(Kurdish) Victory in Iraq

“Today we have five universities and soon we'll have six. Compare that with 1991, when we had one.”

The same evil US invaders, but a different people... and a different result. Why no US stealing of petro? Why no US puppet govt? Why no hatred of yankee conquerers?


Paul Hue said...

How long did it take Taiwan and South Korea to advance from US-erected dictatorships to affluent democracies?

Nadir said...

US protection of Kurdistan over the past 15 years has been helpful to that region. Again, it is because of its strategic importance in the war against Iraq and the broader Muslim Middle East that prompted US government investment there.

Kurdish development might be even more pronounced if not for the interference of Turkey who still fights the Kurds tooth and nail. This is why Kurdistan is not allowed to break from the other groups in Iraq.

Why isn't the US challenging Turkey to help the Kurds become an independent state, Paul? If that is what the majority there wants, shouldn't the US bomb Istanbul to help Kurdistan become a free nation? Isn't that what your "Shock and Awe" democracy building is all about?

Paul Hue said...

The US is not waging a "War on Iraq"; it is waging a war against an "Islamic Crusade", which employs international terror tactics as laid out in the koran. The experiences of the Kurds demonstrate conclusively that the US is not "waging a war on Iraq." The Kurds have welcomed the US troops, which has resulted in:

- US troops leaving.
- Kurds enjoying freedom and prosperity, just as Bush promised.
- Kurds controlling their own oil reserves, in complete violation of what Nadir, Tom, and the other lefties claimed represented Bush's "real" reason for invasion.

As you admit in your own post, Nadir, the only people directing violence against the Iraqi Kurds are non-US entities.

As part of the US anti-crusade war, the US exercised an option to militarily enforce the 1991 cease fire agreement of Iraq's Baathist government, and to replace that government with a modern civilization, known as a free-market democracy.

I am glad that you acknowledge that US military "protection" enabled Iraqi Kurds to create and maintain a civilization. This is one central reason why the neocons believed that a similar action on the rest of Iraq would produce a similar result; obviously they were wrong. Given the same chance as the Iraqi Kurds, apparently Iraqi Arabs will use the opportunity not to implement a civilization, but rather various flavors of mutually exclusive, revenge-seeking tyrannies. This is a very sad lesson to learn.

The neocons never advocated attempting such an experiment in every tyranny on earth; they did stipulate only investing such effort only in the nations of strategic importance to the US. Petro reserves in Iraq represent only one such factor, but not a deciding one obviously, given that US businesses profitably and reliably trade for petro in most other petro-rich nations governed by tyrants. The unique strategic factors at work in Iraq include the chance to implement a democracy in Arabia, providing the region's first clear modern example of prosperity and how to achieve it, which is by democratic means, not 7th century religious tyrannical crusaderism. The blow to Islamic crusaderism represents the main goal of Bush's invasion of Iraq.