49 replies to this topic

[CodeCat]

Well if they attack the US, it's pretty much your own fault. You shouldn't have attacked THEM. And now that you're there you're stopping them from attacking each other, so of course they're going to fight you. It's a bit like a very bad gang neighbourhood. The only faction that's certain to get shot at is the police. And in Iraq, the US is trying to play police. You're imposing your laws on them, stopping them from fighting each other. So it's no surprise that the US is getting the crap bombed out of them. Rightly so, too.

I'll give you a few more examples about what you state is supposedly going to happen to these 'islamo fascists'.

- The Franks in France
- The Norman French in England
- The Vikings in Ireland

All three of those well-known cultures eventually got absorbed into the culture they supposedly 'invaded'. The Franks were a Germanic tribe, but there's little trace of their presence today, having completely been absorbed into late Roman culture. When the Normans invaded England, their culture was absorbed into English too. And the Vikings in Ireland were supposedly more Irish than the Irish themselves.

[duke_Qa]

i would say that the norse/viking culture has influenced the English language and culture quite a bit. if it wasn't for the Normans england would prolly be more 'scandinavian' somehow.
also, if the black plague didnt kill off 3/4 of our population we prolly would have been a bigger influence in the last millenium, but here we are.

It's only gonna get worse if we retreat. But the flaw is, if we retreat they gain ground. And we all know where thier ulimate target lies. The West...

rule nr 1, terrorism is nigh-on impossible to take out with military force without some sort of holocaust tactics.
rule nr 2, if you ignore rule nr 1, you will only make the problem bigger for yourself.

this is why whatever happens now, the chances for more and bigger and bader terrorist attacks is multiplied compared to before 9/11. whatever we do in Iraq, we will see terrorist actions against the west for decades forward unless we follow rule nr 1. and i heavily doubt that will happen before some Jericho-situation happens somewhere in the west, which in my opinion would not be a very good thing.

it doesnt really matter if we recall from Iraq or not now, the culture down there doesnt really forget too easily. and it will require a miracle and billions upon billions in propaganda to make it look like the west are the saviors of Iraq in the historybooks.

[Hostile]

@codecat
people assimilate, militants don't.

@duke
That was a very pessimistic response that even I don't have an answer for.

Any suggestions...

[duke_Qa]

might have been pessimistic, but without cooperation with the people down there its practically the only one that would work. and then again it wouldn't work for long because the neighbors would rightfully assume that they might be next and do their best to stop it from continuing.

the best way to stop terrorism like this is to get rid of the source or find a new enemy to let them attack, or find a way to make it not worth becoming a terrorist. personally i would say that the shia vs sunni fighting in Iraq is more of a blessing to the US than a curse, as it keeps them busy with each other more than cooperating against the US soldiers.

[Kazyumi]

On the first hand I'd say stay and fix what you broke. But since Iran is playing up too I'd say pack your bags and leave. Which might just end up making Iraq a breeding ground for terrorist that could one day aim at us again.
I don't mind them butchering their own people. If they don't care, why the fuck should I?
Now if it were pure genocide like Ruwanda or something, where there was a dictator had 10000 people slayed in 6 days because they were tootsies or something, now that's wrong. But if they have a civil war let them fight it out. The sooner the better.

[duke_Qa]

i would have to say that if America goes out, something has to come in. if it doesn't nothing good will come out of it. and as said before, i believe that it has to be local people who knows the language that has to come in or else it will be too messy.
This is atm hard without the US trying to make friends with its neighbors. a possibility could be UN troops, but that most likely won't happen because the US attacked on their own initiative, and if the UN came in to clean up their mess they wouldn't look very good in the eyes of the rest of the world.

[GorGorgood]

The UN doesn't have the ability to do too much of anything in Iraq and elsewhere, it seems. Even UN workers in Iraq have been attacked etc. by Al-Quaida types.

Rule Number 1: If you are attacked try and defend yourself at the moment, or withdraw and regroup for future action if incapable of defnding yourself adequately.

Our installations and people have been attacked since the early 1970's by Al-Quaida types, so it is time to stop this.

Poor Algeria and other nations have also suffered greatly at the hands of these Al-Quaida type radicals.

Time to stand up to this type of bullying and religous and political intolerance.

Don't forget the Sudan and Somalia, Tior, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.

We 'broke' not too much in Iraq, and if it weren't for the Al-Quaida types, the country would have more than adeqaute electricity, water, industrial and commercial enterprise, medical services etc. Seems the Al-Quaida types actually enjoy attacking hospitals, schools, average people trying to go about their lives, teachers, students, etc.

USA is friends with its neighbors, it is why the USA, Canada and Mexico have not engaged in miltary hostilities since the mid 1800's, and most likely never will.

It's unfortunate that some people do not realize that you cannot deal with religous and political fanatics when they resort to force except by using force. You cannot appease those types of people. Lok what happend when the appeasement of Hitler etc. failed. he just went on and on as did the Imperial Japanese Militarists led by Tojo etc. in China and the Fascist Italians led by mussolini in Africa.

Guerilla type conflicts are nearly impossible to win but it has been done before. You cannot cave-in to the whims of religous and political fanatics.

Too bad the UN didn't allow the Coalition to finish the job in the 1990-91 Gulf War.

Chris

[Ash]

Could the UN have stopped the Coalition had they elected to stay back then? No.

Could they have done anything in retribution had the Coalition elected to disobey them? No.


The UN is a paper tiger. May as well not even exist.

[narboza22]

Could the UN have stopped the Coalition had they elected to stay back then? No.

Could they have done anything in retribution had the Coalition elected to disobey them? No.


The UN is a paper tiger. May as well not even exist.

Holy crap I actually agree exactly with something you posted.

[GorGorgood]

Could the UN have stopped the Coalition had they elected to stay back then? No.

Could they have done anything in retribution had the Coalition elected to disobey them? No.


The UN is a paper tiger. May as well not even exist.

The Coalition would not disobey UN orders, so that in itself shows the quality of the Coalition forces and leadership.

However, for the rest, it is somewhat paradoxical maybe, and you are making some fairly realistic analytical observations.

Chris

nobody is denying the fact that there will be hell if the US retreats and leaves a new power-vacuum in Iraq to be filled by incompetent people.

if one want to leave Iraq, someone has to fill the country with troops to do their job. these troops has to be trained in arabic, thus they would most likely come from the neighbours.

naturally we would then see sunni countries come in around the centre of iraq, iran and other shiites would come to the southeastern parts, and perhaps turkish troops will come down to the kurds to keep them oppressed and out of their hair(the kurds is probably the only part of Iraq i personally believe would have a better situation if they were allowed to start their own country).


this is technically impossible with the foreign policy that the US has today. this is in my eyes the best solution for all parties, and it still has alot of flaws.

It's not just USA foreign policy, but the desire of many and perhaps the majority of Iraqis to remain as one country. The Kurds do not want the USA and Coalition forces to leave, and many Iraqis don't either and many do.

I don't know what the solition is, except that this could have been solved to some degree in 1990-91 if the UN had the wisdom to mandate the removal of Sadam, and if the Cold War hadn't occurred and the CIA hadn't been over reactive in disposing of the Iranian Mosadek (sp?) due to the fear that Iran would fall under Soviet influence which it may have, and if the Arab peoples that helped the British and French against the Turks during WWI had been granted their independence as promised by the British and French and etc. etc. etc.

So, it is a mess as it has been for many years.

Chris