Amazon.com Widgets
I AM JOHN GALT.
Right Thoughts...not right wing, just right.
Prev: Stupid is as stupid does, Office style - Next: Hey Nutroots - Uncle Joe says to suck it - Home

Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:52:00

Maybe there is something to the nickname King George

Via lastango at the Daily Pundit comes the news that the White House has rejected the idea of partitioning Iraq into three autonomous areas.

“We’ve thought about partition, for a series of reasons,” but Mr. Bush has categorically rejected the idea of breaking Iraq into regions, Mr. Snow said in reply to questions about an article in The Washington Times.
Under such a plan, the nation would be divided into Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurdish regions, each enjoying near autonomy, with a central government handling defense, foreign policy and oil production.

Yeah, let’s just categorically reject the only thing that makes any sense at all unless you have a powerful dictator who keeps the sectarian violence under control through fear, intimidation and murder.

As lastango put it:

Of course the White House rejects partition. It will be called federalism.

I think he’s exactly right.  I think the idea of a strong network of states with the central government playing a limited role is anathema to the Bushpublican Party.  Once again, not to sound like a broken record, but these folks were never conservatives.  They never believed in the basic concept that government should be as small as possible.  Quite the opposite - one of the perfectly reasonable and legitimate criticism against Bush is that during his presidency, federal power has grown and been consolidated in ways heretofore unheard of, even in wartime.  I think the concept of federalism might be to George W. Bush as holy water is to a vampire.

Take.  It.  Back.  If the Republicans don’t want to represent the basic governmental ideals that created this country, then they don’t deserve to be our government.

Third party time, y’all.  Are we going to get serious about it or are we just going to sit back and watch it all burn?


Posted by JimK at 07:52 AM on October 20, 2006
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: NewsPoliticsThe Middle EastWar
Tags:
Technorati: 



Comments:

#1  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 10/20 at 11:41 AM -

Look at what a “third party” did to Bush 41.

If the Democrats take over the House, you can immediately count on them defunding the war in Iraq and the gathering of domestic intel, repealing or revoking the tax cuts that have given us our current economy (the 12,000 DJIA/"worst economy since Hoover"), not to mention starting Impeachment proceedings. You can also count on there being many champagne corks being popped in Teheran and Pyongyang, as it will become that much harder.

Haven’t you wondered why Iran and North Korea (and Cuba and Venezuela and France, et alia) want Democrats in charge of things again?

Whatever you do, DON’T just “sit this one out”.

#2  Posted by fangbeer United States on 10/20 at 01:31 PM -

Yeah, let’s just categorically reject the only thing that makes any sense at all unless you have a powerful dictator who keeps the sectarian violence under control through fear, intimidation and murder.

How do you plan on partitioning Iraq so that one sect doesn’t end up with all the oil, one sect ends up with all the desert, and the last sect ends up with all the farm land?

witchndigger#3  Posted by witchndigger United States on 10/20 at 01:57 PM -

Jim, I gota one for you. Write a third part platform. Then step back and ask what does is look most like. GOP or dems? That might help your outlook on all this. Just a suggection. Have great day.

JimK#4  Posted by JimK United States on 10/20 at 02:43 PM -

Two things would keep the oil out of one sect’s control: an agreement and a permanent US base in Kurd-controlled Iraq.

The central government’s job would PRIMARILY be to distribute oil profits equally among the Sunni, Shiite and Kurd “states.” If one sect retains too much power and violates the agreement, well, a few tens of thousands of US troops have always made a loud statement in the past…

We need a permanent base in the Middle East.  A staging ground, if you will, for the next 100 years of turmoil that democracy, radical Islam and the internet will bring to the region.  Iraq is the place to put it.  The Kurds already half like us and hold some pretty westernized ideas about getting along with other religions.  Seems do-able to me, from my layman’s perspective.

#5  Posted by fangbeer United States on 10/20 at 11:55 PM -

an agreement

The Shia have the power of numbers.  There’s no need for them to compromise.  The only way to bring them to the table is a large slice of the pie, and that will be 1. corrupted, and 2. resented.

distribute oil profits equally

Not gonna happen for the reasons above.

a permanent US base in Kurd-controlled Iraq.

Not a good idea.  There’s no route of support.  They’d be crammed right in the middle of angry Iraqi, angry Iranians, angry Syrians....

There should be a base in Iraq for sure, but the Shia occupy most of southern Iraq, and the vital persian gulf.  That’s the only way to get the supplies in and the oil out.  If we don’t have the gulf, we can’t have a base.

Harley W Daugherty#6  Posted by Harley W Daugherty United States on 10/21 at 05:40 PM -

Third party time, y’all.  Are we going to get serious about it or are we just going to sit back and watch it all burn?

A third party?  i assume you mean a Libertarian party right?
You know what party that would draw the loins share from? the Republicans, and then teh Democrats, would hold the majority of votes.
the senate and house would be more divided and in that the fer left would revel.

“watch it burn?” well i got the matches....any one got hotdogs?

#7  Posted by sindri United States on 10/22 at 09:31 PM -

Hey, I want a time table for getting out of Bosnia, Once we do that then everyone can complain about 4 years in Iraq!

PS Its not up to US to decide how their country will look. It’s called Freedom and now that they have it they just need to work out the bugs.  A REAL war against the insurggents with lots of civilian casualties will clean up the mess roght quick.

Where’s Patton when we need him?

JimK#8  Posted by JimK United States on 10/23 at 03:00 PM -

Hey, I want a time table for getting out of Bosnia

heh.  good point.  :)


Post a Comment:

The trackback URL for this entry is: http://www.right-thoughts.us/index.php/trackback/2628/yLCUQ6CJ/

Trackbacks:

No trackbacks yet.