Kurdish leader threatens Iraq secession

*Just interesting...must be taken in context.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060903/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_kurds_flag

IRBIL, Iraq - The leader of the Kurdish region in northern
Iraq threatened secession Sunday as a dispute over flying the Iraqi flag intensified.

Massoud Barzani on Friday ordered the country's national flag to be replaced with the Kurdish one, sparking harsh words in Baghdad.

"If we want to separate, we will do it, without hesitation or fears," Barzani, president of the Kurdish region, said during an address to parliament.

He tempered his comments slightly by saying that Kurdish leaders already have voted to remain in a united Iraq. But government leaders in Baghdad fear the Kurds are pushing for independence from the rest of Iraq.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a terse statement Sunday.

"The current Iraqi flag is the only one which must be hoisted on each bit of Iraq's land until a decision is adopted by the parliament according to the constitution," the statement from his office said.

President Jalal Talabani's office on Sunday denounced the flap over the flag as an "exaggerated noise."

Talabani, a Kurd, defended Barzani's move, saying there had been a "constitutional vacuum" over the flag issue. Iraq's first interim Governing Council that came after the fall of
Saddam Hussein decided to change the flag but no official version has been adopted yet.

"What made the Kurdish parliament take this step is this blunder," the statement said. It added that the flag the Iraqi parliament will adopt will become "sacred" and will be flown throughout Iraq, "including Kurdistan's mountain tops."

The Kurdish region gradually has been gaining more autonomy since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, a worrying development to many Iraqi leaders, especially Sunni Arabs. If the Kurds were to become independent along with the Shiite majority in the oil-rich south, the Sunnis would be left with little more than date groves and sand.

On Saturday, Sunni Arab lawmaker Saleh al-Mutlaq slammed Barzani's decision.

"What will be taken by force today, will be returned by force another day," he said, without elaborating. "We can defend our dignity, our people and our land ... and no one should be under the illusion that he could take a tiny bit of somebody else's land."

Speaking to parliament, Barzani said the national flag does not represent Iraqis. He said the Kurds would use an early version of the Iraqi flag that was flown after the end of the monarchy in 1958.

The Kurdish area had been out of Saddam Hussein's control since the 1991
Gulf War, when the Kurds set up their autonomous region under the protection of U.S. and British warplanes. After the U.S.-led invasion, Kurdistan was the only region that did not witness major changes.

Iraq's new constitution recognizes Kurdish self-rule and provides a legal mechanism for other areas to govern themselves but within the Iraqi state.

 

what a nifty idea. maybe red and blue states should seccede.

The United Red States of Bush America.....and the United Blue States of Cut and Run and Think Bush is a lying dog.

We could learn from the Kurds!

 

I've suggested that in the past. Would be interesting. Which country (red or blue) would have a better:

economy
military
justice system
lower taxes
etc

and which would have

a bunch of smelly hippies
tolerance training
high unemployment
high taxes

Any guesses?

 

Which nation would have happier people and better sex?

 

not the one with smelly hippies, I'm sure

 

Economy? Blue of course. The US economy ran much better under Clinton than under Bush! Not even close.

Better Military? Blue of course. When was our military strongest and won the best? WW 2 with Roosevelt. Of course the red admins are better at funding stupid unnecessary ultra expensive weapon systems that don't keep soldiers on the ground from being shot up and killed. A great Red Military guy? Rumsfield of course. He's the same guy that raved about the effectiveness of "Shock and Awe" and yet when soldiers on the ground were being blown up by IED's and our vehicles weren't adequately protected he had the good graces to explain to the guys on the front line that "you go to war with the army you have". The Reds talk a big game...but they don't deliver!

Justice System? Give me a break. Think of justice for the Enrons of the world, who were heavy contributors to the current administration. Without counter balances from the Blue's they would never have been prosecuted and would be ripping off the country RIGHT NOW.

