NationStates Jolt Archive

With the recent surge in violence between Shi'ite and Sunni's , does anyone seriously still believe that a unified democratic Iraq or even a unified Iraq is still possible? Then you have the Kurds in the north, who I doubt would want to be ruled by either faction.

Not now. The terrorist attacks have driven them too far apart.

It's a nice thought but I don't think it'll work (unless something drastic happens, like a division of the state).

Nope, not a chance. Especially now after US intervention (causing a lot of uproar and thus leading to the surge of violence), the chances that it becomes a democracy are definitely a lot worse :rolleyes:

Nope, not a chance. Especially now after US intervention (causing a lot of uproar and thus leading to the surge of violence), the chances that it becomes a democracy are definitely a lot worse :rolleyes:
And that puts a smile on Saddam Hussein's face :)

And that puts a smile on Saddam Hussein's face :)
Until he remembers that the judge won't keel over to his threats... heh... :p

I don't know if it's still possible. What I do know is that nation building is a waste of time, money and manpower. In the future the US military should simply bomb the hell out of enemy nations, maybe march in and destroy their military forces, then just get the hell out and say "fuck the civilian population". If we need to knock the hell out of an enemy why should we rebuild his shit afterward. Also we shouldn't start wars for dumb reasons (Iraq).

Until he remembers that the judge won't keel over to his threats... heh... :p
Didn't the initial judge quit in January?

What we have here is... failure... to communicate.


... Actually, what we have here are greedy bastards who are too selfish to put their differences aside and coincide together in peace, and who would rather kill and die over complete rule over a country. This is pretty much the problem between Palestine and Israel - they can't just settle their differences intelligently and reasonably, dividing what each of them deserve, coming to a nonviolent solution that everyone can agree on. Instead, they'd rather kill eachother and push eachother out like three-year-olds fighting over a teddy bear.

Humankind -should- know better than this.

Didn't the initial judge quit in January?
Exactly... too much pressure to not be lenient...

I don't know if it's still possible. What I do know is that nation building is a waste of time, money and manpower. In the future the US military should simply bomb the hell out of enemy nations, maybe march in and destroy their military forces, then just get the hell out and say "fuck the civilian population". If we need to knock the hell out of an enemy why should we rebuild his shit afterward. Also we shouldn't start wars for dumb reasons (Iraq).
What makes them (morally) better than any other tyrant, then?

Humankind -should- know better than this.
What do you expect? (note - the bolded word)

What makes them (morally) better than any other tyrant, then?
Who? The USA?

What should make them ethically better is in choosing who to fight. Fight only against credible security threats. Iraq wasn't a threat to us. Afghanistan and it's Al Qaeda allies were. Iran may become one if they continue to pursue their nuclear ambitions.

What do you expect? (note - the bolded word)

I expect humanity to learn from the past and stop being so ignorant. It depresses and angers me to no end to know how truly stupid the majority of the world is.

Iraq will stay together at least for another 10 years easy and even if there is some sort of split democratic government will rule in any new states as well as Iraq for a long time yet

*waits for someone to mention an Iran war*

Who? The USA?

What should make them ethically better is in choosing who to fight. Fight only against credible security threats. Iraq wasn't a threat to us. Afghanistan and it's Al Qaeda allies were. Iran may become one if they continue to pursue their nuclear ambitions.
It would cause more trouble to leave the civilian population to fend for themselves, i.e. Afghanistan after Soviet invasion.

I expect humanity to learn from the past and stop being so ignorant. It depresses and angers me to no end to know how truly stupid the majority of the world is.

yes the whole world is wrong and what you think is right :rolleyes:

the human race isn't filled with evil men anyone could be the next Stalin. the difference in opinion is what makes someone evil in your eyes

I expect humanity to learn from the past and stop being so ignorant. It depresses and angers me to no end to know how truly stupid the majority of the world is.
It's human nature to disacknowledge the past. After WWI, the world promised to never allow such a thing to ever happen again.

The problem is, the positions in the world that hold major power are being filled with ignorant neanderthals.

EDIT: And the voices of sane people are being drowned out.

It would cause more trouble to leave the civilian population to fend for themselves, i.e. Afghanistan after Soviet invasion.
It's cheaper to go back a few years later and bomb the shit out of them again rather than staying there for several years.

