The problem was not getting rid of Hussain, the problem was after the fact. The UN should have stepped in as peacekeepers and enough pressure should have been put on the new government to remain inclusive like they stated they would when forming government. The US could have held back military support, oil and gas technologies and hundreds more things that the government would have wanted/needed. Problem was the US instead of putting pressure on them just pulled out and said adios, Obama dropped the ball there and has to shoulder some of the responsibility. His administration should have gone to the UN and created enough worldwide pressure that the Iraqi government would have had to say yes to peacekeepers as well as some US military for support.
The thing is, you cannot just dispose of a dictator and expect a free and open society like the west. These people have grown to only know one thing, but at the same time wanting what the west has. Problem is they do not know how to handle the freedoms yet and as such turn to violence as a means to get what they want democratically. With a peacekeeping force in there you could have allowed cooler heads to prevail and the militants wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the situation created by a government like al Maliki's whose sole purpose was to make a society that only the Shia's could enjoy.
Peacekeeping forces can do good things if given the chance, the UN needs to grow a pair as does the Arab League, both should have been in there before the US pulled out(well before) but mistakes were made. Saying the people were better off under Hussain is incorrect, they didn't have their freedoms, he had his share of atrocities using mustard gas, mass killings etc, that is no way to "keep people in line" The mistakes made after they got rid of him made for this mess, if handled better I don't think Iraq would be in this mess right now.
It wouldn't have mattered what we did, the Shia hate the Sunni, have for millennia.
The only outcome that might of avoided this would have been to dived the country into three, hand the south over to Iran, the north to the Kurds and let the Sunni have the rest ala India Pakistan, this would have still ended up with a hundred thousand dead, ethnic cleansing and the like but it would have been less chaotic.
Iraq was never a country, it was always a blood feud held together by force, be it ottoman british or Baathist.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
The US is probably the dumbest superpower the world has ever seen, not withstanding it's enormous technical superiority, they honestly don't understand that vast swathes of the world hate them, in some cases with good reason, they don't seem to comprehend that supporting Israel fatally compromises their ability to do much in the Arab world or that the world is made up of shades of grey, not the simple black and white they want to believe in.
I used to think it was just the average American that was this simple but it becomes increasingly clear even those in,power are clueless down south.
Scary really.
Yes, they spent more on intelligence than all of Canada spends on defence. They have some of the brightest people working in the defense sector, and some very smart people in government at the highest levels, but yes, they're somehow oblivious to parts of the world hating them
Yes, they spent more on intelligence than all of Canada spends on defence. They have some of the brightest people working in the defense sector, and some very smart people in government at the highest levels, but yes, they're somehow oblivious to parts of the world hating them
The US is probably the dumbest superpower the world has ever seen, not withstanding it's enormous technical superiority, they honestly don't understand that vast swathes of the world hate them, in some cases with good reason, they don't seem to comprehend that supporting Israel fatally compromises their ability to do much in the Arab world or that the world is made up of shades of grey, not the simple black and white they want to believe in.
I used to think it was just the average American that was this simple but it becomes increasingly clear even those in,power are clueless down south.
Scary really.
Are you suggesting they tell Israel sorry...your on your own and good luck?
BTW, just about every non muslim country supports Israel including Canada.
Yes, they spent more on intelligence than all of Canada spends on defence. They have some of the brightest people working in the defense sector, and some very smart people in government at the highest levels, but yes, they're somehow oblivious to parts of the world hating them
They seem to be, who in their right mind would think the US could bring western style democracy to Iraq?
Pakistan harbours Osama but the CIA seems unaware, and continues to veiw them as some kind of ally meanwhile Saudi Arabia is the sponsor of the Wahhabi school but the us still thinks they are a friend?
Are you suggesting they tell Israel sorry...your on your own and good luck?
BTW, just about every non muslim country supports Israel including Canada.
No, I'm suggesting that if you make the decision to support Israel you have the good sense to realize that makes it impossible for you to be seen as a neutral and trustworthy party to Sunni and, to a lesser degree, Shia Arabs.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it Arabs will always consider the US and Israel as the enemy.
Or to use a previous example the UK is in no place to act as a neutral party between Protestant and catholic Irish no matter how well intentioned they are.
No, I'm suggesting that if you make the decision to support Israel you have the good sense to realize that makes it impossible for you to be seen as a neutral and trustworthy party to Sunni and, to a lesser degree, Shia Arabs.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it Arabs will always consider the US and Israel as the enemy.
Or to use a previous example the UK is in no place to act as a neutral party between Protestant and catholic Irish no matter how well intentioned they are.
Agree, that's why I say..as soon as GOD(s) die off this planet the better!
