now lets not throw generalizations and try to think of the balance in the region. about the Kurdish part of Iraq (from what you say its like u read the plan) Turkey is totally against. Because part of "Kurdistan" the region where Kurds used to live (and still do live) is in Turkey aswell as in Iraq. So the Kurds would probably want to unite this part with their (after the plan) existing country. Problem both for Turkey and for the whole region that could lead to an entirely new war. Suits the US but not the people there (dont forget that the US are the weapons supplier for Turkey).
now lets look deeper into the plan itself. People would have to move from the regions they live to another place starting with nothing. It happened between Turkey and Greece and it wasnt pleasant, believe me (my family had some refugees from that time and i know first hand its not a good solution).
The only thing this plan would help with, would be the use of the oil. And that would go to the British and American oil companies and not the Iraqi people. Who is so naiv to believe that the US would simply let all that wealth to the people after they spent billions to occupy this country?
A country divided in 3 overall controlled by the US would help both keeping them down and taking control of the oil in the region. If you think its alright to take whatever isnt urs just because you can then its the best solution and i cant argue with that.
See, this is the problem. A country was clumsily thrown together at the end of WWI, not really founded on any solid principle of unity or consensus, and now the the lawlessness that is so prevelant now, different factions are taking advantage of this time to seize what they can, exact revenge for past grievances, and work only what's best for their own people. This isn't necassarily true of all Iraqis but it is largely still the case.
'
u put it the best way possible i think. But still, who are we, or the US to decide wheather or not the country should exist or if it should be divided?
The best way would be to let them decide. Invading them is no real solution, cause the wealth of their country cant be used for them, and wont be used by them.
Both factions need someone they respect or fear to be kept in order. Saddam knew how. Apparently none else knows. The system thats used now isnt working and people keep dying.
you descriped pretty well the situation there and its obvious there is no "easy way". I think it would have been better for the country to have been left alone until the people were ready to overthrow Saddam and have something like a rebellion themselves. Now they dont know who to turn to.
i used the lowest average price from the countries of Europe i've been in. In greece its like 1.3 euro/lt. In Germany its usually more expensive for example.
now lets not throw generalizations and try to think of the balance in the region. about the Kurdish part of Iraq (from what you say its like u read the plan) Turkey is totally against. Because part of "Kurdistan" the region where Kurds used to live (and still do live) is in Turkey aswell as in Iraq. So the Kurds would probably want to unite this part with their (after the plan) existing country. Problem both for Turkey and for the whole region that could lead to an entirely new war. Suits the US but not the people there (dont forget that the US are the weapons supplier for Turkey).
It's hard for me to imagine Turkey would be outright against it. It would offer the incentive to many of their illegal Kurds to go make a life in this new offical country of Kurdistan. And sure, the Kurds can try to unite the Turkey part with the Iraq part, but they'll only be trying. Meanwhile, the Kurds will be a lot happier with their own land that was previously a part of Iraq and I imagine that would ease a lot of tension along the border.
Quote from "FingolfinGR" »
now lets look deeper into the plan itself. People would have to move from the regions they live to another place starting with nothing. It happened between Turkey and Greece and it wasnt pleasant, believe me (my family had some refugees from that time and i know first hand its not a good solution).
The only thing this plan would help with, would be the use of the oil. And that would go to the British and American oil companies and not the Iraqi people. Who is so naiv to believe that the US would simply let all that wealth to the people after they spent billions to occupy this country?
They already move around a lot anyway. The difference would be that now they're moving to a place that is officially their home. I understand this is all much easier said than done. But everyone in that entire region is rather mobile. And the choice could still be ultimately up to them. Those living in Turkey could attempt to go on living in Turkey since that's what they were doing in the first place. I would just like to think that all this would render the PKK useless to the Turkish people. But that's idealism on my part, I suppose.
And yes, I understand it would be naive to think that the U.S. wasn't in it for economic reasons. But don't you think it is also naive to think that any relationship exists between any country without economic incentive? It's okay if that's your primary reason. Every country does it. And yes, we would want those oil companies to be U.S. or I guess British companies, but it would still ultimately be their oil, not ours. If we had the audacity to go in and directly claim it as ours, well, then I imagine there would be some U.N. sanctions imposed against the U.S. or worse. But we would never go so far. Admittedly, we are in it for the oil, thus economic incentive. However, we are not taking their oil from them. At least that's how I see things in regards to the oil issue.
Quote from "FingolfinGR" »
A country divided in 3 overall controlled by the US would help both keeping them down and taking control of the oil in the region. If you think its alright to take whatever isnt urs just because you can then its the best solution and i cant argue with that.
'
u put it the best way possible i think. But still, who are we, or the US to decide wheather or not the country should exist or if it should be divided?
The best way would be to let them decide. Invading them is no real solution, cause the wealth of their country cant be used for them, and wont be used by them.
Please understand I'm making no argument whether we should've invaded. My argument is based on the truth that we already have, and this is my current assesment of the situation. But yes, I do believe the wealth of their country will be used for them. We are just ensuring that by having them as our partners and allies that we are benefitting from it too. And ultimately, they can decide they want nothing to do with the U.S. economically when it's all over. They would just be foolish not to invest with us since we are so willing to invest with them. It would be good for both economies. And if Iraq didn't like the deal, they wouldn't agree to it. What would the U.S. do then? Punish them? Bomb them? They would probably agree to do business with us anyway so we don't think of contingencies, but we're not gonna be permanent invaders until they sign some kind of oil drilling business contract. Officially, their parliament wishes for us to remain anyway for the sake of helping to keep things secure. It's not like they're being blackmailed behind closed doors and now they're stalling till someone comes to rescue them. I don't think you have to be that idealistic to realize that.
