• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Kurdistan A US/Israeli Protectorate To Counter The Shia Iran/Iraq Axis?

Is Kurdistan A US/Israeli Protectorate To Counter The Shia Iran/Iraq Axis?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 2 66.7%
  • Total voters
    3
MildSteel

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I had been wondering why the Islamic State (IS) had not attacked Kurdistan. I was thinking maybe someone could have been giving them orders to leave Kurdistan alone. Of course, in recent weeks IS has been active in Kurdistan. So I started thinking the US is likely to get involved at this point because for some reason, Kurdistan has been relatively free from violence and prosperous relative to the rest of Iraq. Or at least that is my perception. So although I really did not have a good reason to explain Kurdistan's situation, I thought that it may be that the US is doing, or has done something there to make the situation different. Then came the news that the Israelis had purchased oil from Kurdistan in defiance of the Maliki government. That caused me to think that it is possible that Israel has something to do with it as well. Then came the news that Obama had decided to arm Kurdistan directly, totally by passing the so called sovereign government that it established in Baghdad. So I have come to the conclusion that Kurdistan is being used by the US and Israeli governments to counter the Shia influenced Iraq/Iran axis. That would explain why Obama finally decided to get involved with Kurdistan.

What do you think, is Kurdistan in essence a US/Israeli protectorate that has been formed to counter the Shia Iran/Iraq axis?
 
MildSteel said:
I had been wondering why the Islamic State (IS) had not attacked Kurdistan. I was thinking maybe someone could have been giving them orders to leave Kurdistan alone. Of course, in recent weeks IS has been active in Kurdistan. So I started thinking the US is likely to get involved at this point because for some reason, Kurdistan has been relatively free from violence and prosperous relative to the rest of Iraq. Or at least that is my perception. So although I really did not have a good reason to explain Kurdistan's situation, I thought that it may be that the US is doing, or has done something there to make the situation different. Then came the news that the Israelis had purchased oil from Kurdistan in defiance of the Maliki government. That caused me to think that it is possible that Israel has something to do with it as well. Then came the news that Obama had decided to arm Kurdistan directly, totally by passing the so called sovereign government that it established in Baghdad. So I have come to the conclusion that Kurdistan is being used by the US and Israeli governments to counter the Shia influenced Iraq/Iran axis. That would explain why Obama finally decided to get involved with Kurdistan.

What do you think, is Kurdistan in essence a US/Israeli protectorate that has been formed to counter the Shia Iran/Iraq axis?
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest. The Kurds would love to be a protectorate or pawn of the United States but thus far their entreaties have fallen on deaf ears due to the US commitment to a 'One Iraq' policy. The reason the situation in the KRG is so much different than in the rest of the Iraq is because you have a prosperous and competently governed monoethnic enclave with similarly competent security forces. This has made them less attractive targets. The recent offensive against the Kurds should be interpreted as a reaction to slowed efforts in the rest of Iraq and as targets of opportunity.
 
Sherman123 said:
Not in the slightest. The Kurds would love to be a protectorate or pawn of the United States but thus far their entreaties have fallen on deaf ears due to the US commitment to a 'One Iraq' policy. The reason the situation in the KRG is so much different than in the rest of the Iraq is because you have a prosperous and competently governed monoethnic enclave with similarly competent security forces. This has made them less attractive targets. The recent offensive against the Kurds should be interpreted as a reaction to slowed efforts in the rest of Iraq and as targets of opportunity.
Click to expand...

WOW! That one got a response from the govmint!!! :lamo

Ok Mr Goverment Agent, you tell me why is the US willing to let the Islamic State (IS) take over the Sunni and Shiite areas without lifting a finger, but when IS makes a move on Kurdistan, then the bombs start falling? Tell me, why the US is willing to erode the notion of the sovereignty of the government in Baghdad by arming the Kurds directly while at the same time refusing to provide aid to Maliki's Iraqi Army? Tell me, why is the US perfectly content to tolerate the presence of IS in the rest of Iraq rather than assist Maliki's Shiite dominated government? And why is Israel eroding the sovereignty of the Iraqi government by buying oil directly from Kurdistan in defiance of the Shiite Maliki government?

In my opinion, the US wants to erode the power of the Shiite government because that gives Iran too much power in the area. By supporting a more inclusive government for the Sunnis the US hopes to erode the Shiite influence in the area.

