Saddam's Death May Bring Reprisals?



well..well..well. what happened to Saddam was just but right. i know it was a bold move and may bring reprisals but then, if no one initiates the move then who will? No Guts, No Glory!:cool:
 
dangerousbiker said:
well..well..well. what happened to Saddam was just but right. i know it was a bold move and may bring reprisals but then, if no one initiates the move then who will? No Guts, No Glory!:cool:
That's the kind of B&W thoughts GW Bush had before invading Iraq.
 
Carrera said:
I agree there's a big problem in the Middle East but this is probably connected to injustices and poverty, especially within Iraq. The sanctions imposed on Iraq for many years radicalised the Iraqis and also radicalised certain fundamentalist groups outside of Iraq (in my own opinion).
There is a simple law of physics: Where there is oppression and injustice, there is likewise an equally destructive, radical counter-reaction.
The U.S. is now reaping the harvest of the discord they sowed and the seeds of hatred they planted in the name of democracy and freedom. I refer to such events as Clinton bombing Iraq to distract attention away from his personal troubles at home (Monica Lewinsky e.t.c.), the denial of medicine to Iraqis in Baghdad hospitals (with the resultant deaths through disease and malnutrition).
Really, I haven't a clue as to how any politician could restore stability to this region but what the Arabs need is employment, hope and security before any democracy can stand a chance to take root.
Yes! It's an economic issue. Now I know we don't all agree on the the implications of the term so I'll use "resource management and allocation" henceforth.

You can look at it from the individual aspect, the aspect of government and culture, or from the empiric stand point. Humans and society need resources to survive. These "entities" progress long-term in much the same ways.

The initial phases are of survival, it's the genesis of society on all levels. During this phase things start to get "ironed out if you will." Resouces are identified, and divisions of labor and specialization begin to create a limited prosperity and mere survival fades.

The new prosperity results in expansion an identification of "new" resources (technology.) As long as resources are plentiful, and some semblence of rationalized equity abounds things expand further. Expansion creates a semblance of unity within. A bond of family, group or "nationalism" for example. Prosperity brings growth and others join and are born.

The growth phase creates expansion, and expansion creates tension with neighbors. What stage they are in their "resource management stage" determines the course of action. Individuals bump up against individuals, and countries bump up against countries. Wars or alliance.

Alliances create Empires (sometimes through war), and further expansion as new resources (technology) expand, and as current resources cannot meet demand. What were once inclusionary entities during the early phases now must develop exclusionary "outward" ideology to maintain their internal unity against those outside tensions. Nationalism for example, religeon, and ideas of cultural superiority are all HUMAN constructs to acheive this.

Look at America, during it's beginning huge quatities of resources were available. An agrarian society needed land and we had it. We encouraged immigrants from all over to come, families to push westward and we created a "melting pot." We bumped up against an indiginous people in a completely different state of "resource management." The hunter/gatherer economy didn't work well with the fenced in agrarian economy of the settlers. We couldn't understand them either, and they us. So we wiped those who wouldn't conform into dust.

Technology brought a new economy, "resource allocation and management" changed. We're continuing to "bump" and other societies are "bumping back."

This is an incredibly simplified model, and nothing in it is new, but it allows for a lot of factors if you expand.

Democracy is just the same. It is a human construct designed to minimize the bumping, nothing more. It's highly inefficient, and rarely really practical. Representative democracy?
Bush is there because of Democracy (start typing now!) You don't use much democracy around the house, its not a popular form of management at work or on the fields of battle or of the substitues for battle like sport. It is really only necessary BECAUSE of the inequities in society. We simply can't trust that a " wise and benevelent dictator" will emerge and lead us in a paternal / maternal fashion.

Wait 'till Chinese "bumping" REALLY hits its stride!
 
wolfix said:
I think this is a waste of time and money.... The Iraq's had a chance for a good fresh start after having one of the world's biggest mass murders as a leader. And with that fresh start they have done nothing to bring a democratic government to Iraq but kill each other.
Thye are not capable of governing themselves. It takes civilized people to do that.
I say the US should pull out and watch them create another horrible place for themselves.

are you the type to take the cap off your car's still hot radiator and blame the steam for scalding you? bush and his band of deluded advisors convinced themselves of their righteous adventure and then sold the nation a giant gulp of snake oil to send the troops in. all those years of oppression are now being released and now it has begun to disgust the chicken hawks.

i still find it amusing that so many republicans excoriated clinton for "nation building" in somalia and have now shown themselves to be even more inept than that attempt. but pointing a blaming finger at everybody else is surely something which comes easily to the republicans...liberals, clinton, immature iraqis...
 