Quote from "FingolfinGR" »
Both factions need someone they respect or fear to be kept in order. Saddam knew how. Apparently none else knows. The system thats used now isnt working and people keep dying.
you descriped pretty well the situation there and its obvious there is no "easy way". I think it would have been better for the country to have been left alone until the people were ready to overthrow Saddam and have something like a rebellion themselves. Now they dont know who to turn to.
Sure they do. They are actively reaching out to the U.S., Saudi Arabia, even Iran. Most countries in the Middle East wish for Iraq to succeed because if it doesn't, it would destabilize the region in ways they cannot even foresee and further promote terrorism. And it's not just Western democracies that suffer the brunt of terrorism but countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and yes, even Iran.
Now without a "lash" over their heads they started killing each other. And the numbers dying are way more than those Saddam killed (again i dont support him, i just mention the fact that he managed to avoid a civil war since he took over)
Maybe I didn't read that right, but do you mean there isn't a civil war? Politicians have accepted that there is a civil war in Iraq now, between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Like Jon Stewart said a long time ago, "Will there be Sunni days ahead or will the Shiite hit the fan". And right about now, I think everyone there needs a change of clothes.
Quote from "diablo_owns »
'>I'd say overall farenheit 9/11 proved to be a truth, it was about oil, and money, and invasion.
It proved to be true about 95% of the time. But when evaluating what he says, he does tend to stretch the truth and exaggerate certain details to win people over. Not to say that politicians don't do it. But it is a documentary that is far from being unbiased. Also, we can't say that there weren't just motives there either.
I don't think we're there for land, however. It is not U.S. policy. We don't annex through conquest, we promote our own ideology. The spread of democracy (and capitalism). Our government is basically reprinting our own Constitution and trying to implement it everywhere else.
Atheism is the only way to go ina modern society- until its Sunday, then you can worhsip, you can pray but you cant go out and kill.
Well, we can't say that people wouldn't be fighting if there was no religion. People will always fight over something. And by the way, atheists don't go to church on Sunday. That's why they're atheists.
But I must agree with you on everything else.
Quote from "fudlow" »
But I think gas prices differ from where you go.
Yeah, we're hitting about $2.55 per gallon in New Jersey. I wish it was election time in Congress still, sometimes. Gas companies lowered their prices to make the Republicans look good. It worked to there favor in a few instances, too.
Quote from "siaynoq" »
Well, you could at least state whose plan it was to divide the country. To be honest, I don't think partitioning the country is really that bad an idea.
We've done that so often throughout history. By 3000 we'll probably have 300 countries or something. But I wouldn't suggest forcing our own partition for the country. The Muslims would fight over borders and such. I say, it's there land, let them deal with it as they will.
Even if we did split it, it would end up like Pakistan and India, probably.
Right, well if the country is to be partitioned, I believe it won't be through the U.S.
It will be the groups that wish to have their own country. That would lead to the real civil war: groups trying to secede from the "union".
And when you say India and Pakistan, are you referring to the disputed Kashmir region? Or just overall border disputes? If it's the latter, I'm sure that's to be a given anyway.
Kashmir would be an event comparable to what might happen in Iraq, especially with the cashcrop of oil in certain regions. But I mean border disputes, generally. Obviously, hotspots would be generated. Kurdistan as well as many other oil rich locations would be a source of huge dispute. The fact of the desire of oil was made evident in Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
It will be the groups that wish to have their own country. That would lead to the real civil war: groups trying to secede from the "union".
Obviously, the major contenders will be the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. The only reason I would suggest that the Sunnis and Kurds would be able to fight the overwhelming majority of Shiites is because of their wealth and connections internationally, as they do own most of the oil there. I wouldn't think of it so much as a "union", as there is no real unity to consider there. My bets are on the Kurds siding with the Shiites, just because Saddam (a Sunni) killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds for oil. So it could be a North-South split. The Shiites would most likely win out though.
Kashmir would be an event comparable to what might happen in Iraq, especially with the cashcrop of oil in certain regions. But I mean border disputes, generally. Obviously, hotspots would be generated. Kurdistan as well as many other oil rich locations would be a source of huge dispute. The fact of the desire of oil was made evident in Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
I'm sure no one here doubts the desire of oil among men and nations. And I'm not sure either side would do anything too extreme in Kashmir. Since India and Pakistan are both allies of the U.S., they have to play nice...for the most part.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Obviously, the major contenders will be the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. The only reason I would suggest that the Sunnis and Kurds would be able to fight the overwhelming majority of Shiites is because of their wealth and connections internationally, as they do own most of the oil there. I wouldn't think of it so much as a "union", as there is no real unity to consider there. My bets are on the Kurds siding with the Shiites, just because Saddam (a Sunni) killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds for oil. So it could be a North-South split. The Shiites would most likely win out though.
Right, well I was being sarcastic when I said "union". I'm not really sure the Kurds will side with anyone but themselves. I understand that the Shiites and Kurds both have in common the fact that they were long oppressed and tyrannized by Saddam. But that is hardly root to take up common cause. And don't think the Sunnis weren't mistreated by Saddam either. They definitely were. Just because you were Sunni then, doesn't mean you were a Baathist. Even a lot of people in Saddam's military weren't truly Baathists either. I believe they were just average Iraqis who wanted to support their families. And in most military dictatorships, that's the best way to secure a job and your livelihood. This is why it's so tragic that the U.S. disbanded Iraq's military. They were still worried about those loyal to Saddam. But like I said, I'm convinced most of those people would've been happy going along with the U.S. simply because they needed their jobs. Better they work for us then become disenchanted and become terrorists because they were stripped of their jobs.
Quite the amazing discussion we got here now. I don't see what I can add really, except for the gas price. Which is just about double in Sweden compared to the States.
Splitting the country. While it would be a great idea if carries out correctly, I fear what will most likely happen is that a large amount of border disputes will ensue as to who has the right to what areas, and if left unchecked it can go just as bad as it currently is. One groups will claim that they have been treated unfairly after which it all goes downhill.