Maybe we need an Athiest uprising just to show people how stupid they are!
After reading into it a bit more, it sounds like this is playing out close to how Assad's regime in Syria was hoping.
Apparently they allowed ISIS to get funding through state allowed oil sales in order to strengthen their abilities, allowing them to become the dominant rebel group in Syria. End result is that they become the enemy, and instead of Syria quashing a popular democratic revolution, they are fighting an Islamic jihadi force hellbent on destruction, and the international community won't be against them anymore.
Worked like a charm too. No one seems to be condemning Syria much since ISIS started gaining notoriety as the cheif rebel group and its barbaric practices became more publicly known.
I mean, just go look back to the articles about the Syrian civil war back when we were fresh off the Arab Spring, everyone wanted to support the rebels and take out Assad, but a few smart people were warning that if you do that, you're handing the country over to extremists, and not "the people". Thank god the intervention in Syria was minimal.
Dictator Assad > ISIS rule.
I strongly disagree on the bolded part. I would argue that not backing the right rebels when "we" had the chance is a large reason for the situation we have now. In fact, many predicted that if we don't back the west-leaning pro-democracy rebels, it will only lead to more religious extremism in the area, not less, and it seems that prediction has become true.
For a while there was a chance to back a fairly legitimite people's revolution in Syria, that seemed to have a very good chance of toppling a local dictator in a relatively short war and making the country decisively more pro-western (due to them getting all-important aid from the west at a time of need) and pro-democracy (due to the original revolution being largely about democracy, among other things). All this would have almost inevitably made them less prone to religious extremism. We could also have a relatively well-armed, well-organized national army fighting the islamists in Syria right now.
(even a shaky) democracy >>> Assad >>> ISIS
Despite vague promises from politicians and vapid social media support, the west never trusted the rebels in Syria and never really came to their aid. IMO the fear that the rebels would turn out to be jihadists thus became a self-fullfilling fear. This didn't need to happen.
As the Arab Spring demonstrated, the jihadists are not actually nearly as popular as they pretend to be and as popular as many in the west think they are. When people have alternative rebellious movements, they will mostly flock under a different banner.
The problem is, nobody wants to back the non-violent pro-democracy movements in the area or armed rebellions of that sort. Only the jihadists have financial backing.
So if you're a rebellious young man that is angry and frustrated with everything that's wrong in the area (and we know there's a lot that's wrong), the jihadists can easily seem like the only game in town that actively fights "the system". The jihadists will then turn those emotions into generalized racial and religious hatred.
In effect the jihadists are a vent through which the anger of arab youth is directed towards innocent bystanders and a distorted view of "The West".
But, part of the problem is that what the jihadists are telling them is not all BS. The west does have a history of pretty much only backing dictatorships. This makes us genuinely a part of their problem, and makes it much easier to tell the local youth that their enemy is anybody who is "pro-west", instead of, say "the cold-hearted, power-hungry ####### bigot right in front of you" or "that cold-hearted, power-hungry ####### that is leading the country".
Religious extremism is much like crime. The best way to stop it is not with violence, but fixing the problems that drive people towards it.
(It's often the same problems too; poverty, misery and lack of options for the future.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
It wouldn't have mattered what we did, the Shia hate the Sunni, have for millennia.
That kind of talk really only serves the extremists, it has very little to do with reality. Most sunni and shia live peacefully as neighrbours, have for millennia.
It always makes me cringe when people say "these things can't be settled", because it goes so strongly against what history has shown.
Wars are not inevitable, but some will happen. Every war will also end, and very often people who actively try to negotiate peace help the process significantly.
Even religious wars always end. Like the wars between catholics and protestants.
(Which were largely not about religion either, but let's not go there now.)
Last edited by Itse; 08-10-2014 at 03:26 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
The reality is all over the Middle East Shia and Sunni are not living together peacefully, right now they are engaged in a war, wishing otherwise isn't going to help.
To a large degree it is a war we blunderingly inflamed, famously GW Bush wasn't aware that there was more than one type of Muslim.
Both sects view the other as apostates, and both sides have, at times over the last thousand years, tried to wipe out the other.
Do all Sunni and Shia view each other this way, obviously not, but it takes next to nothing, a few market place bombs and a few beheadings to push everyone back into this feud.
The reality is all over the Middle East Shia and Sunni are not living together peacefully, right now they are engaged in a war, wishing otherwise isn't going to help.
Quote:
Do all Sunni and Shia view each other this way, obviously not, but it takes next to nothing, a few market place bombs and a few beheadings to push everyone back into this feud.