I am really looking forward to the next US general election...

Through my interaction with friends, family, internet pals etc. it would seem the vast majority of people (in & outside the US) think Bush should be removed from power (if not imprisoned!!!).

It'll be interesting to see what percentage of the US population support Bush when it comes to putting crosses on paper. Methinks the results will not reflect the current anti Bush sentiment...
 
Eldron said:
I am really looking forward to the next US general election...

Through my interaction with friends, family, internet pals etc. it would seem the vast majority of people (in & outside the US) think Bush should be removed from power (if not imprisoned!!!).

It'll be interesting to see what percentage of the US population support Bush when it comes to putting crosses on paper. Methinks the results will not reflect the current anti Bush sentiment...
The vast majority of American voters do not think Bush should be imprisioned or removed from power. Even the elected liberal Democrats do not even think that way. The only people talking of imprisioning Bush are the basically unemployed liberals sitting around coffee shops .
Bush will not be on the ballot next time ,because he will have served his 2 terms already.,
 
wolfix said:
The vast majority of American voters do not think Bush should be imprisioned or removed from power. Even the elected liberal Democrats do not even think that way. The only people talking of imprisioning Bush are the basically unemployed liberals sitting around coffee shops .
Bush will not be on the ballot next time ,because he will have served his 2 terms already.,

If what you say is true - then the vast majority of Americans have only themselves to blame for electing an administration which has completely mismanaged the US economy, (rapidly devaluing currency, biggest federal deficit in history, largest balance of trade deficit in history, squandered the largest budget surplus going in to office in Jan 2001, relatively high unemployment, and and a net exporter of jobs out of the USA) and has managed to create the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.

Throw in Katrina, throw in Enron, throw in 9/11 :

Either he is the most unfortunate President in history - or he's incompetent.
 
limerickman said:
If what you say is true - then the vast majority of Americans have only themselves to blame for electing an administration which has completely mismanaged the US economy, (rapidly devaluing currency, biggest federal deficit in history, largest balance of trade deficit in history, squandered the largest budget surplus going in to office in Jan 2001, relatively high unemployment, and and a net exporter of jobs out of the USA) and has managed to create the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.

Throw in Katrina, throw in Enron, throw in 9/11 :

Either he is the most unfortunate President in history - or he's incompetent.
+1!

Funny how voters often forget about the democratic process in that they are the ones who put the President in office. They should think again of their last vote and how stupid that vote for Bush was.
 
"Expansion creates a semblance of unity within. A bond of family, group or "nationalism" for example. Prosperity brings growth and others join and are born."

One point I'd like to make is that, contrary to common belief, nationalism is absolutely fundamental to national strength.
Now, take a look at Iraq: Iraq has been under huge pressures for some years facing sanctions, invasion and turmoil. Finally, the pressure has reached a degree Iraq is no longer able to hold together as a structured society. What we see, above all, is ethnic division. Pressures placed on Iraq have caused Shias, Sunnis and Kurds to fragment and we have a virtual civil war taking place.
Compare this with Hannibal's invasion of Rome or Persia's invasion of Greece. Persia, at the time, was hugely more powerful than Greece in terms of size of army, resources and the fact Persia was an Empire.
However, in the case of Greece, the Greeks didn't fragment when placed under huge pressure. Greece was a far more nationalistic country than the U.S.A. so, soon as all Greece united under a common set of Hellenistic values and Greek nationalism, Persia couldn't prevail. Greece was comparatively small but very united so Dariuis the Persian King suffered defeats by Sparta and by Athens in naval battles.
Put another way: Had Bush invaded Greece, he'd have failed the same way.



CDAKIAHONDA said:
Yes! It's an economic issue. Now I know we don't all agree on the the implications of the term so I'll use "resource management and allocation" henceforth.

