NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay it seems that eventually Iraq will break into Civil war, it just seems inevitible. (Which is what those bombers wanted I guess) That said, who do you want to 'win' and run the country?

Kurds: Located in the Northern parts of Iraq. Supported the US in the first Gulf War, Executed and gassed by Saddam after the Gulf War. Guility of Terrorism against Turkey. Wished orginally to form their own independent country. Basicly want to be able to run themselves, but will also have to obey the Shiite run government.

Sunnis: The Religious group in which Saddam was a part of, And formerly the group with the most control now a minority part of the faith in the country that will have to obey the Shiite led new government, whom they consider heretics. The majority of the Insurgants are Sunni.

Shiites: The dominate religious faction in middle and south Iraq. Also the same religious group that Iran is made up of. Due to the fact that they have the greatest population, they now control most of the government.

I do believe the Sunni's are also the secular group of the three. And I'd rather just let the kurds integrate, or become their own country. So between Sunni and Shiite, it's a Sunni vote for me simply because they're the more secular.

I do believe the Sunni's are also the secular group of the three. And I'd rather just let the kurds integrate, or become their own country. So between Sunni and Shiite, it's a Sunni vote for me simply because they're the more secular.
Between those two I would have to choose the Sunni also. The thing is if the Kurds declared themseleves independent then war would break out also. Which is why I hope the kurds win or at least survive any war.

I'd rather the Sunnis win...the Shiites would likely try to work towards a unification with Iran...while the Kurds would become a major issue with Turkey, causing NATO all kinds of headaches.

There are more factions than that. Where do the Sadrists come in? They aligned with the Sunnis on the nationalist question, opposing federalism, but they're Shi'ites.

What about Iraqi labor? Those are the people who have my support - the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, broadly, and the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq and the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, more specifically.

There are more factions than that. Where do the Sadrists come in? They aligned with the Sunnis on the nationalist question, opposing federalism, but they're Shi'ites.

What about Iraqi labor? Those are the people who have my support - the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, broadly, and the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq and the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, more specifically.


I believe hthe OP wast talking about ethnic-religious groups, not political parties.


Anyway...
Best case scenario, Sunni's win and run a good government, and not repeat the mistakes made by Saddam. Worst case, Shiites win, and become another Iran/Taliban/Syria... etc.

I don't want a civil war at all. If they have to seperate, I'd rather see Shi'ite Iraq become part of Iran, Kurdistan be independent and Sunni Iraq hopefully be brought under control by Syria.

Worst case, Shiites win, and become another Iran/Taliban/Syria... etc.
You're aware of the affiliation of the Taliban, right? And the fact that Syria is a secular state?

Because, in the long run, none of them will win in the prolonged, bloody civil war that would ensue ("People don't win wars, Governments do." or however the old saying goes), I'd say I'd settle for the minimum number of casualties.

[QUOTE][What about Iraqi labor? Those are the people who have my support - the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, broadly, and the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq and the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, more specifically./QUOTE]

Im totally opposed to the US/Zionist invasion and occupation of Iraq.

But before they leave Iraq, I hope US troops kill as many communist barbarians as possible.

We cannot allow another nation to fall under the grip of communism.

I think that Iraq should be split between an Independent State of Kurdistan, Iran and Syria.

Just like Neu Leonstein said.

I believe hthe OP wast talking about ethnic-religious groups, not political parties.

Yes, because everyone of a particular ethnic-religious group thinks and acts the same way, right?

Sorry, I shouldn't be so harsh, the media does exactly the same thing. But people forget that Iraq has had non-sectarian, popular-based political parties before, and without them now the current so-called "democracy" is just a mockery that will indeed inevitably lead to civil war - especially with the current occupation strategy of "divide and conquer."

I want the Gnomes of Zurich to attack to destroy Iraq through the Fiendish Fluoridators, with +2 MC coming through Big Media and backed up by the Gun Lobby. With Orbital Mind Control Lasers, at that.

Illuminati, anybody?

Just like Neu Leonstein said.
Keeping in mind that Syria is ruled by the Ba'ath party, who are sorta socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialism). :D

I vote we make the Turks take Iraq back

You're aware of the affiliation of the Taliban, right? And the fact that Syria is a secular state?

Not to mention the immense differences between the Islamic partial democracy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the crazed fundamentalist theocracy of the Taliban.

For gays it probably doesn't make much of a difference, sadly, but for women, non-Muslims, and most other people, the former is far preferable to the latter.

Keeping in mind that Syria is ruled by the Ba'ath party, who are sorta socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialism). :D

They're so far from that nowadays that the comparison can hardly be drawn.

Michel Aflaq's original political line was decent, sort of, but he was no liberal and probably influenced somewhat by Fascism as well as Marxism.

If the Arab Communist parties had rejected the rule of Moscow, they would have been the parties to support, and even as satellites of the CPSU their accomplishments were once considerable and positive. Things like Qassim's aid to the working class of Iraq were supported and necessitated by the Iraqi Communist Party, which had large popular support in its time and a good deal of influence.

Yes, because everyone of a particular ethnic-religious group thinks and acts the same way, right?

Sorry, I shouldn't be so harsh, the media does exactly the same thing. But people forget that Iraq has had non-sectarian, popular-based political parties before, and without them now the current so-called "democracy" is just a mockery that will indeed inevitably lead to civil war - especially with the current occupation strategy of "divide and conquer."


Eh.. note I'm not the OP. I merely statred what it appeared the OP meant. I wouldn't even have brought this topic up simply because Iraq is a big mess right now.

And if you want to dispand Iraq, then I think they should recreate the state of Kiengir, that would make things all right.

They're so far from that nowadays that the comparison can hardly be drawn.
Oh, I was just having a stab at our radical anti-Commie friend who actually agreed with me that we should give the Ba'ath party more resources and people to rule over...

Oh, I was just having a stab at our radical anti-Commie friend who actually agreed with me that we should give the Ba'ath party more resources and people to rule over...

Hahahaha that is funny.......:D

You're aware of the affiliation of the Taliban, right? And the fact that Syria is a secular state?


Yep and Yep. What you may not be aware of though, and what all three have in common, is that I don't like them. Thus, worse case scenario in my mind, Iraq, a country I love, turns into one of those.

I vote we make the Turks take Iraq back

This would be interesting to see. ;) :D

But seriously, i would rather havethe Kurds be in charge, because they already have been semi-independent in the north and have become peaceful up there mainly with other groups. Now does that make them perfect? Nope, bu ti would rather have them on the up and top.

Yep and Yep. What you may not be aware of though, and what all three have in common, is that I don't like them.
You were suggesting that Shi'ite Islam would result in a fundamentalist state, and Sunni Islam wouldn't. Which is silly, particularly if you consider that all our problems with radical Muslims come from the Sunni persuasion.

Thus, worse case scenario in my mind, Iraq, a country I love, turns into one of those.
"A country I love" is a bit much, don't you think. Five years ago, pretty much all of us couldn't have given a shit.

who's going to win, who ever goes over and fights against all of them to "bring peace" it will end up being america/australia armies verse evryone else. go us. MAKE :fluffle: NOT :sniper: :mp5:

Which is silly, particularly if you consider that all our problems with radical Muslims come from the Sunni persuasion.

Wahhabism is basically a Sunni ideology; people forget that sometimes.

Iran despises al-Qaeda, publicly attacked Talibanist misogyny, and only supports terrorism against Israel. It also has a government with substantial popular support, especially on foreign policy matters.

MAKE :fluffle: NOT :sniper:

*enthusiastically applauds*

Wahhabism is basically a Sunni ideology; people forget that sometimes.

Iran despises al-Qaeda, publicly attacked Talibanist misogyny, and only supports terrorism against Israel. It also has a government with substantial popular support, especially on foreign policy matters.

Or so they want you to think. Think propaganda. ;)

Or so they want you to think. Think propaganda. ;)

Do you think I trust the Iranian government? I have other sources for what I think.

