> You have to realize that the area that the Kurds are flourishing in is
> actually a little smaller than the area Saddam agreed to give them in
> 1970, and which they accepted, and which they flourished in for their
> first golden period, from 1970-1974. And which they then disastrously
> decided to give up because they thought they could do better by returning
> to guerrilla war.
Isn't this where Kissinger came in, urging them to attack Saddam until Saddam and the Shah could mend their differences? And then of course American aid was stopped, and then, and then . . .
> All we anti-war types are asking you to do is give up on chemical and
> biological weapons as being worth a war. By give up, I don't mean we
> would help him. I just mean accepting that those are things a pure
> military sanctions regime can't prevent -- but that we can afford to wait
> until he uses such things before attacking him. Biological weapons of
> mass destruction are so far largely a fiction. And chemical weapons don't
> kill more people per attack than conventional weapons can. In both cases,
> deterrence seems like a perfectly reasonable logic to put one's faith in.
Are such concerns being expressed at "antiwar" rallies? "No Blood for Oil" and "No Iraqi Chemical Weapons"? Have I missed this part of the argument?
Like I've said, I oppose this war due to the regional make-up and what's bound to occur post-war: Another Sunni regime, only less armed and more beholden to Washington and Israel. And I don't think the Kurds really want to be part of a unified Iraq -- they want their own turf and more if they can get it, as you say. 'Course, the Turks have made it plain what they think about an independent Kurdistan, and I can't believe that Bush would openly push that in a key military ally's face.
Very informative post, Michael. Thanks.
DP