| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:54 am Post subject: New Dawn |
 |
|
Dozens killed in wave of bombings across Iraq
| Quote: |
At least 50 people have been killed in a series of apparently co-ordinated bomb attacks across Iraq.
Iraqi security spokesman Maj Gen Qassim al-Moussawi also blamed al-Qaeda, and warned of more attacks as US troops end combat operations on 31 August. |
Last edited by The Happy Warrior on Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, Iraq is going to become pretty deadly again. This is a preview of what's coming. If it were up to me, I'd pull us out of Afghanistan and stay in Iraq. At least Iraq has some semblence of a stable country (albeit due to our presence) and 9/10ths of its GDP isn't via the poppy. And compared to Afghanistan, it is homogenous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Yeah, Iraq is going to become pretty deadly again. This is a preview of what's coming. If it were up to me, I'd pull us out of Afghanistan and stay in Iraq. At least Iraq has some semblence of a stable country (albeit due to our presence) and 9/10ths of its GDP isn't via the poppy. And compared to Afghanistan, it is homogenous. |
How do you figure? It's a pretty disastrous split between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. I would say that Iraq is a far less pressing security concern compared with Afghanistan due to its proximity to Pakistan. Given Pakistan's current situation I would say that that is going to be a major concern for decades to come.[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Our actions in Afghanistan are not helping stability in Pakistan whatsoever. The fact that Pakistan has become less stable in the past decade would indicate as much.
In regards to Iraq, there are fewer languages spoken (Arabic and Kurdish) than in Afghanistan. There are also fewer groups (just 3). With the exception of Kirkuk, the Kurds are pretty much in their own area. And I wouldn't say it is disastrous. Definitely more likely for those groups to work together than Afghan groups. At least they have more of a history of working together than the Afghanis do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| It's a pretty disastrous split between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. |
I always thought partition was the best long-term solution for Iraq. Like many African states, its unrealistic borders were drawn up by British imperialists.
And i always wanted to see an independent kurdistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Our actions in Afghanistan are not helping stability in Pakistan whatsoever. The fact that Pakistan has become less stable in the past decade would indicate as much.
In regards to Iraq, there are fewer languages spoken (Arabic and Kurdish) than in Afghanistan. There are also fewer groups (just 3). With the exception of Kirkuk, the Kurds are pretty much in their own area. And I wouldn't say it is disastrous. Definitely more likely for those groups to work together than Afghan groups. At least they have more of a history of working together than the Afghanis do. |
I don't think that the correlation between our actions in Afghanistan and the stability in Pakistan are as clear cut as you think, nor do I think the decrease in stability is a bad thing in the short run. Theoretically it would make sense that Pakistan has been effected by the movement of the Taliban into Pakistan, but ultimately Pakistan can only benefit from having a more stable neighbor not run by extremists. With the flooding currently going on I don't know if anything could stable that dangerous mess of a country. Iran is small peanuts compared to Pakistan in terms of potential for disaster in every way.
As to Iraq the reason that there has been stability in the past was because of the leadership of the past. It took a man like Saddam to rule Iraq due to it's circumstances. Make no mistake the stability was bought with blood. Look at the mess they are now in, they can't even elect a government due to divisiveness. The killing in Iraq has largely been along Sunni and Shia lines with the Kurds staying to themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
All right Leon, I just don't think Afghanistan can become stable. That's what I'm saying.
As for Iraq, Saddam made those divisions worse. It didn't require a man like him to keep it together. As you said in regards to my Afghanistan remark, it isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be.  And while the country of Iraq is quite young, it was a region of the Ottoman Empire; a region that wasn't a huge problem for that Empire.
Sunni and Shiite haven't historically clashed. Their conflict is another byproduct of the spread of Wahhabism and the evolution of self-identification in the region. I concede the Kurdish element is a whole other issue.
| Junior wrote: |
I always thought partition was the best long-term solution for Iraq. Like many African states, its unrealistic borders were drawn up by British imperialists.
And i always wanted to see an independent kurdistan. |
True to some extent. I think an independent Kurdistan should be formed, but breaking up Iraq between sunni and shiite areas would be too difficult. Unfortunately a lot of oil fields are located in Kurd areas, so there is a bigger incentive for the other sides to block the Kurds from gaining independence than to allow them to go their own way. Doesn't help that other countries in the area (most notably Turkey and Iran) would hate for there to be a Kurdish state on their borders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
All right Leon, I just don't think Afghanistan can become stable. That's what I'm saying.
As for Iraq, Saddam made those divisions worse. It didn't require a man like him to keep it together. As you said in regards to my Afghanistan remark, it isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. And while the country of Iraq is quite young, it was a region of the Ottoman Empire; a region that wasn't a huge problem for that Empire.
Sunni and Shiite haven't historically clashed. Their conflict is another byproduct of the spread of Wahhabism and the evolution of self-identification in the region. I concede the Kurdish element is a whole other issue.
| Junior wrote: |
I always thought partition was the best long-term solution for Iraq. Like many African states, its unrealistic borders were drawn up by British imperialists.