While were at this topic, has there ever been an event such as this that has ended peacefully? If there hasn't, then we're all up for quite a challenge.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
missed some good stuff while i was out... lets get to work
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
It's hard for me to imagine Turkey would be outright against it. It would offer the incentive to many of their illegal Kurds to go make a life in this new offical country of Kurdistan.
Turkey is afraid of another Palestine/Israel situation. And personally i dont blame them. The Kurds in Turkey think of a part of Turkey as their own and dont really like Turks. Plus Turkey is kinda flamey, especially towards my country (Greece) and Cyprus and has problems in general with the European Union. A "bad neighbor" wouldnt be that good for them, especially one that could actually fight them.
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
They already move around a lot anyway.
as you said, easier said than done. People dont want to move to start again from nothing. Atm i know they're not even sure they'll live the next day but still, as long as we're not there we cant tell for sure what they want or how they feel. You and I, perhaps would move and start over. Some others wouldnt. And i think its more about what the majority of the people wants to keep it "democratic".
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
We are just ensuring that by having them as our partners and allies that we are benefitting from it too.
i get ur point, but as i got the whole story it was more like:
Oil was about to be sold to europeans in their currency (euros).
Which leads the US to loose alot money since all oil worldwide atm is sold in dollars.
Conclusion: we invade a country to keep control of the oil prices throughout the world.
That i just dont like.
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
And if Iraq didn't like the deal, they wouldn't agree to it. What would the U.S. do then? Punish them? Bomb them? They would probably agree to do business with us anyway so we don't think of contingencies, but we're not gonna be permanent invaders until they sign some kind of oil drilling business contract. Officially, their parliament wishes for us to remain anyway for the sake of helping to keep things secure. It's not like they're being blackmailed behind closed doors and now they're stalling till someone comes to rescue them. I don't think you have to be that idealistic to realize that.
i think ur being naiv here. The current Iraqi Government was assigned by the US, not elected. Thats why everyone in the Arabic countries thought Saddams trial was a joke and an insult and of course invalid. Thats the same reason why none respects the "authorities" in Iraq over the last few years too.
btw, if an american went to Saudi Arabia he'd see that things there are way worse than say in Syria. In Saudi Arabia women are treated like objects (the exact oposite than in Syria) for example. But Syria "hosts terrorists" now according to Bush... anyway, the Saudis keep paying the US so they get off clear.
Quote from "Muttonchops" »
Maybe I didn't read that right, but do you mean there isn't a civil war?
no, i ment that while Saddam had control there wasnt one. After he was overthrown (forgive me if it didnt write it right) another civil war started (and the US troops got shot by both sides).
About Fahrenheit 9/11 i do believe that its based on truth but its obvious it tries to pass the message "vote for the Democrats, dont let Bush get elected again". Which part i hated ofc, but it was a good documentary overall.
Quote from "Muttonchops" »
We've done that so often throughout history. By 3000 we'll probably have 300 countries or something. But I wouldn't suggest forcing our own partition for the country. The Muslims would fight over borders and such. I say, it's there land, let them deal with it as they will.
exactly. Its best to let the people of the country get there themselves. Greece wasnt always free. We freed ourselves 1821. Without any outside assistance. Ofc we didnt have oil in the region so none would profit from helping us anyway...
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
I also think Bush already planned on invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam even before the Twin Towers where hit, but he also used the attack as a excuse to invade
proven to be so.
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
Since India and Pakistan are both allies of the U.S., they have to play nice...
Greece and Turkey are both allies of the US too. But the US profits from "flaming" between us. See, we both have the US as our main weapon supplier (we bought a few stuff from Russia and the US started supporting Turkey bit more politically - one way to blackmail, dont you agree?) As long as the US sells things, they dont want balance you can believe me on that.
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
But like I said, I'm convinced most of those people would've been happy going along with the U.S. simply because they needed their jobs. Better they work for us then become disenchanted and become terrorists because they were stripped of their jobs.
thats just from your perspective. See, people did have a job before everything was bombed down. In fact, Iraq was progressing well, even without any outside assistance since 1991. But it all went down with the bombing.
Now on my perspective of the matter:
If i had a job and a country (no matter if the one to lead it was a tyrant, it makes little difference atm) and someone came and attacked it, occusing me of being a terrorist and killing refugees (many children among them) that tried to flee and destroying hospitals, schools and houses... i'd not work for them just to get another job. I'd find a weapon and join a rebel army to defend my country from them. Would i be a terrorist if i did? Those are the terrorists we're talking about atm...
Now on my perspective of the matter:
If i had a job and a country (no matter if the one to lead it was a tyrant, it makes little difference atm) and someone came and attacked it, occusing me of being a terrorist and killing refugees (many children among them) that tried to flee and destroying hospitals, schools and houses... i'd not work for them just to get another job. I'd find a weapon and join a rebel army to defend my country from them. Would i be a terrorist if i did? Those are the terrorists we're talking about atm...
I think you are very correct in this matter, especially given the different cultures that are colliding here. We say it isn't that big of a problem, because we share many of the American views on the world in general. But a muslim country that has for centuries been shaped by a different line of development which suddenly gets occupied, or liberated, by a strange and foreign nation?
And how do you impose democracy upon a people? It seems to go against the very basic idea of democracy itself.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
its exactly about how the country was shaped for centuries. Most muslim countries have a king or a president with almost absolute power. See, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria. They cant be forced to have democracy or they'll tear themselves apart. They have to get used to the idea first and when the time comes (if it comes) they'll have a rebellion themselves. After Greece freed itself by Turkey we had a king... which we sent away some years later - but democracy was born in Greece and its so to say in our blood for over 2 millenia - unlikely than in all countries in the Middle-East.
its exactly about how the country was shaped for centuries. Most muslim countries have a king or a president with almost absolute power. See, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria. They cant be forced to have democracy or they'll tear themselves apart. They have to get used to the idea first and when the time comes (if it comes) they'll have a rebellion themselves. After Greece freed itself by Turkey we had a king... which we sent away some years later - but democracy was born in Greece and its so to say in our blood for over 2 millenia - unlikely than in all countries in the Middle-East.