I'd prefer for no one group to come out on top. Then to eventually have some consensus among the groups that no one is going to win. And that they would then invite a peacekeeping mission. Maybe a delgation from the AU. They seem to have been fairly neutral throught out all of this. Though perhaps their efficacy is in doubt.
Wahhabism is basically a Sunni ideology; people forget that sometimes.It's Saudi. The Sauds attempted to spread it outside of Saudi Arabia. *sighs* Just like every other sect in any religion, it has politics deeply ingrained in its roots.

I want the side that is sick of war and just wants to live in peace in a democratic society to CONTINUE to win...despite all the people that are doing there best to make them fail .
The Iraqi people are teaching the world a lesson about democracy BY not falling into the trap of a civil war despite extreme provocation .

Kurds, definitely. They're still the least evil out of the three.
Sunnis and Shiites are both loonies, and if either of them wins, the other will be seriously pissed of, and the war wil continue. :rolleyes:
So we need a third party (like the Kurds) to come to power.

I feel the urge to support Kurdish independence, but it would certainly cause problems regarding the HUGE Kurdish populations in Turkey, Syria and Iran, many of whom would want to join this Kurdish state.

As far as the Sunni-Shi'i thing goes, I wish there could be a secular government. I think that even in a secular government, there would be a shi'i cultural flavour, 'cos the Shi'is are simply the largest group in Iraq.

It would be a shame if Iraq ended up with the same Islamic Republic style of government as Iran, mainly 'cos there's a much larger percentage in Iraq of non-shi'is than there is in Iran (I think, at least). I would, however, prefer this style of government to the much less tolerant laws of sunni Saudi Arabia.

It's not going to happen. Have any of you been to Iraq? I didn't think so. There is a lot of current shiite sunni incidents going on right now, but it is slowley coming under control. The Iraqi government pulled through elections they can pull through this. They still have US troops backing them up, and a civil war would ruin enough lives as it is. The majority of Iraqi people don't want a civil war I have family there iv'e been there, it's not going to happen.

Poland.

Poland.

What the fuck....:confused: :confused:

What a damned mess!

I would like the Iraqis to win. ;)

You were suggesting that Shi'ite Islam would result in a fundamentalist state, and Sunni Islam wouldn't. Which is silly, particularly if you consider that all our problems with radical Muslims come from the Sunni persuasion.

Well, if you follow the political histry of Iraq, and the modern viloence, you'll notice the Sunni's, as a group, are working, and in many cases fighting through insurgency, to have a secular government. Saddam, for instance, ran one of the most secular governments in the area, and the Sunni's are pushing to keep the government secular. The Shiites, on the otherhand, as a group, are more in favor of religion in government, and more in favour of a religious conservative system. A secular government would be the option I support, which at this point seems most supported by the Sunni's.



"A country I love" is a bit much, don't you think. Five years ago, pretty much all of us couldn't have given a shit.

Maybe you didn't give a shit, but Iraq has been an interest of mine for over a decade. Especially it's historty (Albiet I prefer the really ancient hitory of the area). I do love that country.

Iran despises al-Qaeda, publicly attacked Talibanist misogyny, and only supports terrorism against Israel. It also has a government with substantial popular support, especially on foreign policy matters.
Only on some foreign policy matters, and most of the support is a sham anyway. I bet you think their latest elections were on the up and up too. Bah, Iran is currently starting to destabilize rather interestingly.

I do believe the Sunni's are also the secular group of the three. And I'd rather just let the kurds integrate, or become their own country. So between Sunni and Shiite, it's a Sunni vote for me simply because they're the more secular.

If anybody is secular it is the Kurds, who do not share a religious solidarity but an ethnic solidarity.

Sunnis could not even tolerate Shias and call them kaffirs and you are saying sunnis are secular..lol.

Best case scenario, Sunni's win and run a good government, and not repeat the mistakes made by Saddam.

Sunni's can't run a good government because they are a minority. There is no way a minority group can rule a majority group without oppressing them.


If Iraq had to be divided, I would prefer a Kurdistan with Iran compensated for it by shi'ite Iraq..if that is what shi'ite Iraqis want...personally I am doubtful of that due to the Persian-Arab rivalry.

The sunnis can join their brethern in Jordan and Syria and hopefully blow up those places.

What the fuck....:confused: :confused:
Well at least he didn't forget Poland, unlike some people I know.

You're aware of the affiliation of the Taliban, right? And the fact that Syria is a secular state?

Syria used to be a secualr state, but the regime is evolving, they are using religion more and more as a tool to distract the people from the country's internal problems.

Syria used to be a secualr state, but the regime is evolving, they are using religion more and more as a tool to distract the people from the country's internal problems.
Alas, that seems to be the way things are done in the Middle East these days. :(

Anyways, I can't believe that no one is voting for the Shi'ites. Why would people want a minority to win the war and then rule the majority?

The Kurds have the most experience in government and are the most open to the Western ideas regarding international politics, for better or worse. Of course, no war is best and if a war does brake out dipolmacy is the best route to take. I would only support the Kurds if diplomacy failed.

Only on some foreign policy matters, and most of the support is a sham anyway. I bet you think their latest elections were on the up and up too. Bah, Iran is currently starting to destabilize rather interestingly.

I don't think it's a sham at all. Ahmadinejad did not win because he was supported by the establishment, liberal or conservative; both hated him. He somehow managed to defy both and win anyway. A leader has to have actual popular support in order to manage that.

Support for the government's nuclear program is very high in Iran, for obvious reasons, and Bush makes a mockery of his "democracy" rhetoric with the stance he has against it and against Iran in general.

If anybody is secular it is the Kurds, who do not share a religious solidarity but an ethnic solidarity.
Eh... read earlier in the thread for my oppnion on the Kurds, and why they shouldn't be included in the poll here.

Sunnis could not even tolerate Shias and call them kaffirs and you are saying sunnis are secular..lol.
And this is proved concretely due to the fact that many of the families in central and southern Iraq have both Sunni and Shiite members? That Sunni's and Shiites marry eachother quite often, and have normal loving relationships?
Yes, I'm sure they hate eachother as much as you believe.


Sunni's can't run a good government because they are a minority. There is no way a minority group can rule a majority group without oppressing them.
As opposed to oppression by Majority?
I think Minority governments work very well, especially since they then have to do things to please everyone, where as the majority can easily get away with oppressing the minority.


If Iraq had to be divided, I would prefer a Kurdistan with Iran compensated for it by shi'ite Iraq..if that is what shi'ite Iraqis want...personally I am doubtful of that due to the Persian-Arab rivalry.
Iran compensated? Who said Iran had a say in Iraq?

The sunnis can join their brethern in Jordan and Syria and hopefully blow up those places.
My arn't we showing our biggotry today.

That Sunni's and Shiites marry eachother quite often, and have normal loving relationships?

Yeah, I hear they express this love in blowing up shi'ite worship places.

As opposed to oppression by Majority?
I think Minority governments work very well, especially since they then have to do things to please everyone, where as the majority can easily get away with oppressing the minority.

Nonsense. No minority can hold on to power without oppressing the majority.


Iran compensated? Who said Iran had a say in Iraq?

Kurdistan includes Kurdish parts of Iran.

My arn't we showing our biggotry today.

No, we are just slow in picking up sarcasm.

I think we should give it back to Saddam with a written apology to the entire world.

I think we should give it back to Saddam with a written apology to the entire world.

Do you think the Iraqi people will sit back and let that happen?

Edit: Yes, I know you probably weren't serious. The question is serious though.

Okay it seems that eventually Iraq will break into Civil war, it just seems inevitible. (Which is what those bombers wanted I guess) That said, who do you want to 'win' and run the country?

Kurds: Located in the Northern parts of Iraq. Supported the US in the first Gulf War, Executed and gassed by Saddam after the Gulf War. Guility of Terrorism against Turkey. Wished orginally to form their own independent country. Basicly want to be able to run themselves, but will also have to obey the Shiite run government.

Sunnis: The Religious group in which Saddam was a part of, And formerly the group with the most control now a minority part of the faith in the country that will have to obey the Shiite led new government, whom they consider heretics. The majority of the Insurgants are Sunni.