And i always wanted to see an independent kurdistan. |
True to some extent. I think an independent Kurdistan should be formed, but breaking up Iraq between sunni and shiite areas would be too difficult. Unfortunately a lot of oil fields are located in Kurd areas, so there is a bigger incentive for the other sides to block the Kurds from gaining independence than to allow them to go their own way. Doesn't help that other countries in the area (most notably Turkey and Iran) would hate for there to be a Kurdish state on their borders. |
I also don't think that Afghanistan will be stable in the foreseeable future. My best case scenario for Afghanistan is one that is segmented by warlords and tribes with a balance of power to keep any one from becoming dominant. I think that it would be in everyone's best interest if America had relations with as many of these factions as possible as opposed to extremists.
I concede the point about Iraq, but still maintain that the division between the two groups was kept in check by Sadam in a way that is hard to do with a democracy. The partition is a pipe dream for three main reasons.
1. The oil fields aren't equally distributed among the three groups.
2. The Kurds will never have their own country as long as Turkey, Iran and Syria have influence.
3. Too have three new countries would be even more chaotic in an already messy situation.
I think that it might work to have a strongly federally system with each group having a large degree of autonomy but still having a central government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Our actions in Afghanistan are not helping stability in Pakistan whatsoever. The fact that Pakistan has become less stable in the past decade would indicate as much.
In regards to Iraq, there are fewer languages spoken (Arabic and Kurdish) than in Afghanistan. There are also fewer groups (just 3). With the exception of Kirkuk, the Kurds are pretty much in their own area. And I wouldn't say it is disastrous. Definitely more likely for those groups to work together than Afghan groups. At least they have more of a history of working together than the Afghanis do. |
Iraq is better united geographically. Also, its more 'important' in terms of economic potential, location, and ME politics.
I'm unconvinced we should invest more blood and treasure in either. I think Obama has made his choice, and its the opposite of yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Our actions in Afghanistan are not helping stability in Pakistan whatsoever. The fact that Pakistan has become less stable in the past decade would indicate as much.
In regards to Iraq, there are fewer languages spoken (Arabic and Kurdish) than in Afghanistan. There are also fewer groups (just 3). With the exception of Kirkuk, the Kurds are pretty much in their own area. And I wouldn't say it is disastrous. Definitely more likely for those groups to work together than Afghan groups. At least they have more of a history of working together than the Afghanis do. |
Iraq is better united geographically. Also, its more 'important' in terms of economic potential, location, and ME politics.
I'm unconvinced we should invest more blood and treasure in either. I think Obama has made his choice, and its the opposite of yours. |
I know. A shame he didn't listen to Biden in regards to Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hey BB, from what little I can remember about ME history, I thought the Shia Sunni division in Islam was massive and had been a running wound for the whole history of the two movements.
For example the Ottoman/Safavid wars were pretty intense, and even during the crusades Saladin spent most of his time killing Shiia rather than messing the crusaders. Egypt used to have a sizeable Shia minority before those purges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
hey BB, from what little I can remember about ME history, I thought the Shia Sunni division in Islam was massive and had been a running wound for the whole history of the two movements.
For example the Ottoman/Safavid wars were pretty intense, and even during the crusades Saladin spent most of his time killing Shiia rather than messing the crusaders. Egypt used to have a sizeable Shia minority before those purges. |
Saladin spent most of his time killing Shiia? Really? That's the first time I have ever heard of that.
Ottoman/Safavid wasn't a religious battle, it was two Empires butting heads with one another.
And when were those purges in Egypt? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Five Myths about the troop withdrawal from Iraq
| Quote: |
As of this month, the United States no longer has combat troops in Iraq.
Thanks to the troop "surge," Iraq is secure enough that it will not fall back into civil war as U.S. forces pull out.
The United States is leaving behind a broken political system.
Iraqis want U.S. troops to stay. Or they want them leave.
The war will end "on schedule." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
India and Pakistan are engaged in a proxy war in Afghanistan. Neither wants a stable Afghanistan. Russia is also involved to some extent. It is a mess, probably no long term solution will come out of it.
Salidin fought several "wars" to curb Shia influence. Not just empires butting heads but contesting religious beliefs.
Iraq was bloody and unstable in the thirties and was very violent under Saddam with the purges and executions. The Kurds will probably be the losers as the Syrians, Turks oppose their having a homeland. Saladin was a Kurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Bucheon Bum, the book I am thinking of was an English translation of a French book on the crusades. I can't remember the name, I am sorry.
As for stuff I found googling, this was the best i could find, although not all that satisfying for me.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/apr/29/islam-confronts-its-demons/
In this article it says that Saladin purged Shia "influence" from the fatamid caliphate. Its my understanding that the influence stemmed from a military/governing class made up of Shia leftover from the previous dynasty. If I can remember the name of the frenchie book I will stick it up here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