Or if we're lucky it will go peacefully. Take my own country. We had a supreme king, but he simply lost more and more power over time. No need for open revolt.
Of course it didn't happen overnight, but the benefit to a slower change is of course that the nation isn't devastated in the whole process.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Maybe I didn't read that right, but do you mean there isn't a civil war? Politicians have accepted that there is a civil war in Iraq now, between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Like Jon Stewart said a long time ago, "Will there be Sunni days ahead or will the Shiite hit the fan". And right about now, I think everyone there needs a change of clothes.
It proved to be true about 95% of the time. But when evaluating what he says, he does tend to stretch the truth and exaggerate certain details to win people over. Not to say that politicians don't do it. But it is a documentary that is far from being unbiased. Also, we can't say that there weren't just motives there either.
I don't think we're there for land, however. It is not U.S. policy. We don't annex through conquest, we promote our own ideology. The spread of democracy (and capitalism). Our government is basically reprinting our own Constitution and trying to implement it everywhere else.
Well, we can't say that people wouldn't be fighting if there was no religion. People will always fight over something. And by the way, atheists don't go to church on Sunday. That's why they're atheists.
But I must agree with you on everything else.
Yeah, we're hitting about $2.55 per gallon in New Jersey. I wish it was election time in Congress still, sometimes. Gas companies lowered their prices to make the Republicans look good. It worked to there favor in a few instances, too.
We've done that so often throughout history. By 3000 we'll probably have 300 countries or something. But I wouldn't suggest forcing our own partition for the country. The Muslims would fight over borders and such. I say, it's there land, let them deal with it as they will.
Even if we did split it, it would end up like Pakistan and India, probably.
Well I didnt mean atheists go to church- meant atheist government- a totailitarian atheist government- with secret police- would amke it so there wasnt any religious fights or anyhting. and there could be sunday church or whatever- but thats sunday. thats how iraq would have to be under a fascists dictator- of course that ideology would be parcticed throughout generations. Most liely after the dictator industrialized Iraq and schools started being made- and things were made to be how Russia, Nazi Germany, or wherever was, they would certainly have shcooling where they would teach the aspects of fascists life- and then eh idk. Its just, Iraq does so much better under a dictator- only Saddam's problem was that he didnt want the "prletariat" so - to - speak to have any power other then the power he granted them- in fact none- not even intellectual. and where he went wrong was he was the only leader. if a dictator who pushed for intellect, economy, industry, military, and agricultural growth. Also the population would rise in Iraq and I think as long as the Dictator was two faced, the population would grow and maybe iraq could have some kind of commercial crop or soemthing to show for...a good fascist government would do iraq well right now- because democracy doesnt work- they werent ready for it- as they were already on the brink of civil war as it was- now they are rioting and kmurdering, mobing, etc- and OUR country- who doesnt need to be there is there in the middle- our loved ones are fighting for a lost cause.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
I realize I made ALOT of errors, so I apologize for the visual suicide you underwent reading that. haha
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
missed some good stuff while i was out... lets get to work
Turkey is afraid of another Palestine/Israel situation. And personally i dont blame them. The Kurds in Turkey think of a part of Turkey as their own and dont really like Turks. Plus Turkey is kinda flamey, especially towards my country (Greece) and Cyprus and has problems in general with the European Union. A "bad neighbor" wouldnt be that good for them, especially one that could actually fight them.
Well, yeah. They have problems with the EU because most countries in the EU doesn't want Turkey to be part of their club. Which is stupid, really. Since Turkey is both physically and metaphorically the bridge to the Middle East and is one of the most moderate Islam nations and has the second largest NATO army.
Quote from "FingolfinGR" »
i think ur being naiv here. The current Iraqi Government was assigned by the US, not elected. Thats why everyone in the Arabic countries thought Saddams trial was a joke and an insult and of course invalid. Thats the same reason why none respects the "authorities" in Iraq over the last few years too.
Perhaps I'm a little informed, but I don't think I'm necessarily being naive here. Yes, there were problems with Saddam's trial. But you can't pin the blame all on the U.S. The Iragis did a lot to botch it up and how do you know it wasn't somewhat intentional just to ensure they could exact their form of Sharia law upon Saddam? However, I think his trial should've been in the form on an international war crimes tribunal. Not the shabby court they threw together.
Quote from "FingolfinGR" »
btw, if an american went to Saudi Arabia he'd see that things there are way worse than say in Syria. In Saudi Arabia women are treated like objects (the exact oposite than in Syria) for example. But Syria "hosts terrorists" now according to Bush... anyway, the Saudis keep paying the US so they get off clear.
I'm sure you could make the same argument for many women in Syria. But I'm not sure what your overall point is here.
Quote from "FingolfinGR" »
Greece and Turkey are both allies of the US too. But the US profits from "flaming" between us. See, we both have the US as our main weapon supplier (we bought a few stuff from Russia and the US started supporting Turkey bit more politically - one way to blackmail, dont you agree?) As long as the US sells things, they dont want balance you can believe me on that.
My friend, you buy your weapons from whomever you wish. You can't label the U.S. like a conservative parent would a tobacco company. Where's the accountability on the consumer? And like I said, we let our allies fight, just not too much.
Quote from "FingolfinGR" »
thats just from your perspective. See, people did have a job before everything was bombed down. In fact, Iraq was progressing well, even without any outside assistance since 1991. But it all went down with the bombing.
