NationStates Jolt Archive

Been staying offline for awhile..having to readjust some of my perspectives, do a little light reading on some subjects that I had previously not done my homework on, and I thought I'd give text to a thought or two I had come up with...

Could it be construed that Iraqi fighters are not much different then the various tribes that tried to resist then hold back the US as it began it's "Manifest Destiny"?

Even my people, the Cherokee who were by far not the most warrior-like of tribes fought several wars with the British colonists and then the new United States..holding onto land we thought was ours..

Could the Iraqis be seen in this same light..and if not..why not?

Most of this Iraqi's are purely motivated out of nationlism, and resentment at this occupying force in their county.

It's not about links to Al'Queda or Islamic fundementalism or pro-Saddam sentiment and all the other words used by Bush, Blair and their cronies.

It's patriotism pure and simple. A concept which most Americans who worship they flag should identify with.

Most of this Iraqi's are purely motivated out of nationlism, and resentment at this occupying force in their county.

It's not about links to Al'Queda or Islamic fundementalism or pro-Saddam sentiment and all the other words used by Bush, Blair and their cronies.

It's patriotism pure and simple. A concept which most Americans who worship they flag should identify with.

So in your opinion..the recent upsurge in religous zealotry by the Shiites under Al-Sadr is a red herring and is nationalism merely wrapped up in religous platitudes?

Yes, I agree. For some Iraqis, it is a religious struggle, but for the majority, it is a nationalistic one. The most commonly expressed wish is for the Westerners to get out and allow them to establish their own state their own way. And I do think they understand that they would be risking a civil war in doing so, but it is a risk they seem willing to take.

So in your opinion..the recent upsurge in religous zealotry by the Shiites under Al-Sadr is a red herring and is nationalism merely wrapped up in religous platitudes?

Ok fair point. But I think it's the minority not the majority.

Yes, I agree. For some Iraqis, it is a religious struggle, but for the majority, it is a nationalistic one. The most commonly expressed wish is for the Westerners to get out and allow them to establish their own state their own way. And I do think they understand that they would be risking a civil war in doing so, but it is a risk they seem willing to take.

Let's get to that nationalistic theme...there is little doubt that the Sunnis had it good under Saddam...I think we can all agree on that right?...so which nationalism are they promoting?..return to the good old days of Sunni control or the majority dictatation by the Shiites to the Sunni and the Kurds the destiny of Iraq?...And do we want a civil war to erupt there...would a UN force have been able to maintain a lid on the situation because they don't have the stigma attached to current US forces?

would a UN force have been able to maintain a lid on the situation because they don't have the stigma attached to current US forces?

Thats the thing though. Is the UN seen as impartial? Did one of the more recent suspected OBL tapes not only denounce the Coalition but call for the death of Kofi Annan too?

would a UN force have been able to maintain a lid on the situation because they don't have the stigma attached to current US forces?

Thats the thing though. Is the UN seen as impartial? Did one of the more recent suspected OBL tapes not only denounce the Coalition but call for the death of Kofi Annan too?

Ok..if that is the case then...if they are willing to tick off one of their biggest potential allies..that of Annan and the UN....should the UN go in at all?...They tried once before and their compound was attacked and they packed up that same week and left...

So...let's assume for the sake of argument that it is indeed nationalism that drives these men..in accordance with my topic..are their actions in accordance with what the Indian tribes did 100-200 yrs ago? And if it is indeed nationalism...should the UN even have a go at it...they've all but given up in Rwanda and Somalia..leaving it to the unkind mercies of it's various factions, tribes, and warlords..is the dismantling of Iraq into it's primary ethnic parts good for the future stability of the region?

I don't think there is a whole lot of nationalism there. Most of it can be broken down into two groups:

Religious zealots hoping to somehow sieze control, and run Iraq the way they think it should be run.

and

Anarchists that are just common street thugs with guns. They don't hope to accomplish anything but to wreak havoc.

Most Iraqis understand that they will eventually get there country back, and they'll be better off for it. They are the ones that probably have the most nationalistic pride. However, the guys with the guns are the ones making the most noise and getting the news coverage.

I don't think there is a whole lot of nationalism there. Most of it can be broken down into two groups:

Religious zealots hoping to somehow sieze control, and run Iraq the way they think it should be run.

and

Anarchists that are just common street thugs with guns. They don't hope to accomplish anything but to wreak havoc.