You can look at it from the individual aspect, the aspect of government and culture, or from the empiric stand point. Humans and society need resources to survive. These "entities" progress long-term in much the same ways.

The initial phases are of survival, it's the genesis of society on all levels. During this phase things start to get "ironed out if you will." Resouces are identified, and divisions of labor and specialization begin to create a limited prosperity and mere survival fades.

The new prosperity results in expansion an identification of "new" resources (technology.) As long as resources are plentiful, and some semblence of rationalized equity abounds things expand further. Expansion creates a semblance of unity within. A bond of family, group or "nationalism" for example. Prosperity brings growth and others join and are born.

The growth phase creates expansion, and expansion creates tension with neighbors. What stage they are in their "resource management stage" determines the course of action. Individuals bump up against individuals, and countries bump up against countries. Wars or alliance.

Alliances create Empires (sometimes through war), and further expansion as new resources (technology) expand, and as current resources cannot meet demand. What were once inclusionary entities during the early phases now must develop exclusionary "outward" ideology to maintain their internal unity against those outside tensions. Nationalism for example, religeon, and ideas of cultural superiority are all HUMAN constructs to acheive this.

Look at America, during it's beginning huge quatities of resources were available. An agrarian society needed land and we had it. We encouraged immigrants from all over to come, families to push westward and we created a "melting pot." We bumped up against an indiginous people in a completely different state of "resource management." The hunter/gatherer economy didn't work well with the fenced in agrarian economy of the settlers. We couldn't understand them either, and they us. So we wiped those who wouldn't conform into dust.

Technology brought a new economy, "resource allocation and management" changed. We're continuing to "bump" and other societies are "bumping back."

This is an incredibly simplified model, and nothing in it is new, but it allows for a lot of factors if you expand.

Democracy is just the same. It is a human construct designed to minimize the bumping, nothing more. It's highly inefficient, and rarely really practical. Representative democracy?
Bush is there because of Democracy (start typing now!) You don't use much democracy around the house, its not a popular form of management at work or on the fields of battle or of the substitues for battle like sport. It is really only necessary BECAUSE of the inequities in society. We simply can't trust that a " wise and benevelent dictator" will emerge and lead us in a paternal / maternal fashion.

Wait 'till Chinese "bumping" REALLY hits its stride!
 
Carrera One point I'd like to make is that said:
Absolutely! And with respect to Iraq, if you look at it in that light, the current reaction is completely understandable. There is no longer a "Nationalistic" Iraq. This is why Iraq "could be / was" much more stable under Saddam then it is now under occupation, even though WE might suppose that the conditions are better suited to stability.

In other words: "why are they squandering their shot at Democracy and freedom that WE "gave" them? When they are asking why we can't let them decide for themselves what they want now? It is why they were initially grateful for Saddam's removal, but are rebelling against our occupation and rebuilding. Iraqi "nationalism" can't be built by American "nation building."

The point you make is also valid in another light, and that is that we assign "values" of "right and wrong," and "good and bad" to terms and ideas like "nationalism." We make judgements that "democracy" is good and the alternatives are bad, for example. The forces that guide the social development of the individual and the societal whole are not necessarily quantifiable in that light. Sometimes the forces result in good or bad things happening, but in themselves.....It's like waves crashing on the cliffs. You get lots of erosion, but people seem to like the view. ;)
 
