What should the US foreign policy be? International people?

[CCS]

Although I don't agree with China's and Russia's internal policies, I see them as stable countries that are not threats to us, unless we violate their soverenty.

Look at Pakistand and Afganistan and North Korea in comparison: a psychologically unstable leader could launch a nuke at any moment, taking his country down with other countries. Stable countries act in their own best interest, avoiding nuclear confrontation, and only using them for self defence, preferentially by threating to use them.

I hope Obama talks to our alleys, and treats China and Russia like allies. I hope he does not lower our defences to them, but does not attack them or provoke them either. If we all bad together, and are tired of the suicide bombs, we could have a joint alliance when when negociate with the less predictable countries.

BTW, far, far more muslims die from suicide bombs than do other people combined. This is especially true in Pakistan, where the different factions attack each other every day. India gets a front row seat to watch it all, so they would be a very good source of information. South Korea and China and Japan would know a lot about north korea, and Russia would know a lot about afganistan. The US should not stand by while another country builds a millitary machine, like France did with Germany in the 1930's: better to attack sooner. But as long as there is no build up going one, we should team up and use diplomacy. Now the nuke problem is kind of hard to watch, so I don't know what we would do about that.

Ideas?

What do you think the US foreign policy should be? I'm especially interested in the veiws of people from other countries.

 

[Hammy070]

Although I don't agree with China's and Russia's internal policies, I see them as stable countries that are not threats to us, unless we violate their soverenty.

Look at Pakistand and Afganistan and North Korea in comparison: a psychologically unstable leader could launch a nuke at any moment, taking his country down with other countries. Stable countries act in their own best interest, avoiding nuclear confrontation, and only using them for self defence, preferentially by threating to use them.

I hope Obama talks to our alleys, and treats China and Russia like allies. I hope he does not lower our defences to them, but does not attack them or provoke them either. If we all bad together, and are tired of the suicide bombs, we could have a joint alliance when when negociate with the less predictable countries.

BTW, far, far more muslims die from suicide bombs than do other people combined. This is especially true in Pakistan, where the different factions attack each other every day. India gets a front row seat to watch it all, so they would be a very good source of information. South Korea and China and Japan would know a lot about north korea, and Russia would know a lot about afganistan. The US should not stand by while another country builds a millitary machine, like France did with Germany in the 1930's: better to attack sooner. But as long as there is no build up going one, we should team up and use diplomacy. Now the nuke problem is kind of hard to watch, so I don't know what we would do about that.

Ideas?

What do you think the US foreign policy should be? I'm especially interested in the veiws of people from other countries.

Apart from 9-11 which was carried out by a group of people, and not a nation. Why is your question relevant?

Do you honestly think that the "war on terror" is actually a war against terrorism?

 

[CCS]

Apart from 9-11 which was carried out by a group of people, and not a nation.

Afganistan harbors terrorists, no? Is the government there even trying to get rid of them? Are they letting the United States get rid of the terrorists for them? I heard they won't let the US in, and won't fight the terrorists. Do you agree that suicide bombers and the 9-11 hijackers are terrorists?

Why is your question relevant?

Because we just elected a new president whose foreign policy views are unknown, so it seems logical to discuss what he should do. Why would this question not be relevant?

Do you honestly think that the "war on terror" is actually a war against terrorism?

The war in Iraq was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" by Bush, though it started with the excuse "Weapons of Mass Destruction." The war in Afganistan is a war on terror because that country harbors terrorists. There are two fights going on right now, though many terrorists keep coming into Iraq to bomb people, which is terror. So it is a war on terror.

And I heard North Korea keeps boasting about a nuke they have. They tested rocks that could reach the US. What do you have to say about that? They also have missles aimed right at the capital of South Korea.

All this going on, why not talk about US foreign policy?

 

[ali777]

http://www.myspace.com/hair_loss_info

Why is your myspace template in French?

 

[Hammy070]

Afganistan harbors terrorists, no? Is the government there even trying to get rid of them? Are they letting the United States get rid of the terrorists for them? I heard they won't let the US in, and won't fight the terrorists. Do you agree that suicide bombers and the 9-11 hijackers are terrorists?