Most Iraqis understand that they will eventually get there country back, and they'll be better off for it. They are the ones that probably have the most nationalistic pride. However, the guys with the guns are the ones making the most noise and getting the news coverage.

Yes..I'll agree..they may indeed be religous zealots..but they also happen to be Iraqi citizens...who like it or not view our continuing presence as an occupier...the longer we stay the worst that impression will get..It's sorta like the Gold diggers/assayers/assorted other settlers that moved onto Indians lands..bit by bit..they asserted themselves into the midst of people who didn't want them there..some did yes...some did not..of course US military presences were required to "protect" white interests on Indian lands..and sooner or later our Nations became moot..perhaps the Iraqi Shiites choose to be preemptive in their own fashion before they too are made moot.

I'm not going to draw parallels between the Iraqis and Native Americans. That would open up a whole can of worms.

While there is no justification for suicide-bombing soldiers and civillians, or starting firefights in the streets, I think the Iraqis have some legitimate grievances that the occupation forces are not addressing - Iraqis aren't shooting at soldiers because they're in league with Al Qaeda, but because in some ways they're worse off now than they were under Saddam. The American government and friends aren't handling the reconstruction too well.

One thing they're doing wrong is trying to make a government for all of Iraq, when there are diverse populations in there that don't like each other and won't get equal representation. They might have less trouble if they tried to help the different ethnic groups make their own little countries with their own governments, so they won't be bickering with each other so much. Let them decide what makes a good democracy, instead of imposing our own ideas on them! It's that kind of thing that makes people hate us.

I don't think there is a whole lot of nationalism there. Most of it can be broken down into two groups:

Religious zealots hoping to somehow sieze control, and run Iraq the way they think it should be run.

and

Anarchists that are just common street thugs with guns. They don't hope to accomplish anything but to wreak havoc.

Most Iraqis understand that they will eventually get there country back, and they'll be better off for it. They are the ones that probably have the most nationalistic pride. However, the guys with the guns are the ones making the most noise and getting the news coverage.

Yes..I'll agree..they may indeed be religous zealots..but they also happen to be Iraqi citizens...who like it or not view our continuing presence as an occupier...the longer we stay the worst that impression will get..It's sorta like the Gold diggers/assayers/assorted other settlers that moved onto Indians lands..bit by bit..they asserted themselves into the midst of people who didn't want them there..some did yes...some did not..of course US military presences were required to "protect" white interests on Indian lands..and sooner or later our Nations became moot..perhaps the Iraqi Shiites choose to be preemptive in their own fashion before they too are made moot.

I can see some similarities, but I don't think they are the same. The Indians were fighting because they knew they were losing their land forever. The Iraqi's know that the US will eventually leave, and they
know that their resistance is prolonging the amount of time that the US will stay.

yes i believe you are right on point. just as the indians were fighting against a foreign invader, so are the iraqis.
the only difference being that we dont intend to keep iraq (im not sure i believe that but im hoping that its true)

we have invaded a country that has done nothing to us
think about it
THEY DID NOTHING TO US
ever
and we invaded them killing thousands of soldiers and civilians
and we are surprised that they fight back???

they are freedom fighters defending their own country, we would do the same if the situation were reversed. we would fight and die right down to the last gun nut with an arsenal in his attic

not all indian fighters were wise or good or right in their tactics against those who were trying to exterminate them. some fought with the us army in an effort to destroy their traditional enemies, not realizing that the us govt would turn against their indian allies in the end.

in the same way not all iraqis are wise or good or right in their tactics against the invaders of their country but they do what seems to them to be most effective given their limited point of view of the situation.

its hard to trust a country with a history like ours. i cant blame them for fighting us, i just hope we can find a way to get out while leaving them better off than they were before and without looking like we were driven out by the fundamentalists.

I'm not going to draw parallels between the Iraqis and Native Americans. That would open up a whole can of worms.

While there is no justification for suicide-bombing soldiers and civillians, or starting firefights in the streets, I think the Iraqis have some legitimate grievances that the occupation forces are not addressing - Iraqis aren't shooting at soldiers because they're in league with Al Qaeda, but because in some ways they're worse off now than they were under Saddam. The American government and friends aren't handling the reconstruction too well.

