This article is awfully harsh on the anti-war movement, but if we look beyond that, there is some information that IMO, provides suggestions for what a policy in Iraq that has some chance of success might be.

> Naomi Klein: You Break It, You Pay For It.
>
> If staying in Iraq is not the solution, neither are easy bumper-sticker
> calls to pull the troops out and spend the money on schools and hospitals
> at home. Yes, the troops must leave, but that can be only one plank of a
> credible and moral antiwar platform.
> http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050110&s=klein

divide it into three and make good neighbor rules. Put bases in Kurdistan (freindly territory) and conduct special ops if needed.

Oh, what the hey....who needs a multilateral approach to a smaller and smaller world thru communications anyway...geeezzzzzz....you'd think we have another "Tower of Babel or sumthin'....huh......hey, you.... yeahh......you....the one speaking Arabic over there...WHAT did you SAY???? hmmmmm.......I don't UNDERSTAN' you...SPEAK GOD'S ONLY ENGLISH, man....." <_<

I would say we need to get our behinds outta the Mid East's bee's wax and start rebuilding the so-touted "democracy" being preached with guns and butter in Iraq HERE in the U.S. of A (is for the all-controlling impulses...B is for the BOMB we all adooorreeee....C is for the CONSTITUTION'S downfall......D is for the dirty word uttered at Congress' DOOR..... )as we post.

It occurs to me that it would be a lot cheaper to pull out and make reparations than to continue the occupation at the cost of about a billion a week and the steady loss of life and limb.

In easy simple terms to consider.... here's 3 things that BushCo & Necons needs to consider:

1) state of affairs in America

2) the ENTIRE cost ($ trillions) of Iraq and other (resistance) wars to follow

3) the never stopping spread of wars against the USA = total devastation

PULLOUT & REBUILD AMERICA!

Wouldn't that make 3 countries too small to surive? Seems I read that somewhere.

What about re-partitioning and disolving the country; connecting three ethnic regions to three neighbors with the same ethnic makeup. Turkey has Kurds I believe, Pakinstan would annex a portion and some other country gets the other third. Think of the negotiating potential for the US- we might see true democracy in some of these countries in return for a piece of the pie.

That's the right thing to do, and it should have happened in 1922; Kurdistan was promised but never delivered because it was then and is now opposed by Turkey, our ally from NATO.

I think we could create 3 provinces as Heart suggests, with a loose federal structure to unite the Kurds, Sunnis and Shii into a "new Iraq." We'd probably get a little grousing from Turkey, but we could offer to grease the skids for membership in the EU and I'd bet they wouldn't do anything to stop it's creation.

Recall the history of the Hindu/Muslim partitioning in the Indian subcontinent. Ghandi nearly starved himself to death trying to stop that bloodshed. Also Iraq is fairly landlocked. The Kurds and the Sunnis would need credible assurances of access to international travel and trade.

Partitioning into 3 provinces might be a solution, but I haven't heard much about Iraqi sentiment in support of the idea. Bagdad and other large cities have large neighborhoods representing each faction. How would these cities be governed?

ghostgovt
Agree with your post, the American people and government has got to learn to keep out of other peoples affairs, and take care of its badly needed own.

Seen this morning on Meet the Pressure- that the U.S. government has monitors in the Palestine election! What gives there? LOL Maybe we need some foreign monitors when the "SHRUB" and his Bro's run for office.

I really can see some other country coming over here and being a monitor to our election procedure! That would be great! LOL But we are so advanced and trustworthy, aren't we??? LOL Be Well--

You got it Bammo,

It's so BushWorld obvious with it all..... and it's a matter of time before smaller uprising countries all bond together in a major event to smoke America right off this planet.

These other countries are not stupid by far. They know that America is 200% money based operated and they see that very money depleating away quickly.... weakening us.

This is what happens when a country stands by and allows a Goober and his Master Pork Chop to buy their way into leadership. It's all just a matter of time now.

Not if the Bush's friends kept their mitts of the oil & gas revenues which were then used for the benefit of all, like they should be. And the three partitions wouldn't necessarily be split into different nations. There are 50 states in the US, why not 3 in Iraq????

Nuclear comes to mind....Never know, these terrorist hit us with anything big, We just might melt the whole Mid East. Say they hit Chicago or NY with a small nuclear suitcase or something like it, At that point any and all countries that have condoned supported or "turned a blind eye" to terrorists operations would be fair targets. At some point you can no longer use politically correct or scaled down versions of your abilities. Any severe terrorist strike in the future must be not only retaliated for, but retaliated for in such a manner as to discourage future attacks and decimate the people that made it possible. I KNOW ITS NOT POPULAR, BUT ITS TRUE!!

The Bush Administration should never have attacked Iraq and every day the US continues the attack the condition of the world and the US's place in it gets worse. Move the election up to next week and then pull the troops out. The Iraqis couldn't do any worse job handleing the situation than we're doing.

I advocate your idea, just one addition,,,, LEAVE THE SAND,,,,,TAKE THE OIL...... LOL its the godfather immitation on a national basis,,,,,, leave the gun, take the canoli..... Not a bad idea HUH??

Heart-

I appreciate your situation and ideas that you share here with us. You do currently live in the Middle East... Iraq.. currect?

I understand the problems that all the countries have in the Middle East and also the rest of the world as well. I think your suggestion for dividing Iraq into 3 states is a good idea, if those within those states would behave and play fair. What is your comment about that? Do you think that the Iraqi ppl will all divide into their choosen state and respect those boundaries and own laws?

I see so many ppl in the Middle East having their own ways of living and their own religious beliefs. With Saddam now removed from power over Iraq, how would you suggest enforcing those good neighbor rules among so many ppl in Iraq who are driven by their own beliefs? Do you think that a choosen Iraqi force will be able to maintain civil law inside of Iraq? Do you think there should be 3 seperate Iraqi forces to operate within their own state accordingly? (and also resist outside forces that may cross Iraq borders)

I'm currious in how you might see the Iraqi ppl solving these problems from here on out.

It's tempting to avoid discussion of this scenario, because the scale of the catastrophe would be unlike anything experienced since Hiroshima and Nagasaki---but its entirely conceivable. The scale of the disaster relief effort might necessitate a redistribution of military assets from Iraq and Afganistan.

I'm not sure I agree that severe retaliation would discourage future attacks. I'm sure that a nuclear retaliation would risk a continuing exchange of nuclear strikes among existing nuclear powers.

Before 9/11 we had a decade wherein we were relatively free from the shadow of doomsday.