Saddam's Death May Bring Reprisals?

[limerickman]

Your "objective" approach disregards the facts.

The UN stated throughout the period April 2002 - February 2003, that Iraq did not have WMD.
Hans Blix stated this to your country's goverment - while Bush was beating the drum for war.
The decision to invade Iraq was predicated on a tissue of lies.
Your country's free access to Iraq in the 3.5 years since March 2003 has not rendered any evidence that Iraq possessed WMD.

In addition your country's own Senate Commissions in to 9/11 states that there was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11.

If you do possess evidence of Saddam having WMD, you might like to provide it here?

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

Let us not forget that for years Saddam reportedly refused full and proper access to UN inspectors. Can you prove that Saddam never possessed any weapons of mass destruction? I think it would be rather easy to conceal nuclear and / or chemical weapons in a country roughly the size of France or Spain. These weapons may have been burried in remote locations and it could take decades to find them. If Iraq never actually built any such weapons, they could easily have purchased some on the black markets. .

Yes, Saddam certainly wanted the world to "believe" he had WMD. He did not want to appear weak to his neighbors or internal opposition. He didn't need to actually gas the kurds after all, he could have used guns. He was making a point, certainly promoting the idea that he posessed formidable military potential, probably believing that the world community would remain divided and fail to act. Any military actions w/o a large contingent of international support was most likely inconcievable to him.

Saddam made payments to industry and government officials that he may have felt would undermine any coalition and the largely symbolic sanctions that hurt his own people, but did little to personally affect him. He probably enjoyed the percieved gained respect he recieved from some quarters as "David to the world's Goliath." Christian allusion intended. He played games.

While I agree that Iraqi oil was probably not the single overiding factor, the availability of Middle-Eastern oil in the larger sense, and its economic impact is ALWAYS a factor in Middle-Eastern policy. The $$$ won't be ignored.

 

[sogood]

Last point: I wonder when the U.S. is going to take a poke at North Korea with its emerging nuclear arsenal? Clearly the message has been made clear that the only thing dim-witted Bush understands is a few ballistic warheads pointing in his own direction.

There's one statement that requires no discussion... GW Bush is a dimwit, and he is the President of USA!

 

[sogood]

Just one more comment, if I may. I hear Bush is going to send more troops to Iraq to try and stabilise Baghdad. My New Year prediction is this: The U.S. will lose this war, same as in Vietnam (maybe over a span of 2 or 3 more years). They'll lose because Bush fails to learn the lessons of Afghanistan and Vietnam.

Yep, I bet that they'll do the same as Vietnam. Beef up the forces, PR spin away to show that the new Iraqi military and police has been properly trained and equipped with extra US military support, and then quickly exit. Within time, the whole country will implode and the US will be under a blameless new administration.

Quite pathetic really.

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

Yep, I bet that they'll do the same as Vietnam. Beef up the forces, PR spin away to show that the new Iraqi military and police has been properly trained and equipped with extra US military support, and then quickly exit. Within time, the whole country will implode and the US will be under a blameless new administration.

Quite pathetic really.

Let's keep things relevant, should we digress Vietnam back to the French, or go even further back? Because we won in Japan and Germany/Italy mean that "winning" is the only real justification for anything? Give me a break! Vietnam is coming along nicely in many ways over time, it's Korea that's still more of a mess anyway, Mate.

Iraq is not Vietnam, it's not that simple.

 

[sogood]

Let's keep things relevant, should we digress Vietnam back to the French, or go even further back? Because we won in Japan and Germany/Italy mean that "winning" is the only real justification for anything? Give me a break! Vietnam is coming along nicely in many ways over time, it's Korea that's still more of a mess anyway, Mate.

Iraq is not Vietnam, it's not that simple.

NO! The world won the two WWs.

Iraq is a unilateral war started by the US and some token allies. And the lies, spins and war crimes by the leaders and soldiers are all getting pretty familiar.

 

[Carrera]

"Saddam also could have secretly transferred these weapons to another country well before the invasion."