Lower Taxes? The Reds would have lower taxes...but alternatively the costs of everything else would be higher as they give bennies to favored industry and let them get away with murder!!!. The lowest taxes in the world are free trade that inspire competition and drive down prices!

Who would have more smelly hippies? The blues would have more but the hippies caught in the RED USA would smell worse. They'd throw em in jail and they wouldn't shower for months instead of weeks! Total smelliness factor? Far worse in Red Land!!!!!!

Tolerance training? Neither would have it. The blues wouldn't need it anymore to teach the reds...and the reds wouldn't have it.

Higher unemployment? The Reds would end up with more as they would severely limit controls on the economy. Ultimately, businesses go to extremes in a cyclical economy and then everything goes to hell! The blues would tinker with the economy more and cure things more quickly. Think of do-nothing Hoover and the great depression!!!

higher taxes? The blues would have higher taxes....but w/everything else running better all other costs would run lower and everyone would have higher disposable income!

Who would have more fun? The Blues? Who would have more big fat guys on talk radio--like addictive Rush Limbaugh-- pointing fingers at the blues and calling them names? Why the Red USA!

 

Oh! Our hippies would smell worse you say! That's the last straw, man!

First off, red states would create a hippy-catapult, sending them all to blue states, whether they liked it or not. Blues would counter by calling it biological warfare (pretty accurate description, though). So that settles that.

More seriously. (well, kinda)

Economy?

While the Clinton economy may have performed better; he was also the beneficiary of the Internet boom, which gave a lot of people a lot of money thru stocks (and venture capital), making the economy very well off indeed. The bubble burst in 2000, and Bush was left holding the bag. While the economy was on a downturn before and after his election, Bush did stave off a recession through tax cuts. There was never a technical recession, despite the attacks, the stock market going south etc.

And if you were honest about it...if the "blues" had the economy to themselves, they'd probably model one of the European countries as the template. And those countries economies have been in the shitter forever now (1% growth, 10% unemployment, etc) is the norm over there.

And you forget Reagan, who brought us out of the Carter economy (where the misery index was created) of double digit inflation, interest rates, etc. I don't think your comparison of Bush v Clinton really holds up when you look at more economic realities.

You have to go back 60 years to find a "blue" who supports the military (and he was practically forced to engage at that point). That's pretty bad. I can't name a single current "blue" who either supports military spending or is in favor of military action, even when its needed. Negotiation, appeasing, etc seems to be the name of the game these days. Again, I think that, if you give "blues" total control over military spending, you'll end up having a very ineffectual defense force (again, a la the europeans) and relying heavily on negotiations and having others protect them. Which the "reds" would gladly do, cuz we are nice.

Justice System?

Enron is your assessment for this? The Enron guys were brought to justice and sentenced under Bush. The crimes they committed were all done under Clinton's watch - right under his nose (and Gray Davis, of course). Furthermore, you have "blue" judges who give child molesters 90 days in jail then have them roaming free. Very light punishments for serious crimes. I think, after a while, finding excuses for violent crimes would be the norm. Hell, they couldn't even convict OJ in california.

Higher unemployment?

Here again. I think you are totally off base. Given total control. I think the "blues" would raise the minimum wage to some sort of farsical living wage, which would increase unemployment across the board. Then, they'd probably mandate that healthcare be given to employees, extra paid vacations, etc. Again, suggestions courtesy of the Europeans - and I think there is evidence to this, as "blues" often cite Europe as a great economic model. If you think that it is offbase, check out San Fran, and some of the economic policies that come out of there. Taxes so high and property costs even higher.

Higher taxes would yield a higher disposable income. That's a new one to me I think that with the lower employment rate, higher taxes need to pay for people not to work, healthcare costs going higher to pay for these same people, etc. You will end up with a far less disposable income, in the end. Plus, don't forget all the jobless hippies. They'll be wanting someone to pay for their drugs and the homeless people will have to be taken care of too.

Who would have more fun?