I agree that hose responsible for 9-11 are terrorists, and suicide bombers (who attack civilians) are also terrorists.

Do you agree that Irgun is a terrorist group? Your Chief of Staff's father was a prominent member. Here are just a few examples of Irgun's operations at the time he was a member.

February 27, 1939 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa
and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem. -
May 29, 1939 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem. -
On the same day 5 Arabs were shot and killed during a raid on the village of Biyar 'Adas. -
June 2, 1939 5 Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem -
June 12, 1939 A post office in Jerusalem was bombed, killing a British bomb expert trying to defuse the bombs. -
June 16, 1939 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Jerusalem. -
June 19, 1939 20 Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa. -
June 29, 1939 13 Arabs were killed in multiple shootings during one-hour period. -
June 30, 1939 An Arab was killed at a marketplace in Jerusalem. -
On the same day 2 Arabs were shot and killed in Lifta. -
July 3, 1939 An Arab was killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. -
July 4, 1939 2 Arabs were killed in two attacks in Jerusalem. -
July 20, 1939 An Arab was killed at a train station in Jaffa.

In the 1940s, Benjamin Emanuel interrupted his medical school training in Switzerland to take part in an unsuccessful scheme to smuggle guns from Czechoslovakia to the Israeli underground.[3] He later served as a medic in the 1948 Israeli war of independence.[3]

This terrorist is currently living in Chicago as a full citizen, and hasn't been brought to account for being linked with a terrorist group.

This is just one person, I mentioned him simply because Rahm Emanuel is in the news right now.

America harbors terrorists. Is your government trying to get rid of them? Are you allowing anyone else to get rid of them for you? I heard they don't let anyone else in, and are not themselves getting rid of terrorists. Do you agree that bus/marketplace bombers and the 'Palestine hijackers' are terrorists? Do you believe the above acts are terrorist attacks, and if so, do the people who harbour them deserve immunity? Do you realise that the war on terror is a war on terror that happens because of terrorism by YOUR harbored terrorists, living safe and well in YOUR country?

Because we just elected a new president whose foreign policy views are unknown, so it seems logical to discuss what he should do. Why would this question not be relevant?

The question is relevant. I wanted to know why YOU thought it was. It has been relevant since 1948, the time you decided to harbor terrorists. You will notice that this was over half a century before 9-11. There was no war on terror when Rahm's dad was involved in the matter of murdering Arab civilians because they didn't want foreigners to rule them.

The war in Iraq was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" by Bush, though it started with the excuse "Weapons of Mass Destruction." The war in Afganistan is a war on terror because that country harbors terrorists. There are two fights going on right now, though many terrorists keep coming into Iraq to bomb people, which is terror. So it is a war on terror.

And I heard North Korea keeps boasting about a nuke they have. They tested rocks that could reach the US. What do you have to say about that? They also have missles aimed right at the capital of South Korea.

All this going on, why not talk about US foreign policy?

We are talking about it. It was also being talked about in 1948, and every time the USA went out of its' way to arm the Zionist cause. That's what's talked about in the middle-east because you see, they've not just been victims of your harbored terrorists, but also lost vast swathes of land, Palestine was wiped off the map. If you look at a map in 1948, you'll find Palestine, now, you do not. It HAS ALREADY been wiped off the map, largely with YOUR support. So I definitly do wish to talk American policy on terrorism and why you havn't begun the war on terror right at home, where the former terrorists are living peacefully, with immunity. Do you not realise that in the middle-east, they have LONG known that you harbor terrorists? 9-11 was partly due to this, the frequency of attacks on your soil is so low that you fail to see the point. It would be ashame if it had to escalate so that you are aware of the magnitude of Palestine being wiped off the map, by terrorists, which you harbor.

 

[CCS]

You are right that 9-11 was done by hijackers who legally lived here. I think they actually studied in amsterdam before moving here, and doing their attack. Not directly from afganistan. I see your point.

