Hi everyone. I've been loving the political discussions going on in the forums lately, and Iraq has been a topic that has surfaced a lot, but not been dealt with in-depth.

The Iraq war is a strange thing. Our govt. Either lied or was lied to about the WMDs in Iraq, or was too slow to get them and they went over the border to haunt us later (scarey thought). But still, a question: was Saddam Husein a bad guy? Um, yeah. We're still finding his mass graves all over the place. Is the world a better place without him? Yeeeecks :S. That's harder to answer. You see, we're trying to set up an "Iraqi" democracy right now in Saddam's wake. The problem is, and this is something I havn't heard anyone talk about this whole time, is that there is no so a person as an "Iraqi".
We think in very nationalistic terms: "I'm an American", "he's a Frenchman", "they're Brits", etc... This is not the case in Iraq. The country of Iraq is a figment of the British imagination from the 1920s. After WWI, they were given the mandate over that region and drew a political boundry around three totally incompatible people groups: the Kurds in the north (for the oil), the Sunni Muslims in the Baghdad region, and the Shi'ite Muslims in the Basra region. Each of those regions had been a seperate province under the Ottoman Empire before the Brits toppled it in the War, and each had had little to do with the others for millenia leading up to that. By grouping them together into a single political unit, the Brits put three hornets in a jar, shut the lid, and shook it up.
Practicaly all of the Kurds are Sunni, most of the Arabs are Shi'ite. Kurd to Arab ratio: 40/60. Shiite to Sunni ratio: 40/60. There is inter-Arab conflict along Sunni/Shi’ite lines. There is inter-Sunni conflict along Arab/Kurdish lines. There is Sunni/Shi’ite conflict along Kurdish/Arab lines. Add to this the constant infighting of the tribal warlords and you have one seriously screwed up region.
But what's the solution? I'm not so sure creating a democracy there is the right answer; in fact I'm pretty worried about. The last time we created a democracy in a place that wasn't ready for one was in post WWI Germany. In 1918 we created the Weimar Republic, the weakness of which eventually gave rise to Hitler. You can not create a democracy in a place with no democrats. It's like the old Communist idea of "we'll force you to be free." People in Iraq identify themselves along family/tribal, religious, and racial lines. Not national lines. In short, we had better be careful that we don't create an opportunity for a bigger monster than Saddam!
So what about breaking the country back up into its 3 parts again? Can't do that, because a free Kurdish state would destabilize Iran and Turkey which both also have large Kurdish regions. This could plunge the whole Middle East into further chaos.
Why not go ahead and just pull out? Massive civil war would be a certainty - and it would be our fault for leaving a power vacuum.
The only way to make it all work is to try and make the people of Iraq think like Westerners. Change them on a fundamental level. This would be difficult if not impossible, even if it were a morally sound thing to do. Wipe out their culture and societal structure, replace it with ours, and occupy the country unti lIraqis can be Westerners without anyone holding them at gunpoint. This, in essence, would be an exact repeat of what the British and French attempted in the Middle East after WWI and what the Russians (and later the Chinese) successfully, but very bloodily accomplished after the Bolshevik revolution.
So it's a messed up scenario. A real catch-22. Anybody got ideas about this?
:o :o :o
Let's hear em!!

@ OM

While not playing the game, note that I want the political jousting to continue. Puts your dukes up, Pilgrim.

We tried to vote Bush out of office. Does that count?

@ 44

You know, that is why the Democrats lost the election. You sit on the fence and carp. It was mere values not moral religious values that sunk the Kerry ticket.

The average American said, can I trust this person who just carps? A brilliant job of Monday morning quarterbacking.

If you think this is not a problem, consider this. The truly unpopular Iraq war had many potential Bush voters jumping camp and voting for Kerry, plus the media did not handle the election objectively...and Bush won anyway.

Last edited: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 11:21:49 AM

What OM said. And george that was a very nice post...

JJ, I thought that for once we were gonna get some insight into the mind of a typical republican...you know, the republicans who are not occupying the extremes: ultra-conservative, born-agains or economic elites...but from someone in the middle. I've been trying to get you guys to shed some light for months now, but you guard you ideology like a a baptist guards his virginity.

I didn't switch points on dash, I stuck to the same one...he REALLY didn't want to talk about that. I suppose that's his prerogative...but as I said, the originator of a topic doesn't set the ground rules in a public forum...as tally said, if you prefer monologue, get yourself a blog. And I don't know why you guys are allowing yourselves to be "victimized" by all the lefties. Rather than expose your beliefs, many of you run away, or scream "persecution." That, JJ, is what is weak...

RE Iraq...why is there such a clash at this time? We've had different ideas for 1000s of years...why is this coming to a head now? Does this have anything to do with US foreign policy? According to arab moderates, it does...should we perhaps figure what the other side is saying and add it into this equation...or do we persist in a unilateral solution? Its quite easy to put this down as a "culture clash." exonerates us for anything we may have done to further alienate the citizens in this part of the world...shah of iran...supporting saddam during the 80s, our one-sided policy regarding palestine/israel...do you doubt that the US would engage in nefarious activities to advance its interests? Policies that go against the will of citizens in sovereign countries? We know that our government illegally bombed cambodia in the 70s, supported a coupe that led to the assasination of Chile's democratically elected president, traded arms for hostages and on and on and on. JJ...our government has not earned our trust...they've earned our skepticism...don't you feel them trying to pull the wool over our eyes again? What if "culture clash" is just the opaque package that conceals the ugly, crusty truth?

RE the Democrats (or Demoncraps as ramrod calls them). I haven't heard much in the way of a coherent policy from them either...i suppose they would fall back on a more international approach...with all its inherent weaknesses, subject to the varied national interests that motivate further, unjust policy. Personally, I think maybe we should be more honest about this "cultural clash" and look to address the material and historic reasons for their hatred of us before we try to take on the cultural differences...material causes are far easier to address. But I don't see any democrat that has the courage to admit that there is typically more than one side to every story...far easier to buy into this "us vs. Them mentality."

JJ, you mean besides Clinton and the Camp David summits between Israel and PLO leaders? Granted that ended in failure, but not necessarily a fault of Clintons. Try to get 2 stubborn mules to occupy the same space nicely, and what else can you expect. If any peace comes about now between those 2 states, it will be more because of the fact that the biggest stumbling block, Arafat, is now out of the picture, not because of any impressive negotiating skills on the part of the president.

Honestly, I somewhat agree with you that there has been little talking about the issues, but I don't think Bush's policy of "let's just go in and FORCE democracy on them!" is the right answer. But if it makes you happy that he's doing something about it, even if it may not be the right thing, then that's your right.

Also, I don't get the insularity comment on the Dems. Seems to me Kerry talked quite a bit about working with the Islamic nations to fight terror, unlike Bush's primary go it alone attitude. Maybe I misunderstood though?

Dems haven't had much of a chance in the last 4+ years to do any real good with this issue. It's not like the Middle east isn't on everyone's minds right now.
Another thing, the only reason Bush is involved with Islam now is because of 9/11. Had that never happened, I doubt the man would even know what existed in that part of the world. Before 9/11, he was more interested in resurrecting the defunct Star Wars program (which he is now trying to do again *sigh*) as if we were still in the Cold War or something. Seems he didn't think much seriously about the Middle East either.

@OM about the divisivness
Well said, if off topic. I hate the division our country undergoing too. We're in the midst of a cultural civil war with everybody polarizing to left or right, instead of meating in the center. I personally see this as a tremendous threat to our very society. Um, about Iraq...?

@JJ
Sorry to see you go. You started all these political threads I've been enjoying so much. You have a very clear-headed manner of approaching sensitive topics, and you have done a remarkable job of avoiding the insult vortex that seems to suck up most political conversations.

@stinkfingers about culture clash and govt. Honesty
Hey, we agree on something. That last post was right on. Our government isn't honest with us (or the rest of the world) at all. At this point, I fear both parties have their own interests in mind more than those of the common citizen. In truth, we havn't really known what our government was doing since 1950 and the beggining of the Cold War. Good point about Chile, Cambodia, etc... Often, the rest of the world is more aware of what our govt. Is up to than we are. And a culture clash need not be necessary.

@George
THANK YOU! Thanks a million for attempting to get this thread back on topic! I had a nice, lengthy post all written up to go directly underneath yours, but alas I was summoned away from PC and never submited it... But the jist(sp?) was as follows:

Iraq, really the whole political layout of the middle east, was created by Western nations at the close of WWI almost a century ago. The modern day problems resulting from that get pretty hairy because all these countries are tied together. To radically change one would cause a dominoe affect.
Maybe the U.S. Should have entered Iraq to topple Saddam, maybe not.
But what do we do now that we're there? If we just leave and let things settle themselves more people will suffer on the whole than are suffering now (probably). We can't split Iraq up regionally into its original Kurdish, Sunni, and Shi'ite provinces (which would seem to make sense) because this would destablize Iran and Turkey which also have large Kurdish regions (which would surely revolt). The Basran Shi'ite state would almost certainly be swallowed up by Iran (89% Shi'ite) further upsetting the ballance of power. The Baghdad state would be very weak. Big problems. My research paper posted at the beginning of this thread is all about this. I don't really expect anyone to be interested enough to read it, but its there if you want to.
Thoughts on this??

Last edited: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 1:08:55 AM

Shell...thanks, and I'm glad you came back. I apologize for being uncivil with you before...i conflated you with some of the other people who do their thinking right out of the box...and that was an inaccurate, unfair generalization...i thought you meant to shield this administration for the mess they got us into in the first place...i don't think that was your intention at all...as far as what to do about iraq now...i have no idea...you know quite a bit about this topic...what do you think? I promise to be nice from now on...

Sorry sorry sorry

@ Stink,

You are switching points on dash’s thread again.

Dash established that he wanted to share some “autobiographical info about republican TT players” to “provide people with an idea of what republicans are like.”

Dash volleyed with you, Tally, and OM in posts afterward.

You, Tally, and OM derailed the thread.

“...none of you will stake a claim so I staked one for you..” you began.

Who asked for it? Dash?

Next, OM states that people can “ask any questions they want” in an open forum.

True. You are free to throw a monkey wrench into anything.

Then, Tally says dash must be willing instead “to explain why those things [those things being :“what you look like, about you hardships…] translate into what you believe.”

Why? Dash must provide “feedback” and , second, you (dash) “don’t want substance.”

Followed by Tally's reason: “the winning team jumped ship to gloat and chest-beat...”

You could have left dash’s thread to its own devices. It might even have wrecked itself...who knows.

I truly believe that you, Tally, and OM are smart people. I don’t believe that you would maliciously or intentionally harm someone. I am going to assume it was an error in judgment.

But, that said, starting the “Why are you a typical republican?” thread was acid in the wound.

Was that actually to translate dash’s thread into a better form?

Also, BTW, you, Stink, were the one that coined “persecuted majority.”

I point out that a majority of TT’ers are Democratic/Liberal. (I have no problem with that.) Dropping a Republican into this mix is like dropping a witch doctor into a new age commune.

IMO, all of this is a microcosm of the past election. No one is shoving your nose into the Lord’s Prayer, OM. You do not live in a fascist state.

This country is based on the idea of (call it, for shock value) “political sabotage”. No one group should have uncontrolled power over another group. The constitution is meant to limit power. John Kerry as president would not have caused me to sneer at the opposing political POV – unless they want to jump outside the system.

Last edited: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 2:48:46 PM

Uhhh, JJ. Whatever dude. Who suddenly appointed you dash's protector!?? So hang us for derailing a thread man. All I ever wanted to know was why dash voted as he did. Maybe it wasn't the right place to ask it, in his thread. But it's all I was asking him to explain, because quite frankly I got nothing from his bio. It was great to know more about him, but it explains nothing about why he voted as he did. Is asking someone to elaborate on this a crime???? Apparently for Republicans it seems to be.

The operative word here which was excluded is…YET. Sure, it isn't that way now, but why is it so impossible for you to believe it could happen someday. Countries don't change overnight. Can you even get it through your head that many of us see the changes that are happening as the very beginning of what we most fear? I guess it's not possible for you to see that huh? If you aren't going to even begin understanding our concerns, I have no obligations to understand yours.