Shiites: The dominate religious faction in middle and south Iraq. Also the same religious group that Iran is made up of. Due to the fact that they have the greatest population, they now control most of the government.
I chose Other in the poll. I want the people of Iraq to win. After all, it was the US invasion of Iraq that has led to this ever present possibility of civil war. This has been discussed over the years in these threads and it appears that it will indeed happen.

Hopefully, the war will be over quickly and that the Iraqis get their act together. Once the war is over, the Iraqis should politely tell the US to leave and then go about the arduous task of putting their country back together, respecting the rights of all Iraqis.

Go Kurds :D

I think that no-one will win and Iraq as a unified entity will cease to exist, it being seperated back into three states again.

(Like it was before us Brits decided to fuck about with it for a laugh)

Yeah, I hear they express this love in blowing up shi'ite worship places.
And the Shiite's arn't blowing up Sunni sites?
That's not what the Iraqi's I talk to are telling me. They're telling me, as with any reliable news comming out of the area, that most of the attacks are being done by former Saddam loyal soldiers (Both Sunni and Shiite by the way), and that both Sunni's and Shiites not affiliated with Saddam are killing eachother equally (And on less of a level then CNN seems to enjoy portraying).


Nonsense. No minority can hold on to power without oppressing the majority.
Prove it.
You forget all the oppressions of minorities by the majority as well.
And also seem to presume that, in the scenario given in the OP, such a civil war would naturally conclude with one side in a totalitarian government, rather then the democratic style which has quite prominantly shown itself to be the case with the Iraqi people.



Kurdistan includes Kurdish parts of Iran.
And again I ask, how does this give Iran a say in Iraq?
If the Iranian kurds want to be a part of a Kurdistan created by the Kurdish people, then they can, but there is nothing stating Iran has to be compensated, after all these Kurds are Iranian people.
This makes about as much sense as Quebec seperating from Canada, and France having to pay Canada compensations for it.



No, we are just slow in picking up sarcasm.
Scarcasm doesn't existin a world with no intonation. You write biggotry, you appear a biggot, you are a biggot. Next time use " " tags like people do, or smilies, or make it obvious, because as I said, intonation doesn't exist here.
Not to mention that I'm not convinced you were being scarcastic.

I think that no-one will win and Iraq as a unified entity will cease to exist, it being seperated back into three states again.

(Like it was before us Brits decided to fuck about with it for a laugh)


Um... Iraq has only been a state since the Ottoman Empire fell, before that it was nothing but a province of the Ottoman Empire, before that an Arab state, before that part of Persia, before that Babylon, before that Assyria, and before that, Sumer and Akkad. The last time more then one state existed in that area was 4000 years ago.
I hardly think the Brits managed to "fuck about" with three seperate states. Especially considering they started with one state.
What the Brits did was neglect ethnic diversity in their planning, which is a far cry from a state.

You forget all the oppressions of minorities by the majority as well.
And also seem to presume that, in the scenario given in the OP, such a civil war would naturally conclude with one side in a totalitarian government, rather then the democratic style which has quite prominantly shown itself to be the case with the Iraqi people.
So what do you predict, the Shi'ites and the Sunnis go to war with each other, kill each other in their thousands, destroy the country and then proceed to form a democratic government that allows the losers a fair share of the spoils?

I would like you to show me an example of history where a minority ethnic group rules a country democratically. It's an impossibility.

If there was civil war, that would be the end of it all. There could be no democracy to follow.

So what do you predict, the Shi'ites and the Sunnis go to war with each other, kill each other in their thousands, destroy the country and then proceed to form a democratic government that allows the losers a fair share of the spoils?Well.. If a shrub-like entity snags power over the US again, I have a feeling we'll see a massive civil war in Iraq, with heavy sponsorship of the Kurdish minority. Of course, that will promtly lead to a US sponsored genocide on the Kurdish minority in Turkey.

After that, it'd be hard to predict what'll happen, I think.I would like you to show me an example of history where a minority ethnic group rules a country democratically. It's an impossibility.I'd like to see that as well. Even in oh so civilised EU, we can't help oppressing minorities to the point of cold-war style civil war.If there was civil war, that would be the end of it all. There could be no democracy to follow.At least not for a looong while.

I still don't understand why it was so damn important for the neo-Conartists to invade that particular hornets nest. The population was safer under Sadam. He wasn't a nice little dictator, but we're worse.

Do you think the Iraqi people will sit back and let that happen?

Edit: Yes, I know you probably weren't serious. The question is serious though.
What's going to happen is they are going to fight it out until a strongman can take control of the country and settle things. The US knows it and the Bushnam people know it, the whole world knows it. The question is, will it be a US puppet, an Iranian puppet somebody elses puppet or a real strongman?

If it's a US puppet, we are going to have to accept the fact that he will have to spill a lot of blood and spend a lot of US money to take and keep power. If it's an Iranian puppet, we will have to accept Iran controling that much more oil and the Mid East power that would go with it. Not to mention fundamentalist religion in control. (After 5 years the US is beginning to understand what that means.) A Saudi, Syrian, or Jordanian puppet? How many doughboys will die in that takeover?

That leaves a real strongman. More Bushnam civilians have been killed per year under the US than under Saddam. A strongman will kill quite a few more to get power, but then, like Saddam he will only kill treasoners, criminals, and their families and associates. Everyone else will live in peace. No freedom as the US defines it, but peace.

We were all better off with Saddam in power. A strongman--any strongman--won't allow other powers to stage in his country. They might get enough power to overthrow him. That's why the whole idea of Saddam allowing Al Queda in the country was rediculous. So if not Saddam, then who?

My Primary opinion on this is that at least one good thing can come out of the whole terrible Iraq war and that is the Kurds can finally gain their independence.

I don't really think the Kurds will need to get involved in the Civil War between the Sunnis and Shi’a, They have nothing to gain from it either way, their goal should be simple, independence. Then they can let the Arabs do whatever they want to one another.

As for who do I support in the War between the Arab Iraqis, well I'd say I don't really support either side, I believe they should both be given their own independent states.
And that the Boarders of these new states should not be divided along lines of who can gain the most territory through war, but simply though the Religious or ethnic dividing line of the people. i.e. put Sunni areas in a Sunni state and Shi’a areas in a Shi’a state (by plebiscite or if that is not possible then by a neutral commission who can decide the boundaries by the population statistics).

The alternative is keep both together if that is what both sides want in the end, but at the moment they seen like they really don't like living together, so separation may be the only way. Either way it should be up to the people of the country to decide if they want to stay together or separate, it should not be decided by the Americans or any other external power.

At the moment it seems that the Sunnis want a Secular state like they have always had and the Shi’as want some sort of Theocracy (perhaps similar to Iran), so they can't both have their wish, unless of course they are separated.

My opinion is that a Civil War can be avoided by Splitting Iraq up into it's 3 constituent parts and the Foreign forces leave and let them be. If this is done they there will be a significant reduction if in extremist Islamic terrorism in the country and the Sunni insurgency will of course end (as the insurgents will have nobody to attack and probably become the security forces of the new Sunni state).

In my opinion continuing the current course favoured by Bush, i.e. keep the U.S Troops in and wait until a democracy can be established, will fail miserably and will only lead to much more bloodshed.

There would of course be consequences to what I suggest, the new Kurdish state would have bad relations will it's three neighbours, Turkey, Syria and Iran, as these states hold the rest of the Kurdish Lands and Population which will surely wish to be united with this new state.
This may well mean war with Turkey and the other states in the following years, but it is a war the Kurds could win by a massive uprising in the Kurdish inhabited areas supported by this new state. Then through a slow and bloody guerrilla campaign the surrounding states would be forced to secede the Kurdish regions and recognise a United Kurdistan.

As for the Sunni State it would most likely remain secular, it might adopt democracy or it might just go for a strong man type, it would have a small population, probably have no coastline and would be of little global significance.