This is my point about the U.S. and I'll try and state this without causing undue offence to anyone:
The Greeks were gifted with more than one military genious such as Alexander or perhaps Hannibal. Above all, the Greeks knew how to apply pressure to an aggressive enemy by exploiting division.
According to Plato, multicultural societies were treated by Spartan generals as a "collection of States" under one flag (which is what Julius Caesar found in Britain when he invaded) i.e. "divide and rule".
So, if a Spartan general was fighting the U.S., he'd first identify the "divisions" within that society which are, a poorer class of black people, a totally huge proportion of poor whites, ethnic divisions between Hispanics, Europeans, Asians and what have you.
So, first of all they would arm the black people and cut them a better deal under Hellenistic Government than the situation in the U.S. where black folks are marginalised. I suppose many black people would then defect as the Ukranians did when Russia was invaded during WW2. After all, foreigners in Greece weren't given Greek citizenship but they were allowed to prosper and trade within Athens e.t.c.
Next, it would be a matter of arming the poor classes on the fringes of society (seeing as most U.S. capital is in the hands of an elite group of bankers and tycoons).
Divisions would then be sown between Hispanics, European and Asian Americans. Society would fragment before the Greek troops even stepped foot onto U.S. soil. That would leave only the mercenary army such as the U.S. marines.
Seeing as there is no national service in the U.S., invading troops wouldn't really encounter much in the way of populist organised, armed resistance from the populations of Texas e.t.c. Of course, please bear in mind I'm drawing comparisons between armies and tactics that have a huge technological gap over 2,500 years of history but we should also assume the Greeks (by now) would be just as well armed as the Americans.
The result: The U.S. would, for the first time in its history, be the subject of huge pressures exacted internally. It has never faced such pressure before which is why I disagree with the whole concept of "The U.S. is the world's number one superpower" philosophy people here in the U.K. continually promote.
I once recall Krushchev saying the U.S. was essentially surrounded by weak neighbours such as Cuba, Venezuela and Peru e.t.c. He also stated that if war broke out between the U.S. and USSR, the U.S. would surely face a Soviet ground invasion as well as advances of Soviet troops into Berlin. Therefore, the U.S. would have to have fought a ground war within its own borders. Russia already faced this ordeal during conflict in WW2 by Nazi Germany.
So, really, my view has always been the U.S. is only a superpower in as much as it has a vast amount of nuclear weapons. In other aspects, it falls way short and nuclear weapons, of course, are also self-destructive.



CDAKIAHONDA said:
Yes! It's an economic issue. Now I know we don't all agree on the the implications of the term so I'll use "resource management and allocation" henceforth.

You can look at it from the individual aspect, the aspect of government and culture, or from the empiric stand point. Humans and society need resources to survive. These "entities" progress long-term in much the same ways.

The initial phases are of survival, it's the genesis of society on all levels. During this phase things start to get "ironed out if you will." Resouces are identified, and divisions of labor and specialization begin to create a limited prosperity and mere survival fades.

The new prosperity results in expansion an identification of "new" resources (technology.) As long as resources are plentiful, and some semblence of rationalized equity abounds things expand further. Expansion creates a semblance of unity within. A bond of family, group or "nationalism" for example. Prosperity brings growth and others join and are born.

The growth phase creates expansion, and expansion creates tension with neighbors. What stage they are in their "resource management stage" determines the course of action. Individuals bump up against individuals, and countries bump up against countries. Wars or alliance.

Alliances create Empires (sometimes through war), and further expansion as new resources (technology) expand, and as current resources cannot meet demand. What were once inclusionary entities during the early phases now must develop exclusionary "outward" ideology to maintain their internal unity against those outside tensions. Nationalism for example, religeon, and ideas of cultural superiority are all HUMAN constructs to acheive this.

Look at America, during it's beginning huge quatities of resources were available. An agrarian society needed land and we had it. We encouraged immigrants from all over to come, families to push westward and we created a "melting pot." We bumped up against an indiginous people in a completely different state of "resource management." The hunter/gatherer economy didn't work well with the fenced in agrarian economy of the settlers. We couldn't understand them either, and they us. So we wiped those who wouldn't conform into dust.

Technology brought a new economy, "resource allocation and management" changed. We're continuing to "bump" and other societies are "bumping back."

This is an incredibly simplified model, and nothing in it is new, but it allows for a lot of factors if you expand.

Democracy is just the same. It is a human construct designed to minimize the bumping, nothing more. It's highly inefficient, and rarely really practical. Representative democracy?
Bush is there because of Democracy (start typing now!) You don't use much democracy around the house, its not a popular form of management at work or on the fields of battle or of the substitues for battle like sport. It is really only necessary BECAUSE of the inequities in society. We simply can't trust that a " wise and benevelent dictator" will emerge and lead us in a paternal / maternal fashion.

Wait 'till Chinese "bumping" REALLY hits its stride!
 
