No it's "lose."
If the Americans wanted to get out of Iraq more quickly, this verdict is actually a very bad thing for them. Do you understand the concept of martyrdom? It means that even those who might have been moderate in the past would make the transition to extremism. It means more Americans, and hundreds of thousands of more Iraqis, dead, because of a highly destructive invasion that should have never occured.
Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
Saddam Hussein sentenced to death by hanging.
- Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
From MAD Magazine - possible names for a U.S. invasion of Iran:
1. The Persian Incursion
2. Son of Quagmire
3. Mullah Mayhem
4. WMD II: Nuclear Boogaloo
5. World War III
-------------------------
Joking aside, I agree with Karma. We need to not be there. Knowing the usual Arab mentality and mindset, all Saddam's death is going to do is galvanize the remaining extremist Sunnis to want to follow his example, and die for the cause of Sunni Islam.
Saddam's a hypocrite. Alive, he'd probably have ended out his life as a pathetic and forgotten despot. Dead, he becomes a martyred symbol of struggle against the great American Satan (which is to say, us). That translates to an even more convoluted, terrible exit strategy than we have now, and a bunch more American teenagers and young adults blown up so we can satisfy our own nationalist leanings.
1. The Persian Incursion
2. Son of Quagmire
3. Mullah Mayhem
4. WMD II: Nuclear Boogaloo
5. World War III
-------------------------
Joking aside, I agree with Karma. We need to not be there. Knowing the usual Arab mentality and mindset, all Saddam's death is going to do is galvanize the remaining extremist Sunnis to want to follow his example, and die for the cause of Sunni Islam.
Saddam's a hypocrite. Alive, he'd probably have ended out his life as a pathetic and forgotten despot. Dead, he becomes a martyred symbol of struggle against the great American Satan (which is to say, us). That translates to an even more convoluted, terrible exit strategy than we have now, and a bunch more American teenagers and young adults blown up so we can satisfy our own nationalist leanings.
Last edited by Nev on Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We want to leave, but the Iraqi police is just as corrupt. I'd say fuck them. There's just too much religious and racist bullshit in the country, and it's fucking up our own efforts to make their country a free land. Some countries don't want to be free because their citizens just don't give a flying fuck. They quietly become a dictatorship, and the citizens are like "Oh, that's nice" and go along their merry way.
They need to supply everybody in Iraq with a gun and say "hey, if you see a terrorist or corrupt policeman, blow his fucking head off". That's the correct way to police a country. That's how we started our own country; we all had a gun, and if we saw any British coming, bang, they're dead. Self-armed militia.
Iraq is going to be so goddamn sorry when we leave. "Wait, we'll cooperate, we'll do it right!" Nope, too damn late.
They need to supply everybody in Iraq with a gun and say "hey, if you see a terrorist or corrupt policeman, blow his fucking head off". That's the correct way to police a country. That's how we started our own country; we all had a gun, and if we saw any British coming, bang, they're dead. Self-armed militia.
Iraq is going to be so goddamn sorry when we leave. "Wait, we'll cooperate, we'll do it right!" Nope, too damn late.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
I forget which agency it is, but one of the agencies that studies democracy gave a short list of criteria that statistically has almost always had to have been present for a country to successfully become a democracy. A reasonably educated middle class is the big one, I think...a certain threshold of non-corruption is on there too, and a history of semi-stability...
Anyway, countries that don't have these usually have not been able to support democracy - usually a coup comes along after awhile and reverts it back to dictatorship. The upshot is that Iraq didn't meet any of these criteria, IIRC, when we decided to invade and tried to install regime change.
In other words, Iraqi democracy was probably screwed before it started. You just can't have a democratic regime without a certain amount of understanding of democracy in the populace, and a certain amount of desire to be free - for many of people in Iraq accustomed to living under a fear-based paradigm, democracy and an understanding of the principles that underlie it are about as foreign as Arabic is to most of us.
So, while I'd like to think Iraq hasn't been just a complete waste of American time, resources, and lives, the evidence just is not on my side there...
Anyway, countries that don't have these usually have not been able to support democracy - usually a coup comes along after awhile and reverts it back to dictatorship. The upshot is that Iraq didn't meet any of these criteria, IIRC, when we decided to invade and tried to install regime change.
In other words, Iraqi democracy was probably screwed before it started. You just can't have a democratic regime without a certain amount of understanding of democracy in the populace, and a certain amount of desire to be free - for many of people in Iraq accustomed to living under a fear-based paradigm, democracy and an understanding of the principles that underlie it are about as foreign as Arabic is to most of us.
So, while I'd like to think Iraq hasn't been just a complete waste of American time, resources, and lives, the evidence just is not on my side there...
The more I study politics, the more I find that the ideals of Democracy are not even rightly practiced in our own countries. It is not Democracy which makes the west a better place to live, it is wealth. Dictatorships in the past which had a lot of wealth among them were also great for their own citizens.
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
Democracy also does not serve to prevent ruthless dictators from coming into power, it is just one method of a peaceful transition of power from one regime to the next. It works, but not always: The Gracchi brothers, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, Antony, Lepidus, and Augustus. Then later on you have the Antonine regime of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Pius, and Aurelius; their regime of peace and prosperity was longer and greater than any other western power to date, and they were a fucking dictatorship!
What's the difference between the high years of Rome and Cambodia? It's wealth, the Romans were wealthy, the Cambodians were poor.