Saddam punished the U.S. for betraying the former alliance with the Bath Party. He knew very well the Iraqi Army wouldn't be able to defeat an invasion in their current state so he did something quite dramatic. First, Saddam armed the population of Iraq which was a pretty democratic course of action to take (the people had some means of self defence).
He also planned a Sunni guerilla campaign within Iraq itself and may also have transferred weapons and weapons programs outside of Iraq. However, we should note this would never have happened while Saddam remained in power and Iraq remained as a functioning State. This is mostly Bush's fault and if weapons have now been passed on to Islamic fanatics, he only has himself to blame if Saddam opted to do a deal with the Devil, as it were.
of course, now resistance in Iraq has been stepped up from a mere Bath Party insurgency to a complete tribal, civil war with U.S. troops being attacked by Iranian backed Shia as well as Sunnis.
"Again, can you actually prove that saddam was never in any way linked to 9/11."
As Limerickman pointed out, the experts believe this not to have been the case. Iraq was a stable autocracy under Saddam. We're talking about a complex, diverse Middle Eastern State that may have needed a strong regime to prevent tribal warfare and rivalries breaking out. Saddam wasn't a particularly progressive leader but he did keep some stability within the country so democracy might have followed after his death.
"And let's be honest, of those who now deplore the deaths of those that have died since the invasion, how many genuinely cared about those that died during Saddam's reign that lasted several decades? "
People expect higher standards from the U.S. and I suppose it was taken for granted there are human rights abuses in many Arab States. Tony Ben did protest against Saddam's human rights abuses way back in time but he opposed the invasion on the grounds it would destabilise the region.
In short, I think Bush has made a terrible mistake.

Personally, I do not believe the US invaded Iraq because they needed oil. I believe that is purely anti-US and /or anti Republican propaganda.

Let us not forget that for years Saddam reportedly refused full and proper access to UN inspectors. Can you prove that Saddam never possessed any weapons of mass destruction? I think it would be rather easy to conceal nuclear and / or chemical weapons in a country roughly the size of France or Spain. These weapons may have been burried in remote locations and it could take decades to find them. If Iraq never actually built any such weapons, they could easily have purchased some on the black markets. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons have reportedly 'disappeared', some small enough to fit in a suitcase. Saddam also could have secretly transferred these weapons to another country well before the invasion. Again, can you actually prove that saddam was never in any way linked to 9/11 and that he never had any links whatsoever with al-Qaeda? None of us here can prove these things one way or another. Also, for some reason you only mention Bush and Blair, what about all the other countries in the coalition that supported the invasion and supplied troops? How can you possibly know how many civilians Saddam killed in all his years in power? And let's be honest, of those who now deplore the deaths of those that have died since the invasion, how many genuinely cared about those that died during Saddam's reign that lasted several decades? Now, I'm not saying that the invasion was necessarily justified, but I've just tried to offer a more objective approach. I think my main point is that no one here can possibly know the full facts, we are not omniscient yet are easily influenced by the media which often has its own agendas, political or otherwise.

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

NO! The world won the two WWs.

Iraq is a unilateral war started by the US and some token allies. And the lies, spins and war crimes by the leaders and soldiers are all getting pretty familiar.

I get you, and I understand and share your "frustration." The age old question is: "How can this be happening again, WE (everyone) should Know better?"

I think it was Limerick Man, not long ago in another thread that reminded me that "we" don't really share these experiences from other societies collectively in a literal sense at the "street level." We drop our ideals pretty quick when we're worried about our families or ourselves being ripped away in the night.

Societies evolve, from the time one guy grabs another to "help" him catch a rabbit, until the time comes when one guy is strong enough (has enough resources) to take all the rabbits.

Members of the societies will work together until the inequity gets unbearable, and then will revolt. I believe, that eventually, the Iraqis would have overthrown Saddam (or a successor) anyway, over time. The US speeded up the process to eliminate Saddam (good?) BUT just added another source of inequity (BAD!). Had the change come from within Iraqi society, the disequity between the sides may not have been so great and cooperation may have gained hold sooner. We have to get out, let the sides come to a stasis of sorts.

The problem then comes from the BUSH point of view, can the rest of the world live with the outcome? Iran is an example.

My real theory about why this part of the world continues to evolve in such a volitile way, (peace is never really achieved without force) within the framework of societal evolution, is because of the "marginalization of women." Take the equal contributions of half your society away......

