Yeah, but the flaw in your strike idea is that there are enough Sunnis to run the country. The question is whether or not a civil war (if we assume one is about to occur) is better than being under a despot. You can draw whatever little caveats you want about there not being a dictator now or whatever, but there isn't a dictator - there was before - there might be a civil war worst case - there wasn't before. Which is better - a civil war or being under a despot. If we strip all the bs down the question reflects reality - not your wish list of what would have happened, but an evaluation of what did happen and what might happen - if there is a civil war - is that better than continuing to live under a despot? Most people (I give lots of examples) favor NOT continuing to live under a depost. I'm asking your opinion and most of you are just pulling the old first year graduate student 'challenge the question' gig. Suspend your disbelief and answer the question.
i've made myself immune to a lot of what you say, so no offense taken if each group gets their own state, it wouldnt be able to stand on its own and be genuinely free, thus, it will turn into somebody's client state and can be used as a proxy, a buffer state, or for other nefarious purposes by a stronger power, which doesn't benefit the people living in the country...bottom line the states wont be viable the kurds especially getting their own state will be problematic and lead to tons of instability in the region...kurds are the largest ethnic minority in the world without a country and it's every kurds dream to have a state of their own...this would lead to chaos, terrorism, and harsh repression in other countries like iran, syria, turkey, which have large kurdish populations who might try to seperate as well i didnt say it was better than living under a despot...either option leads to death and destruction, which is unfortunate its a difficult choice, but if i had to pick an option though, i would allow for the iraqi people to work their problems out amongst themselves, practice trial and error to develop popular insitutions that have legitimacy, and satisfy the largest amount of people possible in the process this wont happen though, because if the us withdraws, others countries will fill in the void left by america, but the us isn't doing anything positive either...the situation in iraq continues to be the same....us occupation, medium to high intensity civil war, and lack of basic services for average iraqis....as long as the status quo remains, nothing will improve
Er, yeah - I am absolutely saying that every Iraqi not a Sunni wanted Saddam and his ilk gone asap (that means as soon as possible). In fact those not Sunnis DID actually welcome the intervention. Some mistakes like failing to guard the museums and failing to be able to contain the Sunni insurgency turned much of the population, but initially it is not correct to say the 'didn't want the trouble.' There has not been a day in the last twenty years when the Shia and Kurds wanted Saddam in power. And so....I'm not sure how this impacts the question. My question assumes the three major parties DO engage in civil war. That is not happening now - yes - that is obvious. So yes - it is a hypothetical. To get to your end assertion you'd have to show that outside influence will result in something less than self determination, or something as bad/worse than the despot they had previously. Not sure how you're going to do that. But I appreciate your answer! Um, no. The US didn't go in the first time because our Arab allies didn't want Saddam removed. The core of my question goes with your last couple of sentences - if there is a civil war is that going to be worse than the situation they were in before we intervened - which was under the boot of an absolute despot. That there might BE a civil war is not, IMO, enough of a reason to maintain that it would have been better to continue under a depost. Plenty of civil wars have been fought over the issue - so it is not a new one.
Er, ok. Whatever. That's what is called a circular argument. Sp self determination is not high on your priority list. That's cool and thanks for expressing your opinion! Hmmm, yeah but that is my question - which is better: living under a despot or having a civil war? That's also cool. I am definitely in favor of them working it out like Flava Flav, but that is not the question - the question is if it goes to civil war - is that better or worse than living under a despot? Ok, I ignored your last paragraph because its not relevant to my question. Thanks for expressing your feelings though (although I understand you've got immunity like Gary Hogeboom).
If hundrdeds of thousands are killed, of course it will matter. Bush and Blair will go down in history with Milosevic and others who unleashed mass violence leading to wholesale slaughter. They were warned that this was a very possible result and they did in anyway for still debated reasons.
Nobody said it wouldn't matter, glynch. The question is whether or not it will be better to have civil war or continue living under a despot. btw: I explained to rhad in that thread earlier I got a little frustrated at your perceived attack on my values - I apologize for going over the top with the draft stuff. I don't agree with you but there isn't a point to being mean spirited.
answer my earliers questions first isn't intervention (ie iraq war) in itself denying their own right to fight for self determination? are you saying a third country/party started the american revolution or civil war?
hayes, i'm dealing with the realities on the ground in iraq today and in the region...things in real life aren't as black and white as they are in the way you've framed your hypothetical inquiry...the situation is a bit more complicated
Ok, fair enough - if you don't want to answer the question that's your option. Thanks for your input so far! Please refrain from detracting the thread though - if you've an angle of your own - start a new thread! I'll respond in kind - I promise!
so what is denying their own right to fight for self determination? so why compare american revolution with iraq's current situation if your question is to choose between despotic ruler or civil war for Iraq.. my answer is no because the situation in Iraq was not that critical or bad at the time US started bombing them is this civil war being a good thing something you just realized now? why because the situation in iraq is headed there anyway?
i've answered your questions the way i wanted to just because they didnt meet your 'standards,' doesnt take away from the fact that i answered them
Part of what you are saying is someting about what would have happened. Are you claiming that they are currently under a despot? Are you saying that a civil war in Iraq at this moment would be to remove them of a despotic leader? Who is the despot that you are referring to? So if we strip all the bs down, then there wouldn't currently be a civil war against a despot. The reality is they did try and have a civil war, and it resulted in a massacre. So the answer when there was a true despot was no, or at least not one under the same plans. I think right now the so called civil war would be more of a power grab situation where various factions try and get as much power as they possibly can, and not people fighting against the current ruling govt. or trying to break away and form their own nation. As far as my strike alternative, I am not so sure that there are enough Sunnis to alone sustain the enconmy. If they shrank Iraq down to the area where they are the majority possibly, but I don't think they could run all the hospitals, schools, oil fields, offices, stores, etc. by themselves. The Shiites which are the largest group might be able to, but even then it would have to be pretty streamlined. I say that because they have been living in a situation where shiites and sunnis have been working. If the largest portion of the population wasn't working I am ont sure there are enough Sunnis to step in and fill the void.
