No one cares about Iraq
- Thread starter jimmoyer
- Start date
Re: RE: NO ONE CARES ABOUT IR
You're wrong, I think Noam is great for philosophical discussion.
aeon said:
You're wrong, I think Noam is great for philosophical discussion.
Re: RE: NO ONE CARES ABOUT IR
I said philosophical, not pragmatic. Noam used to write about how noble communists were when they would slay by the thousands to get in control.
aeon said:
I said philosophical, not pragmatic. Noam used to write about how noble communists were when they would slay by the thousands to get in control.
Re: NO ONE CARES ABOUT IRAQ
750 millions in totals, nice try.!! yes saddam did a l ot of thing wrong, like gassing the kurd in 1988, remember?? i guess you dont since no us media talked about it, because he was still supported by your great governement.
Also for your own information, it is donald rumsfeld own coorporation that sold nuclear technologie to north korean.
Johnny Utah said:As for quoting Madeline Albright you sure picked a winner there. :wink:
Madeline Albright:A toast to North Korea continuing it's secret Nuclear Program while the Clinton Administration looks the other way.
Kim Jong:Yes a toast Madeline and screw Team America.
The rest of your post, Blame USA, Blame the West, yep Saddam never did anything wrong. :roll:
750 millions in totals, nice try.!! yes saddam did a l ot of thing wrong, like gassing the kurd in 1988, remember?? i guess you dont since no us media talked about it, because he was still supported by your great governement.
Also for your own information, it is donald rumsfeld own coorporation that sold nuclear technologie to north korean.
RE: No one cares about Ir
As soon as the bastard and his legacy are buried, the sooner the whole bloody mess can be cleaned up.
Middle east peace doesn't happen without intervention, and then it only lasts as long as the intervention. revolutions always follow... so a civil war will be hard to prevent.
So maintain a presence, keep the UN peace keepers there for another 10-15 years, and we might see a society start to rebuild. Leave now and it will be worse than before Saddam. At least governments knew they were dealing with a tyrant, now noone has a freakin clue. think about not knowing who you are dealing with... better a devil you know than one you dont.
and lastly... after invading, destroying, rebuilding and pretending everything is going great, what will happen to those in a state of weakness if all the troops and help are pulled out right now?
Square One. Thats what.
As soon as the bastard and his legacy are buried, the sooner the whole bloody mess can be cleaned up.
Middle east peace doesn't happen without intervention, and then it only lasts as long as the intervention. revolutions always follow... so a civil war will be hard to prevent.
So maintain a presence, keep the UN peace keepers there for another 10-15 years, and we might see a society start to rebuild. Leave now and it will be worse than before Saddam. At least governments knew they were dealing with a tyrant, now noone has a freakin clue. think about not knowing who you are dealing with... better a devil you know than one you dont.
and lastly... after invading, destroying, rebuilding and pretending everything is going great, what will happen to those in a state of weakness if all the troops and help are pulled out right now?
Square One. Thats what.
Joey B, the problem with American policy during the
Cold War was just that idea you mentioned: Better
to deal with someone you know then someone you
don't know.
And thus began America's hypocritical dealings with
known dictators, during the Cold War.
So now we deposed one. And we knew him well.
Even Donald Rumsfeld famously and photographically
shook hands with him ---- meaning Saddam Hussein.
So now he is gone. And changing American philosophy
from dealing with who you know than who you don't
know is a big change.
Go figure.
Yeah we liked him when he went against Iran in the
1980s. But despite our shallow alliance with him, we
always knew he was a bastard, and we knew him.
So I say, it's not always better to deal with someone
you know then it is to deal with the unknown.
The unknown is having its day.
The ethnic and religious fractions in Iraq never died
under Saddam. Not even Saddam could change it.
The shia and the sunni must have their day.
And whether Saddam delayed it by ruling another
10 years and then bequeath it to his idiot sons (now dead) or whether he was deposed NOW gets you the
same results NOW or LATER.
This is very parallel to Yugoslavia. When Tito died,
no Serbian, and certainly not Milosovec could keep it
all together.
Europeans are quite naive about this.
This idea of dealing with a dictator is better
than dealing with the alternative is exactly what
got America in trouble and got America the rap
of hubris and hypocrisy in the first place.
Now flip flop.
America stops it with Milosovec in Serbia and Saddam
in Iraq and the rest of the World thinks that old
American philosophy of supporting a dictator is better
than the alternative you see now ?
America and the world has done a 180
and I wonder if anybody sees the irony.
Buy then I guess maybe no one sees that nuance.
It doesn't fit their narrative.
It doesn't fit their mindthink, the zeitgeist.