It's cheaper to go back a few years later and bomb the shit out of them again rather than staying there for several years.
America would be making more enemies in the international community that way, which doesn't help anyone.

It's cheaper to go back a few years later and bomb the shit out of them again rather than staying there for several years.

that wouldn't work money wise because cruise missiles and such cost a few mil

America would be making more enemies in the international community that way, which doesn't help anyone.
So what's your solution? Nation building? Like what's going on in Iraq right now? There won't be a stable AND democratic Iraq. The culture of the people in that big oily sandbox isn't ready for democracy and rule of law. Our best hope for stability is a new tyrant who can keep the people in line by ruthless application of force when necessary. Basically we'd be trading in old Saddam for new Saddam.

that wouldn't work money wise because cruise missiles and such cost a few mil
Haven't we already spent hundreds of billions on Iraq already?

So what's your solution? Nation building? Like what's going on in Iraq right now? There won't be a stable AND democratic Iraq. The culture of the people in that big oily sandbox isn't ready for democracy and rule of law. Our best hope for stability is a new tyrant who can keep the people in line by ruthless application of force when necessary. Basically we'd be trading in old Saddam for new Saddam.
Rebuilding pays off in the long run. While I agree that it's probably going to be hell to just try and get a stable government up, it's better than going to war over again 5 years down the road. Besides, America won't come off as being a country full of jackasses as much.

Iraq as a nation is officailly F'ed in the A. We should just give up and move on to more important wars against Iran and China and N. Korea. The Kurds should split off and form they're own nation, They practically have already anyways. They're hardasses as it is, After the 91' war they started an uprising against saddam using old ass bolt actions, while Saddam's troopes used Ak's, and the Kurds almost won...Until that saddam fag used chemo weapons.

yes the whole world is wrong and what you think is right :rolleyes:

the human race isn't filled with evil men anyone could be the next Stalin. the difference in opinion is what makes someone evil in your eyes

The human race isn't evil, just ignorant and uncaring. The few that -are- evil are able to take full advantage of that, and in their inaction the rest of them are only helping. In that sense, they're evil.

What makes someone evil in my eyes is if they haven't stood up and told people about how wrong everything is. If they haven't realized how stupid we all are and became angry about it. If they haven't cried because of the condition the world is in and the acceptance to it we all seem to have. If they haven't had the common decency to see someone on the street and stop them for a second, if only to say hello and look into their eyes. If they haven't promoted human feeling in even the slightest bit, and moreso if they've allowed inhumanity to flourish in the manner it has.

That's evil to me.

What we have here is... failure... to communicate.


... Actually, what we have here are greedy bastards who are too selfish to put their differences aside and coincide together in peace, and who would rather kill and die over complete rule over a country. This is pretty much the problem between Palestine and Israel - they can't just settle their differences intelligently and reasonably, dividing what each of them deserve, coming to a nonviolent solution that everyone can agree on. Instead, they'd rather kill eachother and push eachother out like three-year-olds fighting over a teddy bear.

Humankind -should- know better than this.

Both did agree to the 1967 borders - with the US unwilling to put real pressure on the Israelis to carry out their commitments and continually vetoing UN resolutions for the region there isn't much hope. Moreover, US military aid to the Israelis so that they can level the Palestinian territory, doesn't exactly bode well for a conciliatory response, nor a "nonviolent solution". Peace is utopian, the US -should - know better than to excacerbate problems and bastardise the name of democracy.

Haven't we already spent hundreds of billions on Iraq already?

not really we havn't actually given that much money (especially since Iraq still has almost all non-miletery targets intact)

Iraq as a nation is officailly F'ed in the A. We should just give up and move on to more important wars against Iran and China and N. Korea. The Kurds should split off and form they're own nation, They practically have already anyways. They're hardasses as it is, After the 91' war they started an uprising against saddam using old ass bolt actions, while Saddam's troopes used Ak's, and the Kurds almost won...Until that saddam fag used chemo weapons.

And where did he get them from?
Plus, don't forget the US is the only nation ever to use an atomic bomb. In the Vietnam war they dropped more (in quantity and quality) bombs than all those that were dropped in WW2.

not really we havn't actually given that much money (especially since Iraq still has almost all non-miletery targets intact)

We haven't "given" them much money, but we've "spent" an insane amount of money (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/5/11510/30624) already.

