No surprise , is it?? More atrocities will be uncovered with time. from the SH era and the US invasion. Two wrongs have never made a right.
Iraq - Today..*and tomorrow?*
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
Instead of creating yet another new thread
on Iraq, I'll add on to this one.
By the way, Ocean Breeze, it would be nice
to see you back here. I miss the dot dot dot thing.
Anyway, I want to quote what Calberty
said in the Nationalism vs Patriotism thread
in the Off-Topic forum:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Americans like simple answers of 'black and white' and 'good versus evil', etc. Myopic, simplistic views of the world lead to disasaters such as the Americans turning Iraq into 'Iraqinam'. What is the nation? Iraq? Kurds? Sunnis? Islam? Arab?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Making mistakes about Iraq or
the war in Iraq isn't by its nature a function
of America myopia or of American simplicity.
Does neither side see a real fundament debate here?
It's not two shallow unthinking sides arguing is it ?
It's not one side being shallow and the other more
thoughtful and intelligent is it ?
I think what we're doing in Iraq has the bloody
force of a real argument. Very real. And very
intelligent people are picking sides of this very
real fundamental conflict.
It's a real debate staffed on both sides by real
thinking.
You can point to any country and quote one of its
citizens as an example of that country's idiocy.
And you can point to the real moral dilemna
of doing something, or not doing anything, or the
moral dilemna inherent even in a middle alternative
between the two.
The efficacy of the embargo on Iraq, the myth
of a porous containment that requires years to enforce
is impossible for any free world trading democracy
to stay on point.
If you buy in to the fact that the Saddam Hussein
status quo was inherently less dangerous, then I say
maybe that in and of itself is too simple a view,
because the matter of succession and the repressively
sick society would have incubated more pain and
more hell in another decade Korea style, and then
10 years later Saddam dies and what will you have?
You'd probably see something worse than you see now.
The ripple effects on Lebanese protesting in the street,
Libya renouncing its weapon program, Korea and Iran
colluding on weapons programs are so complicated
and immense it defies the simplicity of any side of this
debate, and one can never be sure that accepting
a previous status quo could ever be better in what
differenct future that beholds.
And yet the complaints of American adventurism
are quite valid.
All I know is that the current zeitgeist repeats like
a hypnotic echo, like a re-inforcing mantra that
the American point of view is simple.
I think both sides of this fundamental debate
are staffed by much more thought than that of
simplicity.
on Iraq, I'll add on to this one.
By the way, Ocean Breeze, it would be nice
to see you back here. I miss the dot dot dot thing.
Anyway, I want to quote what Calberty
said in the Nationalism vs Patriotism thread
in the Off-Topic forum:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Americans like simple answers of 'black and white' and 'good versus evil', etc. Myopic, simplistic views of the world lead to disasaters such as the Americans turning Iraq into 'Iraqinam'. What is the nation? Iraq? Kurds? Sunnis? Islam? Arab?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Making mistakes about Iraq or
the war in Iraq isn't by its nature a function
of America myopia or of American simplicity.
Does neither side see a real fundament debate here?
It's not two shallow unthinking sides arguing is it ?
It's not one side being shallow and the other more
thoughtful and intelligent is it ?
I think what we're doing in Iraq has the bloody
force of a real argument. Very real. And very
intelligent people are picking sides of this very
real fundamental conflict.
It's a real debate staffed on both sides by real
thinking.
You can point to any country and quote one of its
citizens as an example of that country's idiocy.
And you can point to the real moral dilemna
of doing something, or not doing anything, or the
moral dilemna inherent even in a middle alternative
between the two.
The efficacy of the embargo on Iraq, the myth
of a porous containment that requires years to enforce
is impossible for any free world trading democracy
to stay on point.
If you buy in to the fact that the Saddam Hussein
status quo was inherently less dangerous, then I say
maybe that in and of itself is too simple a view,
because the matter of succession and the repressively
sick society would have incubated more pain and
more hell in another decade Korea style, and then
10 years later Saddam dies and what will you have?
You'd probably see something worse than you see now.
The ripple effects on Lebanese protesting in the street,
Libya renouncing its weapon program, Korea and Iran
colluding on weapons programs are so complicated
and immense it defies the simplicity of any side of this
debate, and one can never be sure that accepting
a previous status quo could ever be better in what
differenct future that beholds.
And yet the complaints of American adventurism
are quite valid.
All I know is that the current zeitgeist repeats like
a hypnotic echo, like a re-inforcing mantra that
the American point of view is simple.
I think both sides of this fundamental debate
are staffed by much more thought than that of
simplicity.