Now on my perspective of the matter:
If i had a job and a country (no matter if the one to lead it was a tyrant, it makes little difference atm) and someone came and attacked it, occusing me of being a terrorist and killing refugees (many children among them) that tried to flee and destroying hospitals, schools and houses... i'd not work for them just to get another job. I'd find a weapon and join a rebel army to defend my country from them. Would i be a terrorist if i did? Those are the terrorists we're talking about atm...
I think you're not getting me on this one. I'm not for a second saying Iraq's were bettter off before the U.S. invaded. I'm just saying it was stupid on the U.S.'s part to disband the army. Cause now, we want Iraq to have a functioning army and most of those people were average Iraqis anyway, not Baath extremists.
Well, yeah. They have problems with the EU because most countries in the EU doesn't want Turkey to be part of their club. Which is stupid, really. Since Turkey is both physically and metaphorically the bridge to the Middle East and is one of the most moderate Islam nations and has the second largest NATO army.
there are certain requirements to join the EU and Turkey has done nothing about their commitments. Its not like we dont want them to join, its just there are rules. None can simply walk in without respecting what keeps the EU together. Turkey is a bad neighbor, sending planes into our (the Greek) territory on a daily basis, which ofc we hunt back with our air force. They also dont recognise Cyprus as a country, which is an outrage if they want to join an alliance in which Cyprus is a full member.
Perhaps I'm a little informed, but I don't think I'm necessarily being naive here. Yes, there were problems with Saddam's trial. But you can't pin the blame all on the U.S. The Iragis did a lot to botch it up and how do you know it wasn't somewhat intentional just to ensure they could exact their form of Sharia law upon Saddam? However, I think his trial should've been in the form on an international war crimes tribunal. Not the shabby court they threw together.
on this i dont exactly "pin" all the blame on the US. But it is true that after they occupied the country they wanted to set up a government to take control of the oil faster and they didnt think if this government would actually manage to make things right. Which ofc they didnt. On Saddams trial i totally agree with you.
I'm sure you could make the same argument for many women in Syria. But I'm not sure what your overall point is here.
my point is that the US government doesnt really care about people getting oppressed as long as they profit from them.
*small edit* Saddam was made dictator of Iraq with the full support of the United States. He wasnt a problem at that time tho, he wasnt a communist.
My friend, you buy your weapons from whomever you wish. You can't label the U.S. like a conservative parent would a tobacco company. Where's the accountability on the consumer?
see, we cant really. The thing about that is mostly of diplomatical nature. If we dont buy from you, but your rivals you get displeased and dont support us even if we're right. Thats one simple way to "blackmail" without it being illegal.
I think you're not getting me on this one. I'm not for a second saying Iraq's were bettter off before the U.S. invaded. I'm just saying it was stupid on the U.S.'s part to disband the army. Cause now, we want Iraq to have a functioning army and most of those people were average Iraqis anyway, not Baath extremists.
i did get u wrong on this one indeed. Disbanding the army was a bad idea for the future of the country, but as long as the army didnt obay the newfound government it looked pretty necessary to me. Dont forget all the commanders were Saddams people (the ones that werent were dead i think :P).
well i'd say either way the US hasnt done any good for Iraqi's. He invaded, bombed, stationed his brainwashed soldiers in the middle and outskirts of the town, probably housing them in Iraqi's homes...theres alot more t the picture we dont see due to our locations (outside of iraq) but, do you remeber like two years ago when those soldiers were charged with the betaing and rape and killing of the Iraqi civilians they were supposed to be "guarding" It makes me sick. Everyone talks about good for the country- when you have shit like that going on- and thats just one guy who was probably caught by someone high up or official, or very public when it happened. THAT time made it on the news- theres most likely thousands more like that. And what I think is funny, Is Bush did this all behind the scenes, probably no other countries knew- because the UN let him invade Iraq. Idk, but I'm so done with this country when I turn 18- I'm probably going to be in a small small area- somewhere that doesnt really have much of a military- with no real relations to another place. I think due to Bush's actions we've seen- Presidents after him are going to take advantage and loopholes against us and others like he has done- I think truly that this Democracy ISNT Democracy- it is like a fascist dictatorship with a mask on. we have a few rights that arent rewal rights- they can be taken away anytime- and the FBI, will show up at your oor and take you away- no one will ever see your face again. It all makes me sick.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
Bush talks about peace and a stable democracy when he might as well be Mao Zedong, Vladamir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or Benito Mussolini...
Only do you notice how he's shiftier? He's done what Russia did almost- they labeled theyre government Communism- yet the government was clearly fascist totalitarianism. Its funny- Bush labels american government Democracy- which is partly true i suppose- but for majority it isnt. Its ver very very corrupt.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
But isn't it more important to take heed to the living rather than the dead? Pulling out will undoubtedly save more soldiers lives than staying would. If I could pick whether to save people that still live, or avenge the dead, I will pick the latter. Soilders put there life on the line to fight for their country, there are three marines in my family and im going to tell you right now, if you can't accept the fact that people die than you are crazy.
No matter what happens, reporters will always tell you as bad news as possible, because it is a psychological phenomenon. Bad news sell better than good news.
Will there however be turmoil if the US pulls out? I would say so. But right now there is a lot of turmoil too.
We leave, there will be a civil war and more Iraqies die. Everything we have done, with liberating Iraq will have been for nothing.
We could go on and argue whether shooting people, bombing them, blowing them up, destroying their country and making their children fatherless is honorable and justifiable or not, but we should keep this as a solid discussion regarding the pull-out and it's effects if it happens.
The last thing im !@#@ worried about it making their sons and daughters fatherless. Militarys exist to fight, and not to drink tea and eat crackers with every man they see.
Suddam Hussein the old punk slaughter so many more than we ever did, and who ever we have killed has been from them resisting our help. Who fires back us? Certainly not the civilians, hell they want us there. I don't think you quite understand the difference between a father who is a terrorist, that only preeches what is wrong, and a civilian father who quite frankly disagree's with mr. Alkaeda
As I said, if I can save most of my people instead of leading them to a slaughter, I would. Because Germany were far superior in military might compared to France. And giving up may be losing, but why do we teach our children not to be sore loosers then if loosing is so horrible?