This is just so patently untrue, you're being blinded by media bombardment that paints a ridiculously twisted view of what goes on in the islamic world.
Libya has been through total chaos quite recently, but has not descended into religious warfare. (Even though it's not 100% peaceful either.)
Saudi-Arabia has had all sorts of trouble stirred up by local jihadists, but that has not made the population turn on their neighbours the way you suggested.
Lebanon has it's troubles, but it's not sunni and shia killing each other.
Irans internal strifes go more along the lines of pro- and anti-pro-western sentiments, not religious sentiments. (And it's mostly political stuff.)
And of course Azerbaijan and Bahrain (for example) being peaceful muslim countries with both sunnis and shias does not even register in the discussion.
Big as it is, the ISIS is a really small minority of muslims, and in everything that goes on there, religion is a much smaller part of the problem than we like to think.
Because you know, if the real problems were more in the line of "people are turning to violence because they're desperate and angry because they are poor and being ruled by dictators, and many are traumatized by the two times when US and their allies put them through war, and btw pretty much all of those dictators are supported by the west, and hey why is it that the only place where they've had a peaceful and democratic elections and a change of leadership was in supposedly evil country Iran?... And where was it again that all these dictators and warlords are getting their money from?"
That would all be too awkward. But religion is a simple reason for people to kill each other, and it's an explanation that needs no action from us, because nothing can be done. It's basicly the story that sells. As far as most of the media is concerned, Middle-East = religion. There doesn't even seem to be any oil over there anymore, funnily enough.
All that is not to say that I'm necessarily against bombing the ISIS, they sure seem like a bunch of pricks. But it would be interesting to hear more about them and what goes on in those areas, other than people killing people. Because I'm pretty sure the chance to kill people is not the main reason why some people are flocking under their flag.
(I'm sure there's more information out there than I have cared to look for. There's just a lot going on in the world right now.)
Bahrain, your effing kidding me, the UN describes the system of systemic oppression of the Shia in Bahrain as apartheid.
Saudi severely restricts Shia rights and then sends in the army when they revolt.
The reality is in most parts of the Mid East whichever sect is in charge tends to treat the other like dirt.
The reality is when the British established their colonies, they went out of their way to divide countries that intentionally put religion against religion and tribe against tribe. This was under the strategy of divide and conquer.
The Americans took a different philosophy of not always conquering lands but established client states. It didn't matter if these states were ruled by a bloodthirsty tyrant, just if they would follow the capitalist party line by selling out their resources and give lip service to hating the commies.
As Obama's former religious minister said, the chickens are coming home to roost. That being said, we still have to defend ourselves from these terrorists.
Bahrain, your effing kidding me, the UN describes the system of systemic oppression of the Shia in Bahrain as apartheid.
Saudi severely restricts Shia rights and then sends in the army when they revolt.
The reality is in most parts of the Mid East whichever sect is in charge tends to treat the other like dirt.
Religion is not the important thing that separates those people, it's that one group is oppressed and the other is well-off. It's pretty much the same as in Israel really.
Religion is just a tool. It helps separate the groups, and it's a way for those in power to guarantee that they have a significant support group in the country. Because if you frame it as a religious difference, those who have the same religion as you will side with your regime in the fear that otherwise the other side will kill them.
It's basicly a variation of divide and conquer. Ageless tactic.
If it wasn't religion, the ones in power would just use something else. Like ethnicity.
Libya for example was long ruled with similar strategies by Gaddafi. Create strife between groups and have everyone thinking that you're the one thing holding it all together.
Funny thing is, people will tolerate other religious groups just fine if it's all about the religion and not money, land, and power. (Which is why secularity is so important in governance.)
Religion is not the important thing that separates those people, it's that one group is oppressed and the other is well-off. It's pretty much the same as in Israel really.
Religion is just a tool. It helps separate the groups, and it's a way for those in power to guarantee that they have a significant support group in the country. Because if you frame it as a religious difference, those who have the same religion as you will side with your regime in the fear that otherwise the other side will kill them.
It's basicly a variation of divide and conquer. Ageless tactic.
If it wasn't religion, the ones in power would just use something else. Like ethnicity.
Libya for example was long ruled with similar strategies by Gaddafi. Create strife between groups and have everyone thinking that you're the one thing holding it all together.
Funny thing is, people will tolerate other religious groups just fine if it's all about the religion and not money, land, and power. (Which is why secularity is so important in governance.)
Then what is being used to determine why one group is kept down? It's not just a coincidence that all the oppressed people just happen to be Sunni/Shia. When one sect routinely marginalizes the other, with which sect is which varying between countries it seems like religion very much is the driving factor.