If you say the US is supporting a more inclusive government because they want more stability, then why are they willing to risk the instability that will be a result of alienating Maliki and his allies? Why are they willing to tolerate the instability that is the result of the IS take over of large areas of Iraq, rather than assist Maliki and support a Shiite dominated government?
 
Last edited:
MildSteel said:
WOW! That one got a response from the govmint!!! :lamo

Ok Mr Goverment Agent, you tell me why is the US willing to let the Islamic State (IS) take over the Sunni and Shiite areas without lifting a finger, but when IS makes a move on Kurdistan, then the bombs start falling? Tell me, why the US is willing to erode the notion of the sovereignty of the government in Baghdad by arming the Kurds directly while at the same time refusing to provide aid to Maliki's Iraqi Army? Tell me, why is the US perfectly content to tolerate the presence of IS in the rest of Iraq rather than assist Maliki's Shiite dominated government? And why is Israel eroding the sovereignty of the Iraqi government by buying oil directly from Kurdistan in defiance of the Shiite Maliki government?

In my opinion, the US wants to erode the power of the Shiite government because that gives Iran too much power in the area. By supporting a more inclusive government for the Sunnis the US hopes to erode the Shiite influence in the area.

If you say the US is supporting a more inclusive government because they want more stability, then why are they willing to risk the instability that will be a result of alienating Maliki and his allies? Why are they willing to tolerate the instability that is the result of the IS take over of large areas of Iraq, rather than assist Maliki and support a Shiite dominated government?
Click to expand...

You're right it's all part of a nefarious conspiracy.
 
MildSteel said:
I had been wondering why the Islamic State (IS) had not attacked Kurdistan. I was thinking maybe someone could have been giving them orders to leave Kurdistan alone. Of course, in recent weeks IS has been active in Kurdistan. So I started thinking the US is likely to get involved at this point because for some reason, Kurdistan has been relatively free from violence and prosperous relative to the rest of Iraq. Or at least that is my perception. So although I really did not have a good reason to explain Kurdistan's situation, I thought that it may be that the US is doing, or has done something there to make the situation different. Then came the news that the Israelis had purchased oil from Kurdistan in defiance of the Maliki government. That caused me to think that it is possible that Israel has something to do with it as well. Then came the news that Obama had decided to arm Kurdistan directly, totally by passing the so called sovereign government that it established in Baghdad. So I have come to the conclusion that Kurdistan is being used by the US and Israeli governments to counter the Shia influenced Iraq/Iran axis. That would explain why Obama finally decided to get involved with Kurdistan.

What do you think, is Kurdistan in essence a US/Israeli protectorate that has been formed to counter the Shia Iran/Iraq axis?
Click to expand...

we already know here what you have just thought ..yes you are right unfortunately
 
Medusa said:
we already know here what you have just thought ..yes you are right unfortunately
Click to expand...

You sir, are the elephant in the room that this conversation is trying to avoid.
 
MildSteel said:
I had been wondering why the Islamic State (IS) had not attacked Kurdistan. I was thinking maybe someone could have been giving them orders to leave Kurdistan alone. Of course, in recent weeks IS has been active in Kurdistan. So I started thinking the US is likely to get involved at this point because for some reason, Kurdistan has been relatively free from violence and prosperous relative to the rest of Iraq. Or at least that is my perception. So although I really did not have a good reason to explain Kurdistan's situation, I thought that it may be that the US is doing, or has done something there to make the situation different. Then came the news that the Israelis had purchased oil from Kurdistan in defiance of the Maliki government. That caused me to think that it is possible that Israel has something to do with it as well. Then came the news that Obama had decided to arm Kurdistan directly, totally by passing the so called sovereign government that it established in Baghdad. So I have come to the conclusion that Kurdistan is being used by the US and Israeli governments to counter the Shia influenced Iraq/Iran axis. That would explain why Obama finally decided to get involved with Kurdistan.

What do you think, is Kurdistan in essence a US/Israeli protectorate that has been formed to counter the Shia Iran/Iraq axis?
Click to expand...

Just because ISIS hasn't been on the offensive, doesn't mean there haven't been conflict in the area. The Kurds were pretty quick to move into Tikrit and take things over there after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom