NationStates Jolt Archive

Should be engraved with the words 'Abandon all hope, ye who enter in'. By 30 June, the US ought to hand over control to the Iraqis - and I have to doubt that deadline. But's look at the situation.

The country is ruled by fanaticism, not the US or rule of law. If people don't have the respect to honor the dead, no matter who they are, then how can they honor the rule of law? It simply is not possible. I'm not going to make a long rant about the mutilation of the bodies in Fallujah, but instead use it as a critical point. It is one thing to kill your enemy, it is quite another thing to desecrate the remains.

These people, and I generalize here, abuse and twist the tenants of Islam as so many other religious leaders in different faiths have done in the past. Now, I must say, it is their turn to manipulate a religious text to forward their own objectives. To me it is quite annoying to hear how Allah will bring death and destruction on the entire planet, save two or three clerics, a couple of martyrs, and maybe six bodyguards. That's a rather elitist bunch, but then again all religions do that. They're on my hitlist too.

You've got one generation that had to learn fear of an absolute dictatorship, then a new generation that knew only the absolute fear of a dictatorship. Rule of Law, Democracy, these ideologies are completely foreign to them. You can't hold that against them, but you certainly can't accept them to go from no understanding one day, to implementing and employing it the next day as the US so expects.

It's just not going to happen. 228 years after we declared our Independence we still can't democratically elect a leader, so how are the Iraqis expected to do it after just one year? It's not gonig to happen!

So we are left with two options: We stay in country until such time as they can do it themselves, somewhere around the year 2232 - at wich time the US will have suffered around 136,800 combat deaths. That's one option, or we can hand over the control of the country on 30 June and let the country quickly decay into chaos, fundamentalism, and free enterprise violence. So what happens then? The US has to come back and restore order. It'll be the Haiti of the Middle East. It's disgusting.

I am deathly tired of US administrators deciding that the US should send its sons and daughters to die for a people that hate them, that hate the deaths we suffer on their behalf. I have seen the US Military Cemeteries at Normandy. The French, despite all the US has against them, honor our fallen dead - those young men that died to help save Europe from brutallity. So despite all the animosity between the US and France, I still respect the French because they respect our sacrifice on their behalf.

But the Iraqis have no such respect. But they can't be blamed for being such a bunch of malicious, blood thirsty holdouts of a bygone era.

But personally, this is the last straw for me. The US administration must be changed. Kerry isn't a good option, becuase he will also involve in parts of the world that only seek the death of our sons and daughters. That's all Bush knows. Nader, for the love of God, is a better choice than those two.

It's disgusting.

I imagine I will move to Montana and write a manifesto.

I imagine I will move to Montana and write a manifesto.

:shock:

As if there aren't elements who desparately want democracy, nor a resparked interest in liberal thinking in the Middle East (they just don't scream as loud as the radicals). I think Iraq can build a government after June 30, because it has the basic infrastructure of one, including security forces. Besides, US troops will still be around in case things get too hot.

The war is Iraq was/is bad. The Iraqis don't want the US there.

Kerry is a retard for wanting to stay there longer and getting more countries to join in.

I wish Kucinich would run as a 3rd party candidate and actually win. :)

I imagine I will move to Montana and write a manifesto.

:shock:

Just don't be picky about who publishes it for you...

As if there aren't elements who desparately want democracy, nor a resparked interest in liberal thinking in the Middle East (they just don't scream as loud as the radicals). I think Iraq can build a government after June 30, because it has the basic infrastructure of one, including security forces. Besides, US troops will still be around in case things get too hot.

No one wants a US-created and enforced "democracy". It must develop on its own, not through a US occupation.

The "security forces" won't even fight for the US. In Basra, Iraqi police joined al-Sadr's rallies. When they went to take over the Governor's office in Basra, the police fled! In Baghdad, ICDC members, who came under attack by al-Sadr's troops, turned on the US and fought them!

No one wants the US. The US cannot enforce their retarded policies on another country where almost no one wants them.

As if there aren't elements who desparately want democracy, nor a resparked interest in liberal thinking in the Middle East (they just don't scream as loud as the radicals). I think Iraq can build a government after June 30, because it has the basic infrastructure of one, including security forces. Besides, US troops will still be around in case things get too hot.

Well all signs point to civil war. The Americans I suppose could stay forever.. however that would cause Iraq to always be occupied and eventually all people rise up against occupiers. It's not really an option in the long run. Of course as soon as the Americans do leave.. civil war will break out about 5 minutes after they have left.

This was the wrong war. They will never achieve their goals there. It's just not going to happen.. in that, I totally agree with the poster of this thread. This operation is destine for doom.. and I seriously doubt there is a damn thing any one now can do about it.

It might, I stress might of had a chance had George Bush Jr. been more like his father and built a real coalition and not this farce of one that amounts to basically the Americans making up 90% of the force and footing the bill on the taxpayers back. However, now it's too late, Bush has made it almost impossible for any long standing allies to help in any meaningful way and expect for their people to not throw them out of office for doing so, given the current disdain for America around the world since Bush took the unilateral action he did. It's a shame really.

Iraqi's want democracy. Having a guy supported by 1% of the Shi'ites stirring up trouble isn't going to affect things much... as of now. The fact of the matter is, democracy has been successful in many non-Western places : Japan and India are two good examples. Even in the Muslim world, Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia have more or less been successful democracies. Of course all have their failings, as do systems everywhere in the world. So I think democracy can work in Iraq.

As if there aren't elements who desparately want democracy, nor a resparked interest in liberal thinking in the Middle East (they just don't scream as loud as the radicals). I think Iraq can build a government after June 30, because it has the basic infrastructure of one, including security forces. Besides, US troops will still be around in case things get too hot.

No one wants a US-created and enforced "democracy". It must develop on its own, not through a US occupation.

The "security forces" won't even fight for the US. In Basra, Iraqi police joined al-Sadr's rallies. When they went to take over the Governor's office in Basra, the police fled! In Baghdad, ICDC members, who came under attack by al-Sadr's troops, turned on the US and fought them!

No one wants the US. The US cannot enforce their retarded policies on another country where almost no one wants them.
Well, fine. As long as the Iraqis have a security force. It doesn't really matter if they are pro or anti US. All that does matter is that they become productive in the world, like before the Ba'athists took over.

As if there aren't elements who desparately want democracy, nor a resparked interest in liberal thinking in the Middle East (they just don't scream as loud as the radicals). I think Iraq can build a government after June 30, because it has the basic infrastructure of one, including security forces. Besides, US troops will still be around in case things get too hot.

Well all signs point to civil war. The Americans I suppose could stay forever.. however that would cause Iraq to always be occupied and eventually all people rise up against occupiers. It's not really an option in the long run. Of course as soon as the Americans do leave.. civil war will break out about 5 minutes after they have left.

This was the wrong war. They will never achieve their goals there. It's just not going to happen.. in that, I totally agree with the poster of this thread. This operation is destine for doom.. and I seriously doubt there is a damn thing any one now can do about it.

It might, I stress might of had a chance had George Bush Jr. been more like his father and built a real coalition and not this farce of one that amounts to basically the Americans making up 90% of the force and footing the bill on the taxpayers back. However, now it's too late, Bush has made it almost impossible for any long standing allies to help in any meaningful way and expect for their people to not throw them out of office for doing so, given the current disdain for America around the world since Bush took the unilateral action he did. It's a shame really.
You keep saying there'll be a civil war, but the way you make it sound, there's a consensus in Iraq for an Islamic fundementalist state. Who will be fighting in this civil war?

Iraqi's want democracy. Having a guy supported by 1% of the Shi'ites stirring up trouble isn't going to affect things much... as of now. The fact of the matter is, democracy has been successful in many non-Western places : Japan and India are two good examples. Even in the Muslim world, Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia have more or less been successful democracies. Of course all have their failings, as do systems everywhere in the world. So I think democracy can work in Iraq.

You obviously don't understand the situation.

1. Iraqis won't accept a US created "democracy". Even if they want "democracy", they won't accept a US system.

2. al-Sadr is supported by way more than 1% of the Shi'ites. Don't be stupid. He has a LOT of support and is everywhere in the country, including in the Kurdish north.

As if there aren't elements who desparately want democracy, nor a resparked interest in liberal thinking in the Middle East (they just don't scream as loud as the radicals). I think Iraq can build a government after June 30, because it has the basic infrastructure of one, including security forces. Besides, US troops will still be around in case things get too hot.

No one wants a US-created and enforced "democracy". It must develop on its own, not through a US occupation.

The "security forces" won't even fight for the US. In Basra, Iraqi police joined al-Sadr's rallies. When they went to take over the Governor's office in Basra, the police fled! In Baghdad, ICDC members, who came under attack by al-Sadr's troops, turned on the US and fought them!

No one wants the US. The US cannot enforce their retarded policies on another country where almost no one wants them.
Well, fine. As long as the Iraqis have a security force. It doesn't really matter if they are pro or anti US. All that does matter is that they become productive in the world, like before the Ba'athists took over.

What do you mean 'productive in the world, like before the Ba'athists took over'?!

You obviously don't understand the situation.

1. Iraqis won't accept a US created "democracy". Even if they want "democracy", they won't accept a US system.

2. al-Sadr is supported by way more than 1% of the Shi'ites. Don't be stupid. He has a LOT of support and is everywhere in the country, including in the Kurdish north.
1.) Not everyone's an Anti-American bigot like you. Of course they will. Tons of other people have - like the Japanese.

2.) Link?

Oh yes they can, and indeed they should. As the worlds last real superpower, they have they will and the means to impose their ideals throughout the world. Some would even say they have a moral obligation to do so, especially in the face of bloody dictators. A lot of people didn't like Rome back in the serious empire-building days, but that dosn't change the fact that they brought stability (once the worst rebel hangouts were subdued) & indeed civilization to the areas they controlled.

Al Sadr and his likes will get to feel some of this in action real soon.

As if there aren't elements who desparately want democracy, nor a resparked interest in liberal thinking in the Middle East (they just don't scream as loud as the radicals). I think Iraq can build a government after June 30, because it has the basic infrastructure of one, including security forces. Besides, US troops will still be around in case things get too hot.

No one wants a US-created and enforced "democracy". It must develop on its own, not through a US occupation.

The "security forces" won't even fight for the US. In Basra, Iraqi police joined al-Sadr's rallies. When they went to take over the Governor's office in Basra, the police fled! In Baghdad, ICDC members, who came under attack by al-Sadr's troops, turned on the US and fought them!

No one wants the US. The US cannot enforce their retarded policies on another country where almost no one wants them.
Well, fine. As long as the Iraqis have a security force. It doesn't really matter if they are pro or anti US. All that does matter is that they become productive in the world, like before the Ba'athists took over.

What do you mean 'productive in the world, like before the Ba'athists took over'?!
Well, before 1958, Iraq exported oil heavily to the British. They were also a British base for troops invading Iran during WWII. Today, with Hussein gone, they have another oppritunity like that. Perhaps they don't want to be a military powerhouse, subserviant, whatever you want to call it. That's okay. However, they have the potentiat to become an economic engine for the region. Oil is definitly one asset, but I believe that regional banking and transportation have a better chancee than under Hussein, regardless of what happens. That's what I mean with being productive to the world, and especially to the region and themselves.

You obviously don't understand the situation.

1. Iraqis won't accept a US created "democracy". Even if they want "democracy", they won't accept a US system.

2. al-Sadr is supported by way more than 1% of the Shi'ites. Don't be stupid. He has a LOT of support and is everywhere in the country, including in the Kurdish north.
1.) Not everyone's an Anti-American bigot like you. Of course they will. Tons of other people have - like the Japanese.

2.) Link?

The Japanese?
You mean they don't have an Emperor anymore? :roll:

You obviously don't understand the situation.

1. Iraqis won't accept a US created "democracy". Even if they want "democracy", they won't accept a US system.

2. al-Sadr is supported by way more than 1% of the Shi'ites. Don't be stupid. He has a LOT of support and is everywhere in the country, including in the Kurdish north.
1.) Not everyone's an Anti-American bigot like you. Of course they will. Tons of other people have - like the Japanese.

2.) Link?

The Japanese?
You mean they don't have an Emperor anymore? :roll:
Did the emperor ever have power to begin with?

The Japanese went from having an absolute God-Dictator (literally, they worshipped him as a god) to having a figurehead. If that dosen't count as democracy, then the UK isn't one because they have a Queen - neither is Norway, Sweden, Spain, or any number of other countries with figureheads.

Iraqi's want democracy. Having a guy supported by 1% of the Shi'ites stirring up trouble isn't going to affect things much... as of now. The fact of the matter is, democracy has been successful in many non-Western places : Japan and India are two good examples. Even in the Muslim world, Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia have more or less been successful democracies. Of course all have their failings, as do systems everywhere in the world. So I think democracy can work in Iraq.

Oh geeze, where to start.. ok, let's start with India....

Along with the desire for independence, tensions between Hindus and Muslims had also been developing over the years. The Muslims had always been a minority, and the prospect of an exclusively Hindu government made them wary of independence; they were as inclined to mistrust Hindu rule as they were to resist the Raj. In 1915, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi came onto the scene, calling for unity between the two groups in an astonishing display of leadership that would eventually lead the country to independence.

The profound impact Gandhi had on India and his ability to gain independence through a totally non-violent mass movement made him one of the most remarkable leaders the world has ever known. He led by example, wearing homespun clothes to weaken the British textile industry and orchestrating a march to the sea, where demonstrators proceeded to make their own salt in protest against the British monopoly. Indians gave him the name Mahatma, or Great Soul. The British promised that they would leave India by 1947.

Independence came at great cost. While Gandhi was leading a largely Hindu movement, Mohammed Ali Jinnah was fronting a Muslim one through a group called the Muslim League. Jinnah advocated the division of India into two separate states: Muslim and Hindu, and he was able to achieve his goal. When the British left, they created the separate states of Pakistan and Bangladesh (known at that time as East Pakistan), and violence erupted when stranded Muslims and Hindu minorities in the areas fled in opposite directions. Within a few weeks, half a million people had died in the course of the greatest migration of human beings in the world's history. The aging Gandhi vowed to fast until the violence stopped, which it did when his health was seriously threatened. At the same time, the British returned and helped restore order. Excepting Kashmir, which is still a disputed area (and currently unsafe for tourists), the division reached stability.

India's history since independence has been marked by disunity and intermittent periods of virtual chaos. In 1948, on the eve of independence, Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic. His right-hand man, Jawarhalal Nehru, became India's first Prime Minister. Nehru was a successful leader, steering the young nation through a period of peace that was contrasted by the rule of Lal Bahadur Shastri, who fought Pakistan after it invaded two regions of India. Shastri died in 1966, after only 20 months in power, and he was succeeded by Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi.

Now.. Turkey..

Four hundred years of ottoman occupation ended when on June 4 1878 Turkey sold Cyprus to the British in return for military assistance. The Treaty of Lausanne sealed the end of any legitimate Turkish claim to the mainly Greek populated island. Article 21 of the treaty also gave the Muslims on the island the choice of leaving the island completely and living as Turks, or staying there as British nationals.

When it was becoming apparent that Cyprus was to be freed of the British yoke, Turkey reneged on the treaties which bound it and stated a campaign of Terrorism against those Cypriots that wanted independence and majority self rule. Thus in November 1957 the TMT Terrorist Organisation was formed by Rauf Denktash, receiving funding and training form Turkey.

On 12 June 1958 eight innocent and unarmed Greek Cypriot civilians from Kondemenos village were murdered by T.M.T. terrorists near the Turkish populated village of Geunyeli in an totally unprovoked attack.

In the following year after the conclusion of the Independence Agreement on Cyprus the Turkish Navy sent a ship to Cyprus fully loaded with arms for these Terrorists and was caught red-handed in the famous "Deniz" incident.

Cyprus finally gained its independence from British colonialism on 16th August 1960.

In 1963 after years of violent intimidation of both Muslim and Christian Cypriots by Dektash's TMT, large scale Terrorist violence erupted as the TMT was found to be in possession of vast quantifies of Turkish arms. Turkey used this organised violence as a pretext to send commandos into Cyprus who liaised with the TMT, and then mounted a wave of indiscriminate Air and Napalm strikes on National Guardsmen and Civillians including the deliberate targeting of Muslim and Christian villages amid UN Condemnation.

On July 20th 1974 after nearly 7 years of relative peace, the Turkish Army executed a pre-planned invasion of the island of Cyprus, on the pretext of a CIA organised coup, using over 40,000 well armed troops, 400 tanks and full air cover, all of which had been planned to be put in place since the 50's. Violating a UN cease-fire, 3 weeks after Government had been restored, the Turkish invasion relentlessly continued on August 14th with further reinforcements shipped into the then 5% of Cyprus territory captured by the Turkish forces.

Turkey attacked and captured 38% of the territory belonging to the Island Republic, which had a National Guard consisting of less than 1,000 men, 35 or so old WW2 Tanks and no air force.

The Greek Cypriots who legally owned nearly all of the land and property in the northern third of Cyprus, and formed the majority of the population were taken by force from their ancestral homes. Those who refused to co-operate with the forced eviction were beaten and punished. Those who couldn't escape were imprisoned in Concentration Camps located in both Cyprus and Turkey, to which the UN and Red Cross were denied access. 1,619 Greek Cypriots including women and children, known to have been sent to these camps disappeared.

The total of number of displaced persons was in the region of 200,000.

The Turkish army following the orders of Bullent Ecevit then threatened Cyprus with further invasion and sanctioned the use force against the Muslim Cypriots who lived is safety in the south, unless the Republic of Cyprus consented to their transfer to the north against their will. Turkey also threatened the lives of the occupants of the Concentration Camps unless the UN and British Bases on Cyprus co-operated with the Turkish Army in the transfer of populations.

20,000 Greek Cypriots remained enclaved in the north after the new "cease-fire" but through systematic persecution the complete ethnic cleansing of the occupied are has now been fully achieved.

Even the Muslim Cypriots have now been almost completely replaced by over 150,000 Turkish Colonists. Out of the original population of 120,000 Muslim Cypriots who lived in Cyprus, only between 30,000 and 60,000 remain. The rest being forced to emigrate through economic hardship and intimidation by the collonists from the Turkish mainland.

The Turkish Army now keeps about 35,000 heavily armed Troops in north Cyprus, together with 400 Tanks and 2 Navel Bases, which it claims are needed to protect the Turkish Cypriots.

On 13th February 1975 Turkey declared north Cyprus a federated Turkish State which was condemned in UN Security Council Resolution 367(1975). In 1983 Turkey formed the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", condemned in UN Security Council Resolutions 541(1983) & 550(1984). Having failed to gain international recognition for this illegal entity, Turkey now plans the complete annexation of the occupied area.

This is getting to long.. the point is the history of all the countries you have named have followed the same fate. When the British left, civil war and unrest followed. In the case of India.. to this day they are at great odds with Pakistan and to this day there is still much hatred between Turkey and Kurds.. and Cyprus still sits in no man land basically.

The only real example where this didn't happen basically is Japan.. but let's look at their situation in brief. They had been at war for 5 years, half their population dead and two Nuclear weapons dropped upon them, hardly a good comparison to Iraq. Unless the Americans are willing to go that far with Iraq, which I highly doubt.

To make a long story longer, in conclusion, there are 3 groups in Iraq who all want three different things. To believe that civil war based on historical precedent is not all but certain is nothing less then naive.

*Edit, sorry forgot to add my quote tags :P

Besides, US troops will still be around.
That seems to be part of the problem.

I'm not sure a us-style liberal democarcy is necessarily appropriate for Iraq anyways. THere are other reasonable options, in my opinion.

Along with the desire for independence, tensions between Hindus and Muslims had also been developing over the years. The Muslims had always been a minority, and the prospect of an exclusively Hindu government made them wary of independence; they were as inclined to mistrust Hindu rule as they were to resist the Raj.
It's strange how after a few hundred years ruling the Hindu's suddenly made them wary of a majority Hindu government isn't it? :wink:

Along with the desire for independence, tensions between Hindus and Muslims had also been developing over the years. The Muslims had always been a minority, and the prospect of an exclusively Hindu government made them wary of independence; they were as inclined to mistrust Hindu rule as they were to resist the Raj.
It's strange how after a few hundred years ruling the Hindu's suddenly made them wary of a majority Hindu government isn't it? :wink:

Oh geeze, where to start.. ok, let's start with India....

Along with the desire for independence, tensions between Hindus and Muslims had also been developing over the years. The Muslims had always been a minority, and the prospect of an exclusively Hindu government made them wary of ....

http://www.globalvolunteers.org/1main/india/indiahistory.htm


Now.. Turkey..

Four hundred years of ottoman occupation ended when on June 4 1878 Turkey sold Cyprus to the British in return for military assistance. The Treaty of ....[/quote]

http://www.greece.org/cyprus/

I assume omitting the links was an oversite.

If people don't have the respect to honor the dead, no matter who they are, then how can they honor the rule of law? It simply is not possible. I'm not going to make a long rant about the mutilation of the bodies in Fallujah, but instead use it as a critical point. It is one thing to kill your enemy, it is quite another thing to desecrate the remains.

..snip ...

I have seen the US Military Cemeteries at Normandy. The French, despite all the US has against them, honor our fallen dead - those young men that died to help save Europe from brutallity. So despite all the animosity between the US and France, I still respect the French because they respect our sacrifice on their behalf.

But the Iraqis have no such respect. But they can't be blamed for being such a bunch of malicious, blood thirsty holdouts of a bygone era.

It's disgusting.

I imagine I will move to Montana and write a manifesto.

My - aren't we holier than thou!

You think we haven't seen clips of American soldiers cheering as an Iraqi got picked off? I've seen them.

You think American's are against cruelty? Six soldiers have been charged with cruelty to prisoners and 11 suspended while still under investigation.

You think desecration of bodies is only the purview of Iraqis? I haven't heard anything in this war, but it was only a generation ago that the taking of ears as trophies was done in Vietnam.

Those ARE extreme cases and I am not suggesting that this represents the average US soldier. But this war. Saddly, atrocities happen.

From both sides.

Trying to equate the treatment of a few people perceived as occupiers by the people who lost power (the Sunnis) to the treatment of American war dead in France when they were actually driving out an occupying force is a rediculous comparison. Try reading up on what the French did to many Frenchmen (and women) who were fingered as Nazi collaberators after liberation if you want a closer parallel.

I'm not excusing the actions of the crowd, but using that as some premise that these people are not ready to govern themselves is not an obvious leap of logic.

Try thinking back to what mob mentality did in the LA riots just a few years back... should we revoke the US right to self-govern too?


These people, and I generalize here, abuse and twist the tenants of Islam as so many other religious leaders in different faiths have done in the past. Now, I must say, it is their turn to manipulate a religious text to forward their own objectives. To me it is quite annoying to hear how Allah will bring death and destruction on the entire planet, save two or three clerics, a couple of martyrs, and maybe six bodyguards. That's a rather elitist bunch, but then again all religions do that. They're on my hitlist too.


As opposed to the religious right that use the Bible to try and push their own objectives?

Here's a thought: The extremists always get the press. Moderates just aren't newsworthy. And in case you didn't notice - many Sunni clerics came out and chastised the crowd about defiling bodies as being against the tenants of Islam. Even those Clerics who are very vocal against the occupation did that.

Rather puts your concept that this is considered accepted behaviour indicitive of their general mindset in the circular file doesn't it...

Come on back when you have something other than bigotted, self-rightous indignation as your primary premise regarding Iraq.

-Z-

Oh geeze, where to start.. ok, let's start with India....
Ok, the first two paragraphs talk about India slowly gaining independence... okay, they clearly weren't under Democracy then. When Britain artificially patritioned it, and gave Kashmir to India (some affair was going on between the leader of Kashmir and a Brit) it of course caused violence. However, they made two separate countries - The US isn't, as far as I know, planning to make Shia and Sunni countries out of Iraq. Despite all the violence - 3 big wars, many border conflicts - India has remained a democracy. Power has passed from different parties, from Congress to a different one... Hindu National Party, although I'm really not sure. The fact of the matter is, Congress was/is backed by the minorities, which makes it good that they were elected during India's most dangerous post-independence period. As long as Iraq remains one nation, many of the problems that afflicted India should not afflict Iraq - after all, Britian deliberately used divide and rule tactics in order to hold onto India as long as possible with as little effort as possible. India still had huge amounts of Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and of course Hindus. In a country of over a billion, your bound to have violence magnified onto a larger scale than in say Canada. That dosen't mean that there isn't violence in Canada - heck a firebombing against a Jewish school was reported in today's "Globe and Mail" (Montreal to be specific). Canada is still a stable, prosperous democracy. India has its religious violence. And its violence with its neighbors. But America shouldn't make the same mistake as Britain when it comes to creating two separate countries.

Now.. Turkey..
And of course this is bad too - invading Cyprus. Radical Cypriots had staged a coup and wanted to merge with Greece, Turkey's eternal enemy.

To make a long story longer, in conclusion, there are 3 groups in Iraq who all want three different things. To believe that civil war based on historical precedent is not all but certain is nothing less then naive.
Actually, I don't see civil war - War between two countries as in India's case, and Turkey's too. The USA had a civil war - the bloodiest in US history, that dosen't make the US any less of a democracy, certainly a *possiblity* for Iraq, but far from a certainty. South Korea had extremely strong regionalism and since it shook of dictatorship, and even the regions that had been discriminated against got their favorite son elected - no civil war. Russia has had violence in Chechnya, just like France had violence in Corsica during the 60s, 70s, and 80s, but they are both still democracies and avoided a full-blown civil war - even though Russia only stopped Communism in 91. Tons of countries with sectionalism have avoided full scale civil war - South Korea and Russia, to an extent India and Turkey (no civil war but of course regular wars), more recently after Yugoslavia became a democracy in the past few years (After Milosovic) they even voted to become Seriba and Montenegro. South Africa after aparteid, is another. The chance is there, its just not certain.

http://www.globalvolunteers.org/1main/india/indiahistory.htm


Now.. Turkey..

Four hundred years of ottoman occupation ended when on June 4 1878 Turkey sold Cyprus to the British in return for military assistance. The Treaty of ....

http://www.greece.org/cyprus/

I assume omitting the links was an oversite.

:oops: .. meant to add quote tags actually, not links, it's been fixed.

I guess you didn't notice the subtle inuendo that Baghdad is actually the city of Satan. After all, the Gates of the City of Dis [Satan] carry the words 'Abandon all hope, ye who enter in'.

But I do think you missed the bigger picture. I myself have a video I downloaded of a US soldier shooting a wounded Iraqi, then being interviewed later on and saying something like 'It felt really good'. But the US Army is trained to be a horde of blood thirsty killing machines with no regard for much, if any, human life. However, I would sincerely hope that twelve year old children - as seen in the footage from Fallujah - would not be so callous to death.

That just leads me to this conclusion: if twelve year old children can celebrate the burned corpse of a human being - an image that made me a bit uneasy - can you really expect them to do anything but kill? If I had seen that at such a young age, I'd have been really screwed up. They, instead, laughed and raises their arms on high in celebration. Now you can spew your biggotry wherever you want, but you sit there and tell me that such acts aren't just farked up. Tell me there is hope for those people.

And do not forget that I levelled charges against my own country, a nation I am becoming increasingly disgusted with. I'm not here to say who is right and who is wrong because everyone is farked up, and there is not hope for one in the whole lot of them - or us.

Frankly, I do not care about those people. I do not care about any nation, save my own. Call it ethnocentricity, call it whatever you want. I really don't care. It's that simple; I just don't care. They can't be helped, they can't help themselves, and US soldiers should not be dying for such bull shite reasons. US Soldiers should never again die for any nation, any people, any creed, any religion, anything.

The US should only protects itself and its own interests. We should let third world nations continue to be brutalized. It's none of our business, now is it? Let the UN [provided the US eventually gets out of that bastard orginization] do it. Let Slovakia and Nepal and South Korea mourn the loss of their children. Not one US citizen should have to die to save millions from oppression.

Does that mean I think that one US life is better than a million oppressed lives? NO! I'm just tired of it. So let the world kill itself. Let Chechens continue to decapitate Russians while they are still alive, while their arms move and flail, as their head is pulled back further as the knife reaches the spinal column. Let them die. Let the Russians bomb Grozny for four months, shell it for three more months, then kill everything in sight.

I don't really care so long as my brothers and friends don't have to die for some piece of shit mother fucker in a fucking worthless piece of the fucking world that doesn't give two fucking shits about their life or their death.

And that's what it boils down to.

But I do think you missed the bigger picture. I myself have a video I downloaded of a US soldier shooting a wounded Iraqi, then being interviewed later on and saying something like 'It felt really good'. But the US Army is trained to be a horde of blood thirsty killing machines with no regard for much, if any, human life. However, I would sincerely hope that twelve year old children - as seen in the footage from Fallujah - would not be so callous to death.

That just leads me to this conclusion: if twelve year old children can celebrate the burned corpse of a human being - an image that made me a bit uneasy - can you really expect them to do anything but kill? If I had seen that at such a young age, I'd have been really screwed up. They, instead, laughed and raises their arms on high in celebration. Now you can spew your biggotry wherever you want, but you sit there and tell me that such acts aren't just farked up. Tell me there is hope for those people.

And do not forget that I levelled charges against my own country, a nation I am becoming increasingly disgusted with. I'm not here to say who is right and who is wrong because everyone is farked up, and there is not hope for one in the whole lot of them - or us.

Frankly, I do not care about those people. I do not care about any nation, save my own. Call it ethnocentricity, call it whatever you want. I really don't care. It's that simple; I just don't care. They can't be helped, they can't help themselves, and US soldiers should not be dying for such bull shite reasons. US Soldiers should never again die for any nation, any people, any creed, any religion, anything.

The US should only protects itself and its own interests. We should let third world nations continue to be brutalized. It's none of our business, now is it? Let the UN [provided the US eventually gets out of that bastard orginization] do it. Let Slovakia and Nepal and South Korea mourn the loss of their children. Not one US citizen should have to die to save millions from oppression.

Does that mean I think that one US life is better than a million oppressed lives? NO! I'm just tired of it. So let the world kill itself. Let Chechens continue to decapitate Russians while they are still alive, while their arms move and flail, as their head is pulled back further as the knife reaches the spinal column. Let them die. Let the Russians bomb Grozny for four months, shell it for three more months, then kill everything in sight.

And that's what it boils down to.

Yes. It boils down to the fact that you are a bigot. The sum totallity of IRaqi potential supposedly encapsulated in that one moment by that one group.

Thought 1: how many Americans stayed up to watch the early days of the war - shock and awe - and thought "whopee" without a care about the number of Iraqis dying on the screen in front of them.

Thought 2: You claim not to care about others, but then denounce others because you feel that they don't care about you. Look up "Hypocrite" in the dictionary.

Thought 3: you refer to the rest of the world killing each other, when the coalition went to Iraq with the express intent of killing Iraqis. And wonder why maybe some of them don't love you for it.


I don't really care so long as my brothers and friends don't have to die for some piece of shit mother f--- in a f--- worthless piece of the f--- world that doesn't give two f--- shits about their life or their death.

You have a volunteer army. They signed up for this. In your words - they signed up to be trained to be bloodthirsty killer. (not quite an evaluation I would concur with). Nobody is in Iraq putting their lives at risk that didn't sign up for the job. They knew the risks of that career, and some are getting the crappy section of the travel brochure.

If you have a complaint that they are being misused for a worthless effort - direct that anger at your president. Don't direct that anger at the Iraqis who didn't ask to be invaded. That makes no sense at all.


But if you think the rest of the world can languish in brutality and that it will never touch you if you bury your head in the sand, then you really are clueless about basic human nature.

Thought 1: how many Americans stayed up to watch the early days of the war - shock and awe - and thought "whopee" without a care about the number of Iraqis dying on the screen in front of them.


Problem: The media did not show close shots of the fighting and there were little or no reports of casualty counts. They still have not said how many have died from the war.

So the argument of "whopee" is rather silly.


Thought 2: You claim not to care about others, but then denounce others because you feel that they don't care about you. Look up "Hypocrite" in the dictionary.


That is correct.


Thought 3: you refer to the rest of the world killing each other, when the coalition went to Iraq with the express intent of killing Iraqis. And wonder why maybe some of them don't love you for it.


Well that is kind of streching it a bit. The last time the US went somewhere with the sole intent on killing people was with the tribes(Native Americans).

If they wanted to simply kill people, why didn't they just carpet bomb the cities? Why didn't they just shoot the surrendering soldiers?

The US went there for the oil. This is evident by the fact that the 2 major oil fields were some of the first "strategic" targets taken.


You have a volunteer army. They signed up for this. In your words - they signed up to be trained to be bloodthirsty killer. (not quite an evaluation I would concur with). Nobody is in Iraq putting their lives at risk that didn't sign up for the job. They knew the risks of that career, and some are getting the crappy section of the travel brochure.


You do like the dramtic! "Bloodthirsty killer" :lol: Wow we have vampires for soldiers! :lol:

However, the majority of the soldiers knew what they were getting into. It is mainly the civilians that complain about the dangers. I even heard someone say "Unless we can guarantee their safety, we should never send them anywhere" :shock: :roll:


But if you think the rest of the world can languish in brutality and that it will never touch you if you bury your head in the sand, then you really are clueless about basic human nature.

That is true, however there tends to be a double standard at times. Can you tell me that if the Americans had done that with 4 Iraqis, the Islamic world would not be pissed?

Thought 1: how many Americans stayed up to watch the early days of the war - shock and awe - and thought "whopee" without a care about the number of Iraqis dying on the screen in front of them.


Problem: The media did not show close shots of the fighting and there were little or no reports of casualty counts. They still have not said how many have died from the war.

So the argument of "whopee" is rather silly.


Well, if you can watch a city bombed and not understand that people are dying - then you are a diferent person than I.

Is the moral nature of cheering at war somehow diferent based on the proximity of the view? Debatable.




Thought 2: You claim not to care about others, but then denounce others because you feel that they don't care about you. Look up "Hypocrite" in the dictionary.


That is correct.


Thought 3: you refer to the rest of the world killing each other, when the coalition went to Iraq with the express intent of killing Iraqis. And wonder why maybe some of them don't love you for it.


Well that is kind of streching it a bit. The last time the US went somewhere with the sole intent on killing people was with the tribes(Native Americans).

If they wanted to simply kill people, why didn't they just carpet bomb the cities? Why didn't they just shoot the surrendering soldiers?