The reality is when the British established their colonies, they went out of their way to divide countries that intentionally put religion against religion and tribe against tribe. This was under the strategy of divide and conquer.
The Americans took a different philosophy of not always conquering lands but established client states. It didn't matter if these states were ruled by a bloodthirsty tyrant, just if they would follow the capitalist party line by selling out their resources and give lip service to hating the commies.
As Obama's former religious minister said, the chickens are coming home to roost. That being said, we still have to defend ourselves from these terrorists.
The only part of that I would argue against is that these "terrorists" (which is a term that doesn't really mean anything anymore) are probably not as interested in us as we believe. Sure, I'm sure they like to talk a big talk about "killing all infidels" in front of the western media, but really they have their hands full at home.
Once somebody is in power, they'll want us to buy their oil and sell them playstations and mostly everybody over there will want to deal with the stuff over there. Besides, most places tend to gravitate towards peace if warring parties are not constantly supported by outside forces.
Then what is being used to determine why one group is kept down? It's not just a coincidence that all the oppressed people just happen to be Sunni/Shia. When one sect routinely marginalizes the other, with which sect is which varying between countries it seems like religion very much is the driving factor.
Well, generally speaking a good system is when the minority has the power, as long as it's big enough to form a power base when they have all the resources. 10-30% seems to be a good number. I'm guessing a smaller group can't hold on to power and a bigger group starts to have too much infighting to be stable.
Sadddam Hussein used the same system btw, but nobody claimed it was anything but a powerplay.
Besides, history is full of oppressive systems where religion was not an issue. Religion is generally the first choice, language, ethnicity are also really popular options, as are social classes and political parties. From what I've understood North Korea has for example turned the military effectively into a social class of it's own, with all the perks that come with it. (This is pretty typical of military dictatorships really.)
It's worth remembering that even though Husseins regime also had a tendency to treat people differently according to religion, it's been well studied that yeah, lots of people didn't actually know or care about their neighbours religions, and lots of people still don't see it that way. Because it's really more complicated than sunni/shia.
Problem is, there is no understanding the whole situation of Iraq from the outside, because we don't share the language, we don't know what the political questions, we don't understand the history that well and the culture is too different. And to add to that, there's ethnic groups we don't know about and borders we can't remember but people there can and so and and so forth...
But think of North Ireland. Even though people talked about "catholics fighting protestants", everybody knew it was not a religious conflict. Both "catholics" and "protestants" were shorthands for much more complicated issues that people generally didn't quite get.
Yet you could easily enough say that "catholics and protestants have been killing each other through the ages" and be technically correct. But now there's been peace there for so long, I've started meeting kids in the university who need to look up what the IRA was.
Religion is a good flag to rally under and an important mechanism through which people form communities, but it's rarely the actual reason people start killing each other. Unfortunately once they start rallying under those flags for other reasons, religion can become a reason in it's own.
(Of course religion can also be used as an excuse, like when people were killing jews in pre-holocaust times in Europe. It was pretty much always because the jews had money, or because they were owed money, not really because they were jews.)
The only part of that I would argue against is that these "terrorists" (which is a term that doesn't really mean anything anymore) are probably not as interested in us as we believe. Sure, I'm sure they like to talk a big talk about "killing all infidels" in front of the western media, but really they have their hands full at home.
Once somebody is in power, they'll want us to buy their oil and sell them playstations and mostly everybody over there will want to deal with the stuff over there. Besides, most places tend to gravitate towards peace if warring parties are not constantly supported by outside forces.
It looks to me from watching the vides that the movement has become war for it's own sake. It feeds them and to rely on them settling down, sitting on their front porch, behind their expensive TVs with a MB in their driveway reminiscing about the good old days of butchering their enemies, is a lot to ask.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
It looks to me from watching the vides that the movement has become war for it's own sake. It feeds them and to rely on them settling down, sitting on their front porch, behind their expensive TVs with a MB in their driveway reminiscing about the good old days of butchering their enemies, is a lot to ask.
That might unfortunately be.
Although I would personally use different words, like "a generation of people deeply traumatized by wars living in a ravaged land finding it hard to live normal lives anymore".
Still, all wars will end, and all areas will find peace eventually. Even Middle-East. Not that we necessarily will live to see it.
I just hate it when people say peace is impossible or not worth trying.
Although I would personally use different words, like "a generation of people deeply traumatized by wars living in a ravaged land finding it hard to live normal lives anymore".
Still, all wars will end, and all areas will find peace eventually. Even Middle-East. Not that we necessarily will live to see it.
I just hate it when people say peace is impossible or not worth trying.
Yeah, peace is always possible. We need to change their hearts and minds though and that will take time, which some don't have.
