Dave Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 So, after quite some time, Iraq has finally been handed back over to the Iraqis to govern. However, it strikes me that the security situation there is completely out of control. My question is: what effect will the instability of Iraq have on the world over the next 10 years?
JaKiri Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 This wasn't exactly unexpected. In other news, I see Afghanistan is a cradle of democracy.
jordan Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 My question is: what effect will the instability of Iraq have on the world over the next 10 years? I wuold say very little, except for those people who want to make something out of it.
budullewraagh Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 My question is: what effect will the instability of Iraq have on the world over the next 10 years? oh, since we piss them off so much, i could imagine that this will spawn terrorists and their supporters. think of it; the are al-qaida operatives recruiting now. they offer food, shelter, education as well as many other benefits. of course, the patriarch of each family they recruit for their forces. quite simple. it's terrible what this administration has done to us
jordan Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 I really doubt Al-quida will attack us anytime soon. They might be mad, but their in shambles. And telling families they can have food as long as the patriarch goes on a suicide mission isn't exactly incentive. But who is the "us" you refer to in the last sentence?
-Demosthenes- Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Um, we give them food, we give them shelter and other humanitaring needs, and we have a peace keeping force there if I'm not mistaken.
atinymonkey Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 I give the new government a life expectancy of 14 months, being replaced by a quasi religious figure who absolutely doesn't ever say he is Allah reincarnated. Ever.
admiral_ju00 Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 But who is the "us" you refer to in the last sentence? This may be just a wild guess, but I'd say 'Americans' is what he was thinking.
Dave Posted June 29, 2004 Author Posted June 29, 2004 I really doubt Al-quida will attack us anytime soon. They might be mad, but their in shambles. And telling families they can have food as long as the patriarch goes on a suicide mission isn't exactly incentive. Some people are very desperate, and they'll do anything to get their families out of poverty. Plus a lot of the al Qaeda guys aren't suicide bombers anyway. However, trying to take bin Laden out is a bit of a futile effort in my opinion. Even if they do get him, another 37 leaders will pop up out of nowhere.
JaKiri Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 I really doubt Al-quida will attack us anytime soon. They might be mad, but their in shambles. And telling families they can have food as long as the patriarch goes on a suicide mission isn't exactly incentive. But who is the "us" you refer to in the last sentence? There's so much wrong with this I can't begin to fathom how to start my reply. Most notably the notion that 'This country invaded us, killed and tortured our people, destroyed our power and water supplies and has done most of this SEVERAL TIMES' isn't a one that will provoke people to terrorist actions. Furthermore, the idea that instabilty in Iraq would be localised; people can travel outside their own country you know, and besides, creating another nice theocracy in the Middle East will surely solve all the problems out there.
YT2095 Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 I guess not knowing ALL the details and ins and outs of the entire situation, the only thing we can really do is stand back, and wish them Good Luck and All the best, and just be there for them if they ask for help in the future. my 2 pence
Sayonara Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 The problem often isn't actually that people don't know all the details; it's that they look at the situation in terms of what they themselves would do/think/say. When you are talking about another culture that has a different societal structure of course, that just can't apply.
YT2095 Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 the culture and mindset was part of the details I refered to, there`s no way we could understand it all in it`s entirety, we simply were not brought up in that culture (no ones fault). and so to let them deal with it on and in their own terms and ways, would seem to be the best way for all concerned, and as I said, just be there for them IF they ask for help
budullewraagh Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 And telling families they can have food as long as the patriarch goes on a suicide mission isn't exactly incentive. But who is the "us" you refer to in the last sentence? the "us" i refer to is the world actually. and yes, it is incentive to offer food, shelter, education etc to families who are basically the walking dead. seriously, they can't last without these and so, realizing this, al-qaida recruits. unfortunately, the united states is doing little to nothing to help this situation
jordan Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 There's so much wrong with this I can't begin to fathom how to start my reply. Most notably the notion that 'This country invaded us, killed and tortured our people, destroyed our power and water supplies and has done most of this SEVERAL TIMES' isn't a one that will provoke people to terrorist actions. All the reports I've heard have said that education has been terrible under Hussein. He has taught them that it's either his way or no way and not much else. At some point this would have to be done. They don't like it...yet. Maybe they won't ever like our concept of freedom, but I doubt that. What they need is to have someone carry through with the overthrow of Hussein. No more writing him a stern letter with an or else clause that never gets carried out. Maybe now wasn't the best time, but eventualy it would have to be done. Kind of like the bear caught in the trap scenario or something like that.
JaKiri Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 They don't like it...yet. Maybe they won't ever like our concept of freedom, but I doubt that. Please prove to me the flaw in the thinking of 'This country invaded us, killed and tortured our people, destroyed our power and water supplies and has done most of this SEVERAL TIMES'
jordan Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Besides the fact that that is the definition of war? What I'm saying is that they might not see it as a good thing, but that's because they've lived under Hussein for so long. I would say before the war, many of them would've jumped at the chance to live in a country like Britain or the USA. The only problem now is that they haven't reached that point with their own country. I would dare say that when their country settles down a bit, they will be a little happier than when they were living under Hussein.
YT2095 Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 'This country invaded us, killed and tortured our people, destroyed our power and water supplies and has done most of this SEVERAL TIMES' I think Jordan meant the Perceived idea, rather than what actualy happened. I know myself if there`s a power outage I hate the supplier for ages and threaten to sue them for lost HDD work etc... and I`m not a Radical Extremist, so what MIGHT some of them be thinking? "The damn Germans bombed our Chippy" type of thing. I think that`s the point Jordan was trying to make (I could be wrong)?
Sayonara Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 But Suppliers aren't responsible for the distribution networks. See, more complex situation than it looks
Freeman Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 I doubt if the "government" would last until 2005. If the interim government does anything the US doesn't want it to do, I am willing to bet that the US will intervene for "domestic security".
Dave Posted June 29, 2004 Author Posted June 29, 2004 They may as well just annex it under the US to be honest.
jgerlica Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 I hate to use the old have you been there argument, but I now will. Yes the occupation was a bit mucked up, but I don't see it quite the same as most of you. During my time in southern Iraq, the vast majority of shiia were open and friendly, I can't recall how many times i was invited into homes for tea and a meal. The discussions I had lead me to believe that they are genuinely pleased with the prospect of self determination. It was the same up north with the kurds, and to a lesser extent in the so called sunni triangle. Yes I was shot at, but for the most part i never saw a situation that was untenable if operations were conducted properly.
jgerlica Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 the "us" i refer to is the world actually. and yes' date=' it is incentive to offer food, shelter, education etc to families who are basically the walking dead. seriously, they can't last without these and so, realizing this, al-qaida recruits. unfortunately, the united states is doing little to nothing to help this situation[/quote'] That is the largest steaming pile of rubbish I've ever heard. While I don't agree with the conduct of some parts of the Iraq operation, I seem to recall doing quite a bit of humanitarian work myself. And let us not forget that the great satan that is the US, does support such endeavours abroad. This isn't me posting as some idealistic child, I've been sent to just about every third world shit hole imagineable over the past six years and have seen it first hand.
Dave Posted June 29, 2004 Author Posted June 29, 2004 They announced that Saddam is going back to the Iraqi people this morning, just out of interest: see here.
budullewraagh Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 makes sense; he couldn't be tried in us courts. think of it; what charges could we bring up?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now