not want to separate. Moreover, in the last referendum vote, many of the
separatiste votes were a protest over the federal government. From what I
understand, the support for separatism is less than 1/3rd the population
and dropping.
larry
At 06:51 PM 3/31/2004, you wrote:
>good point. But a country can be not altogether stable and yet have
>elections and be a place where you can go to the store without getting
>shot :) Look at Canada for example. It isn't even sure it wants to be a
>country, nor is it clear that it should. And I say this as someone who
>voted *against* the Parti Quebecois.
>
>I think what I was trying to say is that though I dont think the US should
>be there, it would be wrong to just declare a victory and leave the way we
>did in South Vietnam, or possibly the first time we were in Iraq. Once you
>invade a country you can't just turn it over to the local warlords; you
>have a certain responsibility for the results of your actions.
>
>Dana
>
>
> >Remember it also depends on what locals you're talking about. In the north,
> >the Turkomen and Kurdish regions, the American forces can almost do no
> >wrong. In the west and the Sunni triangle, apparently its worse than
> >Vietnam. For the rest of the country apparently its mixed.
> >
> >Remember that Iraq is an artificial country - it was established after the
> >first world war by the British and French from the remains of the Ottoman
> >Turk empire. You have to go back to around 800 AD during the Caliphate to
> >find a real country. And then it did not include the Kurdish region.
> >
> >So in essence I do not think that stability will be achieved. The US forces
> >may be able to get out of there, but Iraq is going to be a cesspit for the
> >next few years.
> >
> >larry
> >
> >At 05:16 PM 3/31/2004, you wrote:
> >>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