Carrera said:
The Greeks were gifted with more than one military genious such as Alexander or perhaps Hannibal. Above all, the Greeks knew how to apply pressure to an aggressive enemy by exploiting division.
According to Plato, multicultural societies were treated by Spartan generals as a "collection of States" under one flag (which is what Julius Caesar found in Britain when he invaded) i.e. "divide and rule".
So, first of all they would arm the black people and cut them a better deal under Hellenistic Government than the situation in the U.S. where black folks are marginalised.
Next, it would be a matter of arming the poor classes on the fringes of society (seeing as most U.S. capital is in the hands of an elite group of bankers and tycoons).
Divisions would then be sown between Hispanics, European and Asian Americans. Society would fragment before the Greek troops even stepped foot onto U.S. soil. That would leave only the mercenary army such as the U.S. marines.

Seeing as there is no national service in the U.S., invading troops wouldn't really encounter much in the way of populist organised, armed resistance from the populations of Texas e.t.c. The result: The U.S. would, for the first time in its history, be the subject of huge pressures exacted internally. It has never faced such pressure... Therefore, the U.S. would have to have fought a ground war within its own borders.

yes sir! Notwithstanding the logistical problems you already mention, the goal would be to destroy the "Nationalism" of your opponent under which those groups existed together in the first place. From the other side, the trick is to maintain that nationalism. Forgetting the "relative" good or bad for a moment, Saddam represented a "Nationalism." We don't offer a new one, we offer a vacuum.

One critical difference from the Greek strategy is also that the US actions don't match the US rhetoric. We have destroyed the Iraqi Nationalism, that's why we have Civil war after all. But we "say" we're not there to conquer so much as to liberate. If that's the true goal (and how many of us even believe that anymore), the Iraqi would logically expect us to leave now that "liberation" is complete. Yet we stay??????

The conclusion would then logically be, from the Iraqi insurgent standpoint anyway, is that we are there to stay and rule. The Greeks never would have gone in and toppled the regime without being ready to install their own and then rule the country. They would supplant the old with a new nationalism as quickly as possible. It may have been a somewhat inclusive new program, but it would have been undeniable that the Greeks and their system was there to stay, like it or not. "Play ball or be crushed", and playing ball became pretty attractive compared to being crushed. Otherwise, do you think they would've even gone in, in the first place?

So the US muddles through with a force insufficient to accomplish conquest, yet too big to be seen as merely a support to a legitimate Iraqi government, as seen from the Iraqi perspective anyway. Then we say..."just trust us." Actions vs words.

Conquer and integrate it, or leave it alone, that's what the Greeks would have done if I read you correctly.
 
...do you two actually read your posts before putting them up? you discuss iraqi nationalism as though it were an actuality. in what fashion did the kurds and shiias come together under this secular materialist nation concept of iraq except as they were conscripted in the iraqi army? with hussein as the strong man at the centre and almost all of his ministers all coming from the sunni sect (the closest ones drawn from his home town of tikrit), the nation held together only as many others have throughout history, not by popular participation but by cowed acquiesence of the populace. once unleashed from hussein and the ba'athists, this infighting should have occurred. to be blunt, one finds it difficult to believe that the unrest in iraq which is directed at the u.s. is coming from all factions. much of the violence is the settling of old scores which can hardly nor should be characterised as iraqi on iraqi violence. this is the very type of quick thinking which does not recognise the cultural differences at play here. simply superimposing a template drawn from western history will not explain the mess in iraq or the almost inevitable failure of the u.s. sponsored government in afghanistan...
 
slovakguy said:
...do you two actually read your posts before putting them up? you discuss iraqi nationalism as though it were an actuality.
NO....., "He "represented" a nationalism...who's NOT reading?"


slovakguy said:
in what fashion did the kurds and shiias come together under this secular materialist nation concept of iraq except as they were conscripted in the iraqi army? with hussein as the strong man at the centre and almost all of his ministers all coming from the sunni sect (the closest ones drawn from his home town of tikrit), the nation held together only as many others have throughout history, not by popular participation but by cowed acquiesence of the populace.
"Play ball or be crushed", and playing ball became pretty attractive compared to being crushed ---now or then.