The US went there for the oil. This is evident by the fact that the 2 major oil fields were some of the first "strategic" targets taken.


OK - I suppose that could be misinterpreted. My intent was to indicate that they sent in an army to war. The assumption being that there was an expectation that there would be an opposing army, and that some of them would hopefull die so that our army would win.

This person was complaining about other people killing each other and that they should just be left to it.

Complaining that a military who went to war wound up running into other people that killed seemed a silly argument to make. I just should have expressed it better.



You have a volunteer army. They signed up for this. In your words - they signed up to be trained to be bloodthirsty killer. (not quite an evaluation I would concur with). Nobody is in Iraq putting their lives at risk that didn't sign up for the job. They knew the risks of that career, and some are getting the crappy section of the travel brochure.


You do like the dramtic! "Bloodthirsty killer" :lol: Wow we have vampires for soldiers! :lol:


"Bloodthirsty killers" was HIS line. Not mine. Hence the "(not quite an evaluation I would concur with)"

However, the majority of the soldiers knew what they were getting into. It is mainly the civilians that complain about the dangers. I even heard someone say "Unless we can guarantee their safety, we should never send them anywhere" :shock: :roll:


Somehow, in the context of those four civilliand, calling ex-navy seals / Rangers etc who signed on to do security in a war zone "civillians" is rather a stretch. They were hired as paramilitary soldiers whereas your description makes them sound like aid workers.

These men knew they were going in to do a dangerous job in a dangerous place. I feel for their families, but I don't pretend like they were unarmed innocents either.


But if you think the rest of the world can languish in brutality and that it will never touch you if you bury your head in the sand, then you really are clueless about basic human nature.

That is true, however there tends to be a double standard at times. Can you tell me that if the Americans had done that with 4 Iraqis, the Islamic world would not be pissed?

Absolutely. And much as the clerics in Falluja denounced the desecration so would have we. No civillized person agrees with such actions, but yet horrible things happen in mobs in every country. As I pointed out to him n an earlier post when I recalled the LA riots.

And if Arabs had said after your alternate event that it was proof that all Americans were barbarians who were clearly not evolved enough to run a country - I'd have called that statement as assinine as this post.

-Z-

The world, or at least the governments of the world - and to some extent, the people - hate the US for a number of legitimate and some not so legitimate reasons, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you say that the number one issues is the policy of the US to impose its will on sovereign nations - the very problem in Iraq, you agree?

With that in mind, let us look at a few issues. The world has undergone whole sale violence and mass murder since the end of WWII, especially in third world countries. For the most part, nothing was done by the powers that existed at the time to quell that violence, or to find a solution. Recently, we can look at the genocide in several African nations. Now is it true that most of the world did nothing? Yes, I'd say it is. But the US, though not severely, has taken a lot of flak for doing nothing about it. When the US doesn't step up to take care of issues, we are attacked for doing nothing.

So who should do something about it? Obviously, if the Charter is still valid, the United Nations should. But we all know that they do little to nothing, aside from steal from the Oil for Food program. So who does that leave? The United States.

So here we are again, with problems in the third world, and no one to do anything about it. I will agree that Bush had no real justification, or at least he thought he had some justification that was later invalidated, for invading Iraq. And now the world hates us for it. So we are hated for doing nothing, and doing something. We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Therefore, what are we to do? If we are hated for not making the world a better place, and we are hated for doing something that we /think/ makes the world a better place, what are we to do? The only clear answer is to return to Isolationism. One could argue that if we turned over control to the United Nations that many of our problems would be solved; but you don't realize that no US President would do such a thing, and nor would the US public tolerate it, because of our very severe devotion to our Sovereignty. But if we did, the world would then hate us because we didn't act fast enough, or that the UN was too slow and then their hatred would be directed at us.

If the world hates us for doing something, then let us do nothing. You implied that eventually the violence would return to us. My position is this: maintain Isolationism, and when - because I have already worked on this very issue - when violence returns to us, we deal with violence from 35,000 ft in the form of a B52. I believe that every effort should be taken to avoid the murder of innocents, but I do not believe that there should be 'moderated strikes'. If someone attacks the US without clear justification, that person or people should be killed without a moment of hesitation, and in the most severe way possible. Though not economical, I have no qualms about dispatching a squadron of B52s to level a bunker, or compound, or other facility that shelters those who attacked us.

This plan would solve a great many problems. We would not impose our will on world affairs, and thus the world would still hate us - but at least they wouldn't have a reason. Two, we wouldn't have to maintain such a massive military and, ergo, more money can go to aid impoverished third world nations - but that money first must go to the US Department of Education, etc. etc. Though that extra money would greatly help the third world to get through their growing pains, the world would still hate us. Three, it would allow us all a time to cool off and then resume friendly relations with our supposed 'friends'.

But can you guess what the kicker is? Politicians will not listen. Fighting terrorism is where the votes are at, and thus people such as myself are becoming increasingly disenfranchised. If I could present a plan that would solve all the problems of the world in one fell swoop, no one would listen. Why? Because people such as yourself would find other reasons to hate the US - such as not going along with the Kyoto Accord, or the ABM Treaty, etc. etc. etc. People such as myself are on the losing end of every situation. The Politicians will not listen. People like you will continue to hate people like me, even if we agree on lots of issues. If I moved away from my home, renounced the US and my citizenship thereof, I would still be hated because I was born an American.

People such as myself are screwed because we sit somewhere in the middle [or above, or below, since we're not to the left or right]. I want to visit Europe, I want to visit the HMS Victory and Nelson's Tomb. I want to see the Champs Elysee. I'd very much like to see the Colosseum. But if I do go to Europe I realize that there is a very good chance that I'll get my head kicked in merely because I was born in the US. I could be as polite as possible and follow the local cutoms and traditions, and I'd still be a prime target because of my nationallity. It's a very saddening thing to know that you don't fit in your own country, the world hates you just because you are apart of that country, and that going abroad is dangerous, and to go as far as to renounce citizenship is treacherous, hateful. I'd like to be able to say "This is my French friend Francois," or "This is my Russian friend Sergei."

