Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

like to kill each other?

_________________

It's not our fault. They've been fighting for centuries. It's like the whole thing with Protestants & Catholics.

_________________

So why is America's success in Iraq dependent on Islamic factions finally deciding to play nice with each other?

_________________

Bush decided that links with terrorism within Iraq and human rights violations were premises for the war. Considering that terrorism now has a firm foothold in Iraq, and human rights could never thrive in that environment, the war still isn't over.

The security and safety of Iraqi citizens is what's important - not that America has got their man. More than anything, Iraq needs American intervention now - just like Northern Ireland needed American intervention ten years ago - because it will struggle and probably fail without it.

My thoughts exactly, WHF. While I may have disagreed with Bush's initiative to start the war, I tend to believe it very unrealistic to think we can simply pull out at this stage. We owe it to the Iraqi people to give them some semblance of stability and safety before we can leave.

_________________

WHF, I must admit that I'm a little shocked that you don't support the US leaving Iraq. Your reasons, however are very sound, and are pretty close to how I feel.

I don't support the Iraq war with the zeal that I once did. to be honest, my reasons are more "well, if we leave, it's going to be a lot worse" and "3000+ dead troops will have died for nothing" than the "Iraq needs to be dealt with" that I had at the start of the war.

Where we differ: I also feel (some will say I'm marching lockstep with our "dictator") that speaking out against the war (especially from those who once supported it) will give groups like Al Qaeda encouragement (showing them that, once Americans start dying, we'll back down). I'm not in favor of banning war protest or anything like that. However, I DO think things need to be seen through AND that we leave absolutely no doubt in the minds of our own people and enemies alike that there are people who will not stand idly by and watch evil prosper, so terror will never prevail.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

yeah, anyone who actually thinks it's America's fault that Islam has a huge fundamental rift is foolish.

and it sucks that it's so violent over there. It also sucks that we got into it because i really gotta be honest: nothing will stop radical angry sunnis from killing people. and nothing will stop radical andry shi'ites from killing people. not time, not intervention on our part: nothin'. The problems are so irreconcilable and so rooted in their history...i find it pretty hard to feel like Islamic sectarian violence could ever stop.

I agree, shoe. I just find it unrealistic to base America's success in Iraq on us being able to magically make Islam play nice with all its factions.

You make good points, WHF... though I don't know if the conflict in Ireland is the same as the one in the Middle East. For one, both Sunnis and Shias hate America. Not sure if the factions in Northern Ireland felt the same way.

_________________

Dark horse, me. Mostly, I don't believe that the US can leave Iraq now because Iraq needs all the help it can get to rebuild its infrastructure and deliver aid, let alone policing and general bloodbath prevention etc etc.



Oh yeah - they're totally different. That's why the intervention in NI was mainly made up of a few power lunches with Bill Clinton and George J Mitchell every so often. But it helped and was needed.

Problem being a unity government ain't happening. The prospect of solving or at least neutralizing a centuries-old religious conflict via a completely unwarranted military invasion and a puppet government is doomed from the get-go.

Iraq was created in the early-ish 1900s and was as stupid of an idea as trying to make borders in Israel and Palestine. There is no one Iraqi nation, there's three. The only reason they weren't blowing each other up before was Saddam kept a lid on them. A violent lid, but a lid nonetheless.

There has never, ever, ever been a case in history where a nation invaded a sovereign nation and overthrew its government and was able to leave it be without a permanent presence. Look through your books, it doesn't happen.

Now, it's true that a nation could AID in a revolution, but that's only when the nation in question was on the brink of revolution itself and the "invaders" really just helped the uprising force already present. Iraq didn't ask for a revolution, we just stormed in and set up what WE thought they should have.

You mark my words, there is no unity solution. If China suddenly invaded us and said "hey, you're uniting with Canada and Mexico now", do you think we'd be nice about that? Hell no.

_________________

Since i live in this wonderful land of israel, i get to learn muslim history and arabic! yay! so, they have been killing each other since muhammad died and he didn't pick a succesor. and thats why, america for one time didn't screw with something.

_________________
"Don't forget the crap-flap!" -Strongbad from "pop-up"

You're not wrong. Rwanda is a perfect example of that (replacing "religious" with "tribal", and "military invasion" with "corrupt protectorate"). But that's exactly why international engagement is needed in post-invasion Iraq - the same kind of engagement that was needed in Rwanda but didn't happen. Some perspectives on that.......

