chicot Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Interesting article about the root cause of US mistakes in Iraq. I think the author makes a very good case that a lot of the problems were caused by the idea that "everyone wants to be an American". What Iraq tells us about ourselves
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Interesting article about the root cause of US mistakes in Iraq. I think the author makes a very good case that a lot of the problems were caused by the idea that "everyone wants to be an American". What Iraq tells us about ourselves In other words, Arabs and Kurds are incapable of liberal western thought? Gotcha. In another place and time, that might be considered a bit racist.
jjamie12 Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 In other words, Arabs and Kurds are incapable of liberal western thought? It's amazing to me that this is what you got out of that article. I think it is an interesting thing to think about. I think that the premise of the editorial is true - that the people in favor of this war mostly expected the Iraqi people to embrace democracy based on the Iraqi people being Iraqis. It turns out that maybe this WAS a little naive. It seems (again, seems) that, at this point, the people there consider themselves Shia or Sunni or from a particular region or city or group well before they consider themselves Iraqi. It is interesting to think about... However, doesn't it seem kind of strange that there was such a large turnout for a national election when people don't identify themselves 'nationally'? What is different between them and Great Britain? Do most people in Scotland consider themselves British or Scot?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 It's amazing to me that this is what you got out of that article. I think it is an interesting thing to think about. I think that the premise of the editorial is true - that the people in favor of this war mostly expected the Iraqi people to embrace democracy based on the Iraqi people being Iraqis. It turns out that maybe this WAS a little naive. It seems (again, seems) that, at this point, the people there consider themselves Shia or Sunni or from a particular region or city or group well before they consider themselves Iraqi. It is interesting to think about... However, doesn't it seem kind of strange that there was such a large turnout for a national election when people don't identify themselves 'nationally'? What is different between them and Great Britain? Do most people in Scotland consider themselves British or Scot? His implication that a unified democracy couldn't work in Iraq because of tribal differences was wrong. It could have worked, had it been implemented properly. The first mistake was purging the army. Think that Iraq would be having these issues today if the Iraqi military was kept around? His assertion that Iraqi Shunnis, Shia and Kurds must PREFER "the old ways" or tyranny is blatantly racist, IMO. I can guarantee the Kurds are happy we invaded Iraq. So were the Shia until we allowed that retard Al-Zarqawi to blow up the golden mosque.
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 In other words, Arabs and Kurds are incapable of liberal western thought? Gotcha. In another place and time, that might be considered a bit racist. They probably aren't, and that's not the least bit racist. Liberal Western philosophy, and Islamic philosophy and Arab tribal tradition may simply be mutually exclusive. Liberal Western philosophy and reactionary Islamic philosophy certainly are.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 They probably aren't, and that's not the least bit racist. Liberal Western philosophy, and Islamic philosophy and Arab tribal tradition may simply be mutually exclusive. Liberal Western philosophy and reactionary Islamic philosophy certainly are. So, then, what's the solution? You can't leave them mired in dictatorship, that will only breed more islamist radicalism. You can't liberate them, as THAT will lead to more radical islamism. You can't let them kill each other off. It's not a pretty situation.
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 So, then, what's the solution? You can't leave them mired in dictatorship, that will only breed more islamist radicalism. You can't liberate them, as THAT will lead to more radical islamism. You can't let them kill each other off. It's not a pretty situation. If I had a solution, I wouldn't be dicking around discussing it on a message board, would I? I'm pretty sure the solution, though, does NOT involve treating them like disenfranchised Americans.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 If I had a solution, I wouldn't be dicking around discussing it on a message board, would I? I'm pretty sure the solution, though, does NOT involve treating them like disenfranchised Americans. Excellent. Then maybe we can end the pretense that these "people" are going to be rational and work together and leave them to killing each other. Then, when one group has the upper hand, we can deal with them.
X. Benedict Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Excellent. Then maybe we can end the pretense that these "people" are going to be rational and work together and leave them to killing each other. Then, when one group has the upper hand, we can deal with them. In some respects I think this is true. The invasion unstratified Iraqi civil society. The Kurds were the least affected by this because they already had a great deal of autonomy prior to the invasion. Eventually it will re-stratify, but that could take years. The British in colonial occupations usually just picked a minority to help them rule and dispensed with much of the settling process. There is something to be said for it. This however, seems so at odds with American ideals that we prefer not to choose.
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Excellent. Then maybe we can end the pretense that these "people" are going to be rational and work together and leave them to killing each other. Then, when one group has the upper hand, we can deal with them. Which is exactly what I'm talking about. By whose standards are they irrational?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Which is exactly what I'm talking about. By whose standards are they irrational? By the standards of WESTERN civilization, they are most certainly irrational.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 By the standards of WESTERN civilization, they are most certainly irrational. And if they were a Western civilization, that would matter. Perhaps we should start treating them as the civilization that they are.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 And if they were a Western civilization, that would matter. Perhaps we should start treating them as the civilization that they are. Which is a backward, uncivilized shaithole?
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Which is a backward, uncivilized shaithole? I was going more for "not Western". But I understand that to your Euro-centric thinking, that's synonymous. Which again, is my point.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 I was going more for "not Western". But I understand that to your Euro-centric thinking, that's synonymous. Which again, is my point. What a bigot I am.
chicot Posted February 21, 2007 Author Posted February 21, 2007 Which is a backward, uncivilized shaithole? Much of that is down to the effects of numerous wars and sanctions. Prior to the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was one of the most advanced countries in the region with good standards of education and healthcare. It was pretty liberal as well - alcohol was freely available and Baghdad had it's fair share of bars and nightclubs.
GG Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Much of that is down to the effects of numerous wars and sanctions. Prior to the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was one of the most advanced countries in the region with good standards of education and healthcare. It was pretty liberal as well - alcohol was freely available and Baghdad had it's fair share of bars and nightclubs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these standards generally the norm for modern western societies rather than traditional Middle Eastern?
chicot Posted February 21, 2007 Author Posted February 21, 2007 Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these standards generally the norm for modern western societies rather than traditional Middle Eastern? I don't think that a respect for the value of education and healthcare is an exclusively western trait. The availability of alcohol admittedly is a more western concern, but, considering I was using it in a reply to someone called "JoeSixPack", I think it was a suitable frame of reference.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 I don't think that a respect for the value of education and healthcare is an exclusively western trait. The availability of alcohol admittedly is a more western concern, but, considering I was using it in a reply to someone called "JoeSixPack", I think it was a suitable frame of reference. Then WHY are the Iraqis of all stripes seemingly not caring about the abandonment of those instituions and not working together to restore normalcy?
molson_golden2002 Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Then WHY are the Iraqis of all stripes seemingly not caring about the abandonment of those instituions and not working together to restore normalcy? Because they do not trust anybody. And in Iraq, that is kinda of a good thing!
Recommended Posts