Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:19 pm
by van
Kia ora Skinjob

Nations, including the U.S., decided that it was better for there to be a balance of power in the Mideast; that meant that no country there should take over the other countries, because it is better to deal with several little tin-horn dictators, than to deal with one large tyrannical power in the region.


Why did the US encourage Saddam to fight against Iran?
Why does the colonial empire breakup large nations?
Why do you support the nation of Israel, the most tyranical weaponised nation in the ME?

No, there isn’t always a “collective responsibility and accountability”, here it depends on which party is in charge. I even hate the word “Collective”, in that it usually refers to a cluster-suck of mentally goose-stepping socialists, not free thinking and rational legislators. The “collective” is tribal thinking.


If that is so, why did your nation insist that any reparations were due from the German people?
You demand it from others, but claim the moral high ground when it comes to yourself

I don’t recognize a “Google Search” as providing any ultimate truth about past events or motives behind those events.


Selective truth seeking will never accomplish understanding!

Your posts are fraught with inaccuracies, and leftist propaganda; and your sources are no more legitimate than any others, especially mine.


If that were indeed the case, you should have no problem debunking them, yet I have not noticed you do so
Instead your usual response is a rant about commie/leftist propaganda

You talk about “Hedging your bets”, well you seem to place America into a position of damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. If we work with the dictators, then you accuse us of “support for Saddam or Hitler; but if we don’t then we are the aggressors that provoke those dictators.


Neither Hitler nor Saddam provoked the USA
Both knew the peril of such an action

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:29 am
by bermbits
Gentlemen, gentlemen... (y'all sound like y'all're running for office).

The original question: "With at least three religious groups fighting each other (and us), who would rule, and what would be different? It is obvious to me they are Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds before they are Iraqis. How could this work?"

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:03 am
by AJRC_CS
I think the people whose real reason here was to answer your question have already given their answers, bermbits.

But i will elaborate on my original answer.

Civil war is inevitable, it's pure conjecture to say who would rule. In my opinion i think the Shi'ite's will rule, they make up 60% of the population and have most of the money. The Sunnis had their chance and chose Saddam as their leader, people won't forget that. It's impossible to say what would be different, a whole hell of a lot less terrorism could be the obvious difference. With the Iraqi's in control and the troops out, there would be no need for terrorism against the US troops. Sectarian violence will obviously be a problem, both religious and ethnic. But i think if the politicians are good then they can instil a national unity between the three main groups for the betterment of Iraq.

I agree with others and think a time line of 5 years until civil unrest becomes manageable. There are tough times ahead for the Iraqi's. The problem was at the start of the war in 2003, the Iraqi's weren't thought of. Nothing was thought of their future. It's only now that questions like this are being asked, four years too late.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:13 pm
by Skinjob
Van, I'm not going to let you play the music and make me dance to it. I’m not going to research and write a book denouncing your statements. Your stuff is all wrong from the git-go.

For example......

"Neither Hitler nor Saddam provoked the USA
Both knew the peril of such an action."

HITLER: The answer is, "Ultimately, it was Hitler and Mussolini’s declaration of war against the US on 11 December 1941, that overcame American opposition to a crusade against all the fascist powers.

Hitler declared war on us, not we on him.

IRAQ: The Iraq invasion was a continuation of Desert Storm. Saddam violated 14 to 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and continued to violate the terms of the Cease Fire Agreement; and he continued to pursue unsavory things, like international terrorism, biological weapons (Remember Dr. Germ?), nukes, and gas. Also, he shot at aircraft assigned to over-fly Iraq. Those aircraft were part of the Cease Fire Agreement and intended to make him follow the U.N. rules that he agreed to.

Dr Germ: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/meetdrgerm.html

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:37 pm
by van
Kia ora Skinjob

The US drove the Japanese into a corner, resulting in Pearl Harbour
Germany, Italy and Japan had a mutual defence treaty
The declaration of war against Japan left Hitler with NO choice but to declare war against the US

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:46 pm
by van
Kia ora Dave

Gentlemen, gentlemen... (y'all sound like y'all're running for office).