 

[Carrera]

American troops have been hoodwinked into fighting a war that was never justified. Troops who are sent to Iraq have far more to lose than the Iraqis. That is, the Iraqis have lost virtually everything on account of Bush Junior's greed and obsession over oil e.t.c. In many cases, Iraqis have lost family through internal, tribal division, sanctions, U.S. bombing or human rights abuses within the country.
As they say, you can kick a dog often enough till it turns round and bites you.
Iraqis are very angry. To cap it off we now see a former Sunni leader being treated in such a manner as there would have been riots over here had a dog been handled in the same manner. Yet, the newspapers in this country are gloating?? S.H. apparently asked to be executed as a military dictator by firing squad but this seems not to have been good enough for Bush - who evidently wanted to insult certain groups of people on a festive day.
So, what I'm saying is the Iraqis are bound to be pretty angry over what Bush has done to their country. Any troops from the U.S. or U.K. who are sent there will surely encounter strong, organised resistance and, as I said, the Iraqis have nothing to lose.
In the end, Iraq will split into ethnic groupins and many Sunnis may well leave the country. Iraq itself will probably become Shia dominated and link up with Iran.

Yep, I bet that they'll do the same as Vietnam. Beef up the forces, PR spin away to show that the new Iraqi military and police has been properly trained and equipped with extra US military support, and then quickly exit. Within time, the whole country will implode and the US will be under a blameless new administration.

Quite pathetic really.

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

That is, the Iraqis have lost virtually everything on account of Bush Junior's greed and obsession over oil e.t.c. In many cases, Iraqis have lost family through internal, tribal division, sanctions, U.S. bombing or human rights abuses within the country.

In the end, Iraq will split into ethnic groupins and many Sunnis may well leave the country. Iraq itself will probably become Shia dominated and link up with Iran.

Ethnic groups exist together all over the world in sometimes "uneasy" but relative peace none-the-less. It's an economic issue with them as well, and I'm defining "economic" in its broadest sense. Anything from a crust of bread up to a private jet is an economic commodity. All living things must fulfill their basic economic needs before any other consideration. We keep redefining "basic" though.

When a society has nothing there isn't a lot of internal struggle beyond that of survival. No one should believe that the survival of the Iraqi ethnicity is in question. The Iraqis just don't yet have "enough" distributed economic equity to form inter-ethnic or religeous co-existance.

******, for example, rose from the inequity the German people felt after the defeat of WWI. Not just because he could belt out a speech. The society bought into it.

The similiarities between Shia and Sunni far overwhelm their differences but yet the emotional differences are magnified to the absurd by leaders on both sides to whip the populace into acting violently. They ignore the substantive similiarities, and even their own "higher principals." (think not only about a ******, but about silly Demos and Repubs on gay marriage or abortion)

Saddam didn't rule by force alone, he didn't posess enough secret police. The populace allowed themselves to be so governed. All society "allows" itself to be governed. "By the consent of the people."

People ALWAYS act in their own self interest, whether it's an altruistic, Mother Theresa quest for fulfillment, or an all consuming drive for power. Peace and stability insue not when we give up our own self interest, but when our cummulative self interests align. That's not a bad thing. It may not sound "noble" but nobody ever continued to do anything very good, for very long that made them feel very bad for very long (or that killed them. ) That's where resentments come from, fester and grow, then potentially explode.

Saddam didn't "force" Shia and Sunni to co-exist, they did it because it was economically beneficial to do so given the alternatives. Economic control was understood, as well as who had it, and what was needed to do to get some of it. Now there is a vacuum.

The "coalition" forces disrupt the equation. Any "side" favored has a distinct appearance of advantage. We can debate the actual advantage, but if you're Joe Iraqi, and you're not of the opinion that the coalition aided government will support you...you won't share in the economic benefit of the society...you're not going to accept it. Your percieved risk is too great, greater than just "going along."

Get rid of the percieved "unfair" imbalance of the coalition, and Joe Iraqi will decide that he and his neighbor are in it together once again. He may not like the outcome, but he'll stop killing people. He'll then pull in a greater number to his cause, "tension" may not go away entirely, but Joe will say, "yeah, but "he's a good Sunni.....live and let live" once again. The fringes will recede, and the rhetoric will fail to draw as many....

That's how it works here in the melting pot of the west, we don't all agree, and we don't all like each other after all....

