Civil War Begins in Iraq

[kevmicsmi]

I disagree with you, Darkdale. I think Mother Theresa was very wise. And I also disagree that bombs are sometimes the answer. I do not believe in using bombs to resolve problems.
.

But what if the people you are trying to resolve your problem with will use bombs? Are you prepared to surrender your freedoms to prove a point? Taking an absolutist position on use of force/bombs/etc is just not a realistic option for leaders responsible for their populations security

 

[maggie2]

But what if the people you are trying to resolve your problem with will use bombs? Are you prepared to surrender your freedoms to prove a point? Taking an absolutist position on use of force/bombs/etc is just not a realistic option for leaders responsible for their populations security

I do not speak as a leader responsible for anyone. I speak as a human being who believes that we can't resolve our problems by fighting. Look at Northern Ireland. They bombed each other for years and years but it was those who finally decided that it had to stop and found a peaceful solution to the problems that stopped the war there. The bombings did absolutely nothing to resolve the problems but peace discissions did.

I do not take an absolutist position...I simply know that I don't support bombs as a way to try to create peace. Others have a right to disagree with me and that's fine. However, I believe that we need people who see things from different perspectives so that we have a more rounded view of situations. I am presenting the opposite view of Darkdale, who started the thread.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I do not speak as a leader responsible for anyone. I speak as a human being who believes that we can't resolve our problems by fighting. Look at Northern Ireland. They bombed each other for years and years but it was those who finally decided that it had to stop and found a peaceful solution to the problems that stopped the war there. The bombings did absolutely nothing to resolve the problems but peace discissions did.

I do not take an absolutist position...I simply know that I don't support bombs as a way to try to create peace. Others have a right to disagree with me and that's fine. However, I believe that we need people who see things from different perspectives so that we have a more rounded view of situations. I am presenting the opposite view of Darkdale, who started the thread.

I respect your opinion , and do appreciate a balance of ideas, but when you say you "disagree that bombs are sometimes the answer", that implies you are saying bombs are never the answer, and that is by definition an absolutist position.
Its a very admirable goal, but I believe unrealistic.

 

[Smoke]

And you must delve deeper into your historical studies to see how Ghandi, Mandella, King and others have brought about great change through non violence.

Mandela was originally committed to non-violence, but later became involved in armed resistance, sabotage, and guerilla warfare.

 

[Darkdale]

I disagree with you, Darkdale. I think Mother Theresa was very wise. And I also disagree that bombs are sometimes the answer. I do not believe in using bombs to resolve problems.

You can have your opinions, but unless you have some positive political ideology to back them up, then they are meaningless to the debate. Sorry.

Their examples mean everything if we hope to create a peaceful world. We cannot create peace by waging war. I must say that I think your rude comments about koolaid and pixie dust are uncalled for. After all, this is a discussion and it shouldn't end up with sarcastic statements like that.

They weren't sarcastic - they were descriptive. Their examples mean nothing to me. We can create peace by waging war and there is a whole recorded history of evidence to back me up. Go study the history of war.

And you must delve deeper into your historical studies to see how Ghandi, Mandella, King and others have brought about great change through non violence.

Irrelevant.

You have a right to your opinion, Darkdale, but I also have a right to mine and I do not appreciate your sarcasm. I respect your right to your opinion but I also expect that I be given this same courtesy.

I haven't been disrespectful to you, but your ideas are all wrong.

 

[maggie2]

I haven't been disrespectful to you, but your ideas are all wrong.

Only in your opinion. See, Darkdale, I'm not sitting here saying your opinions are wrong, although I disagree with them. I can't say that because they are your OPINIONS. I don't think opinions are right or wrong, they are just the way a person sees something.

 

[Ody]

What are you?

I don't believe that you are like us, a human being.

If you are afraid from being killed so why did you get yourself overthere from the beginning?

For your info., Iran is a Shiite country not Sunni.

You love to call people not human or not jewish or not christian and it gets really annoying! Second of all as an individual citizen how the hell do you know he supported the invasion in the first place? YOU CAN'T READ MINDS I AM SORRY TO SAY!

 

[michel]

I disagree with you, Darkdale. I think Mother Theresa was very wise. And I also disagree that bombs are sometimes the answer. I do not believe in using bombs to resolve problems.



Their examples mean everything if we hope to create a peaceful world. We cannot create peace by waging war. I must say that I think your rude comments about koolaid and pixie dust are uncalled for. After all, this is a discussion and it shouldn't end up with sarcastic statements like that.

And you must delve deeper into your historical studies to see how Ghandi, Mandella, King and others have brought about great change through non violence.

You have a right to your opinion, Darkdale, but I also have a right to mine and I do not appreciate your sarcasm. I respect your right to your opinion but I also expect that I be given this same courtesy.

Again, a good post. The trouble is there are so few who want to see this through by peaceful means (I can understand those who do not, but I don't agree with them).

Violence never was and never will be the answer.

In our arrogance, we forgot that the people of Iraq no longer remember what "freedom" is. We are offering them something they do not comprehend. If the diplomats were clever, they would divide Iraq into three separate countries, with very large walls forming the borders between them.

I am all for carpet nuking the entire area, if things get out of hand. Might make for some pretty sunsets for a few years. There is no such thing as a Muslim moderate.

Sorry I have only just seen this; of course, you are perfectly right, as usual!

 

[YmirGF]

In the examples I listed, did partition keep them from killing each other?

