A partition of Iraq does not mean three independent nations. It means a sort of “federalism” that is as good as three nations, without actually being three nations, for reasons such as the Kurd/Turk problem.

With the vast oil wealth of Iraq owned three-ways, not under central national control, and therefore wide open to exploitation by Western Big Oil via the three (or more) separate federal regions after the beloved “hydrocarbon law” is finally rammed through the Iraqi parliament.

Hi Everybody this is a site with the best payplan out there. please check it out. Tell all your friends as fast as you can.

Do you really think that a central state in the mid-lands, with the ongoing tensions between the Sunnis and Al Sadr’s people, will be easier to “conquer”?

Hutchinson’s statements were nothing but a clear signal that she, just like an increasing number of republicans, is watching the ticking election clock, and thinking:

“How can we get our asses out of this shitmire?”

Partition is GOING to be the denouement of bush’s bloody little soap opera; what remains is to decide on whose “watch” it, with all of it’s fallout, is going to take place.

If the democracts are stupid enough and cowardly enough to let bush toss it to them, while he slides out of town, then they will deserve the “who lost Iraq?” ass-flaying that the republicans will ecstatically give them.

But the GOP congers are running VERY scared at this point, and more and more of them are not willing to sacrifice their own political asses, to cover bush’s legacy-ass.

THAT is why Hutchinson (whom, incidentally, has eaten HER authorization vote in 2002, more unequivocally than has Clinton.) is seconding Biden’s idea of splitting Iraq. She’s willing to have it happen, and happen sooner, rather than later, for the simple reason that if it happens in 3 months, or 6 months, or 9 months, they still have time to put bush on a spit and turn him, for the voters to see and enjoy. :o)

Stick with me kid, I’ll show you the ropes. :o)

Dow: This is patent nonsense. :o)

The notion that partition is somehow going to give bushCo access to Iraq’s oil is also lunacy. Pure, unadulterated lunacy. :o)

Where on earth did you come up with the idea that bush and the petro-turds want to see an an independent state in the south, around Basra, with those huge reserves, controlled by Shiites whom are inevitably going be closely allied with the Iranians? The Saudis are looking at THAT, and shitting green nickels. And I remind you, the House of Saud and the House of Bush are asshole buddies. (You pick the asshole. :o) )

And, in that entire dingbat screed on YOUR view of partition, the word:

“Kurds” did not appear. :o)

Please, Dow Wow, tell me that you don’t really believe that bush is in favor of an independent Kurdish state.

I feel like I’m talking to someone who walked up to me and said:

“Tanbark, let’s have a discussion on geography.”

And I said, “Fine”.

And then you said: “TB, you DO understand, of course, that the earth is flat, don’t you?”

I mean, I don’t know if we have any common reference points if you genuinely believe that bush wants the Kurds to separate from Iraq.

That’s just breathtakingly ignorant. Every time the Kurds whisper “independence”, the Turks get a hard-on that a cat couldn’t scratch. As we speak, they have nearly as many men parked on their border with the Kurdish north, as bush has crammed into the rest of what used to be called Iraq.

Do you think that that situation is beneificial to bush and the oil-pirates who have been waiting for the parliament to pass that oil law with the sweetheart deals for them in it? Again, please tell me you don’t think that.
Figuratively speaking, Condoleeza Rice has been spending more time under Recep Erdogan’s desk that Monica spent under Bill’s.

Do you think that if the Kurds DO hold that constitutionally-mandated referendum before the end of the year, to decide who controls Kirkuk and those adjacent oil fields (which they are almost certain to win) that bush wants to see THAT big step toward an independent Kurdish state?

Child, you need to re-think your precepts.

The republicans are twisting in the wind, 13 months from an election that, no matter the antiwar sentiments of the dems, or the lack of them, is going to send GOP congressional influence, and their white house influence (unless the democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton) right into the toilet.

ANY willingess on the part of the people who’ve dragged us into this misery to countenance the partition that is already a reality in Iraq, has NOTHING to do with their wanting Iraq to split up, or perceiving it as beneficial to them. It’s only them starting to throw up their hands, and shreik “Uncle!!!”

Jeebus! You’re not in the U.S. state department are you? :o)

I don’t care WHO scolds Biden; and his positions on other things are not first-rate to THIS progressive, by any means, but partition is what’s for dinner, whether it’s served 7 hours from now or 7 years from now.

We should start to deal with it. Could save us some blood and treasure.

‘Start to deal with it’?? What do you think we’ve been allowing to happen, if not fomenting, for four years now, under our occupation?? [And where is the proof behind your assertion @ 114 - which is contradicted by August’s opinion poll - about what ‘lurks in the hearts’ of the Iraqis? Or, like Biden, don’t you care to learn what the majority of Iraqis actually think and believe? We are “holding” nothing outside of the center of Iraq. Our forces are not occupying either the north or the south of Iraq (outside of air bases); there are still ‘integrated’ cities in the north where somehow ‘genocide’ has failed to break out despite (or because of?) our absence.]

Partition is the de facto policy of the American occupation, whether intended or not, as facts on the ground attest (never mind the covering rhetoric to the contrary). [It’s long been known as “divide and rule” - an approach that is especially favored by conquerors when prizes like $20 trillion in oil wealth would otherwise be available to and controlled by any strong central authority in a united nation, as certain neighbors of Iraq who have some ardent admirers in our Congress are well aware.]

And I tend to think that an obvious but unwelcome effect from a deliberate occupation strategy (or lack thereof) would lead one to change said occupation strategy (or to create one) to end or ameliorate any such unwelcome effect, especially one with such drastic humanitarian consequences, ASAP. Four years on, no such significant change in strategy has been evident, while the composition of Baghdad has “somehow” changed from 65% Sunni to 75% Shia under our close, American Zone-based “overwatch.” Just a minor coincidence, which our overwhelmingly-superior firepower advantage in Baghdad had nothing to do with, and had no ability to affect one way or the other…? Somehow I doubt it.

Actions speak louder than words. And when the Biden plan gets enthusiastic support from the likes of Big Oil’s Kay Bailey Hutchison, who never bucks the primary agenda of her Manly Leaders without their permission, something’s rotten in Denmark.

Really, MLS?

So you think the Kurds are truly planning on staying a part of Greater Iraq? :o) :o) :o)

The only think holding the place together now is the presence of upwards of 200,000 occupying troops there. Remove those, Siun, and watch how well the concept of greater Iraq’ does.

BTW, when and where did Hillary Clinton state that she was in favor partition. I’d like to see that link.

AIPAC no more wants Iraq partitioned than they want Hamas delivering party favors to the Knesset.

We should start to deal with it. Could save us some blood and treasure.