The reds I agree! We'd be laughing at the blue states for their ugly hippies parading naked in major cities demanding someone pay for this or pay for that. Quibbling over the last bit of money they can poke out of the golden goose before it finally dies. Dodging child-molestors out on parole and unconvicted murderers wearing Bruno Malis (sp?) singing in the streets. Kinda like we do when San Fransisco has a parade, right now.

Oh good times!

 

Presidents should never take credit for the economy...the only thing they can do is hinder it.

Muchless, Clinton's admin didn't reccomend a crunch of credit which eventually led to....foreign markets defaulting, excess capital in 'speculative' stocks, and huge margin/debt ratio. But of coarse you can simplistically look at it, but some of use aren't that naivee.

Roosevelt is actually an emblem to modern conservatives...when it comes to foreign policy. He was the last really good democrat in terms of that. He brought welfare down to nearly nothing (durning war), and focused entirely on winning and keeping the morale up here...no one would do that today...on either side.

Although Roosevelt doesn't resemble any modern liberal in foreign policy.

Too much democraticunderground....?

I live in the 'bluesiest' area in America, and tolerance is a one-sided thing. There's a lot of racism and hatred, but it's not by white people.

Lame...Hoover was in office for six months (before it crashed), while Roosevelt was in office 12 years. Roosevelt never saw the end of the depression, as it happened a few years after the war ended. In fact he almost lost his constituents because he lacked any movement in that area...but his war leadership kept it going.

Perhaps you could give me the great details on banking market of the 20's, and how specifically those banks (a 1/3 of them) folded? I'd be interested because I've read a great detail into this, and I'm assuming your taking the simplistic route ie you're not familiar with the banking regulations or tribulations of that time.

I'm no repub...I don't listen to them constantly...but I would shoot myself in the head if I had to listen to Dems speak all day.

 

What about my hippy-catapult idea? Are you pro or con on catapulting hippies, rick?

 

Can't speak for Rick, but visually I like the hippy catapulting idea. Any of them over 10 years old, though, would be categorized as WMD by GTech....and then Bush, Rummy, Cheney, and Senator Santorum would have to attack themselves for such evilness. (all stink bombs that are at least 10 years older ARE NOT weapons of mass destruction!!!!!!)

I'm sort of a purple a mix of red and blue....I can't keep going on with this...but

Agree w/Rick....Presidents shouldn't take such credit for the economy. I believe the tax thing is the great Political BS of politics. Cyclical economies, Growth in Demand, and low interest rates are the things that drive economies.

Clinton deserves no credit for a great economy. Low interest rates and a great booming growth in tech fueled the boom in the 90's. Relatively high taxes had no negative impact on that killer boom.

Then it busted. The cyclical nature of an economy with ultimate over expansion- bad investments, corporate bs, etc. and Bush was the recipient. Now the low tax thing is equally BS in saying what a great economic job Bush is doing.

What has been the saving grace in this economy? LOW low interest rates and growth in demand (population--primarily fueled by all kinds of immigrants) has had a kick ass impact on all things real estate which has spread through the country--mitigating other things that haven't worked as well.

If the real estate impacts tanks--we got problems--IMHO

Okay...so I'm sort of an old line/tough on terrorists/more economic sort of Dem.

Justice: gotta watch out when justice goes too far in all cases. Don't be too easy on the scum of the earth...but also keep close tabs on big business. The end result of negatives on the white collar type of crime is that it often costs society and real people much more in real money!!!!

Defense: I'm for tough defense. I just think the Bushies have f*cked up and are full of political cr@p labeling all those who disagree as pussies, wimps, etc.

I do think we have to rethink stuff seriously as this Iraq thing has gone to hell. the West needs to make big improvements on intelligence. (really saw it w/the Israeli's miscalculating with Hezbollah. Our middle east intelligence s*cks.

Unfortunately, whichever way this Iraq thing goes it won't have good results for the West, IMHO. Keep soldiers there, don't keep em there, set a pull out date, etc. None of these things are going to play out well. All will have painful impacts. Better rethink this and bring in more brain power from the above referenced big three and rethink all the implications.

