|
Author
|
Topic: Iraq
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 31 July 2006 11:51 AM
People are understandably focussed on Lebanon right now, even though casualties in Iraq are occurring at double the rate of Lebanon.There is no press coverage though. Anyway, this little gem shouldn't be missed: quote:
In recent months, according to U.S. intelligence sources, the Saudis and Jordanians, who are predominantly Sunni, have quietly moved to support the insurgency with money and intelligence, fearing that Shi'ite Iran will dominate the new Iraqi government if the U.S. decides to leave.
Time article
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 31 July 2006 12:34 PM
This could be the end of Bush's last excuse for the Iraq war. No WMDs... No terrorist link... All he had left was freeing the Iraqis from dictatorship.A factional civil war devastating the country. Some freedom. This is so sad. I had really hoped the Iraqis would at least get a stable government out of all this, eventually. Now, things will continue to escalate, and as we head toward an election year, the American public is going to decide it's time to withdraw. Without American troops, it'll be the best-backed faction wins the war. What do you bet it's the Iranian-backed Shiites? So many deaths, so much destruction, and this could just end up handing Iraq to Iran.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605
|
posted 31 July 2006 01:01 PM
Bush's legacy in Iraq will be billions in debt/deficit for future generations of Americans, dead Americans and a generation of Iraqi children that grew up thinking of Americans as threatening and scary. It's interesting how Afghanistan and Iraq are both about "spreading democracy and freedom" now. It seems that our leaders in the free world understood that these were not reasons that we support for going to war (or that we'd believe war was a feasible path to democracy), so false premises had to be devised to scare just enough voters. If you read the Iraqi or Afghanistan constitutions, you quickly discover theocratic ideals, not freedom and equal human rights. Where does this neocon fantasy of democracy magically appearing come from? You can't argue with the fact that Saddam and the Taliban were brutal, but so are a hell of a lot of other countries (some of them who are 'friends'...Saudis, Pakistan, etc.). Once the blood has been shed, and the money wasted, we're left with a populace deeply divided by religion and bend on electing a government we don't like. You either stick with the democracy meme, or install a puppet regime and negate the last stated reason for being over there. (Iraq's leader has recently proven that his strings aren't tied very tightly). Bush thinks God is directing him. I see him as in the same category as those who claim jihad in the name of a different God. We're told there's only two sides, who are both trying to find the fast route to heaven. Well, I'm against both. If only there were more atheists....
From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 31 July 2006 01:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by EmmaG:
It's interesting how Afghanistan and Iraq are both about "spreading democracy and freedom" now. It seems that our leaders in the free world understood that these were not reasons that we support for going to war (or that we'd believe war was a feasible path to democracy), so false premises had to be devised to scare just enough voters. If you read the Iraqi or Afghanistan constitutions, you quickly discover theocratic ideals, not freedom and equal human rights.
If they have theocratic ideals, that is their right. Democracy works that way. But Afghanistan and Iraq are very different situations. Afghanistan was an intervention, not an invasion. The war was on before we joined it. And unlike Saddam, the Taliban were actually fostering international terrorism. Destroying the Taliban was an act of self-defence. Similarly, the Afghan government has a lot more legitimacy than the Iraqi government. NATO is in Afghanistan at their request, to help them rebuild the country. We would be both stupid and cruel to refuse to help them. quote:
If only there were more atheists....
It doesn't make a difference. Few wars are really fought over religion. Power, greed, land, ambition, yes. But religion and ideology are just covers.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 31 July 2006 04:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
You seem so confident of this assertion. It makes me think you don't have any intense religious attachments. But certainly it was the near-unanimous opinion of Europeans that the wars fought between 1517 and 1648 were all "wars of religion".
Actually I often use the Thirty Years War, which was at the end of the period you mentioned, to make this point. If that war was really the great conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism, why did Catholic France fight on the Protestant side? There was even some level of cooperation and support between the Muslim Ottoman Empire, Catholic France, and the Protestant northern German states. Religion was secondary, underneath it was just a realignment of the European balance of power. That was the point of those wars. Not that there aren't wars that are primarily fought over religion. The long conflict in northern Ireland is primarily religious in nature, I think.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