The process will repeat, as it always has....since history began. It's why we don't seem to apply what we learn individually to societies as a whole, we can't give up our instinctual need to survive as a society. "None of us is as dumb as ALL of us."

The REAL question is: before the nuclear age, we COULD sit back and ignore the struggles of others in isolation if we chose, can we now? Our self interest of survival, of our "basic" needs, is now potentially affected.

 

[sogood]

In the end, Iraq will split into ethnic groupins and many Sunnis may well leave the country. Iraq itself will probably become Shia dominated and link up with Iran.

Who knows? Maybe another strongman (?Shite) that can control the internal rivalries.

I read in a news report (?BBC) that some Iraqi are lamenting for SH's time, for his ability to keep the country together for so many years.

 

[slovakguy]

although i am strongly against state sponsored executions (specifically because it is killing done in my name as a citizen of the state) and therefore should have no opinion on how the iraqis conducted themselves in this affair. of course i realise this was not so simple, as we, the u.s, had our little fingers all over this spectacle. what troubles me is that the white house has again effed up a one car funeral. according to reports from the new york times and times of london, the boys in the white house still can't figure out how to spin this.

 

[wolfix]

although i am strongly against state sponsored executions (specifically because it is killing done in my name as a citizen of the state) and therefore should have no opinion on how the iraqis conducted themselves in this affair. of course i realise this was not so simple, as we, the u.s, had our little fingers all over this spectacle. what troubles me is that the white house has again effed up a one car funeral. according to reports from the new york times and times of london, the boys in the white house still can't figure out how to spin this.

You should never accuse anyone of spin when you use the NY Times as a reference.

 

[slovakguy]

...and as for the independent reportage of the times of london? what, hasn't bill o' added the times to the list of enemies in your little culture war?

 

[Carrera]

I guess I'm a pessimist but I don't see any way the Sunni Moslems will accept an American imposed Shia Government. They made that clear on the streets of Baghdad yesterday. The killing of Saddam Hussein has made this even more a reality. This execution has implications throughout the Arab World, I believe. Especially since many Arabs took the execution as a personal insult - it dampened the festivities on a Moslem pilgrim holiday.
Then, of course, you have Saddam's daughters in exile, vowing to even the score against against Bush Junior. Likewise, the Saudis are considering arming the Sunni insurgents who seem pretty determined to intensify the guerilla war. The Iranians will continue to arm the Shia militias in Iraq while Pakistan (a Sunni regime) is a nuclear power and may not be too happy over Shia death squads killing Sunnis in Iraq.
Therefore, what conclusion can you draw? It looks as if Iraq will become a battle ground between Sunnis and Shia throughout the Arab World while Turkey stands to lose out if the Kurds over there seek to form a new Kurdistan.
All of this will go way beyond the control of American troops within Iraq. If Bush does send 30,000 more troops, I guess they'll be stuck in between Shia militias, Al Quaida, Sunni insurgents and an even bigger nightmare - the union of Iraqi and Iranian Shias. The current trickle of 8 or so U.S. deaths a week will increase to maybe 20 or 30 and how long will the electorate tolerate that scale of casualties?
All of this, in the final analysis, will dwarf the scale of Vietnam and may even be a worse scenario than WW1.

Who knows? Maybe another strongman (?Shite) that can control the internal rivalries.

I read in a news report (?BBC) that some Iraqi are lamenting for SH's time, for his ability to keep the country together for so many years.

 

[limerickman]

I guess I'm a pessimist but I don't see any way the Sunni Moslems will accept an American imposed Shia Government. They made that clear on the streets of Baghdad yesterday. The killing of Saddam Hussein has made this even more a reality. This execution has implications throughout the Arab World, I believe. Especially since many Arabs took the execution as a personal insult - it dampened the festivities on a Moslem pilgrim holiday.
Then, of course, you have Saddam's daughters in exile, vowing to even the score against against Bush Junior. Likewise, the Saudis are considering arming the Sunni insurgents who seem pretty determined to intensify the guerilla war. The Iranians will continue to arm the Shia militias in Iraq while Pakistan (a Sunni regime) is a nuclear power and may not be too happy over Shia death squads killing Sunnis in Iraq.
Therefore, what conclusion can you draw? It looks as if Iraq will become a battle ground between Sunnis and Shia throughout the Arab World while Turkey stands to lose out if the Kurds over there seek to form a new Kurdistan.
All of this will go way beyond the control of American troops within Iraq. If Bush does send 30,000 more troops, I guess they'll be stuck in between Shia militias, Al Quaida, Sunni insurgents and an even bigger nightmare - the union of Iraqi and Iranian Shias. The current trickle of 8 or so U.S. deaths a week will increase to maybe 20 or 30 and how long will the electorate tolerate that scale of casualties?
All of this, in the final analysis, will dwarf the scale of Vietnam and may even be a worse scenario than WW1.