Wow, I understand what you are saying, but doesn't mean that's a sane comment. If this is the way you see things than this means that lets say the whole world is one religion and except the US the only one with freedom of religion. They point our gun at us and say "Hey convert or die" They're military force is far superior. We could A. Fight to the death show them what we believe in. or B. "Drop our weapons, bend over" and accept the religion. I'm going to assume you going to go with B (if that was the case ovcourse)
It's almost like get bullied by someone twice your size, let him kick your ass our show him that you don't like what hes doing and do what EVER you can to stop him.
And would you be so kind as to tell me how that would work. Will they launch their long-distance bombers towards the US? Will they deploy their mighty fleet of battleships and blast the East Coast?
Hi-jacking planes is not in any way prevented by fighting in Iraq. It is a country of regular people, not a safe haven for terror organizations. They can still penetrate american borders, and no amount of armies wil ever stop that.
Again, tell me how terrorists are inhibited by fighting in Iraq.
Everything you say is out of personal opinion im sorry but it is only true, Iraq has the longest history of supporting and harboring terrorism, google it go ahead run along and do some research outside of liberalsRus.com
Bush talks about peace and a stable democracy when he might as well be Mao Zedong, Vladamir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or Benito Mussolini...
Only do you notice how he's shiftier? He's done what Russia did almost- they labeled theyre government Communism- yet the government was clearly fascist totalitarianism. Its funny- Bush labels american government Democracy- which is partly true i suppose- but for majority it isnt. Its ver very very corrupt.
Ok go head show me anything that supports what you see that would make any sense what so ever. You should be fucking ashamed or related bush to hitler.
Im going to tell you all straight up, i am 15 and since I was 12 I was able to tell you liberals fucking dumb asses
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
now lets look deeper into the plan itself. People would have to move from the regions they live to another place starting with nothing. It happened between Turkey and Greece and it wasnt pleasant, believe me (my family had some refugees from that time and i know first hand its not a good solution).
The only thing this plan would help with, would be the use of the oil. And that would go to the British and American oil companies and not the Iraqi people. Who is so naiv to believe that the US would simply let all that wealth to the people after they spent billions to occupy this country?
A country divided in 3 overall controlled by the US would help both keeping them down and taking control of the oil in the region. If you think its alright to take whatever isnt urs just because you can then its the best solution and i cant argue with that.
'
u put it the best way possible i think. But still, who are we, or the US to decide wheather or not the country should exist or if it should be divided?
The best way would be to let them decide. Invading them is no real solution, cause the wealth of their country cant be used for them, and wont be used by them.
Both factions need someone they respect or fear to be kept in order. Saddam knew how. Apparently none else knows. The system thats used now isnt working and people keep dying.
you descriped pretty well the situation there and its obvious there is no "easy way". I think it would have been better for the country to have been left alone until the people were ready to overthrow Saddam and have something like a rebellion themselves. Now they dont know who to turn to.
i used the lowest average price from the countries of Europe i've been in. In greece its like 1.3 euro/lt. In Germany its usually more expensive for example.
It's hard for me to imagine Turkey would be outright against it. It would offer the incentive to many of their illegal Kurds to go make a life in this new offical country of Kurdistan. And sure, the Kurds can try to unite the Turkey part with the Iraq part, but they'll only be trying. Meanwhile, the Kurds will be a lot happier with their own land that was previously a part of Iraq and I imagine that would ease a lot of tension along the border.
They already move around a lot anyway. The difference would be that now they're moving to a place that is officially their home. I understand this is all much easier said than done. But everyone in that entire region is rather mobile. And the choice could still be ultimately up to them. Those living in Turkey could attempt to go on living in Turkey since that's what they were doing in the first place. I would just like to think that all this would render the PKK useless to the Turkish people. But that's idealism on my part, I suppose.
And yes, I understand it would be naive to think that the U.S. wasn't in it for economic reasons. But don't you think it is also naive to think that any relationship exists between any country without economic incentive? It's okay if that's your primary reason. Every country does it. And yes, we would want those oil companies to be U.S. or I guess British companies, but it would still ultimately be their oil, not ours. If we had the audacity to go in and directly claim it as ours, well, then I imagine there would be some U.N. sanctions imposed against the U.S. or worse. But we would never go so far. Admittedly, we are in it for the oil, thus economic incentive. However, we are not taking their oil from them. At least that's how I see things in regards to the oil issue.
Please understand I'm making no argument whether we should've invaded. My argument is based on the truth that we already have, and this is my current assesment of the situation. But yes, I do believe the wealth of their country will be used for them. We are just ensuring that by having them as our partners and allies that we are benefitting from it too. And ultimately, they can decide they want nothing to do with the U.S. economically when it's all over. They would just be foolish not to invest with us since we are so willing to invest with them. It would be good for both economies. And if Iraq didn't like the deal, they wouldn't agree to it. What would the U.S. do then? Punish them? Bomb them? They would probably agree to do business with us anyway so we don't think of contingencies, but we're not gonna be permanent invaders until they sign some kind of oil drilling business contract. Officially, their parliament wishes for us to remain anyway for the sake of helping to keep things secure. It's not like they're being blackmailed behind closed doors and now they're stalling till someone comes to rescue them. I don't think you have to be that idealistic to realize that.
Sure they do. They are actively reaching out to the U.S., Saudi Arabia, even Iran. Most countries in the Middle East wish for Iraq to succeed because if it doesn't, it would destabilize the region in ways they cannot even foresee and further promote terrorism. And it's not just Western democracies that suffer the brunt of terrorism but countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and yes, even Iran.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
It proved to be true about 95% of the time. But when evaluating what he says, he does tend to stretch the truth and exaggerate certain details to win people over. Not to say that politicians don't do it. But it is a documentary that is far from being unbiased. Also, we can't say that there weren't just motives there either.