But that is not going to happen. I am stuck where I'm at, in a backwater region of the US, knowing full well that the rest of my life will be spent here in the backwater and that there are six billion doses of hatred directed at me just because I was born in the USA.

So my only real choice, if only to comfort myself, is to revive the old US motto 'Don't Tread on Me'.

Well, if you can watch a city bombed and not understand that people are dying - then you are a diferent person than I.

Is the moral nature of cheering at war somehow diferent based on the proximity of the view? Debatable.


Out of site out of mind does come into play. The viewers(excluding the kill them all types) probably think that only soldiers are targeted and possibly hope that the civs are hidden somewhere safe.

People understand stand people die in war.

However, the "older" Americans are probably not phased to the war as they grew up watching Viet Nam.

I don't know about the "young" Were any really interested in it? I know the gunghos probably did. But what about the "Did you know Britney... :roll: " types.

I really doubt many went "whoopie!" :wink:



OK - I suppose that could be misinterpreted. My intent was to indicate that they sent in an army to war. The assumption being that there was an expectation that there would be an opposing army, and that some of them would hopefull die so that our army would win.

This person was complaining about other people killing each other and that they should just be left to it.

Complaining that a military who went to war wound up running into other people that killed seemed a silly argument to make. I just should have expressed it better.


No you probably said it right now that I went back and read it again. My fault was skimming vs reading. I withdraw the vampire statement.


However, the majority of the soldiers knew what they were getting into. It is mainly the civilians that complain about the dangers. I even heard someone say "Unless we can guarantee their safety, we should never send them anywhere" :shock: :roll:



Somehow, in the context of those four civilliand, calling ex-navy seals / Rangers etc who signed on to do security in a war zone "civillians" is rather a stretch. They were hired as paramilitary soldiers whereas your description makes them sound like aid workers.

These men knew they were going in to do a dangerous job in a dangerous place. I feel for their families, but I don't pretend like they were unarmed innocents either.


It is a "minor" technicality to call the civilians. But they weren't in the uniform so they basically were. It's a stretch I know. But the news groups for their part this time at least pointed it out.

The outrage is more over the act rather then if they were civilians or not. People would still get upset if it were uniformed Marines.

But I am happy the Clerics are speaking out against it. Hopefull some of our "RedNeck" types will see that only a tiny portion of the Iraqis are animals.

I am sure that many over time will look back on their actions and be shamed by them.


Absolutely. And much as the clerics in Falluja denounced the desecration so would have we. No civillized person agrees with such actions, but yet horrible things happen in mobs in every country. As I pointed out to him n an earlier post when I recalled the LA riots.

And if Arabs had said after your alternate event that it was proof that all Americans were barbarians who were clearly not evolved enough to run a country - I'd have called that statement as assinine as this post.

-Z-

As would I! ;)

It had a chance before religion was brought into the picture. Now we might as well just give [power to Iraqi's now but take all there oil first :lol: jk. Iraq is hopeless now until they realize that you cant run government by religion.

People such as myself are screwed because we sit somewhere in the middle [or above, or below, since we're not to the left or right]. I want to visit Europe, I want to visit the HMS Victory and Nelson's Tomb. I want to see the Champs Elysee. I'd very much like to see the Colosseum. But if I do go to Europe I realize that there is a very good chance that I'll get my head kicked in merely because I was born in the US. I could be as polite as possible and follow the local cutoms and traditions, and I'd still be a prime target because of my nationallity. It's a very saddening thing to know that you don't fit in your own country, the world hates you just because you are apart of that country, and that going abroad is dangerous, and to go as far as to renounce citizenship is treacherous, hateful. I'd like to be able to say "This is my French friend Francois," or "This is my Russian friend Sergei."

But that is not going to happen. I am stuck where I'm at, in a backwater region of the US, knowing full well that the rest of my life will be spent here in the backwater and that there are six billion doses of hatred directed at me just because I was born in the USA.

So my only real choice, if only to comfort myself, is to revive the old US motto 'Don't Tread on Me'.

I did have a rather lengthy reply that the site ate! :x

I don't feel like retyping it all so I will only say this.

As one who travels, I can tell you that I have not been punched out by the French, the Germans, the Italians, the British, the Swedish, the Irish, the Indians, the Isralies, nor the Palistineans. Now those mean nasty *censored* Canadians! Don't bother going there! :lol:

There have been a few instances of nasty arguments and being screamed at.....

People tend to want to be decent the world over. I can tell you that if you are nice and polite, they usually will do the same. However, you do have to be smart. Going to Iraq, Afganistan, the Kashmir region would be stupid. Europe? You don't have to worry about it.

For all the anti-US talk that goes on, most of this people would have a drink with you(depending on age of course).

When you are abroad you are a guest. Be polite, patient, and friendly. I can tell you that there are enough rude americans and they find it refreshing when one is polite.

Take an interest in their customs and their food!

If you want to go. Make it happen! You don't require great wealth to see a country! Two friends, biked south america, another backpacked India, and another backpacked parts of Africa.

Even with all the animosity over current events. People are still curious. Many will jump at the chance at meeting you. I have made some great friendships with people that I just happened to meet on a road, a pub, a village....

It helps to be friendly and a talker.

For France; a couple minor tips. Learn some French and try to use it. They will appreciate you more even if you sound like a low grade moron. ;) Many understand English and will usually speak it when they see you are making an effort. When in shops, talk to the person behind the counter before looking around. It's a polite thing.

Don't worry about Anti-US stuff. When you get down to it, more people are pissed off at the concept of "pre-emptive strikes" by our Goverment. The "hostility" factor will go down when the shrub leaves office. It will go down more, if the next guy does things different.

Having said all that. There will be some people that will hate you no matter what.

However, the majority have their own life issues to be concerned about a filthy American walking around their country! ;)