cromagnum Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 The killing spree in the Baghdad neighborhood Hai al-Jihad began june 30 in the darkness and continued into the morning of july 9, when marauding gangs of militiamen began systematically separating Shia from Sunni and killing Sunnis on sight.. Or do you need historians 20 years later to make that judgement? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14096471/site/newsweek
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 The killing spree in the Baghdad neighborhood Hai al-Jihad began june 30 in the darkness and continued into the morning of july 9, when marauding gangs of militiamen began systematically separating Shia from Sunni and killing Sunnis on sight.. Or do you need historians 20 years later to make that judgement? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14096471/site/newsweek 732968[/snapback] Actually, that's less "civil war" than it is "ethnic cleansing".
UConn James Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 Actually, that's less "civil war" than it is "ethnic cleansing". 732973[/snapback] Which went on in Rwanda for about 10 years, and is going on in Sudan.... and the world pretty much whistled and looked the other way. I guess the whole "Never Again" thing became "Sometimes Again" somewhere in there.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 The killing spree in the Baghdad neighborhood Hai al-Jihad began june 30 in the darkness and continued into the morning of july 9, when marauding gangs of militiamen began systematically separating Shia from Sunni and killing Sunnis on sight.. Or do you need historians 20 years later to make that judgement? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14096471/site/newsweek 732968[/snapback] This is an opinion column yet you have presented as though it was a new coulmn - I am grow weary of the endless mixing of "news" with opinion that is becoming so commonplace. Moreover why are u paying attention to MSNBC? Microsoft and NBC - theres two pillars of objective reason for ya! Nah no agenda there...
Chilly Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 Which went on in Rwanda for about 10 years, and is going on in Sudan.... and the world pretty much whistled and looked the other way. I guess the whole "Never Again" thing became "Sometimes Again" somewhere in there. 732980[/snapback] I hate your avatar, and I hate that damn commercial. Hell, isn't Iraq a little bit of everything right now?
Chilly Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 This is an opinion column yet you have presented as though it was a new coulmn - I am grow weary of the endless mixing of "news" with opinion that is becoming so commonplace. Moreover why are u paying attention to MSNBC? Microsoft and NBC - theres two pillars of objective reason for ya! Nah no agenda there... 732984[/snapback] Because MSNBC still does put out credible news. These days judging the source and not the story is a very quick way to eliminate all news sources.
cromagnum Posted August 1, 2006 Author Posted August 1, 2006 This is an opinion column yet you have presented as though it was a new coulmn - I am grow weary of the endless mixing of "news" with opinion that is becoming so commonplace. Moreover why are u paying attention to MSNBC? Microsoft and NBC - theres two pillars of objective reason for ya! Nah no agenda there... 732984[/snapback] I just posted it with ?? marks for people to decide for themselves with independent analysis
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 Which went on in Rwanda for about 10 years, and is going on in Sudan.... and the world pretty much whistled and looked the other way. I guess the whole "Never Again" thing became "Sometimes Again" somewhere in there. 732980[/snapback] Because they're Africans. It's only bad when Europeans do it in places like Bosnia. Don't even get me started on Rwanda. "Genocide-like activities."
UConn James Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 Hell, isn't Iraq a little bit of everything right now? 732987[/snapback] True enough. It is a democracy and it is authoritarian. It is secular and fundamentalist. It is a success and it is a failure. Like playing around with the tuning on a microscope, your impression depends on what layer you're looking at.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 Like playing around with the tuning on a microscope, your impression depends on what layer you're looking at. 733004[/snapback] Very interesting analogy...particularly since what we see is very dependent on us putting Iraq under the microscope to begin with. If you ditch the microscope and take a macro view, though...nope, still pretty much !@#$ed.
GG Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 Because they're Africans. It's only bad when Europeans do it in places like Bosnia. 732995[/snapback] You mean there's no sand in their description?