So:

"Forgetting the "relative" good or bad for a moment, Saddam represented a "Nationalism." We don't offer a new one, we offer a vacuum"

slovakguy said:
once unleashed from hussein and the ba'athists, this infighting should have occurred. to be blunt, one finds it difficult to believe that the unrest in iraq which is directed at the u.s. is coming from all factions.
"The conclusion would then logically be, from the Iraqi insurgent standpoint anyway,"......the US actions don't match the US rhetoric.

slovakguy said:
much of the violence is the settling of old scores which can hardly nor should be characterised as iraqi on iraqi violence.
????????? Help me on this one... who is doing what to whom?.......It does point to the fact that neither side will be willing to be put back in the box by the other WHEN and HOW the New order is "somehow" established.

slovakguy said:
this is the very type of quick thinking which does not recognise the cultural differences at play here. simply superimposing a template drawn from western history will not explain the mess in iraq or the almost inevitable failure of the u.s. sponsored government in afghanistan...
Oh, but it does, respectfully. "The Greeks never would have gone in and toppled the regime without being ready to install their own and then rule the country."--- Think about it. The Iron fist was removed and replaced with what? You can't have it both ways..... I agree, the military fist wasn't enough just by itself, But the fist also controlled the economy. And by your own admission, they weren't ALL "cowed into submission" but enough of them were to give stability. No one is saying Saddam was a good guy, although plenty are saying that Iraqis were better off under him than now...that's not my point of view, it's a value judgement, but they were certainly more stable. ...And yes, Afganistan will fail too...for the same reasons.

You mentioned being upset at "being burned from the steam of the still hot radiator after removing the cap..." Don't forget to replace the water and retighten the cap before you start driving again. You'll seize the engine otherwise.

Who's thinking quick?;) Had the Bush Administration looked at history, they may have known....
 
"The Greeks never would have gone in and toppled the regime without being ready to install their own and then rule the country."

The Greeks, as you know, were split into two powers. The bad guys and imperialists were the Athenians. This nation was war-mongering and tried to impose democracy on other Greek States, while bleeding them dry through tribute and taxes. Finally, they bit off more than they could chew by invading Sicily where they got whupped.
The Spartans I liked far more. These guys didn't invade other States whatsoever and had no desire to be an Empire. They disliked luxury and soft living and trained for war as a career - defensive war, that is.
Critics say Greece was never an Empire outside of Greece and its islands which is true. Still, the Greek world did survive the Roman world once the western Empire fell to the Goths, Vandals and Huns.
Greeks invented democracy.
At any rate, your point about Iraq being held together through a strong, nationalistic leader (Saddam) was valid. It was the same for the USSR. Slavic peoples were quite diverse and there were a lot of hidden contradictions. Under the Old Order, Orthodox Christians, Latvians, Estonians, Moslems, Communists e.t.c. were all united as the USSR. So, ****** failed to divide the country.
Notice what happened soon as Gorbachev started to talk "democracy" and "perestroika". The Baltic States withdrew pretty quickly from union with Moscow and started to rebel. Then Chechnya. Now we see the Ukraine and Georgia leaving Russia. Not only that but there is anti-Russian feeling in places such as Latvia. What would Mr K have to say if he saw Russia today? He'd have been stunned and pretty upset.
The Chinese say Gorbachev did it all wrong. China believes you should first reform your economy and then work on freedom and democracy. So, had Gorbachev managed to pull the USSR economy out of stagnation, I doubt the Republics would have wanted to break away. Then they could have reformed the political system.
My argument over Iraq is Saddam was just part of Iraq's evolution. Left to its own devices, Iraq would have eventually ditched the autocratic system and become more westernised. In fact, Saddam probably helped that process since there was some tolerance of women and other religions in Saddam's Iraq.



CDAKIAHONDA said:
yes sir! Notwithstanding the logistical problems you already mention, the goal would be to destroy the "Nationalism" of your opponent under which those groups existed together in the first place. From the other side, the trick is to maintain that nationalism. Forgetting the "relative" good or bad for a moment, Saddam represented a "Nationalism." We don't offer a new one, we offer a vacuum.

One critical difference from the Greek strategy is also that the US actions don't match the US rhetoric. We have destroyed the Iraqi Nationalism, that's why we have Civil war after all. But we "say" we're not there to conquer so much as to liberate. If that's the true goal (and how many of us even believe that anymore), the Iraqi would logically expect us to leave now that "liberation" is complete. Yet we stay??????