The despot WAS denying it. Now there isn't anything denying their right to fight for self determination. That's my point. Because we chose to engage in a civil war, as did our predecessors in England - against tyranny. If it was good for us to do it - we at least ought not to be predisposed against the idea that Iraq may do it and it may be ok. Ok, that is alright. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion! You are stating that it is better that they continue living under a despot than having a civil war. That is an answer to my question! Thanks! No, I am just curious why some people seem to simultaneously advocate self determination and decry the possibility of a civil war in Iraq. Some of you, including you, are giving me insight into that. And I thank you!
That's the crux of the whole thing. There are two ways to go with this. 1. They did choose to have a civil war, and in part because they believed help was coming, they started it, and were wiped out. If they wanted to have another one, after the failed attempt they never acted on it in any significant way. I did support their effort in the early '90's, and if they chose to do it again, I would support it again. They didn't choose to have another one. That is the whole point. Their course was decided for them and not by them. It is fine for you to point out that they wanted Saddam gone. I agree with you. I disagree with you that they wanted a US invasion in 2003. It is possible to want Saddam gone ASAP, and to not want a U.S. invasion. I believe that was the position large amounts of Shiites held. The Kurds did want a U.S. invasion. 2.The only other way to see it is that we, and the members of the council writing their constitution etc. are the dictators that they would be having a civil war against should it be declared one tomorrow. Otherwise you are saying a civil war that happens today is good because they are rising up against a leader that was in place 3 years ago.
okay lets say US has not yet invaded Iraq, Saddam is a despot who a lot of people think must go, what would have to be done to achieve this? how do you produce a civil war?
Lest you confuse anyone (I know you wouldn’t want that), let’s separate the two ideas you’re addressing here. The first is, did the Iraqis want Saddam gone? Yes, they almost all wanted him gone. The second is, did they want the US to invade the country? The answer to this is that the vast majority did not. I haven’t seen single source that suggested anything but the opposite, or talked to a single Iraqi or anyone from ME who wanted the US to invade, and there’s no mystery to that. The whole world new that was a bad idea that was sure bring in every extremist in the region to attack the US, and of course inevitably many Iraqi civilians would be caught in the crossfire and blasts. That’s why Bush had to use the WMD claim to justify going in. He had to claim that the alternative would be worse, that Saddam was about to attack the west with WMD. Now we know that what we suspected at the time. It was all a lie to justify the war. You do understand that the US and Iraq are separate countries don’t you?! The possibility of self determination ended as soon as the US entered Iraq. It could be argued that the US civil war resulted from the country reaching a point where it was ready to address a critical issue in its development. You can’t make any such claim for Iraq. This war was completely brought on by a foreign power, a full scale invasion in fact. There are still hundreds of thousands of US troops in Iraq as well as Al Qaeda operatives and Iranian operatives and who knows who else, and you are tying to suggest that this could become merely an internal civil war?! No explanation is needed for why this isn’t a now a civil war, but I’m eager to hear how you think it could possibly become merely an internal civil war in the future. Please do explain. And why do you think they wanted that? There weren’t buddies with him if that’s what you were thinking. You need to take your thought processes one step farther and look for the underlying causes. In this case removing Saddam would have created a power vacuum and the likelihood at the time, as now, was that chaos would fill the vacuum. Again, you don’t change a bad situation unless you’re going to make it better. This isn’t a civil war, and will never be a simple civil war, imo, given the external players who have an interest in Iraq, but the answer to the hypothetical question is neither would be the best option. (When solving a problem never look at only two possible solutions. Always develop 3 possible solutions before you decide. This keeps you from getting locked into an either/or perspective and opens up your thinking to whole plane of possible solutions). If you remove the threat of WMD then may options become available, which is what Bush didn't want. He wanted the US to go in and end up with control. One option would even be the removal of Saddam, but you would have to set the stage for successful transition to a better government first. This would be challenging but theocratically doable, imo. You would have to involve the key stakeholders in the area and devise a vison for the future of Iraq that was in their best interest to support. Their support would either make or break the project. None of them liked Saddam so agreeing to get rid of him would be the easy part. None of them want any of the others to control Iraq so creating a strong independent Iraq would also be in their best interest. The tough part would be deciding on the form of government. Democracy might well be a threat to a number of them, but maybe it could be sold as the best alternative and the one most likely to keep Iraq neutral. Then you need to put together a peacekeeping force composed of soldiers from the area who speak the language and know the locals from the outsiders. You probably involve the UN as well. The US could maybe be called on to remove Saddam, but then they need to get out completely else every extremist within a 1000 miles will be drawn into Iraq to fight the US, and that would be an unnecessary and possibly fatal problem for the project. Then you move in the peace keepers and hold elections and maintain the peace until the new government and government structures takes hold. It wouldn't be easy but it I think that could work. The US invasion, otoh, was essentially doomed from the start, as we discussed here before the war started.
Hayes, are you conducting a public opinion poll on Clutch BBS on behalf of some neocon think tank for their next 'exit' strategy in Iraq? Just wondering. Your excessive use of in this thread is duly noted.