SNIP


There is no evil or good take someone like mother Teresa she treated many sick people unfortunately she didn’t treat some groups of people Stalin may have sent many too there deaths but his objective was to make a communist world were everyone shared and looked after each other (oddly enough sounds like what your getting at) And you also seem to be confusing ignorance/uncaring with genuine lack of ability the fact is in this world there is not enough resources to look after everyone even if we could we would be putting so much into it that there wouldn’t be anything for space rockets and medical treatment.

What I’m getting at is the world is fine there is a need for the human race to go forward if we all had enough who would go out to work in some dull office job when they could sit at home playing NS all day and if evil men (as I put different perspectives) didn’t appear how would we know that what were doing is good after all a man viewed as evil is sometimes right e.g. Darwin, Martin Luther, Mohandas Gandhi

We haven't "given" them much money, but we've "spent" an insane amount of money (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/5/11510/30624) already.

that includes the whole Iraq war and occupation (also it still isn't as much as flattening a country at most twice)

So what's your solution? Nation building? Like what's going on in Iraq right now? There won't be a stable AND democratic Iraq. The culture of the people in that big oily sandbox isn't ready for democracy and rule of law. Our best hope for stability is a new tyrant who can keep the people in line by ruthless application of force when necessary. Basically we'd be trading in old Saddam for new Saddam.

Is this the whole "Muslims can't do democracy argument"? Because it quite frankly doesn't fly when you look at Indonesia.

Well the newly elected parliament, comprised of Sunnis, Shi'a and Kurds in numbers roughly proportionate to population percentages of the three, needs to calm this down. They were elected... if they speak peace, hopefully people will listen.

Is this the whole "Muslims can't do democracy argument"? Because it quite frankly doesn't fly when you look at Indonesia.
No, it's the Arabs can't do secular democracy argument. They either elect repressive Islamist parties or they just jockey for personal power and become corrupt. There's no secular, educated constituency to elect good leaders.

So what's your solution? Nation building? Like what's going on in Iraq right now? There won't be a stable AND democratic Iraq. The culture of the people in that big oily sandbox isn't ready for democracy and rule of law. Our best hope for stability is a new tyrant who can keep the people in line by ruthless application of force when necessary. Basically we'd be trading in old Saddam for new Saddam.

How interestingly right and wrong this statement is. No nation is every truely READY for democracy when it first comes to them, rather it is democracy which shapes their culture, their direction. It has taken America 200 years to shape the kingdom of democracy we have, and if you are setoff by bloodshed, gaze no farther back then the French revolution.

Another brutal dictator while effective only prolongs the process and the bloodshed, rather then killing thousands at a time, kills hundreds over decades. In the end you still must endure the pain of death in revolution.

As well it is releavnt to show, being secular and democratic are mutually exclusive. Both the United States (obvious) and England (State Religion) are perfect examples of these
All is as history has shown us.

God Wills It!!

That's not because of culture. That's because of the fact that the leaders haven't allowed a civil society to develop. The only opposition ATM is the Islamists.

Once the Islamists are allowed into the system, they do however lose their appeal.

There is no evil or good take someone like mother Teresa she treated many sick people unfortunately she didn’t treat some groups of people Stalin may have sent many too there deaths but his objective was to make a communist world were everyone shared and looked after each other (oddly enough sounds like what your getting at) And you also seem to be confusing ignorance/uncaring with genuine lack of ability the fact is in this world there is not enough resources to look after everyone even if we could we would be putting so much into it that there wouldn’t be anything for space rockets and medical treatment.

What I’m getting at is the world is fine there is a need for the human race to go forward if we all had enough who would go out to work in some dull office job when they could sit at home playing NS all day and if evil men (as I put different perspectives) didn’t appear how would we know that what were doing is good after all a man viewed as evil is sometimes right e.g. Darwin, Martin Luther, Mohandas Gandhi

Mother Theresa was a good person. Darwin wasn't good or bad, he was simply correct. Martin Luther was both good and correct. Ghandi was also both good and correct.

You have to have a scope and definition of what's good and bad, and from there and only from there can you see people for who they are. Until then you can always be persuaded, and might as well not have any opinion at all.