Hehehe, "Quite"
Back to the subject
Divide and rule, the usual tactic of the ruling elite
To what extent will the divisive nature of American politics have the same effect?
Transpose Sunni, Shia and Kurd, into Republican, Democrat and Fundamentalist
Would they adhere to their divisions and engage in civil war if occupied? casting aside their American nationality?
What say you?

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:07 pm
by van
Kia ora Andy

In my opinion i think the Shi'ite's will rule, they make up 60% of the population and have most of the money. The Sunnis had their chance and chose Saddam as their leader, people won't forget that.


I am not so sure
Whether one is willing to acknowledge it or not, civil war is already being fought
I doubt that the Saudis and others would allow Shia to gain the upperhand in Iraq
Neither do I see America withdrawing voluntarily
Then there is the recent expropriation of the oil
I doubt the Iraqis of any shade will willingly accept this, being condemned to a 3rd world state while foreign corporations take their wealth

Sectarian violence will obviously be a problem, both religious and ethnic. But i think if the politicians are good then they can instil a national unity between the three main groups for the betterment of Iraq.


Again I am not sure
The culture of the ME revolves around religious and tribal leaders, politicians merely provide a face to the outside world
When saner heads, without outside influence, get a chance to pour oil on troubled sands, I think we will see progress and a reunification
It has happened in past conflicts and thus can happen again
The Kurds to me are still an unknown quatity, I have no idea how they relate to the other parties
I'll have a look around and see what I can find

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:25 pm
by van
Kia ora

Kurds (briefly)

Aryan, Medes, Armenian

In 2001, a team of Israeli, German, and Indian scientists discovered that among the various Jewish communities, the Ashkenazi Jews showed a closer relationship to the Muslim Kurds than to the Semitic-speaking population further south in the Arabian peninsula, while the Jewish Kurds and Sephardic Jews seemed to be closely related to each other (explains a lot)

Kurdish diaspora

According to a report by the Council of Europe, approximately 1.3 million Kurds live in Western Europe.
Interesting terminology "Diaspora"
From what I can gather, tho predominatly Sunni moslem, oppressed where-ever they live in the ME (perceived as trouble makers?)
Could possibly have reference to Muslim troubles in Europe?

Perhaps someone else can add to this or provide other info?

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:40 pm
by Skinjob
Japan attacked us, Van. We didn't attack them. The "Trpartite Pact" specifies if one of the axis powers is attacked. So, it wasn't right for Germany and Italy to declare war on America. If we had attacked Japan first, then that Pact would have been valid. We were bombed with a cowardly sneak attack from the worlds foremost terrorists of that time, Japan. No terrorists since that time have been as brutal, evil, and extensive as were the Japanese.

What excuse do you currently use to justify the Germans having slaughtered, gassed, and barbecued the Jews? Or, do you deny the Halocaust like the Iranian dictator?

The Tripartite Pact between Japan, Germany, and Italy, 1940

"The Governments of Japan, Germany, and Italy consider it the prerequisite of a lasting peace that every nation in the world shall receive the space to which it is entitled. They have, therefore, decided to stand by and cooperate with one another in their efforts in the regions of Europe and Greater East Asia respectively. In doing this it is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things, calculated to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned. It is, furthermore, the desire of the three Governments to extend cooperation to nations in other spheres of the world that are inclined to direct their efforts along lines similar to their own for the purpose of realizing their ultimate object, world peace. Accordingly, the Governments of Japan, Germany and Italy have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1. Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in the establishment of a new order in Europe.

ARTICLE 2. Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in Greater East Asia.

ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

ARTICLE 4. With a view to implementing the present pact, joint technical commissions, to be appointed by the respective Governments of Japan, Germany and Italy, will meet without delay.

ARTICLE 5. Japan, Germany and Italy affirm that the above agreement affects in no way the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia.

ARTICLE 6. The present pact shall become valid immediately upon signature and shall remain in force ten years from the date on which it becomes effective. In due time, before the expiration of said term, the High Contracting Parties shall, at the request of any one of them, enter into negotiations for its renewal."

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:20 am
by AJRC_CS
Van, you have to remember Saddam was a Sunni, this is still fresh in peoples memory. That's why i believe that the Shi'ite's will be the dominant force in any new democratic government. I also believe that the Kurd's would rather share power with the Shi'ite's than allow the Sunnis to gain power again.