The Shi’a state would most likely become some sort of Islamic Theocracy, maybe just like Iran or perhaps more moderate, hard to say. There has of course been endless speculation that this state would become a puppet or ally of Iran, that is possible but not inevitable, although they would share the same government type and religion, their Cultures and languages are different and they have been enemies in the past.

Well that's my opinion anyway, give them all the right to self-determination and then let them do whatever they want.

Ill put 200 on the Kurds, anyone want to raise that?

So what do you predict, the Shi'ites and the Sunnis go to war with each other, kill each other in their thousands, destroy the country and then proceed to form a democratic government that allows the losers a fair share of the spoils?
Somehow I doubt they'd kill eachother in the thousands. Hundreds at most, before they broke down and worked at peace through negotiation. People seem to presume, probably because of western media's "reporting" of the conflict, that these two, or three, groups of people hate eachother so much that they want to destroy eachother... despite them living together for centuries, and many of them being inter-married (And despite the fact that Shiite and Sunni differences are superficial at best).

I would like you to show me an example of history where a minority ethnic group rules a country democratically. It's an impossibility.
Funny... we're not speaking ethnic groups between Sunni and Shiite... and if the Kurds take power we are (Which according to you would be bad).
Now if we're speaking ideological groups, look at the recent Canadian elections, a minority government. Since the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives in Canada are about as prominent, if not moreso, then that between Sunni's and Shiites (In the end they are both Muslims, and any Muslim I have ever spoken to has said that).

If there was civil war, that would be the end of it all. There could be no democracy to follow.
And you can back this up.... how?
What historical evidence? The US Civil war? The French revolution? The Russian Revolution (Which might be your best bet)? Iran maybe, if you assume there is no democracy in Iran at all, or that it is not making improvements in itself every year.
I fail to see any historical backing to state that an Iraq civil war would remove Iraq from existance, in fact every other time something like that has happened, the country in question seems to have grown a closer solidarity rather then falling appart.

So if not Saddam, then who?

The Iraqi people. Yes, they are capable of democracy.

The problem right now is that there is no popular-based politics in Iraq, not even something along the lines of what we have in the liberal democracies of the Global North. There are a bunch of reactionary sectarian groupings who represent almost arbitrary distinctions in the population, and the result of that will always be chaos and civil war.

Nobody with power wants to allow an Iraqi popular movement to gain power, either, for obvious reasons.

I don't know how this is going to be resolved, aside from the fact that it isn't going to be pretty, and nobody - perhaps not even the winners - are going to like it.

US and western influence will bring stronger ties with egypt and the oil peninsula.

Shitte unity will be strengthened for need of stabilitzation and support between Iran and the New Iraqi Republic

The Sunni's will most likely support.

The Kurds seem intent on gaining more autonomy.

The restabilization seems to be bringing Iraq as a 'unifier' as outline in the 'invisioning of the outcome of the Iraq civil war dialouge'

Economic capacities will enable greater cooperation.

The catch being that an Islamic state is the core, not one founded on sectarian veiws but one based on the 'foundation of the 'principles' of the muslim faith.

Those being
Beleif in the almighty
and support of mohammads teachings essentially only things up until 632.

The rest would be foundation of 'working adminitrative laws' in a faceless modern context.

Meanwhile allowing the rest to go to a 'civil' provincial system. One being Kurdistan, the other being a 'central' sunni region and the final being a shiite province of sorts. While bagdad should be considered a 'district captial region' with a few changes.

The civil war IS happening already with international supporters.

Technically Sadam is still president of the Republic of Iraq.

The US is not planning on pulling out anytime soon (depending on who the next president is this may change i.e 2008 there will be a new consensus.
troop downsizing will occur.. unless another situation develops.

The 'old guard' needs to keep the US and coalition IN Iraq because the 'new government' is trying to phase them out. As fighitng your own people is damaging only to you.

Ultimately in 5 years there may be a general calm in iraq if western powers withdrew but they don't seem intent on doing that any time soon with Nato in Afghanastan and 'the second Coalition' in Iraq.

The realities of war will create a greater transislamic state, on the rise in some parts... oddly there is a trend towards rational islamic fundamentalism.

Thus whoever gets the Imam's support....

My Primary opinion on this is that at least one good thing can come out of the whole terrible Iraq war and that is the Kurds can finally gain their independence.

I don't really think the Kurds will need to get involved in the Civil War between the Sunnis and Shi’a, They have nothing to gain from it either way, their goal should be simple, independence. Then they can let the Arabs do whatever they want to one another..

The problem is the Kurds don't just live in Bushnam. They also live in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Azarbaijan. And in all of these countries they have demanded an independent nation. So if you alow a Kurdistan, you are asking for rebellions in those countries also. The war spreads throughout the region.

The problem is the Kurds don't just live in Bushnam. They also live in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Azarbaijan. And in all of these countries they have demanded an independent nation. So if you alow a Kurdistan, you are asking for rebellions in those countries also. The war spreads throughout the region.


Do you have to keep calling it "Bushnam"?
That little metaphoric word urks me to no end. It would be better, and more respectful to the Iraqi people to call the country by it's proper name as chosen by it's people, Iraq (Or Al 'iraq in Arabic).

Do you have to keep calling it "Bushnam"?
That little metaphoric word urks me to no end. It would be better, and more respectful to the Iraqi people to call the country by it's proper name as chosen by it's people, Iraq (Or Al 'iraq in Arabic).
When the Iraqi people control their fate and Americans and others aren't dieing for no reason that has ever been explained it will be Iraq. Until then, let us not forget that we are involved in Bushnam. If we forget we license every president into the future to say "You can't critisize me, I'm a 'war' President. To attack me is to harm the troops." If you don't like the label critisize the idiots that vote for someone who will kill the people of Bushnam and the sons and daughters of the poor Americans for.......................................???????? Fill in the blank. I haven't heard a valid reason yet.

When the Iraqi people control their fate and Americans and others aren't dieing for no reason that has ever been explained it will be Iraq. Until then, let us not forget that we are involved in Bushnam. If we forget we license every president into the future to say "You can't critisize me, I'm a 'war' President. To attack me is to harm the troops." If you don't like the label critisize the idiots that vote for someone who will kill the people of Bushnam and the sons and daughters of the poor Americans for.......................................???????? Fill in the blank. I haven't heard a valid reason yet.

Firstly, it's disrespectful to the Iraqi people, whatever gripe you have with Bush is your own.
Secondly, I'm not a part of this "we" you speak of, Canada has not sent troops there, merely police to help the Iraqi's who are controlling themselves quite well.
"Bushnam" is disrespectful to the Iraqi people, your gripe with Bush is better expressed in other ways, like attacks on him and not a group of people just trying to live their lives.

I still don't understand why it was so damn important for the neo-Conartists to invade that particular hornets nest. The population was safer under Sadam. He wasn't a nice little dictator, but we're worse.

Bullshit. He wasnt nice or dandy or anything. HE was a tyrannt and more so then what many loony left-wing nutters on here think of Bush. And even more so then the right-wing nutters too.

What's going to happen is they are going to fight it out until a strongman can take control of the country and settle things. The US knows it and the Bushnam people know it, the whole world knows it. The question is, will it be a US puppet, an Iranian puppet somebody elses puppet or a real strongman?

If it's a US puppet, we are going to have to accept the fact that he will have to spill a lot of blood and spend a lot of US money to take and keep power. If it's an Iranian puppet, we will have to accept Iran controling that much more oil and the Mid East power that would go with it. Not to mention fundamentalist religion in control. (After 5 years the US is beginning to understand what that means.) A Saudi, Syrian, or Jordanian puppet? How many doughboys will die in that takeover?

That leaves a real strongman. More Bushnam civilians have been killed per year under the US than under Saddam. A strongman will kill quite a few more to get power, but then, like Saddam he will only kill treasoners, criminals, and their families and associates. Everyone else will live in peace. No freedom as the US defines it, but peace.

We were all better off with Saddam in power. A strongman--any strongman--won't allow other powers to stage in his country. They might get enough power to overthrow him. That's why the whole idea of Saddam allowing Al Queda in the country was rediculous. So if not Saddam, then who?