If the Romans are any indication, democracy isn't always going to work, and sometimes dictatorship can work a lot better. Sometimes dictatorship exists decades before it is even acknowledged: The late Roman Republic is proof of that, Julius Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey may as well have been Co-Emperors of Rome, they ruled with the same iron grip, they were the richest and most powerful people in the Republic, and could do whatever they wanted. The successors of Caesar wielded similar power, and this was a period that went on for decades.
What's the difference between the high years of Rome and Cambodia? It's wealth, the Romans were wealthy, the Cambodians were poor.
If the Romans are any indication, democracy isn't always going to work, and sometimes dictatorship can work a lot better. Sometimes dictatorship exists decades before it is even acknowledged: The late Roman Republic is proof of that, Julius Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey may as well have been Co-Emperors of Rome, they ruled with the same iron grip, they were the richest and most powerful people in the Republic, and could do whatever they wanted. The successors of Caesar wielded similar power, and this was a period that went on for decades.
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
I agree for the most part, but it's definitely going to give the Sunni Muslims who were his fervent supporters another excuse to die for the cause.Kupek wrote:I don't think it will make a difference. The US presence in Iraq stopped being about Saddam Hussein, for both sides, a long time ago.
I don't think a lot of people realize that Saddam was considered a national hero by many Iraqis. Even in my Stanford Arabic class, we had a guest speaker who stated that Saddam was considered an Arab nationalist hero - for all his repressions, he did support secular pan-Arabism, and was seen by many as a strong leader for opposing Israel and the U.S...
We tend to get one-sided views of Arab leaders over here. The real situation is generally more complex (and often more fucked) than that.
You very much under-estimate how important revenge is in their culture.Kupek wrote:I don't think it will make a difference. The US presence in Iraq stopped being about Saddam Hussein, for both sides, a long time ago.
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
a) I don't think that was his pointVon Karma wrote:You very much under-estimate how important revenge is in their culture.Kupek wrote:I don't think it will make a difference. The US presence in Iraq stopped being about Saddam Hussein, for both sides, a long time ago.
b) I think you overestimate it with stereotypes
As for my own opinion... I think Afghanistan is a good marker of just how incompetent and shortsighted the US and friends were on the middle east. Iraq will (or is already) turn out the same, because the US public's patience will run out long before the job is "done".
Of course, the cynical side of me can't help but figure the US simply wants to destabilize and antagonize the entire region so thoroughly, it can't help but play into a lop-sided WWIII scenario. Silly I know, but the other option would be to assume the US administration is actually this terribly inept...which seems even more farfetched to me.
*shrug*
I say nuke the whole region and get it over with
My mom is of a slightly different mentality, but one that has similarities.kali o. wrote:I say nuke the whole region and get it over with
She extremely very much doesn't support the war (nor do I), but since she can't change the fact that we've invaded, she's kind of like "Why we bullshitting? We ought to just plant a flag over there and be done with it, if we're going this far."
I have to say, she does have a point...
You don't have to agree with any of this (no one has to agree with anything) but this is my opinion on the matter, based on what I have read and who I have talked to (and I am depending upon those sources, though most of them say the same thing; sometimes there is something to stereotypes), in the form of a reply to Kali.
Well, my points are that the existence of a US presence may have stopped being about Saddam, but that doesn't stop him from being a symbol for both the Shia and Sunni, and the Shia and the Sunni moderates will become radicals and fight over it. The US troops will get involved, afterall, they are the ones who caused this whole mess with their unlawful invasion of the country. This could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths according to some commentators. Think of the situation as Ireland on Steroids, with the Shia playing the role of Catholics, and the Sunni playing the role of Protestants.
I do know that Kupek's point was that they won't be targeting the US directly as a result of this, but my point wasn't that they were either.
Second, at least according to who I have talked to and what I have read vengeance is a strong part of the moral fiber of justice in the middle east according to the people there (it is in our own culture to an extent as well, but much stronger there); just talk to some people who are actually from the area, or who actually served in the military there.
It may seem crazy to us, but think of how crazy the Christian aversion to sex is (I mean seriously, it is an essential function for us to reproduce! If Jesus lived, he wanted to have sex and much more than likely did, get over it.), Or sit outside of your current mode of thought and look how dumb the idea of patriotism is (some of us deny it, but our culture has ingrained it in us; in Freudian terms, it is part of the super-ego for most people within our culture).
Well, my points are that the existence of a US presence may have stopped being about Saddam, but that doesn't stop him from being a symbol for both the Shia and Sunni, and the Shia and the Sunni moderates will become radicals and fight over it. The US troops will get involved, afterall, they are the ones who caused this whole mess with their unlawful invasion of the country. This could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths according to some commentators. Think of the situation as Ireland on Steroids, with the Shia playing the role of Catholics, and the Sunni playing the role of Protestants.
I do know that Kupek's point was that they won't be targeting the US directly as a result of this, but my point wasn't that they were either.
Second, at least according to who I have talked to and what I have read vengeance is a strong part of the moral fiber of justice in the middle east according to the people there (it is in our own culture to an extent as well, but much stronger there); just talk to some people who are actually from the area, or who actually served in the military there.
It may seem crazy to us, but think of how crazy the Christian aversion to sex is (I mean seriously, it is an essential function for us to reproduce! If Jesus lived, he wanted to have sex and much more than likely did, get over it.), Or sit outside of your current mode of thought and look how dumb the idea of patriotism is (some of us deny it, but our culture has ingrained it in us; in Freudian terms, it is part of the super-ego for most people within our culture).
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