>>>click>>>
>>>click>>>
>>>click>>>

International intervention is admittedly a blunt tool, and the results are often widely unpredictable. Just compare at what happened in Sierra Leone, Somalia and Kosovo. But the thing is, that argument is now past tense, and of no use to the Iraqis at this stage. Iraq has undergone the military intervention, and it now needs the re-building intervention. And a complete pull-out isn't the answer to the latter problem.

No one suggests immediate pullout, I don't think. Phased pullout, sure. But the biggest problem is the suggestion that we CAN do a unity government.

The flaw in our reasoning is that everyone wants a democratic style setup. Sam Harris put it well that if you gave these people the full and free vote, they would almost certainly vote to have said vote taken away and the power given to Theocratic leaders. What we have here is deep rooted and nigh-irreconcilable differences.

And that's where we find ourselves at a bit of an impasse. The Iraq invasion was built upon the idea that a bunch of people who want religious leadership would give it up for a full and free democracy, and also that these groups would be happy to throw out their centuries long war in order to support the implementation of such.

We have left Iraq far worse than we found it, and piecing it back together may prove incredibly tricky, and potentially impossible if those in charge insist on clinging to inherently doomed "goals". Separating the country may work, but that provides a huge problem with the Kurds. I don't know what the solution is, and I'd love to think that there's a good one. I just don't see what it could possibly be.

_________________

Understandable. But there's more to it than Iraqis not accepting democracy, imo. Considering that the chief al-Qaeda figures in Iraq (like the late Zarqawi) are not actually from the country - and the fact the the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia once offered to supply arms to the Sunnis [*] - it's more the case that Iraq's Sunni neighbours are worried about a Shia superpower forming between Iran and a Shia-dominated Iraq. There's no doubt that there's a rivalary between Iran and Saudi Arabia, for one.
Here's more on that.

Though speaking of Iran, there's a definate lesson about forcing westernisation (which probably would include democracy) on Iraq. Before the Islamic Revolution, the Shah of Iran had tried to do that - going so far as to force men to wear bowler hats, and forcing women out of the veil. That, predictably, failed miserably. (And for anyone interested in that, here's a good radio documentary by the Beeb).




[*] Damn, I can't find a news link for the Saudi Arabia offering arms thing. I'm 99% certain that he did say it, though. If anyone can find a link, post here plz.

Let me state my opinion on the subject through the use of some Bob the Angry Flower:

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

I thought we went in Iraq for a good reason, got in deep, and now we're stuck with a mess. Also I think the reason they like to kill each other is:
A) They have different beliefs! And a few were ignorant so now they have a hate fest.
B ) After the initial fighting started they blamed each other for starting it so now they hate each other for other reasons.

_________________

It's America's fault because we're America.

WHY CAN'T YOU STOP THE FIGHTING AMERICA?!

OMG AMERICA IT'S YOUR FAULT!

I love that cartoon. I think it sums up the problem quite nicely. Hanging on to the past, despite the fact it is destroying us, leads into an endless cycle of self destruction.

_________________

I don't see it (in the cartoon). It says to me that you should finish what you've started with diligence even if you have some hardship.

_________________

Oookaaaay.

Let me see if this works:

1. The flower's hand hurts him.

2. Because his hand hurts him, the flower angrily smashes said hand with hammer.

3. The hand continues to hurt him, and he continues to hurt it back.

4. The only way to break the vicious cycle is for the flower to stop hitting his hand.

5. The flower is too stubborn to stop, because stopping would mean he can't have his revenge against his hand.

Moral of the Story: when you're caught in a vicious cycle of pain, the only way out is to let go of the past.

_________________

Oh, I read it wrong! That's funny.

_________________

I think myself that it's more about berating the anti-war lobby who dwell too much on what happened in the past (i.e. the reasoning for the war), and who offer no other solution except to tell all sides to just stop fighting each other.

Then again, I've no idea about the politics behind Bob The Angry Flower.

Completely left-wing and anti-Iraq War. >_>

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Oh. So....... who is that cartoon making fun of? The pro-war lobby, or the Iraqi militants?

You know, you could make the argument for it making fun of either group there. I guess it's one of "depends on how you see it" things.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.