No MidnightBlue, certainly not. I don't think it was such a good idea in any of those cases. Iraq is a different kettle of fish. You have two religious groups who would merrily kill each other and then the Kurds. The Kurds would love their own separate country, I am sure. It is difficult to gauge how the two Muslim factions would react, but I think they would see the sense in it.

Ok, maybe a nice, brightly coloured fence, rather than a mile high wall.

Violence never was and never will be the answer.

In our arrogance, we forgot that the people of Iraq no longer remember what "freedom" is. We are offering them something they do not comprehend. If the diplomats were clever, they would divide Iraq into three separate countries, with very large walls forming the borders between them.

I am all for carpet nuking the entire area, if things get out of hand. Might make for some pretty sunsets for a few years. There is no such thing as a Muslim moderate.

Sorry I have only just seen this; of course, you are perfectly right, as usual!

Thanks Michel, I do think that in this case it might be an idea to float to the iraqi people, and to let them decide.

 

[Flappycat]

This is utter nonsense and completely lacking in perspective. Things are getting better there every day.

This is utter nonsense and completely lacking in perspective. First and foremost, you fail completely to take time into account if you don't intentionally ignore it. Some things may be improving, but it's taking too long.

If they choose civil war, it's not because they don't have stuff. It's because they want to kill each other.

...

They had so much more happiness and opportunity under Saddam, yeah, sure, right.

I understand that you were being offensively sarcastic with this last statement, but, your poor taste given due contempt, Saddam knew one thing that most seem to ignore as a sacrifice of fact on the holy altar of ideology: Iraq is and always has been an artificial nation. As much as I disagree with his choices in handling the problems resulting in these three cultures being forced together, he did manage to do a better job of holding off civil war than is being done currently. No, I don't want him put back into power. As ignorantly overpainted as his image as a tyrant may be, it isn't wholly unjustified, but the reality is that these cultures were thrust upon one another; all Saddam did was do a fair, if clumsy and boorish, job of exactly what shouldn't have been done in the first place. Unfortunately, all he did was take artificial, forceful measures to keep the powderkeg from blowing skyhigh, and nothing was done to really solve the problem.

One major problem, though, is that there is no neat, clean way to split the country back into three seperate entities. It may, however, be prudent for the Iraqi government to allow the seperate parts of the country greater degrees of autonomy, in interest of preventing one cultural group from feeling that the others are disrupting their way of life. This could help stave off anything revolutionary long enough for a multiculturalist attitude to become firmly seated in the country. As unfond as some here may be of the egalitarians, they do have their place in the world.

Whatever solution you favor, the current powderkeg is unacceptable. Rwanda was unacceptable. Serbia and Bosnia were unacceptable. Darfur is unacceptable.

 

[Darkdale]

Only in your opinion. See, Darkdale, I'm not sitting here saying your opinions are wrong, although I disagree with them. I can't say that because they are your OPINIONS. I don't think opinions are right or wrong, they are just the way a person sees something.

I think most opinions are either right or wrong.

 

[maggie2]

I think most opinions are either right or wrong.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this then, because I disagree!

 

[greatcalgarian]

Mandela was originally committed to non-violence, but later became involved in armed resistance, sabotage, and guerilla warfare.

You are absolutely correct. Mandela is not even 10% of Ghandi.

 

[Darkdale]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this then, because I disagree!

Fair enough. I don't want to disrespect you. I like you, I just disagree with you opinions is all.

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

If we get involved in a civil war in Iraq, it will end up being like Vietnam.

We've been involved in a Civil War in Iraq since March 2003. The President and his supporters' inability to see that is one of the greatest failures in American history.

 

[Smoke]

Rummy said today that the situation in Iraq is not yet a civil war "by most experts' calculation."

So there, Darkdale. It takes an expert to calculate these kinds of things.

 

[Quiddity]

Rummy said today that the situation in Iraq is not yet a civil war "by most experts' calculation."

So there, Darkdale. It takes an expert to calculate these kinds of things.

I heard this in 3 different talk radio shows as well. Apparently it's an exaggeration gone amok.

 

[Darkdale]

We've been involved in a Civil War in Iraq since March 2003. The President and his supporters' inability to see that is one of the greatest failures in American history.

Your inability to see how utterly false your statement is, is your greatest failure... to date.

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21445

Daniel Pipes (born September 9, 1949) is an American neoconservative [1] columnist, author, counter-terrorism analyst, and scholar of Middle Eastern history. The author or co-author of 18 books, which have been translated into 19 languages, Pipes is both praised and criticized for his outspoken views on Islam and Islamism

The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy. Iraq’s plight is neither a coalition responsibility nor a particular danger to the West.
It also implies the need for a lowering of coalition goals. I cheer the goal of a “free and democratic Iraq,” but the time has come to acknowledge that the coalition’s achievement will be limited to destroying tyranny, not sponsoring its replacement. There is nothing ignoble about this limited achievement, which remains a landmark of international sanitation. It would be especially unfortunate if aiming too high spoils that attainment and thereby renders future interventions less likely. The benefits of eliminating Saddam Hussein’s rule must not be forgotten in the distress of not creating a successful new Iraq. [This can be interpreted that Dan secretly wished the civil war to proceed, and America is still fully justified to simply pull everything out and leave Iraq to her own paril, since eliminating Saddam is the right good thing, and making sure Iraq remain good and peaceful is no responsibility of America]
Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition’s responsibility nor its burden.
Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one.