I don't agree with your WW1 analogy - the casualty numbers from WW1 were huge.

But I do agree with your analysis about the death of SH, it's ramifications and the further polarisation of the Sunni/Shia divide not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East.

You're correct to refer to Saudi's support of the Sunni minority in Iraq.
You're also correct to refer to the Shia support from Iran and Syria.
None of this, of course, was calculated by the Americans in March 2003 as they were beating the wardrums.

The Americans were never in control of Iraq from the beginning of their invasion and slowly but surely whatever minute control they may have had has evaporated since.
There is civil war in Iraq right now.
Although it's reported that the American media have been asked not to use the phrase civil war.

The dangers of this now becoming a regional dispute - makes the current situation infinitely more dnagerous.
Saudi, Iran, Syria, Turkey, the Kurds - all have a vested interest in the outcome of Iraq and will support the various factions vying for control.
In the meantime, the average Iraqi continues to suffer.

 

[jhuskey]

You can kill Saddam and his followers and the hate will remain and as long as hate remains you will have reprisals and killing.
Lets hope someone finds the answer that which has been sought for the last 10,000 year or so.

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

All of this, in the final analysis, will dwarf the scale of Vietnam and may even be a worse scenario than WW1.

I agree with you that the potential is there for a "worse scenario than WWI" if you mean that the past and current situations will lead to a bigger part two... Germany marched into Austria to re-unite the Holy Roman Empire (fobidden after WWI) "almost" as heros and then began their conquest. The same types of underlining forces are working now, are they not? Who gets to be the leaders of the "resurging" Persian Empire?

The Ottoman Turks? The Arabs? The Persians? The "Greco-Roman" west?

 

[Carrera]

"Ethnic groups exist together all over the world in sometimes "uneasy" but relative peace none-the-less."

