At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
At least 175 people have been killed in a series of suicide bomb attacks in northern Iraq, Iraq's military says.
Tensions between the sect and local Muslims have grown since a Yazidi girl was reportedly stoned by her community in April for converting to Islam.
At the same time another insurgent attack in the capital, some 50 gunmen in uniform were reported to have kidnapped a deputy oil minister and several other officials.
At the same time a suicide bomb attack on a Baghdad bridge that sent cars plunging into the water and killed at least 10 people.
Is there any hope of civilizing these barbarians in the next year or two?
Separately, three Iraqi ministers from the mixed Sunni-Shia Iraqi National List of former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi unexpectedly attended a government session.
They were among five ministers who last week began the boycott of Nouri Maliki's government over what they said was its failure to end sectarian violence.
Everyday I wonder more why Bush thinks it was wise to attack Iraq.
With all due respect . That smacks of "realist" thinking . I thought you were a champion of the removal of Saddam for humanitarian reasons.
Excon just made a comment that because I explained a single reason that is my only rational . It is not . When I said the political calculation had greatly changed , I meant that the combined factors of Saddam's relationship with terrorism and the issue of wmds had tipped the balance in favor of invasion even given the factors that made GHW Bush reluctant .
People who have followed my postings from AW know I was critical of the immediate post war occupation .i had thought the plan was to have the expatriates in exile assume control of the country . I never expected the US to set up a Viceroy .I think that delayed where we are by about a year and 1/2 .
Nonetheless the big dispute appears to be if the war internal to Iraq in the form of a civil war ,or if it is primarily against jihadists and infiltration by Iran . I think it is the later .
BTW ;as I have also pointed out before, it was quite immoral for GHW Bush to incite the Iraqis to open rebellion if he had no intention of supporting them.
Yes, by every concept of the terms, Saddam ruled a ‘Fascist National Socialist government’ and I was, and am, for destroying that Nazi like group from power, and any other like it.
Being ignorant, at the time, of the reasons why that Tyrant, and Tyrannical government was not ended at the time of the Gulf War, I supposed the Bush Administration right in what it was doing and applauded them as they entered Iraq.
Please understand I am speaking from retrospect and make no claim to having said, “I told you so”.
A ‘Realist’ viewpoint, no, I think pragmatist would be more apt; as I pointed out, the pragmatic reasons for not destroying Iraq had, and has not changed since the Gulf War.
Most of the people in Iraq are as barbarous as to deserve our leaving them to the mess; people who use their left hand for toilet paper, the right for eating utensils, and stone people to death with both. I have no sympathy for them, let them eat sand for all I care, leave them with a note saying, call us in 50 years.
But of course American Capitol wants to finance the rebuilding of the country, so I suppose we will continue for their benefit.
Is there any hope of civilizing these barbarians in the next year or two?
It took Rome approx 200 years and rivers of blood flowing on both sides to "civilize" the so-called "barbarians" of the Iberian Penninsula. On the other hand, with their gladiatorial customs, and seemingly insatiable thirst for ruthless conquest, Romans themselves needed to be civilized. IMHO
It took Rome approx 200 years and rivers of blood flowing on both sides to "civilize" the so-called "barbarians" of the Iberian Penninsula. On the other hand, with their gladiatorial customs, and seemingly insatiable thirst for ruthless conquest, Romans themselves needed to be civilized. IMHO
Ohhhh Mr. Starman, how you jest; I don’t know anything about such manly matters; I’m majoring in Home Economics. But My Auntie is always correcting me when I don’t point out when something is relative, Soooo, when you say the Romans themselves needed to be civilized; who would that be relative to?
Delilah
Ohhhh Mr. Starman, how you jest; I don’t know anything about such manly matters; I’m majoring in Home Economics. But My Auntie is always correcting me when I don’t point out when something is relative, Soooo, when you say the Romans themselves needed to be civilized; who would that be relative to?
Delilah
You are right, barbarism is relative. My commentary seems a bit off topic. So I will delete it. Opps, too late since yoiu quoted it. My original intention was to show just how long such campaigns can take against determined resistance. Then as an afterthought I made the mistake of adding the civilization comment which can be misunderstood.
You are right, barbarism is relative. My commentary seems a bit off topic. So I will delete it. Opps, too late since yoiu quoted it. My original intention was to show just how long such campaigns can take against determined resistance. Then as an afterthought I made the mistake of adding the civilization comment which can be misunderstood.
My Auntie thinks you are SOoo right, and that that begs the question-since you can’t teach a Dog New Tricks, what are we doing trying given the cost of life and suffering?
My Auntie thinks you are SOoo right, and that that begs the question-since you can’t teach a Dog New Tricks, what are we doing trying given the cost of life and suffering?
