Subject:  Iraqi Civil war? Anyone have a point on that? |
Author:
h2ok9
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05:06:18 09/26/04 Sun
Civil War in Iraq, What will it mean for us?
by ssg012
Fri Sep 24th, 2004 at 13:49:51 GMT
Yesterday Rumsfeld seemed to say that we would be happy with any elections in January, even if the are imperfect elections. This administration seems to be saying that elections in 14 out of 18 providences would be good enough. We are seriously considering holding elections in which the citizens of Baghdad, those loyal to al-Sadr, and countless others are not able to vote. As I heard someone else describe it "like holding elections in the US without the people from Washington and New England being allowed to vote."
How can this lead to anything but Civil War?
So my question is "What does Civil War in Iraq mean for America?"
Noone seems to focus too much on this. I have heard Civil War would involve Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Who else? Are we on the verge of World War III?
What will Civil War in Iraq mean to a "Security Mom" in Ohio, or a "NASCAR Dad" in West Virginia?
Civil War in Iraq, What will it mean for us? | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Tom Friedman (none / 0)
I heard Tom Friedman on Imus this morning and he said his gut told him we were looking at American withdrawal and "big" civil war - as opposed to his hope that we would have partial elections followed by "small" civil war, with the US remaining.
He said this civil war would involve the entire region and force Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to take more responsiblitly for their own security, and their own borders. He expected it would end up with a divided Iraq - into 3 portions, Kurd, Sunni and Shiite, each of which might someday become coherent governments.
For the US, this would primarily impact us in terms of huge increases in oil prices. I got the sense it wouldn't really increase our terrorism risk, since the insane level of turmoil in the region itself would be consuming so much internal energies.
Sounds dire for them, maybe in a way less so for us than the current situation. Of course, it would be on our heads for creating the situation in the first place.
He emphasized the need for energy independence again. I think Kerry could borrow a lot of Friedman's talking points. None of it is inconsistent with his current position and a lot of it clarifies things.
by Hrubec on Fri Sep 24th, 2004 at 13:54:29 GMT
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