Cold War was just that idea you mentioned: Better
to deal with someone you know then someone you
don't know.
And thus began America's hypocritical dealings with
known dictators, during the Cold War.
So now we deposed one. And we knew him well.
Even Donald Rumsfeld famously and photographically
shook hands with him ---- meaning Saddam Hussein.
So now he is gone. And changing American philosophy
from dealing with who you know than who you don't
know is a big change.
Go figure.
Yeah we liked him when he went against Iran in the
1980s. But despite our shallow alliance with him, we
always knew he was a bastard, and we knew him.
So I say, it's not always better to deal with someone
you know then it is to deal with the unknown.
The unknown is having its day.
The ethnic and religious fractions in Iraq never died
under Saddam. Not even Saddam could change it.
The shia and the sunni must have their day.
And whether Saddam delayed it by ruling another
10 years and then bequeath it to his idiot sons (now dead) or whether he was deposed NOW gets you the
same results NOW or LATER.
This is very parallel to Yugoslavia. When Tito died,
no Serbian, and certainly not Milosovec could keep it
all together.
Europeans are quite naive about this.
This idea of dealing with a dictator is better
than dealing with the alternative is exactly what
got America in trouble and got America the rap
of hubris and hypocrisy in the first place.
Now flip flop.
America stops it with Milosovec in Serbia and Saddam
in Iraq and the rest of the World thinks that old
American philosophy of supporting a dictator is better
than the alternative you see now ?
America and the world has done a 180
and I wonder if anybody sees the irony.
Buy then I guess maybe no one sees that nuance.
It doesn't fit their narrative.
It doesn't fit their mindthink, the zeitgeist.
RE: No one cares about Ir
the whole 180 degree turn isn't unusual. Not for America, and certainly not for others... examples?
Look at Haiti. Still, that was a reverse 180, but no slam dunk... yet
Iran contra... yeah we remember that, right? 180.
so really the US has done more of a 270 on Iraq... it has gone past 180, is heading back to where it started out, but has decided that now it remembers what the original problem was, and is stopping about 90 degrees short of where it all started... but 90 degrees short is in no-man's land... a place where opinion and consensus are opposed. It's also politically unstable, and Bush knows that but he's dwelling on fringes and marginality and it's worked to his advantage.... almost.
From what I recall, NATO was the driving force behind Yugoslavia, not only the US. Having said that, also begs the question on why the UN did not sanction the occupation of Iraq, but rather let the US go about it's business (well it didn't exactly happen that way, but for the sake of sparing all a thesis on the escalation.. we'll say that Uncle Sam went ahead under it's own steam) to find WMD's
As I stated, square one is where it could all end... the full 360 degree turn in historical political alignment. Bush has an amazing opportunity here, at 270 degrees, to maintain american forces in Iraq under a UN banner, for a longer period (and coalition forces will certainly support this, but maybe in a more inferior capacity than currently is the case) and allow a peaceful transient government to form a strong harmonious democratic rapport with it's people. This obviously takes some time- more than perhaps some coalition forces are prepared to give, but the longer peacekeepers stay and play an educational role, the more successful the transition to an economically strong and peaceful country it will be.
Always, there will be intolerance by minorities, but the people as a whole need to work together to solve this problem diplomatically, because the middle ground, is always where most people are. We've all learned that violence solves nothing, so educating others about this, doesn't hurt, and might even help them build a strong society with a great moral fabric.
Until the extremists are contained, the problem will continue. It's one thing to support military intervention, it's another thing entirely to support military invasion (or allowing insurgency, militia and terrorism to proliferate) There is a difference. For those of us involved in the coalition forces occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have a responsibility now, to maintain peace, and to educate and promote a free society where people can feel safe, happy and secure. leaving the job unfinished speaks more about us as an unhelpful 'neighbour' to these people, than helping them through a difficult period and then saying to them, 'Okay, we've done our job, it's in your hands now, we'll observe and help you out, but you're running the show' and that is the Coalition forces goal... to help people get themselves safe and secure. It's not a 180 or a 360... it's another tangent completely, an unchartered route for a new nation, a new Iraq.
Regardless of peoples feelings about Iraq's occupation by coalition forces, they are there, helping out, preventing violence, apprehending criminals and infiltrating terrorist / insurgent organisations. This is a benefit to everyone, not just Iraq, or America, or europe or australia or whoever...
and trust me, it's a lot more delicate a situation than many think. If 'we' get it wrong now, the repercussions for all of us could very well turn out to be bad indeed.
