If you'd like to start your own thread, I encourage you to do so. But please stay on topic in this thread. If the three main sides in Iraq break into civil war, is that bad in light of the fact that many countries have done so in the past. Is it better that they stay under the yoke of a despotic regime or that they fight to determine their own future. If you'd like to pose your own question in another thread I'm happy to respond to your ideas!
Well, sarcasm aside - we have you saying that it is better to live under a despot than to suffer casualties in the cause of self determination. Understood, and thank you for your frank opinion.
Yes, and thank you for your contribution. This thread is about whether or not it is bad. If you have an opinion on that question I'm sure we'd all like to hear it!
i think living under terror during a civil war where a car bomb can explode while going to school is much worse than living under a despot yes. ps: those who die aren't dying because of their self determination. this isn't the american civil war when two sides have an army and are busy mowing each other down. this is the reign of terror in france except with hundreds of thousands of people.
i'm not in iraq so i can't say how the civil war is going, but it seems to be going poorly. they are not only fighting the dictator, that would be us, but each other. those who wish to co-exist are caught in the crossfire and since they "are an atificial conglomerate of different tribes" i don't see why we should expect better than genocide if the US pulls out.
I think you need to clarify what your real question is. As it is it boils down to, “Is war bad?” The answer to this is of course it is, but I suspect that you’re really asking whether war is bad in this case, and then you have to explain what your argument is. Simply saying that other countries had civil wars isn’t an argument. Other countries have had earthquakes too, so would it be bad for Iraq to have an earthquake? The answer to this is clearly yes. Also note that other countries haven’t had major civil wars, like Canada for instance. Australia would be another.
That's funny, he's the figurehead liberal in the civil war. He's against the superhero registration act, based off the patriot act.
Excellent. It is better to live under a despot than to endure a civil war. There is no lack of reasoning in your answer. Patrick Henry and myself disagree with you - but that is opinion - not fact . Thank you for your frank answer. Who else agrees with insane man (let's avoid the irony of associating ourselves with an insane man - it IS just his screenname after all ). Well, on this point I disagree. Certainly the insurgency is aspiring to self determination. Whether they are fighting against the coalition to gain a withdraw or against the Shia dominated government - I think there is little rationale that it is anything but a fight for self determination.
[hayes] well obviously earthquakes are necessary for the continuation of the earth. are you against tectonic plates too? [/hayes]
I don’t see any reason to believe that those were the only two options. Further, they didn’t choose to enter this war. It was forced on them against international law and by most accounts against the will of the majority of Iraqis. If they had started their own civil war the question would be quite different, but even then there are better options than civil war.
but to equate it with the US civil war is ludicrous. this isn't a conventional traditional civil war in the sense that they are attacking the US. they are attacking each other and civilians. this is lebanon. and pray tell who thought the lebanese civil war was good?
Are we the dictator? Oh no, I must disagree vehemently. I can't see how you would be correct. If the three main sides agreed to split up, I doubt the US would object - or be in a condition to object. I'm not sure where your claims of genocide come from - the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis are all pretty much equally armed at this point. And again I wonder if you're willing to compare to the pre-intervention regime. Is it better to be fighting to determine your own future or to be under the boot of a despot?
No, an earthquake is not optional. A civil war is - parties must decide to fight - that is not a happenstance of nature. So again the question is whether a civil war is worse than being under a despot?
Please. I have tried to be very nice and upfront in this thread. Mocking me, poorly I might add, does nothing for you, me, or the community. If you'd rather not participate in the discussion - please move to another thread.
Really that's a false assertion. The Iraqis would have overthrown Saddam years ago had they been able to overcome his apparatus. The Kurds - full on one of the three major groups in Iraq - have been in constant struggle for self determination since the 80s. The Shiites rose up and died by the hundreds of thousands in the 90s. It is simply an outright falsehood to proclaim that no one wanted Saddam removed, that they didn't want him removed 'now,' or that they didn't 'choose' to have him removed. Regardless - the question is whether it is better to be under a despot or to be in a civil war for the right to determine your own future. That hasn't happened yet, IMO, in Iraq - all three parties are working with the government - as is the insurgency. But if it goes that route - do you say it is better that they continued under the despot or that they engage in civil war. That is no false dichotomy.