I don't think we're there for land, however. It is not U.S. policy. We don't annex through conquest, we promote our own ideology. The spread of democracy (and capitalism). Our government is basically reprinting our own Constitution and trying to implement it everywhere else.
Well, we can't say that people wouldn't be fighting if there was no religion. People will always fight over something. And by the way, atheists don't go to church on Sunday. That's why they're atheists.
But I must agree with you on everything else.
Yeah, we're hitting about $2.55 per gallon in New Jersey. I wish it was election time in Congress still, sometimes. Gas companies lowered their prices to make the Republicans look good. It worked to there favor in a few instances, too.
We've done that so often throughout history. By 3000 we'll probably have 300 countries or something. But I wouldn't suggest forcing our own partition for the country. The Muslims would fight over borders and such. I say, it's there land, let them deal with it as they will.
Even if we did split it, it would end up like Pakistan and India, probably.
It will be the groups that wish to have their own country. That would lead to the real civil war: groups trying to secede from the "union".
And when you say India and Pakistan, are you referring to the disputed Kashmir region? Or just overall border disputes? If it's the latter, I'm sure that's to be a given anyway.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Obviously, the major contenders will be the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. The only reason I would suggest that the Sunnis and Kurds would be able to fight the overwhelming majority of Shiites is because of their wealth and connections internationally, as they do own most of the oil there. I wouldn't think of it so much as a "union", as there is no real unity to consider there. My bets are on the Kurds siding with the Shiites, just because Saddam (a Sunni) killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds for oil. So it could be a North-South split. The Shiites would most likely win out though.
I'm sure no one here doubts the desire of oil among men and nations. And I'm not sure either side would do anything too extreme in Kashmir. Since India and Pakistan are both allies of the U.S., they have to play nice...for the most part.
Right, well I was being sarcastic when I said "union". I'm not really sure the Kurds will side with anyone but themselves. I understand that the Shiites and Kurds both have in common the fact that they were long oppressed and tyrannized by Saddam. But that is hardly root to take up common cause. And don't think the Sunnis weren't mistreated by Saddam either. They definitely were. Just because you were Sunni then, doesn't mean you were a Baathist. Even a lot of people in Saddam's military weren't truly Baathists either. I believe they were just average Iraqis who wanted to support their families. And in most military dictatorships, that's the best way to secure a job and your livelihood. This is why it's so tragic that the U.S. disbanded Iraq's military. They were still worried about those loyal to Saddam. But like I said, I'm convinced most of those people would've been happy going along with the U.S. simply because they needed their jobs. Better they work for us then become disenchanted and become terrorists because they were stripped of their jobs.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Splitting the country. While it would be a great idea if carries out correctly, I fear what will most likely happen is that a large amount of border disputes will ensue as to who has the right to what areas, and if left unchecked it can go just as bad as it currently is. One groups will claim that they have been treated unfairly after which it all goes downhill.
While were at this topic, has there ever been an event such as this that has ended peacefully? If there hasn't, then we're all up for quite a challenge.
Turkey is afraid of another Palestine/Israel situation. And personally i dont blame them. The Kurds in Turkey think of a part of Turkey as their own and dont really like Turks. Plus Turkey is kinda flamey, especially towards my country (Greece) and Cyprus and has problems in general with the European Union. A "bad neighbor" wouldnt be that good for them, especially one that could actually fight them.
as you said, easier said than done. People dont want to move to start again from nothing. Atm i know they're not even sure they'll live the next day but still, as long as we're not there we cant tell for sure what they want or how they feel. You and I, perhaps would move and start over. Some others wouldnt. And i think its more about what the majority of the people wants to keep it "democratic".
i get ur point, but as i got the whole story it was more like:
Oil was about to be sold to europeans in their currency (euros).
Which leads the US to loose alot money since all oil worldwide atm is sold in dollars.
Conclusion: we invade a country to keep control of the oil prices throughout the world.
That i just dont like.
i think ur being naiv here. The current Iraqi Government was assigned by the US, not elected. Thats why everyone in the Arabic countries thought Saddams trial was a joke and an insult and of course invalid. Thats the same reason why none respects the "authorities" in Iraq over the last few years too.
btw, if an american went to Saudi Arabia he'd see that things there are way worse than say in Syria. In Saudi Arabia women are treated like objects (the exact oposite than in Syria) for example. But Syria "hosts terrorists" now according to Bush... anyway, the Saudis keep paying the US so they get off clear.
no, i ment that while Saddam had control there wasnt one. After he was overthrown (forgive me if it didnt write it right) another civil war started (and the US troops got shot by both sides).
About Fahrenheit 9/11 i do believe that its based on truth but its obvious it tries to pass the message "vote for the Democrats, dont let Bush get elected again". Which part i hated ofc, but it was a good documentary overall.
exactly. Its best to let the people of the country get there themselves. Greece wasnt always free. We freed ourselves 1821. Without any outside assistance. Ofc we didnt have oil in the region so none would profit from helping us anyway...
proven to be so.
Greece and Turkey are both allies of the US too. But the US profits from "flaming" between us. See, we both have the US as our main weapon supplier (we bought a few stuff from Russia and the US started supporting Turkey bit more politically - one way to blackmail, dont you agree?) As long as the US sells things, they dont want balance you can believe me on that.
thats just from your perspective. See, people did have a job before everything was bombed down. In fact, Iraq was progressing well, even without any outside assistance since 1991. But it all went down with the bombing.
Now on my perspective of the matter:
If i had a job and a country (no matter if the one to lead it was a tyrant, it makes little difference atm) and someone came and attacked it, occusing me of being a terrorist and killing refugees (many children among them) that tried to flee and destroying hospitals, schools and houses... i'd not work for them just to get another job. I'd find a weapon and join a rebel army to defend my country from them. Would i be a terrorist if i did? Those are the terrorists we're talking about atm...