I think most young americans were not aware of terrorist in our country for a long time. We are aware that the thieves who allowed the sub prime loans in our country were never brought to justice. But we don't let other countries come in here and regulate.

And for Isreal:
Hitler displace many Jews. The united states did not take them in. I don't know why. Language? Anti-semitism? I heard that the United States force Palistine to sell half their land, at a reasonable price, and then placed the Jews there, forming Isreal. They've been fighting ever since. We should have taken them all in to the US and left Palistine alone.

Anyone know why we did not?

 

[CCS]

1. Isreal has 7 million people. A lot but not a whole lot. How many of them do you think would want to move to the united states?

2. Could we evacuate them out of there in a year without the Palistinians killing the last 10% towards the end?

3. Does the US government owe Palistine any money? If so, would we give the Isreali houses to the Palistinian government as payment for our debts, and then the US goverment be in debt to the Isreali's who move hear, as a partial payment on their lost houses?

4. If Isreal dispeared, how would the Arabs treat the US after that? Would they be more likely to cut off our oil supply once that military base was gone?

5. What about other countries in the area? Do any of them rely on Isreal for protection? Or would this be a win for everyone.





Finally, the US harbors terrorists, but the are terrorists against our own people, or terrorists who did their thing decades ago. We don't have terrorist camps that ruitinely go back and fourth into your country and safely into ours. Iran does, and they are fighting the Iraqi government.

Well, they are members of sects that favor one of the Iraqi sects over others, and want to give that sect power, rather than let them share power in a republic.

If the people of Iran really prefer some sects so strongly, I say we split the three sects apart, including giving the Kurds a small piece of Turkey where there are other Kurds. Do you think they'd stop fighting each other if they each had thier own state? And shared the oil?

 

[Hammy070]

You are right that 9-11 was done by hijackers who legally lived here. I think they actually studied in amsterdam before moving here, and doing their attack. Not directly from afganistan. I see your point.

I think most young americans were not aware of terrorist in our country for a long time. We are aware that the thieves who allowed the sub prime loans in our country were never brought to justice. But we don't let other countries come in here and regulate.

And for Isreal:
Hitler displace many Jews. The united states did not take them in. I don't know why. Language? Anti-semitism? I heard that the United States force Palistine to sell half their land, at a reasonable price, and then placed the Jews there, forming Isreal. They've been fighting ever since. We should have taken them all in to the US and left Palistine alone.

Anyone know why we did not?

Umm....I'm talking about Irgun members in the USA, they are terrorists in every definition of the word.

The United States DID take them in, as well as almost every European country, except the Reich and her allies. You need to understand Zionism a little better to understand the current conflict. Zionists want Palestine SPECIFICALLY, the movement existed long before Nazis were even heard of and the process of wiping out Palestine was well under way BEFORE the Weimar Republic even ended in Germany. To sum up this fanaticism best, two quotes from Ben Gurion (World Zionist Leader and first prime minister of Israel)

I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance......
* As quoted in The Jewish Paradox : A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann (translated by Steve Cox), p. 99.

If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.

* Attributed to Ben-Gurion by Martin Gilbert in [2] "Israel was everything" in The New York Times (21 June 1987)]

Also, Palestinians did not sell half their land by any stretch of the imagination. They owned over 90% of all Palestine as recorded by the British Survey in 1946. They now own less than 30%, and Israel is building settlements even on THAT, illegally of course, under international law. But because America is behind them and says nothing, and still supplies it with weapons and political support, little can be done when slapped in the face like that.

1. Isreal has 7 million people. A lot but not a whole lot. How many of them do you think would want to move to the united states?

The right question is: How many of them are actually FROM the United States originally? A fair amount.

2. Could we evacuate them out of there in a year without the Palistinians killing the last 10% towards the end?

You do realise the deaths among the local population, the Palestinians, is around 10 times higher than Israeli?

You will likely be unaware of this due to the following:

You are told REPEATEDLY about Israeli deaths, but not even told once about the majority of Palestinian deaths. A large chunk of Palestinian deaths are also reported alongside Israeli ones in the same incident, so avoidance is....unavoidable.