Your garbage. Hussein killed more civilians then any US forces can even if it was forced to. He was a tyrannt and murder, he went out of his way to harm others, the US is NOT going out of its way to harm innocent Civilians. I am glad Hussein is removed.

Firstly, it's disrespectful to the Iraqi people, whatever gripe you have with Bush is your own.
Secondly, I'm not a part of this "we" you speak of, Canada has not sent troops there, merely police to help the Iraqi's who are controlling themselves quite well.
"Bushnam" is disrespectful to the Iraqi people, your gripe with Bush is better expressed in other ways, like attacks on him and not a group of people just trying to live their lives.
Sorry I missed the "we". Note that I edited because I had mentioned those who voted.

I don't understand how a comparative word is desrespectful. It's better to use a simple word that explains the situation instantly than to re-explain the situation over and over. I didn't use any of the military terms for the people that degrades them to the point where they can be killed without conscience. In fact I didn't use the term about the people at all. It was used as a descriptive term of the situation the country is in and the reason for that situation. It is also a warning about the future. An amazing amount of information in a single word. That is the advantage of English over every other language. Words can be formed that everyone instantly understands that communicate many ideas instantly. It is in the tradition of Shakespeare.

Irans going to take over, I just know it. Irans going to take over Iraq, kill off any 'freedoms'(and I say that sarcasticlly) that the Iraqi people have, and start executing those who dont agree. Even worse, this puts Iran on the border with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait... if Iran shares a border with the Gulf States, they will inevitably try and invasion. When they invade is the question thats up in the air. But, without US support, the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Qataris, and so-on, cannot hold out against the Iranian military(especially once it is combined with Iraqs military). A grisly situation made even more ominous by the fact that the Iranians are trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

As bad as a guy Saddamic Iraq was, he was a good buffer inbetween Iran and the Gulf States..

Your garbage. Hussein killed more civilians then any US forces can even if it was forced to. He was a tyrannt and murder, he went out of his way to harm others, the US is NOT going out of its way to harm innocent Civilians. I am glad Hussein is removed.
Notice I used the term "per year". More Bushnam civilians have been killed PER YEAR since the invasion than were killed under Saddam. He of course had more time. But then the US is just getting started.

I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy. But in comparison the average Iraqi was safer under Saddam than under the US. Saddam never killed randomly. He killed traitors, criminals, their families and associates. The bombs that are killing today are random. The US broke it so they are responsible for every death, not just when a soldier pulls the trigger. The bombs weren't going off before the US action. But they will continue to go off until another strong man can again take control. That will be when the US "body count" can end. Until then, every civilian death belongs to the US.

The only real winners of the Iraq Civil War will be Islamist-oriented groups like Al Qaeda.

Quote by Good Lifes:
"The problem is the Kurds don't just live in Bushnam. They also live in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Azarbaijan. And in all of these countries they have demanded an independent nation. So if you alow a Kurdistan, you are asking for rebellions in those countries also. The war spreads throughout the region."

Actually if you had read my post properly you would see that I addressed this, (please read it again), I am well aware that an Independent Kurdistan may start more wars in the region, but that is not a legitimate reason to deny them their inherent right to self determination.
And as I said the Kurds in the surrounding areas will really start to want their independence too (an rightfully so), However if the Countries currently occupying the Kurdish lands still refuse to allow them to secede, then an armed Rebellion of the Kurds will be the likely outcome.
And in my opinion the Kurds would be perfectly within their right to do this.

And please, calling Iraq "Bushnam" is just childish and doesn't make your argument sound very serious. I mean I'm one of the biggest haters of bush and the War you'll find but calling it that just sound stupid.

Sorry I missed the "we". Note that I edited because I had mentioned those who voted.

I don't understand how a comparative word is desrespectful. It's better to use a simple word that explains the situation instantly than to re-explain the situation over and over. I didn't use any of the military terms for the people that degrades them to the point where they can be killed without conscience. In fact I didn't use the term about the people at all. It was used as a descriptive term of the situation the country is in and the reason for that situation. It is also a warning about the future.
No, what you're doing is disrespecting a people by refusing to acknowledge their existance and respect them as human beings. The situation has nothing to do with it and you can find manymany other ways of expressing your dislike with the situation without directly disrespecting the people.
I culd walk by a bunch of black teenagers in the street and refer to them as "niggers", does that make it respectful? Certianlly everyone would automatically understand the sentiment involved, but it's still disrepectful to the people. You dehumanize them and negate them as a people, reducing their existance to nothing but a far off body of nothing that can be treated any which way simply because they are not human.
Plain and simple, you are being disrespectful to the Iraqi people by refering to their[/i[ country with your own contrived little names like "Bushnam".

An amazing amount of information in a single word. That is the advantage of English over every other language. Words can be formed that everyone instantly understands that communicate many ideas instantly. It is in the tradition of Shakespeare.
And by the way, this is utter bullshit. The english language has [i]absolutly no advantage over any other language. To believe so is just dumb, all languages are equal in their capabilities. And I can gaurentee you that you will not find any respectable linguist who says otherwise.
And by the way, Shakespear was following the tradition of Chaucer, who was continuing a centuries old tradition stemming all the way back to Sumer, in ancinet Iraq.

And despite the fact that Shiite and Sunni differences are superficial at best

:rolleyes:

*withdraws from thread*

I culd walk by a bunch of black teenagers in the street and refer to them as "niggers", does that make it respectful? Certianlly everyone would automatically understand the sentiment involved, but it's still disrepectful to the people. You dehumanize them and negate them as a people, reducing their existance to nothing but a far off body of nothing that can be treated any which way simply because they are not human.
Plain and simple, you are being disrespectful to the Iraqi people by refering to their[/i[ country with your own contrived little names like "Bushnam". I never refered to the Iraqi people as anything other than Iraqi. Your example doesn't hold true. It would be more like walking through the inner city and saying "this is the slums" Or "This is the ghetto" I am refering to a true description of a place. Not the people in the place.




And by the way, this is utter bullshit. The english language has [i]absolutly no advantage over any other language. To believe so is just dumb, all languages are equal in their capabilities. And I can gaurentee you that you will not find any respectable linguist who says otherwise.
And by the way, Shakespear was following the tradition of Chaucer, who was continuing a centuries old tradition stemming all the way back to Sumer, in ancinet Iraq.
Well since I have a Masters in Communication. I guess I would probably be the expert on language on this thread. All languages are not equal. English has far more words than any other language. Nearly double that of French. It also has words with far more shades of meaning than any other language. It is also much more adaptable than any other language. There are several languages in the world that it takes an act of the government to add a new word. Ususally when these languages add a new word it is an adaptation of English. English allows anyone to make up a word to fit the situation. Shakespeare made up several hundred words. The audience immediatly understood his meaning even if they never heard the word before.

What we are facing here is semantics. The emotional baggage that all words carry. In your above example, "******" is dirived from the latin for black. But because it is remembered as a slave term, it carries negative semantics that add to the reaction far beyond the original meaning of black.

In the same way you are giving a strong emotional reaction to to Bushnam. Since the people of Bushnam will never see this thread, they will not be insulted. But you are reacting to the implication that this war can be comparable to Vietnam and it is the sole ownership of Bush. Which of course is exactly what I wanted the word to do. Because of your reaction I know that I am being successful in my manipulation of the semantics that I desired to attach to the word. I have obviously made you think. That is my goal. Somewhere in the back of your mind that word has made the connections to Nam and the enduring war there. It also made a connection to the cause of the war.

And all of that was done in describing the war in one word without once insulting the Iraqi people.

Poland.

Yeah!!!
GO POLSKA!!

The only real winners of the Iraq Civil War will be Islamist-oriented groups like Al Qaeda.

No, they'll lose. The Shi'ites will slaughter them, and most of the Sunnis will probably join in.

:rolleyes:

*withdraws from thread*
Seconded.

