Reply #61: OK. I don't have time right now to respond thoroughly to

[Colorado Blue]

all that you've said here. But just one this one issue - I do NOT prefer that the Kurds achieve independence via violence. I abhor violence.

Secondly: As for whether I prefer Iraq under Saddam or under a Shi'a theocracy - the people of Iraq ELECTED a Shi'a dominated government based on sharia law.

Saddam Hussein was a merciless tyrant, who as a matter of fact was empowered and armed by the US, as a counterbalance to the Shi'a theocracy in Iran. A horrible war ensued, between Iran and Iraq, which killed 1,000,000 people. What a waste. All of this was done in pursuit of "the balance of power" in the Middle East.

Simultaneously, a horrible war raged between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, also for control of the region and its vast and desperately needed resources. This conflict produced both Bin Ladin and al Qaeda, and the extremist government of the Taliban.

So there's no contest. Even though I don't think a theocracy is a great idea and don't approve of it and feel it will probably lead to civil war with the Sunni, who traditionally and FOR CENTURIES have had a bitter feud with the Shi'a, IT ISN'T OUR CHOICE. It is not up to us to determine that the Iraqis would be better off under a horrible but secular dictator simply because he happened to fit our purposes better AT THE TIME.

If I were in charge of the universe, I'd try to forestall a civil war by having a nationwide referendum, in which people would VOTE, region by region, as to whether they really want to remain unified in the artificial construct we call Iraq, or whether they'd prefer a confederation of 3 self-determining states who would share resources, infrastructure and defense capabilities. In my system the Kurds would control themselves, the Sunni could have their own secular government and the Shi'a could govern themselves according to their religion. There would be a governing council composed of men and women from each region, who would TALK TO EACH OTHER instead of blowing stuff up.

Finally, I'd like to say this: the US isn't responsible for these ancient rifts. We shouldn't have gone into this war for the very simple fact that the chaos factor in the M.E. isn't within our control and the violence, once started, can last for decades. But since we did, we must try and support a civilized system of government. And unfortunately it's too late now - we can't rewind the film. What's done is done. What we can do it try to move forward with some rational understanding of the people who live in this area and what THEY need.

It's obvious what the US needs. The US, indeed the entire global economy, runs on oil. Stability in the supply and demand for petroleum products must be considered in any real world model, regardless of one's political orientation. However, we have got to wake up and realize that our commercial interests mustn't be responsible for death on the other end of the pipeline. We must grow as a civilization, in tolerance and respect for others.

And, I think this applies to people on the other side of the mirror as well. Trying to insist that the world remain in the 7th century isn't going to work either. We ALL must try to compromise and learn.

Finally, the fact that the "first world", desperate for oil, has done business for decades with the most corrupt and despotic governments on earth, is a blemish on our souls. It's time to stop thinking of the world solely in terms of what WE need and want, time to find another "balance of power" that will respect all of us on this planet. That's obviously harder and it might take decades, but the fact is we're running of time. If we don't start respecting other people, other animals, down to the level of the one-cell creatures in the sea, we are all dead.