3. Does the US government owe Palistine any money? If so, would we give the Isreali houses to the Palistinian government as payment for our debts, and then the US goverment be in debt to the Isreali's who move hear, as a partial payment on their lost houses?

Money isn't an issue for Palestinians. They are owed a country first and foremost. And they are owed 6 million Palestinians who are not allowed to return home, and remain refugees. Financial debt is secondary.

4. If Isreal dispeared, how would the Arabs treat the US after that? Would they be more likely to cut off our oil supply once that military base was gone?

Once what military base is gone? OPEC sells oil to the world. The Palestinian Israeli conflict involves areas with no oil industry to speak of.

5. What about other countries in the area? Do any of them rely on Isreal for protection? Or would this be a win for everyone.

Last I checked, Israel was at WAR with nearly all of it's neighbours. Egypt's authoritarian dictatorship is being bribed billions with your taxes in order to stop helping Palestine.

Finally, the US harbors terrorists, but the are terrorists against our own people, or terrorists who did their thing decades ago. We don't have terrorist camps that ruitinely go back and fourth into your country and safely into ours. Iran does, and they are fighting the Iraqi government.

Decades ago? I don't think the millions currently in refugee camps, the Palestinians, or any native of the middle-east would relegate Zionism to the history books. If I'm right, then protecting Israel and it's expansion without question, has cost you dearly. Not only 9-11, all soldiers since, all money since etc. You do realise Americas foreign policy today is focussed on Israeli interests? Iran most certainly are not fighting the Iraqi government.

Well, they are members of sects that favor one of the Iraqi sects over others, and want to give that sect power, rather than let them share power in a republic.

Not only is that hogwash. But ironically, there is absolute concrete evidence that the American Christian Zionist right, favor wholeheartedly Zionism, want to give it annd ARE giving it maximum power to expand and remain immune, and certainly would despise any mention of a Palestinian State. You can switch on your TV/Radio and listen to them admit it.

If the people of Iran really prefer some sects so strongly, I say we split the three sects apart, including giving the Kurds a small piece of Turkey where there are other Kurds. Do you think they'd stop fighting each other if they each had thier own state? And shared the oil?

It's funny, in 1300 years, all 3 groups basically lived alongside each other, some turbulence at times yes, but not anywhere near on a magnitude of significance. I wonder what happened all of a sudden that made them into warring factions? This is also a myth infact, there isn't a civil war, and 99% of all groups do not feel the need for a civil war. The civil war works to Americas advantage, as a troop pullout will be off the cards so long as a civil war is perpetuated in the media. Just imagine all was fine and rosy, the Iraqis united wholly inviting in the Americans, you think the Neocons would have pulled out then after 6 months? We all know that simply wouldn't have happened.

 

[Bryan]

Just imagine all was fine and rosy, the Iraqis united wholly inviting in the Americans, you think the Neocons would have pulled out then after 6 months?

Yes I do.

We all know that simply wouldn't have happened.

Not me. I _do_ think that would have happened.

 

[The Gardener]

It's funny, in 1300 years, all 3 groups basically lived alongside each other, some turbulence at times yes, but not anywhere near on a magnitude of significance. I wonder what happened all of a sudden that made them into warring factions? This is also a myth infact, there isn't a civil war, and 99% of all groups do not feel the need for a civil war. The civil war works to Americas advantage, as a troop pullout will be off the cards so long as a civil war is perpetuated in the media. Just imagine all was fine and rosy, the Iraqis united wholly inviting in the Americans, you think the Neocons would have pulled out then after 6 months? We all know that simply wouldn't have happened.

No way.

I was tracking with your debate points up until this point, which is wrong. These ethnic groups did not at all EVER "live alongside each other" peacefully. This area became a generalized political entity at the time of the Mongol invasions... and in attempting to rule Mesopotamia as a unified political entity there were horrific massacres and outright attempts at what would now be called "ethnic cleansing". Then came the Ottomans, who outsourced rule over Iraq to the Mamluks, who were politically affiliated with the Shia Persians. They were in constant conflict with the Sunni tribes, a few decades full of conflict, sacking each other's mosques, etc... JUST like today. Then came British colonial rule, fighting repeated Kurdish and Arab attempts at overthrow.