I never refered to the Iraqi people as anything other than Iraqi. Your example doesn't hold true. It would be more like walking through the inner city and saying "this is the slums" Or "This is the ghetto" I am refering to a true description of a place. Not the people in the place.
You don't get it. You are issuing a title to a place other then that which the people who own the place have chosen. It's proper name is Iraq, and that is what you should call it as the country. They are the people of Iraq, and your use of "Bushnam" in it's place is degreading, rude, disrespectful, and offensive.


Well since I have a Masters in Communication. I guess I would probably be the expert on language on this thread. All languages are not equal. English has far more words than any other language. Nearly double that of French. It also has words with far more shades of meaning than any other language. It is also much more adaptable than any other language. There are several languages in the world that it takes an act of the government to add a new word. Ususally when these languages add a new word it is an adaptation of English. English allows anyone to make up a word to fit the situation. Shakespeare made up several hundred words. The audience immediatly understood his meaning even if they never heard the word before.

Sorry, but the way you use your "expertise" makes me think you gor your MA in Communication from the back of a cereal box. Linguists, you know us people who study languages, will tell you otherwise, and in fact have already.
And by the way, 70-90% of English is taken from other languages. English has no advantages of expression or use over any other language, and those you percieve to be advantages are merely cultural use of your primary language. Go become fluent in another language, especially something so different then English, and you'll see that they are not only just as capable, but they are easier to use and learn. Ergative languages, for instance, have a simplicity of explaining ideas, and any idea at that, that English could only dream of having, and are very easy to use once you learn them. English on the otherhand, is even harder to learn, and takes nearly twice as long for dedicated students to become fluent in simply because it is such a mess of foreign morphological structures, phonetic variation, and the most screwed up syntactic structure I have ever seen.

What we are facing here is semantics. The emotional baggage that all words carry. In your above example, "******" is dirived from the latin for black. But because it is remembered as a slave term, it carries negative semantics that add to the reaction far beyond the original meaning of black.
Thank you for the etomology to make yourself look smart. As if I didn't already know that "******" like most of the other words in English, came from another language.
And we're not looking at semantics, we both know perefectly well what the word connotates, what we are looking at is a matter of respect. Respect being a word you apparently have no semantical knowledge of.
And for future refrence, Semantics is the feild of study, not the adjective of description, you're thinking "connotation" in this sentence: "it carries negative semantics".

In the same way you are giving a strong emotional reaction to to Bushnam. Since the people of Bushnam will never see this thread, they will not be insulted. But you are reacting to the implication that this war can be comparable to Vietnam and it is the sole ownership of Bush. Which of course is exactly what I wanted the word to do. Because of your reaction I know that I am being successful in my manipulation of the semantics that I desired to attach to the word. I have obviously made you think. That is my goal. Somewhere in the back of your mind that word has made the connections to Nam and the enduring war there. It also made a connection to the cause of the war.
You're not describing a place though, you're naming a place. Bushnam should be an adjective in the way you claim to be using it, thus "The Bushnam situation of Iraq" would fit, but you're using it as a Noun, an insulting title which degrades the people you are referring to.
The back of my head made a connection after I looked the word up by the way, despite being a history buff and knowing quite a bit about the situation, I had to google the term "bushnam" and find it's use and application as you are using it on a whiny little kid's blog.

And by the way, you are aware they have the internet in Iraq, right? You're idea that they will never see it is pretty far fectched. I know a couple of Iraqi's It've turned to this site who enjoy the NS game itself.

Oh, and you're misapplying Semantics again. Better get that straight.

And all of that was done in describing the war in one word without once insulting the Iraqi people.
No.. you're describing the country and it's inhabitants.
For instance, "The people of Bushnam", "The life in Bushnam". You may want to be describing the war, but you're not, you're replacing the proper noun with your own conjunction in what I believe, and seveal people I know, to be an incredibly disrecpectful term. What's next, "Ragheadland"? "The Goatfucker Republic"?

Your use of the term, and the term itself, is offensive, degrading, and disrespectful.

Good job Good Lifes, wonderful job at showing how you got that nice little degree in your communication. :rolleyes:

Well, i think i said my peace in this thread.

. English has no advantages of expression or use over any other language, and those you percieve to be advantages are merely cultural use of your primary language.
This is really getting off the topic, but having taught communications at the college level for 7 years, I always have an impulse to teach. Where English got it's words is irrelevent. They are there and they are able to project more shades of meaning than any other language. There are some subjects that other languages are better at because the geography and social factors of a group create need. For instance the languages of Saharan Africa and Mongolia have a vast number of words for different types of sand. But overall, in most situations, English has the most words that can reflect subtle change. Admitedly English isn't easy to learn. The vast number of words contributes to this.


I had to google the term "bushnam" and find it's use and application as you are using it on a whiny little kid's blog.
WOW! I never thought of googling (a new English word) "Bushnam". 50 hits! And I thought it was original with me.


Oh, and you're misapplying Semantics again. Better get that straight.


No.. you're describing the country and it's inhabitants.
For instance, "The people of Bushnam", "The life in Bushnam". You may want to be describing the war, but you're not, you're replacing the proper noun with your own conjunction in what I believe, and seveal people I know, to be an incredibly disrecpectful term. What's next, "Ragheadland"? "The Goatfucker Republic"?

Your use of the term, and the term itself, is offensive, degrading, and disrespectful.

Notice--I was NOT the first to use ******, Raghead or Goatfucker.

But since you brought it up. The military has from the beginning of time used language to dehumanize the enemy. In every culture, Mothers bring up their sons to not kill another human. But the job of the miliary is to kill. So how do they overcome this? They create an existential situation through the use of semantics that makes the enemy into something else.
During training you sing: I want to be an Airborne Ranger. I wanna live a life of danger. I wanna to go to Viet-Nam. I wanna kill a Charlie Cong. (This is one of the cleaner ones.) Never do you say, I wanna kill a human.


Every army does this. The enemies of the US don't kill humans, they kill "Yankees". What is a Yankee? Even Americans don't agree. Is it any American, a northerner, a New Englander, a Vermonter? What ever it is, to the enemy it's not human.

There was a real problem with this in the original Nam. The soldiers started calling the enemy "Charlie" which comes from the radio call for VC (Viet Cong) "Victor-Charlie". The problem with that was everyone knows a Charlie. Charlie was too human. So, the top seargents (who were grunts in Korea) and the top officers (who were junior officers in Korea) imported the Korean word they used for the enemy. Although I've seen other listings for the origin of the word, my Korean Brother-in-law tells me G--- is the Korean word for soup. During the war, all people had to eat was soup. So they were soup-eaters. As far as I know G--- means nothing in Vietnamese. But it made the enemy less human than Charlie and more were killed.

I could go through the names for all of the enemies of recent wars but this is the idea behind the semantics of RH and GF. It allows killing, without killing a human in an existential sense.

Bushnam doesn't do this. It doesn't existentially change the people to nonhuman. It is a simple descriptive term that quickly outlines the situation and it's cause.

This is really getting off the topic, but having taught communications at the college level for 7 years, I always have an impulse to teach. Where English got it's words is irrelevent. They are there and they are able to project more shades of meaning than any other language. There are some subjects that other languages are better at because the geography and social factors of a group create need. For instance the languages of Saharan Africa and Mongolia have a vast number of words for different types of sand. But overall, in most situations, English has the most words that can reflect subtle change. Admitedly English isn't easy to learn. The vast number of words contributes to this.
Then these "7 years" you claim, were a waste of your life. You apparently learned nothing.
Firstly, English doesn't have the most words of any language, as you have claimed. In fact it is impossible to know how many words any language has. Secondly, if you knew anything about language you would have long ago realised that languages, as a human tool, combine and borrow. English, for instance, is so diverse as be more of a language sub-family then an actual language, comparable more to the Bantu or Semetic families, which can all be inter-understood the same wal all "dialects" of English can. You come again to the realisation that 70-90% of English comes from other languages, something you dismiss now but it goes directly against a point you made to make your argument. You claim that many languages borrow from English, yet you neglect that many languages simply borrow from other languages other then English, and English too borrows these terms. Barbeque, for instance, entered several languages (Arabic, Hebrew, Japanese) through English, but English took it from Spanish, and Spanish took it from Taino. Most languages, German, Russian, and French, took it directly from Spanish. Now where would you place that? Naturally, we have the English Barbeque, but other languages have a variant.. did they all take it from English?
Which brings me to the direct point. You claimed that English is the best because it has the most words, the claim that other languages borrow heavily from English, yet neglect the fact completely, and even dismiss it as irrelivent, when presented with the fact that not only didEnglish borrow those terms from other languges first, but other languages also borrowed amongst eachother. A sizeable portion of Japanese, for instance, is Chinese, not English.