The conclusion would then logically be, from the Iraqi insurgent standpoint anyway, is that we are there to stay and rule.

They would supplant the old with a new nationalism as quickly as possible. It may have been a somewhat inclusive new program, but it would have been undeniable that the Greeks and their system was there to stay, like it or not. "Play ball or be crushed", and playing ball became pretty attractive compared to being crushed. Otherwise, do you think they would've even gone in, in the first place?

So the US muddles through with a force insufficient to accomplish conquest, yet too big to be seen as merely a support to a legitimate Iraqi government, as seen from the Iraqi perspective anyway. Then we say..."just trust us." Actions vs words.

Conquer and integrate it, or leave it alone, that's what the Greeks would have done if I read you correctly.
 
It's not that Iraqis don't deserve democracy but it has to come at the right time. I recall an old Soviet writer once state that she hoped nobody would ever try and rush to impose democracy in the USSR as she feared it would doom her country to destruction. Amazingly, she was proven right.
Iraq under Saddam was the economic powerhouse of the Gulf. It had an economy that matched Greece in Europe and the world's third biggest army. As Kofi Anan admitted, Iraqis could at least walk the streets in safety.
Now, Iraq is a failed state, torn apart by ethnic hatred, civil war plus instability. You can't enforce reform.
The USSR too is "knackered" for want of a better word. The successes in space, sputnik, the Olympic gold medals, the free education system and zero unemployment is now gone. Ask Yan Ullrich about that. He was trained under the old State athletics program.
Instead of that, you have a fairly oil-rich Russia but split from Ukraine and most of the other Soviet Republics joining the E.U. Gorbachev is now the most hated figure in Russia and very much blamed for being an idealist.

slovakguy said:
...do you two actually read your posts before putting them up? you discuss iraqi nationalism as though it were an actuality. in what fashion did the kurds and shiias come together under this secular materialist nation concept of iraq except as they were conscripted in the iraqi army? with hussein as the strong man at the centre and almost all of his ministers all coming from the sunni sect (the closest ones drawn from his home town of tikrit), the nation held together only as many others have throughout history, not by popular participation but by cowed acquiesence of the populace. once unleashed from hussein and the ba'athists, this infighting should have occurred. to be blunt, one finds it difficult to believe that the unrest in iraq which is directed at the u.s. is coming from all factions. much of the violence is the settling of old scores which can hardly nor should be characterised as iraqi on iraqi violence. this is the very type of quick thinking which does not recognise the cultural differences at play here. simply superimposing a template drawn from western history will not explain the mess in iraq or the almost inevitable failure of the u.s. sponsored government in afghanistan...
 
slovakguy simply superimposing a template drawn from western history will not explain the mess in iraq or the almost inevitable failure of the u.s. sponsored government in afghanistan...[/QUOTE said:
SG

If your asking "why bring simple historical analogy to bear on a complex current problem?" I can appreciate that. I'm not trying to make light of issues, and while I can't write for Carerra, I doubt he is either.

For myself, I can't be a part of:

"Iraq is a mess." Why? "because Bush is a ****ING Idiot!" and the Iraqis? Why don't they get it? "because they're ****ING idiots too." End of line, period.

I can't do that ANYMORE. I don't think that's your position either.
 
I've just been reading Melanie Phillip's views with regard to Bush's latest plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq e.t.c. She is also advising taking the war to Iran which I definitely wouldn't agree with unless Iran was proven to be a major threat (i.e. it was about to create a bomb).
Of course, I have little doubt Bush is planning on taking the war into Iran and he'll probably bypass the American electorate by somehow provoking Iran into striking first. After all, this is a guy who's on first name terms with God.
What Melanie Phillips forgets and ought to bear in mind is this is in no way similar to WW2 where wars were conducted between territories such as Japan and Germany. In actual fact, this seems to me to be far closer to the ideological war the Romans fought against Christianity that had militant, apocolyptic factions.
I don't really know how Melanie figures instability in Iraq has made the world a safer place or how instability in Iran would make the world a safer place. In this kind of war, if the U.S. destabilises and removes Governments, the WMD threat and militants will simply scatter to other countries or even within Europe. More members will be recruited in Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria and even in Europe.
The proof of the pudding is instability now arising even in former safe places such as Thailand and Indonesia.
So, I don't figure how Melanie, on this occasion, considers the U.S. will be able to afford to send troops to all these remote locations to fish out the millions of displaced extremists they will create (or already created).
At any rate, my bet is Bush will go ahead same as in Vietnam and stake all on a last ditch attempt. He may even try to engage Iran and create a crisis situation to save his political career. He knows the U.S. electorate will back him if there is some concept Iran attacked first (maybe shoot down a plane).
However, I agree with the Democrats you cannot win an ideological war via military force. There has to be an analysis of the causes behind extremism. Who knows what will happen.
 