One thing they're doing wrong is trying to make a government for all of Iraq, when there are diverse populations in there that don't like each other and won't get equal representation. They might have less trouble if they tried to help the different ethnic groups make their own little countries with their own governments, so they won't be bickering with each other so much. Let them decide what makes a good democracy, instead of imposing our own ideas on them! It's that kind of thing that makes people hate us.

I brought this up because I recall one or two articles comparing the Palestinian plight to the Native American..while there is indeed similarities, some of my fellow tribesmen might recoil at such a comparison..but I have to give it at least due consideration..as well as trying to lay such a comparison to the Iraqis.

Let's get to that nationalistic theme...there is little doubt that the Sunnis had it good under Saddam...I think we can all agree on that right?...so which nationalism are they promoting?..return to the good old days of Sunni control or the majority dictatation by the Shiites to the Sunni and the Kurds the destiny of Iraq?...And do we want a civil war to erupt there...would a UN force have been able to maintain a lid on the situation because they don't have the stigma attached to current US forces?
The three main groups seem to have different desires. The Kurds want an independent state with a parliamentary democracy. The Shiites want a constitutional theocracy. The Sunnis seem to want a return to a secular fascist state, though perhaps this is only nostalgia. No-one seems to have actually asked them what they want - the unspoken expectation on the part of the allies is that now that the Sunnis have lost the war, they should shut up and fade away into obscurity. As though it is not their country any more, that since they were Saddam Hussein's chosen people, they have lost the right to representation. This is a very damaging perception indeed, and is what is fuelling much of the violence in the central parts of the country. The Sunnis are not fighting to regain the dominant position they have lost, they realise, I think, that that era is over. Rather, they are fighting to remind everyone that they are still there, in their millions, and that they had better not be left out of the new government. At present, they have been bypassed, and if the handover of power confirms that the Sunnis have been consigned to the ghettos same as the Shiites were, in a great reversal of fortunes, then there will be even greater trouble.

These three forces cannot realistically be reconciled by means of an imposed settlement that does not take the complexity of the tribal politics of that country into account. Nor do I think that the UN will do a better job at preventing violence, all it could do is probably much the same, only killing fewer Iraqis in the process.

I think cruel though it might seem, the best solution might be to stand back and allow the Iraqis to sort it out themselves. Let them find their own way as countless nations have had to do before. The UN's role could then be that of a referee, as in the Balkans.

Welcome back Salishe 8)

I think cruel though it might seem, the best solution might be to stand back and allow the Iraqis to sort it out themselves. Let them find their own way as countless nations have had to do before. The UN's role could then be that of a referee, as in the Balkans.

That would be interesting. Unfortunately, 2 of the 3 groups that you mentioned would probably come out worse off than they were under Saddam.

I think cruel though it might seem, the best solution might be to stand back and allow the Iraqis to sort it out themselves. Let them find their own way as countless nations have had to do before. The UN's role could then be that of a referee, as in the Balkans.
That would be interesting. Unfortunately, 2 of the 3 groups that you mentioned would probably come out worse off than they were under Saddam.
Looking around the world, there are winners and losers. All such struggles carry their risks. And having a group get a bad settlement at the hands of fellow Iraqis can't be worse than having a group get a bad settlement at the hands of us. Because the way things are going, it is obvious where the blame will be laid.

Welcome back Salishe 8)

Why with pretty young moms like yourself Steph...just how could an old man stay away

Is what happens if eventually elections are held and a fundamentalist Islamic group wins?

Will the US stand back and allow democracy to prevail?

Is what happens if eventually elections are held and a fundamentalist Islamic group wins?

Will the US stand back and allow democracy to prevail?

not a chance in hell

Is what happens if eventually elections are held and a fundamentalist Islamic group wins?

Will the US stand back and allow democracy to prevail?

not a chance in hell

Yeah. It seems like the current administration's definition of "democracy" is "government the way we want it."

Is what happens if eventually elections are held and a fundamentalist Islamic group wins?

Will the US stand back and allow democracy to prevail?

not a chance in hell

Yeah. It seems like the current administration's definition of "democracy" is "government the way we want it."

and considering that the last guy we backed for running iraq was saddam hussein.............