The Kurd's are not Arab, they're a very westernised people. They have their own language and their own culture. They predominately live in northern Iraq and southern Turkey. I honestly don't think they would assume control of any government, and also don't think they would have the politicians to do so.

But as with all civil wars, you will have two sides claiming absolute power. In my opinion you will have the Shi'ite's and the Kurd's on one side and the Sunnis on the other. If the past can be forgotten, and religious differences worked out, then national unity could override any petty hatred. But they need a leader, a good leader who can pull them all together. Without one they will fall on each other like a pack of rabid dogs.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:08 am
by van
Kia ora Skinjob

My last reply to you on this thread in deference to Bits, besides I prefer to debate with those who are able to make me think about what I have to say, rather then bang my head against a brick wall!
It's been nice playing with you

Japan attacked us, Van. We didn't attack them.


Corner a mouse, and the bastard will bite you!

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him."
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:58 am
by van
Kia ora Andy

Van, you have to remember Saddam was a Sunni, this is still fresh in peoples memory. That's why i believe that the Shi'ite's will be the dominant force in any new democratic government. I also believe that the Kurd's would rather share power with the Shi'ite's than allow the Sunnis to gain power again.


Appreciate your viewpoint, but have some reservations
Given the Pope is Catholic and we all know what went on under their reign, how many Protestants (apart from Paisley :) ) still have a hatred?
Iran, Shia, not appreciated by the other ME countries, predominantly various schools of Sunni, predominantly Arab as opposed to Persian ( remind me, more on this)
Saudi Arabia has given notice that any Shia control of Iraq will necessitate their intervention, thus possibly making things worse!
Democracy in the ME is at this moment in time is a pipedream imo
Would the Shia accept them? (see previous post)
Furthermore, a despot is a despot is a despot, irrespective of their religion/politics/race etc
Interestingly, Saddam was secular, not religious, tho I believe it got him at the end! :)
Often happens in the last days!

But they need a leader, a good leader who can pull them all together. Without one they will fall on each other like a pack of rabid dogs.


They had one, encouraged by the West, and then removed by them!
During his reign they had water, electricity,health care, education, now with supplied "Democracy, at the barrel of a gun" they have none, relatively speaking
Perhaps given man's inability to govern himself, a "benevolent" dictator is the answer?
Yet should such a person exist, how long before some outside player, pissed at the prospect of not being able to manipulate him/her, will remove them as well??

No short sweet answer is on the horizon, except perhaps the following
Destroy all nukes, break all big countries down into smaller units, incapable of financing a war effort
Then and only then will individuals be able via a charismatic leader gather stones and drive their neighbours away from the land they desire, and build an empire!
OOPS, like history, I am beginning to repeat myself! :)

C'est la vie!

Arohanui
Shalom
bill

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:39 pm
by AJRC_CS
Van, i agree with you. I also have my reservations about Shia rule, but if a democratic election was held today they would win by a landslide. Look at the last shambles of a supposed Democratic election, the Shia's won by a huge margin with the Kurd's as close partners. As you say, whether they would be allowed to rule would be another matter, outside interests such as Saudi Arabia could intervene. But also the Shia's have very close ties to Iran, so would they also intervene if the Saudi's did?

I agree, democracy is a pipe dream for the Iraqi's at the moment. They're in a civil war of our making, but we can't fight it for them, they must do that themselves. It will be tough, many could die, but after the dust has settled hopefully the winners will want a unified Iraq under Democratic rule and not revert back to a Dictatorship again.

Yes, the majority of Iraqi's say they were better when Saddam was in control, as they had running water, electricity and health care. But they also had no say in how their country was run, and if they complained they disappeared. Democracy at the barrel of a gun has not worked, the elections of 2005 proved this. As i said they must either fall on each other and who ever is still standing is the winner, or they need a good leader. Nations such as Iraq seem to be good at finding good, charismatic leaders who just happen to also be Dictators. But if it takes a Dictator to get them back on their feet, then so be it. As you said, we can always remove them at a later date.

It'll be interesting to see what actually happens when the troops are pulled out. The British troops started their pull out last year, and the US troops will start their pull out starting possibly next year. Only time will tell if any of the scenarios we have discussed take place, i would hate to see Iraq torn to pieces through civil war, i wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.