Oh, and Saharan and Mongolian languages don't have several words for Sand. What they have is one word for sand and several applicable adjectives, making a phrase not a word. Same applies to Inuit languages and the fabled "200 words for snow".
But of course they taught you that in your Communications program, if you did take it as you claim.


WOW! I never thought of googling (a new English word) "Bushnam". 50 hits! And I thought it was original with me.
50 hits, many of them companies selling a brand of clothing from Europe, and several actually naming a place (Apparently there is a place called "Bushnam".



Notice--I was NOT the first to use ******, Raghead or Goatfucker.
And your point is? Using it counts, regardless if you're the first, or hundred billionth.

But since you brought it up. The military has from the beginning of time used language to dehumanize the enemy. In every culture, Mothers bring up their sons to not kill another human. But the job of the miliary is to kill. So how do they overcome this? They create an existential situation through the use of semantics that makes the enemy into something else.
No, what they use is rythem and inntonation to promote unity within the group. The killing of enemy soldiers comes as a direct result of your buddies being in danger of death. People will do more to save a fellow human, especially one which they share a very right bond (like soldiers) then they would just to kill a non-human. Dehumanizing language may or may not help, but it's nowhere near the importance as you might want to believe.

During training you sing: I want to be an Airborne Ranger. I wanna live a life of danger. I wanna to go to Viet-Nam. I wanna kill a Charlie Cong. (This is one of the cleaner ones.) Never do you say, I wanna kill a human.
See above for an explination.
Other then that, the Viertnam war is long over, I doubt they sing that still.


Every army does this. The enemies of the US don't kill humans, they kill "Yankees". What is a Yankee? Even Americans don't agree. Is it any American, a northerner, a New Englander, a Vermonter? What ever it is, to the enemy it's not human.
Yep, ever army does it. Oddly, your only example, "gook", is the only one I can find not directly recognising of human value. Despite the nasty, evil nature that Germans were portrayed in both world wars by the allied side, they were called "Jerries"... a persons name. Brits were called Tommys by the Germans (And some nasty terms sprang from it like "Tommy cooker" for Shermans). These words what.. they certianly don't dehumanize the people like you claim they are designed to. And definatly not like "Bushnam" does to the people of Iraq.

There was a real problem with this in the original Nam. The soldiers started calling the enemy "Charlie" which comes from the radio call for VC (Viet Cong) "Victor-Charlie". The problem with that was everyone knows a Charlie. Charlie was too human. So, the top seargents (who were grunts in Korea) and the top officers (who were junior officers in Korea) imported the Korean word they used for the enemy. Although I've seen other listings for the origin of the word, my Korean Brother-in-law tells me G--- is the Korean word for soup. During the war, all people had to eat was soup. So they were soup-eaters. As far as I know G--- means nothing in Vietnamese. But it made the enemy less human than Charlie and more were killed.
Funny, my etymology books all cite Gook as an onomatopoeic word from the 1800's used by American soldiers in the Phillipenes to describe the Phillipenese people by mocking the sound of their language, and then somehow later applied to Nicaraguans, Malaysians, the Phillipenes again, Koreans, and then the Vietnamese.
Sorry, but between your internet post and an academic text, the later wins out, try again.

I could go through the names for all of the enemies of recent wars but this is the idea behind the semantics of RH and GF. It allows killing, without killing a human in an existential sense.
And you'll notice if you do go though all of them that very few of them have any dehumanising value.

Bushnam doesn't do this. It doesn't existentially change the people to nonhuman. It is a simple descriptive term that quickly outlines the situation and it's cause.
No, it does dehumanise them. It's not a simple term in the kleast, especially on the semantic level, but I'm not going to bother debating a complex linguistic process with you if you don't know anything about languages, as you have proven.
But, to again point it out for you, you use it as a name, not a description. A name is an important and personal thing with humans, you disrespect a people or person if you don't use the name they prefer. Further, your description is nowhere near accurate of the situation in Iraq (At least not according to Iraqi's). You take a people, lower them to the level od non-human playthings of Bush, and tack on an ending on to connotate a situation. Same thing if I start calling you "Igortard" when your real name is Fred. As "Igortard" is a description of you from a point of view, yet.. not your name. Now unles you accecpted this (Which by the way I doubt the Iraqi's accept "Bushnam" as their country name"), it would not only be insulting to you (I'm sure you can figure out the conjunction used), but disrespectful, and dehumanizing.

i'm rooting for the yazidi, cuz i think they're cool... so i guess that's sorta the kurds. the peacock angel ought to put a beatdown on all the warring factions and international occupiers and mercenaries and jihadis.

whome i want to see win everywhere is the average joe on the street. preferably with a minimum of bloodshed. you simply cannot put taking sides, ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in, whatever those sides might happen to be, without causing suffering and harm.

there is no other morality then to avoid causing suffering and harm.

you may not always be able to do so
but there is no justification for ever not attempting to

and there is no honor in vengence

=^^=
.../\...

English has no advantages of expression or use over any other language,
http://tafkac.org/language/eskimo_words_for_snow_derby.html

The languages of the north (there are many) generally use a combining-long word structure. So it is hard to define something like adj. noun, etc. They run together all of the parts. Much like an unlimited number of prefixes and subfixes. In any case, they do have far more ways to express "snow" than English. Some European languages, such as Finnish, also use this "longword" system.

http://bestclips.com/index/clips/view_unit/166/?letter=E&spage=1

While different linguists count words differently, which makes a count difficult. English has far more words than any comparable language. Yes, it got so many words by borrowing, stealing, adapting, etc. Other languages do the same to English words, but English is better at it. Because of that, English can describe in many more shades of meaning.

A Sample of Thesaurus listing for a simple word like GOOD.

praiseworthy, commendable, of estimation; meritorious, estimable, creditable, plausible, unimpeachable; beyond all praise.yes, yea, ay, aye, true; good; well; very well, very true; well and good; granted; even so, just so; to be sure, "thou hast said", you said it, you said a mouthful; truly, exactly, precisely, that's just it, indeed, certainly, you bet, certes, ex concesso; of course, unquestionably, assuredly, no doubt, doubtless; naturally, natch complete, entire; whole; perfect; full, absolute, thorough, plenary; solid, undivided; with all its parts; all-sided commendable; useful; beneficial Indifferent, middling, ordinary, mediocre; average; so-so; coucicouci, milk and water; tolerable, fair, passable; pretty well, pretty good; rather good, moderately good; good; good enough, well enough, adequate; decent; not bad, not amiss; inobjectionable, unobjectionable, admissible, bearable, only better than nothing Best, choice, select, picked, elect, recherche, rare, priceless; unparagoned, unparalleled; (supreme); superlatively; good; bully, crackajack, giltedged; superfine, Well-being; good; snugness, comfort, ease; cushion; sans souci, mind at ease right, good; just, reasonable; fit; equal, equable, equatable; evenhanded, fair savory, delicious, tasty, well-tasted, to one's taste, good, palatable, nice, dainty, delectable; toothful, toothsome; gustful, appetizing, lickerish, delicate, exquisite, rich, luscious, ambrosial, scrumptious, delightful virtuous, good; innocent; meritorious, deserving, worthy, desertful, correct; dutiful, duteous; moral; right, righteous, right-minded; well-intentioned, creditable, laudable, commendable, praiseworthy; above all praise, beyond all praise; excellent, admirable; sterling, pure, noble; whole-souled.