It's not a time to tread on eggshells, but it is a time to be frank, diplomatic and to learn that people do not always have to share the same beliefs to 'get along' . Once people realize this, we won't be having thoughts about whats going to happen this week in the next episode of 'The War On Terror'
People in westernized society who take democracy for granted, may not understand how difficult breaking free from the habitual style of a dictatorial regime actually is. The Iraqi people have a lot of adjustments to undertake in their new lifestyle, and the uncertainty that a previously unknown freedom provides, can be a trigger for people to regress to the only way of life they have known. This in turn creates fear of progress, anti-coalition sentiment and a hatred for the occupying forces because nothing is happening overnight.
Yes it's up to Iraq and it's people to build their society based on a newfound freedom, but it is also the duty of the occupying forces to ensure that the freedom they helped to deliver, at a great cost of life to everyone involved is not swallowed up in a civil war, or a peoples revolution, which as history has repeatedly shown, only serves to force the people to revert to their previous and only known way of life.
You don't make progress without at least some small sacrifices.
the whole 180 degree turn isn't unusual. Not for America, and certainly not for others... examples?
Look at Haiti. Still, that was a reverse 180, but no slam dunk... yet
Iran contra... yeah we remember that, right? 180.
so really the US has done more of a 270 on Iraq... it has gone past 180, is heading back to where it started out, but has decided that now it remembers what the original problem was, and is stopping about 90 degrees short of where it all started... but 90 degrees short is in no-man's land... a place where opinion and consensus are opposed. It's also politically unstable, and Bush knows that but he's dwelling on fringes and marginality and it's worked to his advantage.... almost.
From what I recall, NATO was the driving force behind Yugoslavia, not only the US. Having said that, also begs the question on why the UN did not sanction the occupation of Iraq, but rather let the US go about it's business (well it didn't exactly happen that way, but for the sake of sparing all a thesis on the escalation.. we'll say that Uncle Sam went ahead under it's own steam) to find WMD's
As I stated, square one is where it could all end... the full 360 degree turn in historical political alignment. Bush has an amazing opportunity here, at 270 degrees, to maintain american forces in Iraq under a UN banner, for a longer period (and coalition forces will certainly support this, but maybe in a more inferior capacity than currently is the case) and allow a peaceful transient government to form a strong harmonious democratic rapport with it's people. This obviously takes some time- more than perhaps some coalition forces are prepared to give, but the longer peacekeepers stay and play an educational role, the more successful the transition to an economically strong and peaceful country it will be.
Always, there will be intolerance by minorities, but the people as a whole need to work together to solve this problem diplomatically, because the middle ground, is always where most people are. We've all learned that violence solves nothing, so educating others about this, doesn't hurt, and might even help them build a strong society with a great moral fabric.
Until the extremists are contained, the problem will continue. It's one thing to support military intervention, it's another thing entirely to support military invasion (or allowing insurgency, militia and terrorism to proliferate) There is a difference. For those of us involved in the coalition forces occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have a responsibility now, to maintain peace, and to educate and promote a free society where people can feel safe, happy and secure. leaving the job unfinished speaks more about us as an unhelpful 'neighbour' to these people, than helping them through a difficult period and then saying to them, 'Okay, we've done our job, it's in your hands now, we'll observe and help you out, but you're running the show' and that is the Coalition forces goal... to help people get themselves safe and secure. It's not a 180 or a 360... it's another tangent completely, an unchartered route for a new nation, a new Iraq.
Regardless of peoples feelings about Iraq's occupation by coalition forces, they are there, helping out, preventing violence, apprehending criminals and infiltrating terrorist / insurgent organisations. This is a benefit to everyone, not just Iraq, or America, or europe or australia or whoever...
and trust me, it's a lot more delicate a situation than many think. If 'we' get it wrong now, the repercussions for all of us could very well turn out to be bad indeed.
It's not a time to tread on eggshells, but it is a time to be frank, diplomatic and to learn that people do not always have to share the same beliefs to 'get along' . Once people realize this, we won't be having thoughts about whats going to happen this week in the next episode of 'The War On Terror'
People in westernized society who take democracy for granted, may not understand how difficult breaking free from the habitual style of a dictatorial regime actually is. The Iraqi people have a lot of adjustments to undertake in their new lifestyle, and the uncertainty that a previously unknown freedom provides, can be a trigger for people to regress to the only way of life they have known. This in turn creates fear of progress, anti-coalition sentiment and a hatred for the occupying forces because nothing is happening overnight.
Yes it's up to Iraq and it's people to build their society based on a newfound freedom, but it is also the duty of the occupying forces to ensure that the freedom they helped to deliver, at a great cost of life to everyone involved is not swallowed up in a civil war, or a peoples revolution, which as history has repeatedly shown, only serves to force the people to revert to their previous and only known way of life.
You don't make progress without at least some small sacrifices.