Democrats have foreign poicy!!!

Iraq becomes a loose federation, U.S. troops pull out in 18 months.

Iraq is divided into 3 groups with strong idenitites, ethnic/religious groups, forcing a democracy upon it is abusive because the minority group runs the risk of being tyranized, and the majority groups run the risk of being tyrannical. The Republican plan of a democratic plurality with a strong constitution protecting minority rights, that the minorities can count on is, thus implausible. Sunni’s and Kurds will not forgoe there right to an army, and shiites won’t share political power with sunnis because of things in the past. The fantasy of Iraq becoming a Democracy and spreading it throughout the middle-east is thus best left to the manifest destiny baffoons.

Sen Joe Biden among others has proposed that Iraq been split into 3 loosely connected federations that will basically rule themselves. The plan calls for perhaps a weak central government that would act on behalf of the nation of Iraq in internationaly matters. The magic numer of 18 months gives Iraq enough time to train and employ a police force to manage itself. The Kurds already have one up and running, and shia are close. After the pull-out the U.S. and NATO will work closely with Iraq, offering security from foreign invaders, and deploy small special force teams if need be to give advice to the police force.

The implimentation of the 3 part federation will be used ina similar way as in Bosnia. The U.S. will orchestrate the civil war in such a way that the only outcome is stalemate, and the result will be a de facto partition that the U.S. and NATO have already orchestrated.

v.

The Republican Plan.

Accept nothing short of full Democracy, even though the make up of Iraq’s population makes minority rights a near impossibility. Fight to for this by trying to control a civil war for an indefinately amount of time, a civil war which no side is clearly capable of winning.

of course the democRATS will all volunteer to be human shields along the borders of the 3 state iraq to ensure the iraqi’s safety after the troops leave- especially from iran.

-Imp

How is this relevant?

if you have to ask you haven’t studied the outcome of the democRAT solution.

-Imp

What, that the U.S. and NATO are going to provide border security? I said that in the OP.

Orchestrating a civil war to partition the country? I’m not sure how that could be a Democrat plan, since it would have to be made public and thus would undermine itself.

Aside from that, I think Imp is right that dividing Iraq up wouldn’t make it strong enough to keep it from being a tool of Iran or others, and possibly being even more dangerous than an anarchy that breed terrorists. So really, we’d need to invest a lot of long term personnel to keep the three sections from being influenced by someone else. How in the world would the US public support increased troop deployment, especially when we are basically out of troops?

Of course, Imp wants to nuke Iran anyway, so I don’t see why he’s worried :smiley:

The civil war is already here, all we have to do is ensure stalemate, not that hard to do considering no side has a clear advantage. It’s more diplomatic than anything.

Increased troop deployment? Iraq’s national security depends on us whether this plan goes thrrough or not, with this plan they gain sovegnty, and we don’t have to expend resources to be an occupying army. Odd how “long term personnel” is used as a reason against this, when the current situation, the current plan, calls for troops to stay there indefinately.

I don’t see how any of your or Imp.'s arguments are relevant considering the plan offered by Republicans multiplies your complaints 10 fold. No, this plan isn’t perfect, but a perfect plan doesn’t exist when a nation is trying to pull-out of a country it is occupying.

It being better than the plan that isn’t working at all doesn’t make it viable; we don’t have nearly enough troops deployed to successfully pursue either plan, and the public will revolt against further deployment in the current political climate. I do think it’s a better course of action, if it’s possible to make agreeable dividing lines (especially concerning Baghdad) and relocate so many people. But the fundamental problem of the Iraq conflict is that we don’t have enough troops for an occupying conflict, and it doesn’t solve that.

On the civil war thing, I don’t see how it could become a stalemate prior to the division; it’d probably try to continue across the new borders too, but it would be at least moderately more containable at that point, and probably of smaller scale.

Nihilistic

So an Israel/Palestinian sort of situation is what we’re after here?

No, we put US troops in the middle.

Ah, so North Korea/South Korea, only where both sides hate us and not just one. Neat!

Well, there’d actually be 3, but pretty much.

Do you see where our criticism is coming from now Nihilistic? As much as it’d be great to win a conflict when we win a political debate, the real world tends to be the determining factor in war, even if it isn’t in politics.

Look, we stop being mavericks about this, and invite the world community to help us. Once we do, and if they do, then the world exerts enourmous amounts of influence on all 3 segments of Iraq to compromise. Our goal untill now has been full feldged Democracy, that will not work, we change the consitution in the necessary ways. We also manage the money promised to reconstruction properly. This much is necessary.

This plans calls for the meeting of goals that should have been met by now. A working Iraqi police force, the proper allocation and distrubution of over 30 billion already given to reconnestruction. The recognition that Iraqi self government is possible only when minority rights are protected from the shia.

protected by democRAT human shields.

-Imp

That hasn’t been much help in the past, why should it work this time?

Again, you don’t make sense.

but I am the one who makes no sense…

-Imp