't figured out in the '30's since we're there now trying to figure out another problem...or is it the same one?

[Murffieus]

One thing that is very different for sure----and that is that the worldwide economy is one whole lot better today than it was in the 1930s.

[muwarrior87]

yup, no Germany's currency isn't turning into funny money like it was back then...had to constantly print more to pay off debts to other countrys but that just makes the Deutsch Mark lose value...viscous cycle...then comes in a looney economic savior who wants to destroy everyone that isn't perfect, like me, who, ironically, has almost all the features of those he was killing.

Thank goodness our world economy is better now. I sure don't want to see another genocide of a race start like it did in the late 30's...well, i mean do we count Sudan??