And how do you impose democracy upon a people? It seems to go against the very basic idea of democracy itself.
Of course it didn't happen overnight, but the benefit to a slower change is of course that the nation isn't devastated in the whole process.
Well I didnt mean atheists go to church- meant atheist government- a totailitarian atheist government- with secret police- would amke it so there wasnt any religious fights or anyhting. and there could be sunday church or whatever- but thats sunday. thats how iraq would have to be under a fascists dictator- of course that ideology would be parcticed throughout generations. Most liely after the dictator industrialized Iraq and schools started being made- and things were made to be how Russia, Nazi Germany, or wherever was, they would certainly have shcooling where they would teach the aspects of fascists life- and then eh idk. Its just, Iraq does so much better under a dictator- only Saddam's problem was that he didnt want the "prletariat" so - to - speak to have any power other then the power he granted them- in fact none- not even intellectual. and where he went wrong was he was the only leader. if a dictator who pushed for intellect, economy, industry, military, and agricultural growth. Also the population would rise in Iraq and I think as long as the Dictator was two faced, the population would grow and maybe iraq could have some kind of commercial crop or soemthing to show for...a good fascist government would do iraq well right now- because democracy doesnt work- they werent ready for it- as they were already on the brink of civil war as it was- now they are rioting and kmurdering, mobing, etc- and OUR country- who doesnt need to be there is there in the middle- our loved ones are fighting for a lost cause.
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
Well, yeah. They have problems with the EU because most countries in the EU doesn't want Turkey to be part of their club. Which is stupid, really. Since Turkey is both physically and metaphorically the bridge to the Middle East and is one of the most moderate Islam nations and has the second largest NATO army.
Perhaps I'm a little informed, but I don't think I'm necessarily being naive here. Yes, there were problems with Saddam's trial. But you can't pin the blame all on the U.S. The Iragis did a lot to botch it up and how do you know it wasn't somewhat intentional just to ensure they could exact their form of Sharia law upon Saddam? However, I think his trial should've been in the form on an international war crimes tribunal. Not the shabby court they threw together.
I'm sure you could make the same argument for many women in Syria. But I'm not sure what your overall point is here.
My friend, you buy your weapons from whomever you wish. You can't label the U.S. like a conservative parent would a tobacco company. Where's the accountability on the consumer? And like I said, we let our allies fight, just not too much.
I think you're not getting me on this one. I'm not for a second saying Iraq's were bettter off before the U.S. invaded. I'm just saying it was stupid on the U.S.'s part to disband the army. Cause now, we want Iraq to have a functioning army and most of those people were average Iraqis anyway, not Baath extremists.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
there are certain requirements to join the EU and Turkey has done nothing about their commitments. Its not like we dont want them to join, its just there are rules. None can simply walk in without respecting what keeps the EU together. Turkey is a bad neighbor, sending planes into our (the Greek) territory on a daily basis, which ofc we hunt back with our air force. They also dont recognise Cyprus as a country, which is an outrage if they want to join an alliance in which Cyprus is a full member.
on this i dont exactly "pin" all the blame on the US. But it is true that after they occupied the country they wanted to set up a government to take control of the oil faster and they didnt think if this government would actually manage to make things right. Which ofc they didnt. On Saddams trial i totally agree with you.
my point is that the US government doesnt really care about people getting oppressed as long as they profit from them.
*small edit* Saddam was made dictator of Iraq with the full support of the United States. He wasnt a problem at that time tho, he wasnt a communist.
see, we cant really. The thing about that is mostly of diplomatical nature. If we dont buy from you, but your rivals you get displeased and dont support us even if we're right. Thats one simple way to "blackmail" without it being illegal.
i did get u wrong on this one indeed. Disbanding the army was a bad idea for the future of the country, but as long as the army didnt obay the newfound government it looked pretty necessary to me. Dont forget all the commanders were Saddams people (the ones that werent were dead i think :P).
He invaded, bombed, stationed his brainwashed soldiers in the middle and outskirts of the town, probably housing them in Iraqi's homes...theres alot more t the picture we dont see due to our locations (outside of iraq) but, do you remeber like two years ago when those soldiers were charged with the betaing and rape and killing of the Iraqi civilians they were supposed to be "guarding"
It makes me sick. Everyone talks about good for the country- when you have shit like that going on- and thats just one guy who was probably caught by someone high up or official, or very public when it happened. THAT time made it on the news- theres most likely thousands more like that. And what I think is funny, Is Bush did this all behind the scenes, probably no other countries knew- because the UN let him invade Iraq. Idk, but I'm so done with this country when I turn 18- I'm probably going to be in a small small area- somewhere that doesnt really have much of a military- with no real relations to another place. I think due to Bush's actions we've seen- Presidents after him are going to take advantage and loopholes against us and others like he has done- I think truly that this Democracy ISNT Democracy- it is like a fascist dictatorship with a mask on. we have a few rights that arent rewal rights- they can be taken away anytime- and the FBI, will show up at your oor and take you away- no one will ever see your face again. It all makes me sick.
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
Only do you notice how he's shiftier? He's done what Russia did almost- they labeled theyre government Communism- yet the government was clearly fascist totalitarianism. Its funny- Bush labels american government Democracy- which is partly true i suppose- but for majority it isnt. Its ver very very corrupt.
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
Everything you say is out of personal opinion im sorry but it is only true, Iraq has the longest history of supporting and harboring terrorism, google it go ahead run along and do some research outside of liberalsRus.com
Ok go head show me anything that supports what you see that would make any sense what so ever. You should be fucking ashamed or related bush to hitler.
Im going to tell you all straight up, i am 15 and since I was 12 I was able to tell you liberals fucking dumb asses