And thanks for derailing Shellshock's thread again. A few of those here finally started to get it back on track until you dug this up again.

You see the knee-slapping, hilarious irony in what you, Tally, and Stink did?

You accuse the Republicans of hidden agendas and forcing compliance while you do exactly the same.

You actually would have learned something about moderate Republicans if you had let dash's thread go on.

Try to keep making a molehill out of a mountain.

Hey, I've heard Stink say he was sorry and I respect him for that.

If you want to breed acromony, keep in mind that it boomerangs.

Enlighten us, O Democrats. Show us the way.

Last edited: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 12:48:40 PM

Interesting choice of words. Especially in light of the recent national election where many state constitutions were amended solely for the purpose of exclusion.

Back at ya, O Republican. Show me the way.

Jangles, I should have placed a winky (semicolon) in that "digging deeper" comment. Oops! Tried to go with the play on words: oil... Underground... Beneath the prairies... Urk. I appreciate the note on the premier, though - I really have no clue about Canadian politics. However, I am surprised to hear that the Atlantic portion of the country was strongest for Bush. I would have thought that the French-speaking end of the country would show a stronger lean towards Kerry. Or am I simply mixing my ignorance of Canadian demographics with the American Republican stereotype of Kerry's relationship to those "certain foreigners"?

But getting back to an issue affecting Iraq (among other things), I'll start with this quote of JJ's:

Wrecked itself? I thought Dash's point was to show the diversity within the Republican party. I don't equate diversity with self-destruction, so I doubt it would have wrecked itself. However, I find it both troubling and intriguing (sp?) that dissenting voices in the Bush Administration are being replaced by like-minders to produce a homogeneous chorus. I know Powell wasn't keen on more than 4 years there, but why not go with replacements that reflect the party's diversity? I strongly doubt that these personnel changes bode well for "uniting, not dividing" over the next four years, even within the party itself and especially when it comes to rebuilding Iraq. Look at the problems already arising with Specter vs. The-religious-right-who-are-owed-for-an-election (I'm still trying to find that great quote from a church leader saying Senator Arlen Specter-(R)PA's confirmation as the judicial committee leader would be a "slap in the face" of those who worked so hard to re-elect the Republicans). No matter how much it would eventually help the Democrats, I would rather that the party in control of our Federal government not become a train wreck. It would hurt the country too much in the immediate future.

The key thing to remember is that the Repugnantans hace control of the Senate , House and Oval office and may soon be picking judges.

They have no excuse for not getting things done the way Bush's base (The-religious-right-who-are-owed-for-an-election)wants them to be done.

Oh wait... They don't want to do anything like that.

SNiper

How come the states with the lower IG averages voted FOR SON OF A GUN PIECE OF CRAP BUSH ?!?!? I'm not crazy about either candadaites ( hope thats speeled right) But Bush is an idoit............

Consider this a "preemptive strike":

BUSH IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD
Dang I love free speech...
[~Sasuke~]

Last edited: Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 12:37:28 PM

Interesting follow-up posts...

@ Chief

Though I usually don't read the green quotes and the blue links, that article/green quote I did read. It makes a good point.

@ all

Well, you know I can't see any points to make that don't somewhat mimic the thoughts of far right "domes" like Ann Coulter or *shudder* Tammy Bruce, or even Rush Limbaugh. I kinda like Rush. At least he knows the difference between hype or shtick and spin.

(Now 44 would like Tammy Bruce. Ex-NOW president, openly lesbian, right-wing zealot, YIKE!)

Again, I say, that more of politics is going to be decided by spin quotient of the candidates. As much as you Lefties won't like to hear it, the election was lost by the atrocious spin of your candidate. Talked like a lawyer.

@ Iraq

A difference of world views precedes how you look at Iraq.

Like the Nazis (thanks in part to a certain philosopher's view of the "superman"), the Islamists dehumanize non-Islamists by abstracting them. It makes it easier to behead and kill people in deathcamps when they are only your idea of evil and not persons.