In fact, the political "state" of Iraq is very much a British invention, and building a state that is inherently ethnically unstable was done INTENTIONALLY by the British. They did this frequently all across the British Empire, in Africa, South Asia, and most notably in Afghanistan... creating political states that did not align neatly with local ethnic groupings, but intentionally creating states that cut across ethnic groupings, as it allowed them to more easily rule the colonies by playing "divide and conquer" and using certain sides against other sides to keep the indigenous balance of power in flux, and allowing the British colonial rulers to be the "balance keepers".

The US NEVER wanted to start a civil war in Iraq, because (since the aftermath of WW2, at least) US colonialism is not characterized by attempts to politically rule their colonies by sovereign US military presence. After WW2, the US learned from the failed European colonial rule that trying to rule colonies by physically making them part of the mother country is a losing proposition. Instead, the US ruled (and continues to rule) its colonies by controlling the inputs and outputs of the local economy, and forcing the indigenous rulers to be pliant to Washington by making them economically dependent on the US market.

Put it this way... there is a REASON why Hussein ruled Iraq in such an iron fisted manner. It was because without the iron fist of a strong central government, he knew that the country would splinter apart into chaos and instability.

 

[CCS]

Very sad. So what do we do now? Do we need colonies anymore? Can we let tribes unite and unlike tribes separate?

And as for Isreal, I think it needs to go back to Palistine. But how is the question. Hammy070, are you saying that most Isreali's are Zionists and would not want to come to the United States? At the very least we should stop supporting them, and invite the secular ones to come here, and hope the Zionists ones stay there to hack it out.

I believe you that far more Palistinians die, if it is true that colonies were put together by divide and conquer methods.

I was looking a modern map of the middle east the other day. Many many ----istan countries. Lots of funny names. Makes me strongly doubt any of those countries occured naturally. The divide and conquer idea cause sounds more probable.

 

[CCS]

And do they speak Hebrew? Language barriar could be a problem if they move somewhere else.

We should have taken them all in after WWII, and never made the country if Isreal in the first place.

And as for the leader of Iran saying that Isreal is a smelly corps that should be removed, I do not see that as a reason not to sit down at a table with him. I hope he has more sympathy for any Jews who want to get out of there if they could. But I totally understand him not liking that country. No wonder Muslims don't like us.

 

[CCS]

What can we do to end Zionism?

Anyone know how many Jews wish they could move here?

 

[The Gardener]

I was looking a modern map of the middle east the other day. Many many ----istan countries. Lots of funny names. Makes me strongly doubt any of those countries occured naturally. The divide and conquer idea cause sounds more probable.

Two examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durand_Line

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_De ... on_of_1917

 

[Bryan]

Put it this way... there is a REASON why Hussein ruled Iraq in such an iron fisted manner. It was because without the iron fist of a strong central government, he knew that the country would splinter apart into chaos and instability.

Exactly. Despite the fact that Hammy and a few others here like to point out what they consider to be the "hypocrisy" in US foreign policy (note, for example, that old picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, which has been posted here several times over the years), they rarely ever comment on what happened right after we got rid of Hussein and left a relative power vacuum in the country: Sunnis and Shia started drilling holes into each others' skulls with power tools. Says a lot about the intrinsic ability of the Iraqis to govern themselves without having a strong, iron-fisted ruler, doesn't it?

 

[Hammy070]

Ottoman Empire

Main articles: Ottoman Empire, Mamluk rule in Iraq, Mesopotamian campaign, and Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire

Later, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535. The Ottomans lost Baghdad to the Iranian Safavids in 1609, and took it back in 1632. From 1747 to 1831, Iraq was ruled, with short intermissions, by the Mamluk officers of Georgian origin who enjoyed local autonomy from the Sublime Porte.[11] In 1831, the direct Ottoman rule was imposed and lasted until World War I, during which the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers.

During World War I the Ottomans were driven from much of the area by the United Kingdom during the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The British lost 92,000 soldiers in the Mesopotamian campaign. Ottoman losses are unknown but the British captured a total of 45,000 prisoners of war. By the end of 1918 the British had deployed 410,000 men in the area, though only 112,000 were combat troops.

During World War I the British and French divided Western Asia in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The Treaty of Sèvres, which was ratified in the Treaty of Lausanne, led to the advent of modern Western Asia and Republic of Turkey. The League of Nations granted France mandates over Syria and Lebanon and granted the United Kingdom mandates over Iraq and Palestine (which then consisted of two autonomous regions: Palestine and Transjordan). Parts of the Ottoman Empire on the Arabian Peninsula became parts of what are today Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

British Mandate of Mesopotamia

Main articles: British Mandate of Mesopotamia and Assyrian independence

British troops entering Baghdad.

At the end of World War I, the League of Nations granted the area to the United Kingdom as a mandate. It initially formed two former Ottoman vilayets (regions): Baghdad, and Basra into a single country in August 1921. Five years later, in 1926, the northern vilayet of Mosul was added, forming the territorial boundaries of the modern Iraqi state.

For three out of four centuries of Ottoman rule, Baghdad was the seat of administration for the vilayets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra. During the mandate, British colonial administrators ruled the country, and through the use of British armed forces, suppressed Arab and Kurdish rebellions against the occupation. They established the Hashemite king, Faisal, who had been forced out of Syria by the French, as their client ruler. Likewise, British authorities selected Sunni Arab elites from the region for appointments to government and ministry offices.[specify][12]

Hashemite monarchy

Main article: Hashemite

Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1932, on the urging of King Faisal, though the British retained military bases and transit rights for their forces. King Ghazi of Iraq ruled as a figurehead after King Faisal's death in 1933, while undermined by attempted military coups, until his death in 1939. The United Kingdom invaded Iraq in 1941, for fear that the government of Rashid Ali al-Gaylani might cut oil supplies to Western nations, and because of his strong ideological leanings to Nazi Germany. A military occupation followed the restoration of the Hashemite monarchy, and the occupation ended on October 26, 1947. The rulers during the occupation and the remainder of the Hashemite monarchy were Nuri al-Said, the autocratic prime minister, who also ruled from 1930–1932, and 'Abd al-Ilah, an advisor to the king Faisal II.

Republic of Iraq

The reinstated Hashemite monarchy lasted until 1958, when it was overthrown by a coup d'etat of the Iraqi Army, known as the 14 July Revolution. The coup brought Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassim to power. He withdrew from the Baghdad Pact and established friendly relations with the Soviet Union, but his government lasted only until 1963, when it was overthrown by Colonel Abdul Salam Arif. Salam Arif died in 1966 and his brother, Abdul Rahman Arif, assumed the presidency. In 1968, Rahman Arif was overthrown by the Arab Socialist Baath Party. This movement gradually came under the control of Saddam Hussein 'Abd al-Majid al Tikriti, who acceded to the presidency and control of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), then Iraq's supreme executive body, in July 1979, while killing many of his opponents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Hashemite_monarchy

They've barely, if not never had a chance to actually govern themselves in centuries. However, the main issue is a lack of power elites of Iraqi origin. That is, Iraq's current borders. Unifying forces are hard to create without meticulous national processes. That is, civil wars, revolutions, etc etc. Most stable nations today are stable due to natural borders or drawn out civil strife. Iraq has yet to go into a full blown civil war, and hopefully it will stay that way. Even a well established, pre-medieval 'country' of Britain had several civil wars before normalizing intra-community relations. America too had one. The fact Iraq in it's modern form is a British creation with the intent of control, means harmonizing Iraq will be tricky and probably long-drawn. An Iron fist is needed for a nation that doesn't work in it's current form, for a nation that people in Iraq never had a say in.