X. Benedict Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 True enough. It is a democracy and it is authoritarian. It is secular and fundamentalist. It is a success and it is a failure. Like playing around with the tuning on a microscope, your impression depends on what layer you're looking at. 733004[/snapback] Quite a transparent yet opaque insight.
UConn James Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Outgoing British ambassador warns of Iraq civil war, eventual (geographic) separation along ethnic lines in leaked report It does parrot something I thought since the start of the invasion. Iraq really should have been separated into 3-4 different provinces or maybe even different countries to just seperate these people from each other. Instead, FREEDOM decided they wanted to create a diverse, multi-ethnic and-all-that-happy-horsesh-- society, despite the argument that it's difficult to have freedom and its trappings when there's bombs blowing up all over b/c the people hate each other.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Outgoing British ambassador warns of Iraq civil war, eventual (geographic) separation along ethnic lines in leaked report It does parrot something I thought since the start of the invasion. Iraq really should have been separated into 3-4 different provinces or maybe even different countries to just seperate these people from each other. Instead, FREEDOM decided they wanted to create a diverse, multi-ethnic and-all-that-happy-horsesh-- society, despite the argument that it's difficult to have freedom and its trappings when there's bombs blowing up all over b/c the people hate each other. 734288[/snapback] I'm not so sure that's the worst thing. I think an independent Kurdistan would be a valuable ally in the region.
chicot Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 I'm not so sure that's the worst thing. I think an independent Kurdistan would be a valuable ally in the region. 734294[/snapback] Problem with that is that it will seriously piss off another valuable US ally in the region, namely Turkey. The Kurdish population of Turkey is far greater than that of Iraq - if a part of Iraq should be split off to make an independent Kurdistan, then why not part of Turkey as well (not to mention Iran and Syria)?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Problem with that is that it will seriously piss off another valuable US ally in the region, namely Turkey. The Kurdish population of Turkey is far greater than that of Iraq - if a part of Iraq should be split off to make an independent Kurdistan, then why not part of Turkey as well (not to mention Iran and Syria)? 734299[/snapback] Turkey wasn't too valuable an ally in the lead-up to the Iraq war, if you'll remember. Indeed, they slant more toward Euro favoritism than toward us. The Kurds, on the other hand, seem to love us. Well, as much as any middle eastern group can like America.
UConn James Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Problem with that is that it will seriously piss off another valuable US ally in the region, namely Turkey. The Kurdish population of Turkey is far greater than that of Iraq - if a part of Iraq should be split off to make an independent Kurdistan, then why not part of Turkey as well (not to mention Iran and Syria)? 734299[/snapback] Uhmm.... 1) B/c we're not occupying Turkey, Syria or Iran. 2) B/c T, S & I have governments that can apparently handle law enforcement and relatively better police their country such as to prevent internal ethnic warfare.
chicot Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Uhmm.... 1) B/c we're not occupying Turkey, Syria or Iran. 2) B/c T, S & I have governments that can apparently handle law enforcement and relatively better police their country such as to prevent internal ethnic warfare. 734304[/snapback] And 2) is very much related to 1). The fact remains that an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq will create a powerful case for the same in eastern Turkey and for that reason Turkey will go to great lengths to prevent that from happening, probably even military action (Turkish troops have crossed the border on several occasions in the last few years).
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 And 2) is very much related to 1). The fact remains that an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq will create a powerful case for the same in eastern Turkey and for that reason Turkey will go to great lengths to prevent that from happening, probably even military action (Turkish troops have crossed the border on several occasions in the last few years). 734306[/snapback] It'd be interesting to see what the world's reaction to Turkey would be in that case. I bet it wouldn't be as filled with outrage as the reaction to Israel is. Hell, after all, Kurds are just "Mountain Turks", right?
chicot Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 It'd be interesting to see what the world's reaction to Turkey would be in that case. I bet it wouldn't be as filled with outrage as the reaction to Israel is. Hell, after all, Kurds are just "Mountain Turks", right? 734308[/snapback] Mountain Turks?
Recommended Posts