After some years studying the implications of this view, I concluded multiethnic societies really don't function well. Democracy normally takes a backseat under such circumstances.
For instance, if you compare, say, the Palestinian/Jewish conflict with that of the Ingush and Ossetians in the Caucasus - it's the same scenario. The Ingush were displaced by Stalin and then the Ossetians took their place. However, the Ingush returned to their former land recently after the fall of the USSR which is how the whole Chechnyan War became inflamed - Ingush vs Ossetians.
Therefore, Palestine and Ossetia are about as bad as it gets. Add to that lesser conflicts such as the Basque/Spanish, Serbs and Croats, Sunni and Shia and there's a recipe for conflict everywhere - one negative implication from the fall of the USSR.
America's misconception it can simply go into Iraq and impose U.S. style democracy with so many ethnic divisions in that country is as absurd as the current President himself is clueless.
"It's an economic issue with them as well, and I'm defining "economic" in its broadest sense."
I guess I half agree. In multiracial societies, prosperity often covers up deeper ethnic divisions but these inevitably surface when the said society suffers stress (war, unemployment e.t.c.). I'm pretty sure the same thing will happen in the U.S. when times get harder and we can even see this today emerging. Need I mention the tensions over Hispanic migration and some towns and States already imposing restrictions on Spanish language?
"No one should believe that the survival of the Iraqi ethnicity is in question. The Iraqis just don't yet have "enough" distributed economic equity to form inter-ethnic or religeous co-existance."
Hmmm, more like they were doing reasonably O.K. under Saddam till Bush came in and hit them with a hammer. I wonder when (if ever!!) the U.S. is going to understand that characters such as Saddam and Stalin (bad as they were) had the task of creating some kind of stability in the face of ethnic, religious divisions around large stretches of territory. I mean, look at the USSR today after the periods of Stalin and Krushchev: Ukraine has broken away, there's war in the Caucasus, Georgia seems unstable and there are rising tensions in the Baltics.
Therefore, what would you or I prefer as an Iraqi? Being able to walk the streets in safety so long as you kept a low profile in politics (under Saddam) or your country being torn apart by terrorists, fanatics and religious crackpots with machine guns?
"The similiarities between Shia and Sunni far overwhelm their differences but yet the emotional differences are magnified to the absurd by leaders on both sides to whip the populace into acting violently."
Sadly, I believe militaristic regimes tend to restrain these differences breaking out before democracy might stand any chance.. Saddam had a way of uniting Shias and Sunnis so most people viewed themselves just as "Iraqi". It was the same in the USSR. Most people viewed themselves as Soviet citizens, even the Moslems.
It's not that I don't support democracy where it's practical but you can't simply try and impose democracy where there are these kinds of ethnic/religious divisions. This is where the U.S. keeps screwing up.
"Saddam didn't "force" Shia and Sunni to co-exist, they did it because it was economically beneficial to do so given the alternatives."
Hmmm, but what economy? Iraq has been economically crippled for decades. Ethnic tensions only surfaced after the U.S. invasion. Iraqis somehow got by under the Bathist regime even if it fell a long way short of democracy.
"That's how it works here in the melting pot of the west, we don't all agree, and we don't all like each other after all...."
Yes, but it's still early days. My argument all along has been too many countries have concluded the U.S. is a huge success story and we should all copy America. However, the problem with that view is the U.S. has only been a global power for less than 100 years, which is peanuts in historical terms. The Romans were on top for 600 years, for instance. The ancient Egyptians lasted for hundreds of years. Neither has the U.S. ever been tested as the USSR was during Germany's invasion. Would the U.S. have held together under such circumstances or would it have fragmented under pressure?
My guess is without Russia and the Bolsheviks, the U.S. would have failed to defeat ****** which would have left all of us in a pretty poor situation under Arian fascist rule.

Ethnic groups exist together all over the world in sometimes "uneasy" but relative peace none-the-less. It's an economic issue with them as well, and I'm defining "economic" in its broadest sense. Anything from a crust of bread up to a private jet is an economic commodity. All living things must fulfill their basic economic needs before any other consideration. We keep redefining "basic" though.

When a society has nothing there isn't a lot of internal struggle beyond that of survival. No one should believe that the survival of the Iraqi ethnicity is in question. The Iraqis just don't yet have "enough" distributed economic equity to form inter-ethnic or religeous co-existance.

******, for example, rose from the inequity the German people felt after the defeat of WWI. Not just because he could belt out a speech. The society bought into it.

The similiarities between Shia and Sunni far overwhelm their differences but yet the emotional differences are magnified to the absurd by leaders on both sides to whip the populace into acting violently. They ignore the substantive similiarities, and even their own "higher principals." (think not only about a ******, but about silly Demos and Repubs on gay marriage or abortion)

Saddam didn't rule by force alone, he didn't posess enough secret police. The populace allowed themselves to be so governed. All society "allows" itself to be governed. "By the consent of the people."

People ALWAYS act in their own self interest, whether it's an altruistic, Mother Theresa quest for fulfillment, or an all consuming drive for power. Peace and stability insue not when we give up our own self interest, but when our cummulative self interests align. That's not a bad thing. It may not sound "noble" but nobody ever continued to do anything very good, for very long that made them feel very bad for very long (or that killed them. ) That's where resentments come from, fester and grow, then potentially explode.

Saddam didn't "force" Shia and Sunni to co-exist, they did it because it was economically beneficial to do so given the alternatives. Economic control was understood, as well as who had it, and what was needed to do to get some of it. Now there is a vacuum.

The "coalition" forces disrupt the equation. Any "side" favored has a distinct appearance of advantage. We can debate the actual advantage, but if you're Joe Iraqi, and you're not of the opinion that the coalition aided government will support you...you won't share in the economic benefit of the society...you're not going to accept it. Your percieved risk is too great, greater than just "going along."