I'm not Communist, I'm humanist. Listen to "Imagine" by John Lennon or APC, knowing I agree with most of what they suggest, and you'll get the idea.

We shouldn't be separated by race, country, belief, opinion, or anything else. We're all human, and we all make a difference. We need to evolve to the next chromosomal phase and have a singular consciousness while retaining our individuality. I feel like I'm already there but I'm the only one.

We haven't "given" them much money, but we've "spent" an insane amount of money (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/5/11510/30624) already.
Kinda makes you want to give up on nation building, don't it?

<snipped>
As well it is releavnt to show, being secular and democratic are mutually exclusive. Both the United States (obvious) and England (State Religion) are perfect examples of these
All is as history has shown us.

God Wills It!!

Secularism is not mutually exclusive with democracy. In the US, until W took over, we had a pretty secular government. Church and state were kept well separated and it worked out well for all.

God wills it? Prove it.

Secularism is not mutually exclusive with democracy. In the US, until W took over, we had a pretty secular government. Church and state were kept well separated and it worked out well for all.

God wills it? Prove it.

America has never, and likely will never be truely secular.. this truth is as aparent and visible as the elements of christianity strewn throughout our government, from the opening line of the Justices in our Judicial system, to the very currency you hold in your hand.

America has never, and likely will never be truely secular.. this truth is as aparent and visible as the elements of christianity strewn throughout our government, from the opening line of the Justices in our Judicial system, to the very currency you hold in your hand.
Oh, I guess that's why we have teacher-led prayer in schools, evolution is banned from the classrooms, and blasphemy is illegal. Our government, prior to W's "faith-based" bullshit, has paid minor lip service to religion while maintaining a pretty strict separation of church and state.

Oh, I guess that's why we have teacher-led prayer in schools, evolution is banned from the classrooms, and blasphemy is illegal. Our government, prior to W's "faith-based" bullshit, has paid minor lip service to religion while maintaining a pretty strict separation of church and state.

Including or excluding the Cold War ? .. Yet, if we so wish to overlook this drop in time, we need only drift back farther in the past when puritans were dicating state laws, and states were identified by their religious affiliations. Religion has always been the heart of this nation, and it is what continues to define it. The revolution itself was directly influensed by the Great awakening itself, and our very reasoning for liberty was based on our belif in God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518221.stm

God Wills It!!

Including or excluding the Cold War ? .. Yet, if we so wish to overlook this drop in time, we need only drift back farther in the past when puritans were dicating state laws, and states were identified by their religious affiliations. Religion has always been the heart of this nation, and it is what continues to define it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518221.stm
1) God is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

2) Our founding fathers weren't fundamentalists, they were mainly deists who believed in a separation of church and state.

3) Our constitution prohibits govenment endorsement of religion.

4) Our courts have consistently upheald such separation.

5) Even including the cold war period we've got a secular history. The cold war introduced what, "in god we trust" on our money and "under god" in the pledge of allegience? Big deal. Mentioning god in two places doesn't mean our government is more religious than secular.

In fact, you claimed that democracy and secularism are mutually exclusive. You're wrong. In fact a more secular society will be more democratic because they will not limit the people's choices just because the imaginary man in the sky said so. In fact, because we have a secular government, the people are free to embrace whichever religion they wish. Secular government is good for religion as well.

God Wills It!!
Prove that god exists. Then prove that he wills anything.

With the recent surge in violence between Shi'ite and Sunni's , does anyone seriously still believe that a unified democratic Iraq or even a unified Iraq is still possible? Then you have the Kurds in the north, who I doubt would want to be ruled by either faction.

Define United.
Define Democratic.
Then define Iraq.

Oh, and define "Possible"

Then we might be getting somewhere :)

1) God is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

2) Our founding fathers weren't fundamentalists, they were mainly deists who believed in a separation of church and state.

3) Our constitution prohibits govenment endorsement of religion.

4) Our courts have consistently upheald such separation.

5) Even including the cold war period we've got a secular history. The cold war introduced what, "in god we trust" on our money and "under god" in the pledge of allegience? Big deal. Mentioning god in two places doesn't mean our government is more religious than secular.

