What do think, is about to happen in Iraq.

[Revoltingest]

I like that you and he are on a first name basis.

He & I have a special relationship.
I carry his picture(s) with me at all times.
I'm a Hundredtarian, you know.

 

[Pastek]

Peace be on you. What do think, is about to happen in Iraq. How things will be expanded? or curtailed as soon as possible? or will be waited to be get out of control?....Opinion?

The Kurdistan may be soon independant, and it seems that Sunni-Shia can't unite in Iraq.

I don't think anyone understand what's happening in this region, not even the Iraquis.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Something needs to be done about the militias at least. The human rights violations they're carrying out are horrid, beside being against international treaty. No one likes war, but I don't see things getting any better otherwise. I'll grant America should not have up and left Iraq so destabilized. These wars waged primarily for corporate profit need to stop too.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do you think war would help?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Why do you think war would help?

I am not sure it would, but I don't see how letting it just continue is helping. I've seen things these militias are carrying out that honestly make me ill.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I don't think there is an easy choice here, but why come together as a global community to affirm certain basic human rights if we're not going to stand by our affirmations? One good thing war might do is send yet another message to totalitarian regimes that the secular world sees human rights as a very weighty thing.

 

[Pegg]

Peace be on you. What do think, is about to happen in Iraq. How things will be expanded? or curtailed as soon as possible? or will be waited to be get out of control?....Opinion?

its already out of control.

Another religious civil war with lots of killing because you are of a different denomination.

 

[TheScholar]

I cannot see the future, but I'm thinking that things in Iraq are going to get worse before they get better. This is a Second Post-Invasion Civil War, and it looks to be only in the opening sequences. It will take decades for Iraq to become stable again if it will ever be "stable" again.

 

[metis]

I cannot see the future, but I'm thinking that things in Iraq are going to get worse before they get better. This is a Second Post-Invasion Civil War, and it looks to be only in the opening sequences. It will take decades for Iraq to become stable again if it will ever be "stable" again.

I agree that this is the most likely scenario.

 

[yoda89]

its already out of control.

Another religious civil war with lots of killing because you are of a different denomination.

No that is only part of it. But for the majority of people easily brainwashed it is the banner to fight under. It also makes people easier to control. New denominations are either created to start a rebellion or to separate from the already established church. Thus they can also be used to rebel later on.

All religions have history were established to break away from another group. Often resulting in a bloody result or strict caste defined system.

 

[Mycroft]

I think America's plan to destablize the middle east is coming along nicely.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you think that mess is planned? I don't know whether I find that too pessimistic or too optimistic to believe, but believe it I do not.

 

[metis]

I think America's plan to destablize the middle east is coming along nicely.

I don't think it's a "plan"-- just a series of monumental screw-ups.

 

[LuisDantas]

I call it immaturity, personally. And I actually blame larger society more than I blame even the Republican administrations.

No POTUS would dare to wage war to a foreign country if the masses took a clear, firm stance against it.

 

[metis]

I call it immaturity, personally. And I actually blame larger society more than I blame even the Republican administrations.

No POTUS would dare to wage war to a foreign country if the masses took a clear, firm stance against it.

I agree. I remember when we first got involved in Vietnam that most Americans couldn't even find the country on an unmarked map, according to an experiment that I read about back then. Then there's the problem that politicians often make decisions mainly on political expediency.

 

[LuisDantas]

How can any society lend any support to the decision to freakingly bomb people with freaking Napalm, anyway? That stuff is flammable gel that burns even underwater. To even consider it as a war weapon amounts to give up on even a semblance of moral legitimacy.

Nor is it like the Vietnam conflict could be construed as a self-defense need, or anything. Heck, the USA have actually lost it and life went on.

 

[metis]

How can any society lend any support to the decision to freakingly bomb people with freaking Napalm, anyway? That stuff is flammable gel that burns even underwater. To even consider it as a war weapon amounts to give up on even a semblance of moral legitimacy.

Nor is it like the Vietnam conflict could be construed as a self-defense need, or anything. Heck, the USA have actually lost it and life went on.

Yes, and I felt the same way about "shock and awe" when we opened up our assault on Iraq. It's like it was for entertainment purposes, and this and our other actions there led to roughly 1/3 of the Iraqi population being killed, injured, or having to leave the country for refuge elsewhere.

 

[esmith]

I agree. I remember when we first got involved in Vietnam that most Americans couldn't even find the country on an unmarked map, according to an experiment that I read about back then. Then there's the problem that politicians often make decisions mainly on political expediency.

The majority of Americans can't even place the names of the states on a map. Why would you make an assumption they know where a foreign country is.
As far as Vietnam, it was not a "political" (as we see the term used now) decision, it was a misconceived theory of the Domino Theory and to a lesser extent the European and passed on to the US of the "White Man's Burden" philosophy.

 

[esmith]

How can any society lend any support to the decision to freakingly bomb people with freaking Napalm, anyway? That stuff is flammable gel that burns even underwater. To even consider it as a war weapon amounts to give up on even a semblance of moral legitimacy.

Nor is it like the Vietnam conflict could be construed as a self-defense need, or anything. Heck, the USA have actually lost it and life went on.

Why was napalm used in war. Well to put in very simplistic terms, "it is effective" and any weapon that is effective will be used. Jelled gasoline was first used in WWII in flame throwers and bombs. The modern term is Napalm "B" and is still used by the military. Therefore society will condone weapons that some consider inhumane as long as those weapons are condoned by the majority of the world. Only one form of weapons have been possibly outlawed and those are biological and chemical weapons. However, not all chemical weapons have been outlawed. Tear gas is a chemical weapon.

 

[esmith]

Yes, and I felt the same way about "shock and awe" when we opened up our assault on Iraq. It's like it was for entertainment purposes, and this and our other actions there led to roughly 1/3 of the Iraqi population being killed, injured, or having to leave the country for refuge elsewhere.

The term "shock and awe" according to how Harlan Ullman explains it is,

one that involved “inflicting minimum casualties and doing minimum damage using minimum force”. Shock and Awe is not about destruction but about power. By demonstrating such might that an opponent is stunned into surrender, and by concentrating on matters that reduced the ability to resist, it combines military force with psychological warfare. Their book argued that “The ability to shock and awe rests ultimately in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate and disarm”.

World Wide Words: Shock and Awe