Get rid of the percieved "unfair" imbalance of the coalition, and Joe Iraqi will decide that he and his neighbor are in it together once again. He may not like the outcome, but he'll stop killing people. He'll then pull in a greater number to his cause, "tension" may not go away entirely, but Joe will say, "yeah, but "he's a good Sunni.....live and let live" once again. The fringes will recede, and the rhetoric will fail to draw as many....

That's how it works here in the melting pot of the west, we don't all agree, and we don't all like each other after all....

The process will repeat, as it always has....since history began. It's why we don't seem to apply what we learn individually to societies as a whole, we can't give up our instinctual need to survive as a society. "None of us is as dumb as ALL of us."

The REAL question is: before the nuclear age, we COULD sit back and ignore the struggles of others in isolation if we chose, can we now? Our self interest of survival, of our "basic" needs, is now potentially affected.

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

"Ethnic groups exist together all over the world in sometimes "uneasy" but relative peace none-the-less."

After some years studying the implications of this view, I concluded multiethnic societies really don't function well. Democracy normally takes a backseat under such circumstances.


America's misconception it can simply go into Iraq and impose U.S. style democracy with so many ethnic divisions in that country is as absurd as the current President himself is clueless.
"It's an economic issue with them as well, and I'm defining "economic" in its broadest sense."
I guess I half agree. In multiracial societies, prosperity often covers up deeper ethnic divisions but these inevitably surface when the said society suffers stress (war, unemployment e.t.c.). I'm pretty sure the same thing will happen in the U.S. when times get harder and we can even see this today emerging.

"No one should believe that the survival of the Iraqi ethnicity is in question. The Iraqis just don't yet have "enough" distributed economic equity to form inter-ethnic or religeous co-existance."
Hmmm, more like they were doing reasonably O.K. under Saddam till Bush came in and hit them with a hammer. "The similiarities between Shia and Sunni far overwhelm their differences but yet the emotional differences are magnified to the absurd by leaders on both sides to whip the populace into acting violently."
Sadly, I believe militaristic regimes tend to restrain these differences breaking out before democracy might stand any chance.. Saddam had a way of uniting Shias and Sunnis so most people viewed themselves just as "Iraqi". It was the same in the USSR. Most people viewed themselves as Soviet citizens, even the Moslems.

It's not that I don't support democracy where it's practical but you can't simply try and impose democracy where there are these kinds of ethnic/religious divisions. This is where the U.S. keeps screwing up.
"Saddam didn't "force" Shia and Sunni to co-exist, they did it because it was economically beneficial to do so given the alternatives."
Hmmm, but what economy? Iraq has been economically crippled for decades. Ethnic tensions only surfaced after the U.S. invasion. Iraqis somehow got by under the Bathist regime even if it fell a long way short of democracy.
"That's how it works here in the melting pot of the west, we don't all agree, and we don't all like each other after all...."
Yes, but it's still early days. My argument all along has been too many countries have concluded the U.S. is a huge success story and we should all copy America. However, the problem with that view is the U.S. has only been a global power for less than 100 years, which is peanuts in historical terms. The Romans were on top for 600 years, for instance. .

Ah, where you see differences in our opinions, I see much the same one! I believe it comes down to the fact that this cycle is inevitable. Our differences seem to be semantic in some cases, as with "economic" and "economy." I refer to economics in its simple, broadest sense, resources of ANY type (even ideas) at the individual as well as societal level, not just their sum. There are those "with" and "without" no matter what the overall "economic sum" is. It's the idividual distribution that affects the individual and his alliances from his survival toward his fulfillment.

Democracy is irrelevant as you note. The co-existance that I have extolled is indeed fleeting (especially in historical terms as you also note), it can only exist within a "window" of societal evolution where it's temporarily "economically" self-beneficial enough to do so. It can be forced to some extent, but I believe it is achieved only by consent, and again, only until the balance shifts too far.

Joe grabs Larry to help him catch a rabbit, build a fire and find a cave. They catch rabbits and work together for a while. Catching Rabbits is easier with two. When Mary comes along, Larry is smarter and bigger than Joe...(and Larry will find a way to not only press his advantage, but also to rationalize what he does next.) Then what does Joe do....?

It is our "tragic flaw." Throughout history and culture. It's why Icaris flew too high, why Babel was toppled, why Adam and Eve were thrown out of paradise, and Satan was cast out. We can't even allow God to have an "economic" advantage!