In fact, you claimed that democracy and secularism are mutually exclusive. You're wrong. In fact a more secular society will be more democratic because they will not limit the people's choices just because the imaginary man in the sky said so. In fact, because we have a secular government, the people are free to embrace whichever religion they wish. Secular government is good for religion as well.

Since you are so well versed in the intentions of the founding fathers and Historical documentation, read to me the very words those founding fathers used when they declared our independence, and dictate to me what was the basis of their reasoning for our liberty.

As well, I would dare not seek to prove in improvable.. I cannot even prove you exist, let alone prove his righteous holyness our lord and savior, god himself!

Since you are so well versed in the intentions of the founding fathers and Historical documentation, read to me the very words those founding fathers used when they declared out independence, and dictate to me what was the basis of their reasoning for our liberty.

As well, I would dare not seek to prove in improvable.. I cannot even prove you exist, let alone prove his righteous holyness our lord and savior, god himself!
I don't believe the declaration of independence has any legal standing, thus it is irrelevant.

It's kind of got to the point where I don't even see the point of there being a unified Iraq. I mean the only people who actually seem to be Iraqi nationalists are the Iraqi central government. So I think we should just go with the will (or at least the ambivalance) of the people and just partition the country.

Create an independent Kurdistan, we've been promising that for nearly 100 years now, and there is genuine desire for progressive democracy among the Kurdish nation (I suppose the USA may have a problem if they elect PKK sympathisers, but in these days i suppose a Communist party is much less of a hassle than an Islamist party).
The Shi'ite north, how about we just negotiate it away to Iran, or at least a part of it. A landgrab may seem like significant compensation for abandoning their nuclear facilities. Besides, it's not too much of an East Germany situation, many in the Middle East have fond feelings for Iran; its constitution contains just enough democracy to avoid running under a Reign of Terror, that many arabs are depressingly used to, but yet it has shari'a constitutionally enforced, that, like it or not, has wide public support.
As for the rest, that can be the new Iraq. Democratic, unless it descends after we pull out, and self-determining. Except of course if they just become a Saudi satellite state, but hey, they're Western allies, they'll keep it terror-free.

Since you are so well versed in the intentions of the founding fathers and Historical documentation, read to me the very words those founding fathers used when they declared our independence, and dictate to me what was the basis of their reasoning for our liberty.

As well, I would dare not seek to prove in improvable.. I cannot even prove you exist, let alone prove his righteous holyness our lord and savior, god himself!
Our political system isn't based on the declaration of independence. Sorry bible thumper, we're still a secular nation.

Can you introduce any evidence that god exists? Otherwise drop the issue. The fact is that if you go into court and try to base your case upon what god wants, you will lose. You could only win if you could introduce enough evidence to prove god's existence and his commands beyond a reasonable doubt. Until you can do that our government and our courts treat your god like any other fairy tale.


Anyway, we're hijacking this thread. If you really want to try to argue that the US government is based on religion, start your own thread.

I don't believe the declaration of independence has any legal standing, thus it is irrelevant.

Quite contrary, it is very relevant as it reveals to us the mindset of our founding father, and the rational which led them claim their right to freedom and liberity.

It seems your position is the delcaration itself is irrelevant, and while its true it has no legal standing, you will see it has had undeinable influence over the shape of our society and laws, and at times is the basis for the very civil rights we enjoy.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020704_mylchreest.html

Crazy Arabs :D

I seriously doubt that there will ever be a peaceful, democratic Iraq. There are too many Islamic fundamentalists that have absolutely no tolerance for the views or beliefs of others, even within their own faith, to allow any concept of "the greater good" for all to stand for long. They are simply too fragmented and disparate over there to come together. There will always be bombings and unrest. We just need to get out of there as soon as possible. We have done what we set out to do. Democratic elections have taken place, and infrastructure assembled and established. Time to go.

Good lord no, the true implications of the enlightened western invasion are yet to be observed, notably a fractitious Iraq that will ultimately have Kurdish, Shi'ite and Shia autonomous states, and no possible future re-unification.

Good lord no, the true implications of the enlightened western invasion are yet to be observed, notably a fractitious Iraq that will ultimately have Kurdish, Shi'ite and Shia autonomous states, and no possible future re-unification.

Uh-oh. I think we just agreed on something.