Meanwhile--we better be strong--in more ways than we are--because these terrorists are a long term evil!!!!

European style economies? Nah. They have economic stagnation. Too much socialism for me. BUT -- they spread benefits better than we do and our health care system is going down hill fast in terms of supporting the entire population. Needs to be rethought out!!!

I forget all the other points. Sorry for the bombast.

I am 100% certain though that the total hippy stink population would be worse in Red America...and since the catapulting thing would result in obvious cases of WMD (as defined by Rick Santorem and GTech) it probably won't fly...cause then red america would have to attack itself!!!!!!

It would look cool though late at night with fireworks and great music!!!!!!!!

 

Pro.

I do like Classic Rock, so we'll spare those with musical skills...but if they act-up and hippy-talk,...then they better put on some wings.

 

Agreed, but I think you could make the case that the more government gets involved with healthcare; the more screwed up it becomes. More lawyers, more regulation, more subsidizing all leads to poor service.

In part. I think Reagan completing reversing Carter's economic policy can be directly pointed to when that recession ended. Lowering taxes (what was the top rate at that point? 70% or something - insane).

I think our problem is in Iraq is a casualty aversion problem. by trying to prevent casualties; we are playing it soo safe, which is causing more casualties over all. I'd much rather see a far more aggressive policy there, more proactive, less reactive. Defensive wars piss me off.

Israel, I think didn't suffer from an intelligence problem (though the UN did broadcast its movements) but from a poor leadership problem. Remember, Ohlmert is a leftist too, and couldn't manage the war (after having cut the military budget too). And I think that was the problem - complacency in Israel. Forgetting how big the threat really is.

 

It's too complicated. At one point in time corporation actually paid the vast majority of government services, although this is when taxes were extremely low and budgets were only for defence and limited social programs ie the 50's.

As the welfare state grew, corporate feelings of taxation changed. The burden shifted from corporations to the middle-class citizens. Now, it's not that I want to blame corporations, but I understand why the change has occured. The level of financial pressure from social programs is far too high (for corporations) to be competitive in an international market.

Our taxation is meant to penalize those whom register themselves here as a corporation...in that you'll be taxed here and you'll be taxed abroad if you have a company somewhere else. There's few, in any nation, that use that dual taxation policy. Taxation usually ends on ones border...and that policy among many others have made corporate leader lean towards evasive actions in taxation.

It's ironic we left such stable political policy to the past. I wouldn't blame the corporations, I would blame it on our policies.

Aww...but low interest over too long of a periods is just as bad.

Some of it was just bubble...ie there was an overestimate of the markets worth. There was quite a bit of inflation in the 90's, which seems to be going down a bit...despite some things going up. I'd say that investors and the general population are a bit more realistic when it comes to growth now (even though margin/debt ratios show overdue optimism at times).

Some of it is... although lower-taxes on dividends, is actually a good thing for investment. I'd keep that, if not increase that.

I have no problem with that, as long as it's real problems e.g fraud. I don't want witch hunts to start occuring. Not all of these guys are bad.

Thank god (most) people left those idealogies behind when they came to America.

 

Guys, all the money is in the Blue states, also so are the educated people, culture and opportunities.

Go sign up tough guy, they accepting people up to age 42 now

 

i know, we are a bunch of dumbasses in the red states And unemployed at that. Come on, at least pretend to make a good point.

Lemme see. I say I think the strategy sucks and you say, well sign up. Its like saying "I think the Bucs running game sucks" and you say "well, go play defense" Whuh?

 

This touches on a subject I find very worrisome, I don't find discussed in public, and I certainly don't know the answers to.

Do we have the size of ground forces to aggressively deal with these mid east type problems with the current all-volunteer army....and the growing American unhappiness with the war.

With this war we have about 130,000 troops in Iraq. They can't be everywhere. They can't stop weapons coming in from neighboring countries. We move them around to quell the more immediate problems.

