|
Post by sylvana on Dec 20, 2011 1:22:11 GMT -5
Well, we officially flushed one trillion dollars down the toilet. You didn't see that happening 9 odd years ago? I sometimes wonder if the only real solution to these kind of wars is to actually sell both sides more weapons so that they can kill each other off faster and have some final victor sooner. They wont stop killing each other until there is only one left.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 20, 2011 3:45:25 GMT -5
Ethnic wars have been going on since forever over there. Not in Iraq. Ethnicity hasn't really been a problem before. Ethnic wars in the Middle East are actually unique to the 20th/21st century.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 20, 2011 4:01:42 GMT -5
If they don't want to learn to be civil & modern then screw them! Iraq was one of the most modern nations in the Second world before the Iran/Iraq and the First Gulf wars. The Iraqi tertiary education sector war the envy even of some of the First world. The really sad thing about the country is that so many Iraqis are highly educated engineers or doctors. And the Americans assumed that they were all ignorant, backwards peasants in a 'tribal' society- so they imported a bunch of very expensive Kuwaiti workers, for instance. And now the country has a chance to recover. You'd think the gunshots and bombs would have clued the US Army in- Iraqis didn't want American occupation. Not ever. which wasn't quite as simple as just Protestant vs Catholic. Nope, just Americans. The US just shouldn't have invaded, and they're solely responsible for the predictable consequences- like civil war. No Iraqi asked them to.
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Dec 20, 2011 8:49:22 GMT -5
Ethnic wars have been going on since forever over there. Not in Iraq. Ethnicity hasn't really been a problem before. Ethnic wars in the Middle East are actually unique to the 20th/21st century. They are not ethnic wars it has to do with a schism in Islamic theology. Not unlike the Protestant/ Catholic wars.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Dec 20, 2011 10:04:13 GMT -5
Nope, just Americans. The US just shouldn't have invaded, and they're solely responsible for the predictable consequences- like civil war. No Iraqi asked them to. Interesting and highly unique point of view. I am interested to hear your ideas on how we should go about addressing that issue. Or is this more spitting in the wind?
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 20, 2011 14:23:24 GMT -5
Ah, ethnic wars. Any two ethnicities which hate each other so much that they cannot go literally TWENTY-FOUR HOURS without opening fire on one another do not deserve to exist. Other historically-feuding groups are able to GET THE FUCK OVER IT, but NOOOOO, not in Third World countries! I don't care how many "legitimate" grievances they or any other such instance may or may not have, if they cannot become a melting pot then they forfeit their right to exist.
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Dec 20, 2011 14:54:21 GMT -5
Ah, brendan shows up. We have gone surprisingly long without you disputing someone's right to exist. Why don't you go and get a clue? We just spent half a page talking about how it's not about ethnicity, so.. go fuck yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Dec 20, 2011 15:25:35 GMT -5
I agree with ltfred. We had no business being there. We invaded a sovereign nation which posed no threat to us simply because it (supposedly) suited us to do so.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Dec 20, 2011 16:05:27 GMT -5
If they don't want to learn to be civil & modern then screw them! Iraq was one of the most modern nations in the Second world before the Iran/Iraq and the First Gulf wars. The Iraqi tertiary education sector war the envy even of some of the First world. The really sad thing about the country is that so many Iraqis are highly educated engineers or doctors. And the Americans assumed that they were all ignorant, backwards peasants in a 'tribal' society- so they imported a bunch of very expensive Kuwaiti workers, for instance. Fred, what's truly sad is that Iraqi society, as it was, had managed to survive Saddam Hussein and many of the people there were famous for there hospitality: I remember reading one story of how it was common in Autumn for houses to hold absolutely huge parties and invite the world and his wife to them, the story went on about how the men would stand outside drinking whisky and talking politics and the women would go inside and drink wine. Can't see that happening now.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 20, 2011 17:28:57 GMT -5
Nope, just Americans. The US just shouldn't have invaded, and they're solely responsible for the predictable consequences- like civil war. No Iraqi asked them to. Interesting and highly unique point of view. I am interested to hear your ideas on how we should go about addressing that issue. Or is this more spitting in the wind? As Senator Fullbright said (paraphrased), we should restrict ourselves only to that good that we can do- and not delude ourselves into thinking we can do anything. In the short-run, the US can't do any good in Iraq, only bad. The best we can hope for is the rapid takeover by a Saddam-like dictator, without too much bloodshed. Every day of the hated 8 year occupation of someone else's reduced the chances of that happening. And if they are fortunate enough to avoid further widespread blood, we might invest some money in repairing their country*. * Allegedly the US has been doing this already. However (by design) virtually none of the money has been used to actually repair things; all of it was stolen. Ah, ethnic wars. Any two ethnicities which hate each other so much that they cannot go literally TWENTY-FOUR HOURS without opening fire on one another do not deserve to exist. Other historically-feuding groups are able to GET THE FUCK OVER IT, but NOOOOO, not in Third World countries! I don't care how many "legitimate" grievances they or any other such instance may or may not have, if they cannot become a melting pot then they forfeit their right to exist. If some nation invaded the US, the conservatives would start murdering the liberals. Maybe wait a few years after the massive, murderous war your country started before laying all the blame at the victims, yeah?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 20, 2011 18:08:19 GMT -5
If some nation invaded the US, the conservatives would start murdering the liberals. Maybe wait a few years after the massive, murderous war your country started before laying all the blame at the victims, yeah? All you need is a few people to start doing it someplace with no law. At which point the other side is forced to respond in kind or be exterminated. When we removed Iraq's rule of law, we set the stage for a civil war to break out. Unfortunately, I can't say that staying there would have ever done anything productive. Sorry Iraq, we fucked your country all to hell.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Dec 21, 2011 11:02:21 GMT -5
Ah, ethnic wars. Any two ethnicities which hate each other so much that they cannot go literally TWENTY-FOUR HOURS without opening fire on one another do not deserve to exist. Other historically-feuding groups are able to GET THE FUCK OVER IT, but NOOOOO, not in Third World countries! I don't care how many "legitimate" grievances they or any other such instance may or may not have, if they cannot become a melting pot then they forfeit their right to exist. Remember kids: JUST SAY NO.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 21, 2011 18:37:35 GMT -5
If some nation invaded the US, the conservatives would start murdering the liberals. Maybe wait a few years after the massive, murderous war your country started before laying all the blame at the victims, yeah? And, if that were to happen, I'd say the same thing. I'm not singling out any one group.
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Dec 22, 2011 9:50:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Dec 22, 2011 11:22:32 GMT -5
If some nation invaded the US, the conservatives would start murdering the liberals. Maybe wait a few years after the massive, murderous war your country started before laying all the blame at the victims, yeah? And, if that were to happen, I'd say the same thing. I'm not singling out any one group. Yes, you are. You are constantly singling the US out, just in the opposite way most people single something out. Considering your post history, you would quickly and vehemently blame whomever invaded the US (should such ever happen) instead of the US itself; though you would probably be willing to blame a faction in the US, though at the same time you would be denying that they are True Americans™.
|
|