What is a language? Is English a family or a single language. Well, what is a language is different if you are a linguist or a government. Traditionally, every country had their own language. To a linguist a language comes about when there is so much change that the people don't understand each other. The differrence--Nearly all Scandinavians can understand each other at least as much as US Americans and Australians. But it is politically incorrect to say they are the same language. A linguist would list them as a single language.

Regardless where G--- came from, it is used to change the enemy from human to less than human in order to allow the soldier to kill without conscience. Other terms that are less human--Kraut, Nip, Red Coat, Limey, etc. Even though some human terms have been used, those that are less human are more effective. Notice I try to avoid the terms, but I didn't know if you could understand K----, N--, RC, L---- You seem to be comfortable with them.

There is a precidence of naming countries after the conquerer. Note Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, (Most of the Bible nations), Rhodesia (Yes, I know this has been changed.)

http://tafkac.org/language/eskimo_words_for_snow_derby.html

The languages of the north (there are many) generally use a combining-long word structure. So it is hard to define something like adj. noun, etc. They run together all of the parts. Much like an unlimited number of prefixes and subfixes. In any case, they do have far more ways to express "snow" than English. Some European languages, such as Finnish, also use this "longword" system.

http://bestclips.com/index/clips/view_unit/166/?letter=E&spage=1

While different linguists count words differently, which makes a count difficult. English has far more words than any comparable language. Yes, it got so many words by borrowing, stealing, adapting, etc. Other languages do the same to English words, but English is better at it. Because of that, English can describe in many more shades of meaning.

A Sample of Thesaurus listing for a simple word like GOOD.

praiseworthy, commendable, of estimation; meritorious, estimable, creditable, plausible, unimpeachable; beyond all praise.yes, yea, ay, aye, true; good; well; very well, very true; well and good; granted; even so, just so; to be sure, "thou hast said", you said it, you said a mouthful; truly, exactly, precisely, that's just it, indeed, certainly, you bet, certes, ex concesso; of course, unquestionably, assuredly, no doubt, doubtless; naturally, natch complete, entire; whole; perfect; full, absolute, thorough, plenary; solid, undivided; with all its parts; all-sided commendable; useful; beneficial Indifferent, middling, ordinary, mediocre; average; so-so; coucicouci, milk and water; tolerable, fair, passable; pretty well, pretty good; rather good, moderately good; good; good enough, well enough, adequate; decent; not bad, not amiss; inobjectionable, unobjectionable, admissible, bearable, only better than nothing Best, choice, select, picked, elect, recherche, rare, priceless; unparagoned, unparalleled; (supreme); superlatively; good; bully, crackajack, giltedged; superfine, Well-being; good; snugness, comfort, ease; cushion; sans souci, mind at ease right, good; just, reasonable; fit; equal, equable, equatable; evenhanded, fair savory, delicious, tasty, well-tasted, to one's taste, good, palatable, nice, dainty, delectable; toothful, toothsome; gustful, appetizing, lickerish, delicate, exquisite, rich, luscious, ambrosial, scrumptious, delightful virtuous, good; innocent; meritorious, deserving, worthy, desertful, correct; dutiful, duteous; moral; right, righteous, right-minded; well-intentioned, creditable, laudable, commendable, praiseworthy; above all praise, beyond all praise; excellent, admirable; sterling, pure, noble; whole-souled.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
And you typed.. or probably coppied and pasted all that for what? To prove me right and prove you have no idea what you're talking about.
LMAO.
You're not even applying an imaginary degree here, let alonea real one. Your own sources don't agree with you... LOL. And you can't tell the difference between an ergative and an agglutanating language, LOL.
Maybe I'll resume this with you some day when you go research that stuff you claim to know. Until then, I have better things to be spending my time on then teaching basic linguistics on the internet.


What is a language? Is English a family or a single language. Well, what is a language is different if you are a linguist or a government.
Governments hire Linguists for linguistic issues. So, in actuality, it's what the Linguists decide, as the governments hire them to make that decsion.
Furthermore, governments make linguistic choices based on descriptive work of linguists, with the advice of other linguists, and the application of language planning if need be. The definition of language for a government and a linguist are one in the same, the Linguist definition.

Traditionally, every country had their own language.
LMAO!!!!!!!
Ethnic groups traditionally evolve their own language, an ethnic group is not a country. Most countries have five or more languages within their borders (Closer to one hundred in India's case). And plenty of countries have no recognised official language.
Sorry but, your statement, false.

To a linguist a language comes about when there is so much change that the people don't understand each other. The differrence--Nearly all Scandinavians can understand each other at least as much as US Americans and Australians. But it is politically incorrect to say they are the same language. A linguist would list them as a single language.
I really enjoy it when you try to tell me what linguists think and how they act, despite that being my feild of study. It gives me such a laugh.
Languages are defined by their uniqueness in combination of phonetic/phonemic, morphological, and syntactical features. Many languages, as defined by linguists, are quite understandable within eachother, that's what we call language families. Politics have less to do with the definition of a language then cheese has to do with the moon. The closest thing you could have to an exception being Norweigen, which was contracted to a team of Linguists by the government of Norway, to create a unique language of the Scandinavian family for the country.
What's next, China is really 6 countries because of polotical borders drawn around the primary languages we commonly group together as "Chinese"?

Regardless where G--- came from, it is used to change the enemy from human to less than human in order to allow the soldier to kill without conscience. Other terms that are less human--Kraut, Nip, Red Coat, Limey, etc. Even though some human terms have been used, those that are less human are more effective. Notice I try to avoid the terms, but I didn't know if you could understand K----, N--, RC, L---- You seem to be comfortable with them.
Of course, Linguists are comfortable with words regardless of connotation, it's how we study languages.
and by the way, you're now just backing what I was saying regarding your disrespect. In fact, as all those you listed are creations of the US armed forces slang, I can further take that and say that Americans as a people are rude, disrespectful, and immature, and thus need to grow up. Because to the Germans, Brits were "Tommy", to the Brits, Germans were "Jerry". "Kraut" was applied by the americans. The Russians called the Germans "Adolf" the Germans called the Russians "Joseph", or a number of variations. These dehumanising terms you find to back my points, are all of American origin. And is simply further proof of not only the immaturity of the culture, but the immaturity of those who seek to justify their abhorrent behavior with the US example.

There is a precidence of naming countries after the conquerer. Note Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, (Most of the Bible nations), Rhodesia (Yes, I know this has been changed.)

Um... there is a precidence of naming the country what the people want to call it. Saudi Arabia (By the way was only under this name in the past 60 years), is Arabia, under the Saudi Royal Family... simple name no? Or the original Arabic, which is it'sproper name, Assayrudi.
Israel, for your example, is named for a noun created from the adjective "Israelite". It's indirect polysemy, as I love to call it.
Yes, some countries have their names based from a persons name, but that is still the choice of the people in said nation. Since most nations have names based from the native ethnic groups, random words chosen, or any other number of things.
And I would love to see this list of "Bible nations" which are named for people who conquered them. I can't think of any, and linguistic history of that area and that time period and before is my speciality.

Really. You should do the research, do the reading. You're getting nowhere in a linguistic debate when you clearly show you don't understand linguistics.

Of course, Linguists are comfortable with words regardless of connotation, it's how we study languages.

Thank you! Then you have no problem with Bushnam and this has just been a battle of technicalities argued at different levels of abstraction.

Thank you! Then you have no problem with Bushnam and this has just been a battle of technicalities argued at different levels of abstraction.


No, I have a problem with it as a history fan and a lover of the country of Iraq.
If I were studying your language, I would have to use it, but I'm not studying your language, nor am I supporting your beliefs regarding the country.

There is a severe difference between Linguists using a word when describing or studying it, and some layman using a word for the sake of expressing themself.

This hasn't been a battle of anything. It's been you posting psudeolinguistics that you should know better then with any Communications degree, and me pointing out that it's wrong.
The entire thing starting from one simple thing, "Bushnam" is degrading and disrespectful.