The "Powell doctrine" would have been to go in with overwhelming numbers of forces (I think I read somewhere something like 400,000 troops. Then you cover lots of territory and can block the borders.

Do we have numbers like that? I don't know, but I don't think so. In the course of this war we have reduced troops in Korea and elsewhere and we are relying heavily on the National Guard and troops are forced to extend their stays beyond normal periods.

We aren't going to get help on this elsewhere. The number of "allies" in Iraq is a joke, beyond the Brits. With Tony Blair stepping down that number could diminish. Of other "allies" in Iraq, we are actually financially supporting some (maybe all) of those countries' troops.

So with a civil war (of sorts) going on and well armed militia on both sides that are attacking one another and civilians and JUST MAYBE an Iraqi military/police force that we are training that JUST MAYBE may be able to enforce some level of peace this is an ENORMOUS UNKNOWN!!!

If we were to leave immediately, yeah I think you would have civil war...sunni's versus shiites...there would be hell to pay...with Iran sitting next door ready to semi swallow up a shiite dominated Western hating/American hating country with huge oil reserves!!!!

Oooooh that would be a terrible outcome in the long run. But in the mean time it appears our guys are fighting a sh*tty war (sort of defensive) and they are targets from both sides and we haven't applied the troops to change that.

And I don't know...and I don't see it debated if we even have the manpower to do that.

I definitely don't buy the Bushisms about the military leaders getting all the troops they want. TOO MANY senior officers debated this issue recently. There is too much talk that much of the military brass hates Rumsfield.

That type of talk doesn't come right out of the liberal left....it starts in the military itself and inches its way out into the public. Labeling it anything else is pure BS.

I'm not coming out of the Leave immediately left. I'm concerned about the West and non-Islamic world facing up to an ugly threat that isn't going away and seems like that creature out of mythology that grew two heads every time you cut off one.

BTW did the Israeli's fail because of a limited "leftist" government effort or lack of intelligence or other reasons. I don't know the answer...but there is no doubt that should be a wake up call for both Israel and the West with regard to allowing groups like Hezbollah to develop. Again this type of enemy was able to withstand the pressure of a technically better, more advanced military and then come back and hit back with a lot of weaponry.

This stuff is ugly and the enemy is not backing off and we have to be better at whipping their @sses.

As far as classic rock, catapulting hippies, and fireworks....I'd like some great big booming classic rock music with a fireworks display/light show and flying hippies!!!!! (and boy did I have long hair when I had lots more of it!!)

 

OT. Found this interesting from Wikipedia:

We went into Desert Storm (in 1990) with 660,000 troops (I don't know how many of those were allies, probably not many). According to Wikipedia, at least. I'm not sure how accurate that is. On that assessment, 130,000 is very weak. I'm not sure how this number was decided on, but a larger number would seem to be more logical. Casualty aversion? Who knows, but if it came into play, it certainly seems like a crappy decision. At this point, adding 400,000 more won't be happening.

the Iraq army taking control over there seems to be a good step on getting us out of there and avoiding civil war. I'd like us out as soon as possible, but the Iraq government has to be strong enough to control things - inside and outside of its borders. Meaning Iran, primarily.

Don't forget football! Steelers vs dolphins right now. Too bad Ben isn't playing. I don't like Batch at all.

 

Curious...does anyone know if we ever recovered from Clinton cutting the military in half ie did we have bring our military atleast back to those numbers?

I'm curious, given the whole issue over how many people were put into Iraq....

 

I thought the primary beating Clinton did was in the intelligence Dept? It was under Clinton, where the "chinese wall" between the FBI and CIA was set-up. And, under Clinton, democrats pushed thru legistlation that made the US limit who it could use (er, "buy off") for intelligence purposes.

 

Here's a list of what all Clinton gutted to "supposedly" balance a budget through "spending cuts." It doesn't take much skill to gut the military to cut spending.