Carrera said:
What Melanie Phillips forgets and ought to bear in mind is this is in no way similar to WW2 where wars were conducted between territories such as Japan and Germany. In actual fact, this seems to me to be far closer to the ideological war the Romans fought against Christianity that had militant, apocolyptic factions.
I don't really know how Melanie figures instability in Iraq has made the world a safer place or how instability in Iran would make the world a safer place.
What's your opinion on the "possibility" that the strategy is an attempt to keep (or prolong) the conflicts at this level? The level of the "ideological war" instead of a "war of territories." It's bad, but it could be worse. That could be consistant with the idea, however misguided, that Bush believes the conflict is inevitable, ordained by God or whatever. We hear a lot about "fighting it over there, so that it we don't have to fight it here," in Bush speeches and in administration rhetoric.

The lesser of two evils approach?
 
I was looking up "war by Proxy" and notice this in Wikipedia...



Asymmetric warfare and terrorism

In the light of present events two different opinions have been formed.

One view is that asymmetric warfare is synonymous with terrorism. Terrorism is sometimes used as a tactic by the weaker side in an asymmetric conflict. Asymmetric warfare is sometimes called terrorism by those wishing to deny the political aims of their weaker opponents and to exploit the pejorative connotations of the word. Likewise, occupying powers often label partisans "terrorists" as part of propaganda campaigns to maintain support in the occupying power's home country, and to win over the occupied people so as to cut off the partisans' principal support base. This is the root of the phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

The other view is that asymmetric warfare is not synonymous with terrorism, even though terrorism is sometimes used as a tactic by the weaker side. It is typical, in an asymmetric conflict, for the stronger side to accuse the weaker side as being bandits, pillagers or terrorists. These accusations are usually part of propaganda campaigns, although they are sometimes true. In fact we could say that terrorism is more likely to be synonymous with war itself, as causing fear to the enemy is always an advantage, whether this means simply banging your shield and yelling voices or killing thousands of civilians.

One example of asymmetric warfare involving terrorism is the use of terrorism by the much lesser Mongol forces in the creation and control of the Mongol empire. The other is the use of terrorism by the superior Nazi forces in the Balkans, in their attempt to suppress the resistance movement.



Examples of asymmetric warfare



20th century asymmetric warfare



Second Boer War


Boer commandos


The Second Boer War was the first major war of the 20th century and one in which asymmetric warfare featured prominently. After an initial phase, which was fought by both sides as a conventional war, the British captured Johannesburg, the Boers' largest city, and captured the capitals of the two Boer Republics. The British then expected the Boers to accept peace as dictated by the victors in the traditional European way. Instead of capitulating the Boers fought a protracted guerrilla war. Between twenty and thirty thousand Boer commandos were only defeated after the British brought to bear four hundred and fifty thousand troops, about ten times as many as were used in the conventional phase of the war. During this phase the British introduced internment in concentration camps for the Boer civilian population and also implemented a scorched earth policy. Later, the British began using blockhouses built within machine gun range of one another and flanked by barbed wire to slow the Boers' movement across the countryside and block paths to valuable targets. Such tactics eventually evolved into today's counter insurgency tactics.

The Boer commando raids deep into the Cape Colony, which were organized and commanded by Jan Smuts, resonated throughout the century as the British adopted and adapted for later use the tactics used by the Boer commandos.
 

Similar threads

D
Replies
0
Views
358
Road Cycling
Davey Crockett
D
S
Replies
2
Views
770
Mountain Bikes
ØYvind RøTvold
Ø