Mesopatemia doesn't exist. The Republic of Iraq does. It will take a while for it, as well as most nations in the region to develop an identity that is theirs.

 

[Hammy070]

It's funny, in 1300 years, all 3 groups basically lived alongside each other, some turbulence at times yes, but not anywhere near on a magnitude of significance. I wonder what happened all of a sudden that made them into warring factions? This is also a myth infact, there isn't a civil war, and 99% of all groups do not feel the need for a civil war. The civil war works to Americas advantage, as a troop pullout will be off the cards so long as a civil war is perpetuated in the media. Just imagine all was fine and rosy, the Iraqis united wholly inviting in the Americans, you think the Neocons would have pulled out then after 6 months? We all know that simply wouldn't have happened.

No way.

I was tracking with your debate points up until this point, which is wrong. These ethnic groups did not at all EVER "live alongside each other" peacefully. This area became a generalized political entity at the time of the Mongol invasions... and in attempting to rule Mesopotamia as a unified political entity there were horrific massacres and outright attempts at what would now be called "ethnic cleansing". Then came the Ottomans, who outsourced rule over Iraq to the Mamluks, who were politically affiliated with the Shia Persians. They were in constant conflict with the Sunni tribes, a few decades full of conflict, sacking each other's mosques, etc... JUST like today. Then came British colonial rule, fighting repeated Kurdish and Arab attempts at overthrow.

In fact, the political "state" of Iraq is very much a British invention, and building a state that is inherently ethnically unstable was done INTENTIONALLY by the British. They did this frequently all across the British Empire, in Africa, South Asia, and most notably in Afghanistan... creating political states that did not align neatly with local ethnic groupings, but intentionally creating states that cut across ethnic groupings, as it allowed them to more easily rule the colonies by playing "divide and conquer" and using certain sides against other sides to keep the indigenous balance of power in flux, and allowing the British colonial rulers to be the "balance keepers".

The US NEVER wanted to start a civil war in Iraq, because (since the aftermath of WW2, at least) US colonialism is not characterized by attempts to politically rule their colonies by sovereign US military presence. After WW2, the US learned from the failed European colonial rule that trying to rule colonies by physically making them part of the mother country is a losing proposition. Instead, the US ruled (and continues to rule) its colonies by controlling the inputs and outputs of the local economy, and forcing the indigenous rulers to be pliant to Washington by making them economically dependent on the US market.

Put it this way... there is a REASON why Hussein ruled Iraq in such an iron fisted manner. It was because without the iron fist of a strong central government, he knew that the country would splinter apart into chaos and instability.

I agree with most of your points. The image I was giving wasn't exactly a fine and rosy relationship between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. I said 'alongside each other' in the sense that the Republic of Ireland lives now alongside the UK. Not as an integrated population ruled by a single entity. Other than that, your points highlight the turbulence of foreign rule over Baghdad and Basra, and how these areas were very rarely under a common rule until now.

 

[Hammy070]

Put it this way... there is a REASON why Hussein ruled Iraq in such an iron fisted manner. It was because without the iron fist of a strong central government, he knew that the country would splinter apart into chaos and instability.

Exactly. Despite the fact that Hammy and a few others here like to point out what they consider to be the "hypocrisy" in US foreign policy (note, for example, that old picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, which has been posted here several times over the years), they rarely ever comment on what happened right after we got rid of Hussein and left a relative power vacuum in the country: Sunnis and Shia started drilling holes into each others' skulls with power tools. Says a lot about the intrinsic ability of the Iraqis to govern themselves without having a strong, iron-fisted ruler, doesn't it?

Additionally, there is no Iraqi identity that is greater than the identity of being Kurdish, Sunni or Shia. The "ability of the Iraqis to govern themselves" is due to the fact that they do not identify with Iraqis (a recent creation) as much as with their tribe/ethnicity/sect.

 

[badasshairday III]

Speak softly but carry a big stick.

 

[Old Baldy]

Yes, they're "new" at this Hammy. Got to give them some time to learn how to govern themselves IMHO. Things seem to be calming down somewhat? What are you hearing about this from where you live?