When the Romans started their campaign to subdue the Iberian Penninsula they had no idea it would take two hundred years. The weird thing about this is that the Roman people didn't want a decision to withdraw. They refused peace because they perceived a peaceful settlement via allliance or treaty as humiliating. Nothing less than total victoiry via subjugation regardless of the cost in life would suffice. In contrast, the American public differs in its view of this present situation. Very likely because the American people value life much more than the Romans did.
BTW
I am not saying that both situations are identical, only pointing out the contrast between the Roman population's attitude and the American attitude when in relation to the sacrifice of life in military matters. Also, how a campaign which was deemed a quick one at the outset has potential to extend intself beyond predicatbility.
When the Romans started their campaign to subdue the Iberian Penninsula they had no idea it would take two hundred years. The weird thing about this is that the Roman people didn't want a decision to withdraw. They refused peace because they perceived a peaceful settlement via allliance or treaty as humiliating. Nothing less than total victoiry via subjugation regardless of the cost in life would suffice. In contrast, the American public differs in its view of this present situation. Very likely because the American people value life much more than the Romans did.
BTW
I am not saying that both situations are identical, only pointing out the contrast between the Roman population's attitude and the American attitude when in relation to the sacrifice of life in military matters. Also, how a campaign which was deemed a quick one at the outset has potential to extend intself beyond predicatbility.
I suppose more than one opinion can be drawn from contrasting the two Empires, and of course there have been, and in many different context. You choose to use the “Rome wasn’t built in a Day” context, to answer the question as to the why of Iraq’s population and their inability to unite under one government. Where I think you have hit the nail on the head is that America did not Invade Iraq as traditional conquers but rather to rout Terrorism.
I don’t really think this goes to the problem of its failure, but rather to America’s motive.
I suggest the failure is based on the wise decision of America’s Leaders who recognized the inherent tribal problems in Iraq at the time of the Gulf War, among other issues, but who at the start of the Iraqi War acted on the emotion of 9/11 and completely ignored their previous wisdom.
I suppose more than one opinion can be drawn from contrasting the two Empires, and of course there have been, and in many different context. You choose to use the “Rome wasn't built in a Day” context, to answer the question as to the why of Iraq's population and their inability to unite under one government. Where I think you have hit the nail on the head is that America did not Invade Iraq as traditional conquers but rather to rout Terrorism.
I don’t really think this goes to the problem of its failure, but rather to America’s motive.
I suggest the failure is based on the wise decision of America’s Leaders who recognized the inherent tribal problems in Iraq at the time of the Gulf War, among other issues, but who at the start of the Iraqi War acted on the emotion of 9/11 and completely ignored their previous wisdom.
There are those who say that the motive in of invading was to control Iraq's petroleum output and that focusing on that goal permitted the Taliban to recover and prosper. Others even go so far as to say that the 9/11 incident was perpetrated by our own government in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq and control the petroleum resources. Still others accuse the USA of simply seeking revenge for loss of American life due to the 9/11 attack. There are those who say that the invasion was a personal vendetta thing carried out by Bush because of Saddam's attempted murder of his father. While others believe the weapons of mass destruction explanation given by the Bush administration.
Rome, of course, when it wished to invade other countries first classified them as a threat to their national security. Once that perception was in place, any aggression by the Roman legions could be classified as self defense. This sounds very familiar since national security is the reason why USA forces are in the Middle East. Why they were stationed in Europe long after W.W.II ended, and why American military bases exist all over the world.
The protection of national interests and national security is the driving motive which justifies military action.
Iran and Korea threaten to acquire nuclear capability--national security.
Saddam invades Kuwait--National security USA interests
Regional imbalances of power--National interests
Rome proceeded in the same way. Iberia was said to be a threat to Roman security. That justified an invasion and long drawn-out campaign. It became the Roman Modus Operandi. Gaul had to be subdued -- national security. Nations in the Middle East such as Macedonia and Greece had to be invaded--Roman national Security. Egypt had to be brought into line--Roman National grain resources interests.
So the difference in modus operand is what you say?
As for the interplay between domestic policy and foreign, foreign policy-makers have always sought to gain American public's approval before embarking on foreign policies involving loss of life. However, in relation to economical issues, they have shown
little concern about how American public opinion. For example, who consulted the American people concerning the relocation of manufacturing firms to Communist China?
Certainly if job opportunities are going to be lost, the public who will be affected should be taken into account. Or the allocation of taxpayer funds as foreign aid to Korea? In that area Americans seem to be totally ignored and political constituency is treated as irrelevant. It's only when blood has to be spilled that the foreign policy makers put for some effort to gain public approval.
Linear Mode
