Now where would alJazeera get that idea?

U.S. considers partitioning Iraq

What on earth would have prompted this talk right now?

U.S. military officers and security experts are considering the possibility of dividing Iraq into three separate regions, The Free Internet Press reported.

Under the proposal, Iraq would be split into three regions -Kurdish, Shia and Sunni, with a central government in Baghdad.

It couldn’t have anything to do with Senator Joseph Biden, could it? I mean, is there any chance it might be related to Sen. Joseph Biden Proposes Partitioning Iraq Into Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni Regions?

At least no one in Iraq is going to take talk of splitting the nation up badly. You know, and get people mad at US troops or anything. These rumors should certainly help calm things down.

With friends like Senator Joseph Biden, who needs enemas?

UPDATE: Welcome, Senate readers!

Comments

  1. Damn that first amendment. And splitting up the country? Lets have everyone who says that tortured. That will send the right message.. Oh wait, it has already.

  2. Aaron: 1st Amendment basically says that you CAN say anything. It has nothing to do with the SHOULD. My point was obviously that it shouldn’t have been said (especially by a US Senator), not that it couldn’t have been said legally. So the 1st Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this at all. Not exactly sure where you’re going with the ‘torturing’ thing…doesn’t seem to make any sense. Please explain.

  3. Murdoc, some folks think that the First Ammendment’s reason for existence is to give anyone a reason for ignoring criticism. (See Aaron’s post above.) They think that any criticism is somehow infringing on their First Ammendment rights. Those same folks don’t feel that they need to refrain from any attacks on anyone ELSE, but will cry ‘First Ammendment!’ at the first sign of dissagreement from the opposite side. There are lots of things that are protected speech that SHOULDN’T be said, at least if you want to do good for your country. The moment the First Ammendment suddenly stops when someone doesn’t feel like being criticized is when you know the PC police have finally taken over.

  4. I agree KTLA and MO- the 1st means your allowed to say things not be free from criticism or consequences. The irony of your comment, despite is clever use of sarcasm and inuendo is that its logical underpinnings are not based in reality. ‘Damn that first amendment.’ Clever use of sarcasm to veil a suggestion that MO’s criticism contradicts the 1st amd.. The irony here is that this criticism would fall in the same category as MO. However, MO did not suggest the senators comments were illegal, but stupid. ‘And splitting up the country? Lets have everyone who says that tortured.’ Sarcasm again- coupled with exageration. The extreme of a argument does not mean some moderate form is wrong – nor that torture is a extreme form criticism. Or, for that matter that because somone holds a moderate point of view, they hold the extreme. For example, you may be believe in the free speach- but it does not mean you believe you should be able to yell fire in a crowded theater, or that beause you do, your moderate belief is wrong. ‘That will send the right message..’ Suggesting the aformentioned torturing people of people will send the ‘right message’- more veiled and sarcastic criticism. The real criticism here though, is that your suggesting that this heinous statment is in line with MOs. The problem is that its niether a natural extrapolation of criticism, or MO’s arguments, and would apply to criticism also. ‘Oh wait, it has already.’ Let see.. pretending you forgot that people have been tortured for talking about a split of Iraq. Well at least there is a end to the a sarcasm. I suppose this is where you realy statments reverse meaning: its supposed to transform the earlier sarcastic, cynical and illogical remarks- into a clever reference to the ‘truth’. The problem is no one has been tortured for suggesting that iraq be split up, so it does not make sense. I don’t agree with your assement of things Aaron, nor your methods. I also don’t like: -To much Sarcasm -Suggesting the moderate position is wrong by using the extreme form. -Suggesting criticism of others is tanamount to there comment being illegal (as opposed to just stupid/wrong/etc.) -Referencing things that never happened (e.g. people tortured for..) Even though I disagree with what it seems you were trying to say, this is how I would have preferred you say it more directly. Maybe more like this: ‘MO, I think your criticsm of the senators plan is against the first amendment. Also, that criticism of Iraq being split is equivilent to torturing them. And, oh wait, people have been tortured for suggesting that iraq be split up in real life.’ Now, I disagree with all of that, but I believe that it is less obfusciated and sarcastic version of your comment. It is at least what I took your comments to mean, once I worked through it.

  5. Sure Nicholas: Thing is, California, Texas, Montana, New York, Louisiana were all colonies, made up of people of more or less similar origins that CHOSE to live together in order to fend off imperialist interests from elsewhere. Even tough they were trying to get rid from brits, spaniards, french and the like, the colonists saw themselves in a situation where common interest arose. The situation in Iraq is absolutely different. Over there these people live side by side for millenia and are fierciely loyal first and foremost to their clan. That-