This is why they have to be confronted preemptively.

But *sigh*, I hate to introduce this...

I can hear it now. "That's the way the Republicans..."

@Shellshock

You are right about the messed up region. However, one reason democracy may work is that Iraq is an oil state. In an oil state, so the idea goes, everyone looks for a dole from the oil income. If you are left out of the political scene, you are left out of the oil money....

Last edited: Friday, November 19, 2004 at 7:25:52 AM

Hi everyone. I've been away from the more intellectual posts for several days, do to time constraints. It don't take long to post up a goofy comment in some of the lighter threads, but this stuff requires more thought. Thanks all for staying basically on topic. :)

This thing in Fallujah with the marine executing the insurgent dude... Oh, where to begin? Perhaps here... What on earth was our media thinking when they aired this? Yes, Al-Jazeera TV is airing it - and where do you think they got it? 3 guesses: NBC, ABC, or CBS? I don't know which, it's irrelevant, but, lordy... Can't we just put a lid on some evil so it doesn't keep spreading? Wheather or not that soldier was justified in his actions doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that this footage is now being used to indoctrinate the next generation of suicide bombers and tele-beheaders. Can't our friggin reporters just shut up long enough to consider the consequences of airing that kind of stuff? We are in desperate need of some bigger-picture thinking from our people in Iraq. Both the soldiers and reporters.

And then there's this:

This is the beggining of an article in the Washington Post. Here's the link: W.P. Article

Our enemy does not follow our rules of war. So why should we ? Because the ONLY big-picture solution to the mess over there is to change the way an entire culture thinks. If we lose more soldiers because the terrorists fight dirty, that does not justify our adoption of equaly ruthless tactics. If we fight dirty, too, then our larger goal is lost - if the only thing uniting the peoples (plural) of Iraq is a hatred of America, we've done no good over there what-so-ever.

So what will unite Iraq? JJ's oil theory isn't bad. It was economics that united the seperate American colonies in the late 1700s. The problem is that all of the oil is in the Kurdish region of Mosul. So the Kurds will have to consider themselves Iraqis - a nationalistic ideology not currently present there - before they'd be happy about seeing the oil go for the greater good of Iraq.

Will democracy itself unite Iraq? That's possible... At least I hope it is. It's working in Afghanistan, but Afghanistan is different. It's populated mainly by Afghans, a single ethnicity with (pretty much) a common religion. The only way democracy, as a force in itself, can unite Iraq is for the people there to suddenly care about democracy. The average Iraqi sheep-herder would have to be able to see some real benefit to having the right to vote, would have to believe in the prosperity possible under democracy, before democracy on its own could make that difference. In effect, he'd have to be educated as to what democracy really is, everything that it means, and what it can do for him. How do you educate the 25mil. People living in Iraq? Well, we do it in this country don't we? Granted, there we'd be working against an established propaganda network, but if there is one thing we Americans really do better than anyone else, it's CAMPAIGNE . I wonder what would happen if we took the millions of dollars spent by both candidates in this last election and instead blew it all on teaching people in Iraq what democracy is, both its benefits and its responsibilities. I just wonder.

Anyway, thanks to anyone who just read this obscenely long post. It's mostly just me playing devil's advocate with myself. (I may be schizophrenic, but at least I have each other.) ;)
I started this thread to help shed some light on what's really going on in Iraq, on how long it's been that way, and MAINLY to fish for solutions between the right and left and the great thinkers I've encountered in this community. I'll still be checking on this thread, so don't stop brainstorming w/ me!

@stinkfingers
:) Appology accepted. Heheh, it took me a while to reallize you were behind Ramrod. I know things can get heated when discussing important issues, and I've also been guilty of making unfair judgements before. So, no sweat. :)

Last edited: Monday, November 22, 2004 at 12:35:00 AM

Oil for food, baby!

Let's build that coalition with France and Germany?

Iraqis got no food? France and Germany and Kojo got rich, too??!!

Who'd have thunk? Many, many, many.

Last edited: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 at 4:53:05 PM

I know how we get rid of the terrorists over there!

/k terrorists...