72 replies to this topic

[Stroggy]

PrejudiceSucks, on Nov 1 2005, 06:39 PM, said:

Also, the thing that the current media seems to be completely ignoring is that the Americans actually put Saddam into power. Oh well...

That's amazing! I mean didn't the US have some sort of timemachine to see whether or not Saddam would turn into a bloodthirsty dictator!? I am shocked!

Did you know that a few years before German troops were sipping rosé and eating brie in the shadow of the Eifel Tower the french press reported they foresaw the new Germany leadership (i.e. the national Socialist Party) to be a lot more moderate than they promoted themselves to be. Isn't it funny how history tends to be ironic.

[Tulac]

Stroggy, on Nov 1 2005, 07:53 PM, said:

That's amazing! I mean didn't the US have some sort of timemachine to see whether or not Saddam would turn into a bloodthirsty dictator!? I am shocked!

Or did they turn him into the bloodthirsty dictator??  

[DakaSha]

...

saddam was know to be a bastard already

edit: wait a sec... this is turning into that topic a couple months ago that got closed... so uh... Look behind you a three headed monkey!

*runs off*

[Stroggy]

Depends against who. An iraq without a dictator could look like... well... like it is now.
It is a sad truth that some countries can only be held together by a vicious dictator.
The question is what situation would cause more bloodshed? A situation where a country is (semi-) united under repression or a country stuck in a brutal civil war (or in case Iraq would have split up between the serveral groups, bloody borderwars)

Yes, the US 'used' Sadam to fight against the Islamic revolution in Iran... and at the rate it is going the world still has problems with the same Iran under the same old Ayatollahs.

Quote

Saddam was known to be a bastard already

And al-Bakr was known as such a kind fellow. Saddam did not need to do much to obtain power over Iraq, al-Bakr was to weak to rule his own backyard.

[PrejudiceSucks]

The same's happened all over the Middle east, really. The Soviets stopped their meddling after the Suez crisis, the Americans just carried on. The actual point of them getting these people is that they know that they're right bastards, they just think that they can control them. Not a chance.

[DeathDude]

The Soviet's didn't stop meddling in the middle east after the suez crisis, does the invasion of Afghanistan ring a bell.

[Stroggy]

And the meddling of the soviet union in the Arab-Israeli conflict between 1956 and 1966, the War of 1967, the war of War of 1968-1970 and the war of 1973. Basically the soviet union stopped meddling when thing started getting rather sticky back at the home front... and then they completely ceased to exist... and now the Russian Federation seems to be meddling once again (to protect their own financial interest in the area goes without saying)

[A. J. Raffles]

Stroggy, on Nov 1 2005, 07:04 PM, said:

It is a sad truth that some countries can only be held together by a vicious dictator.

Whereas other countries are a bit more fortunate in that they have some mysterious inherent quality enabling them to be held together by a democratic system?   Sorry, Stroggy, but that is complete nonsense. It's like saying "Well, some nations just can't do any better than dictatorships. Too bad for them."

[Havell]

I would actually agree with Stroggy on that point, it's not that anyone deserves a cruel ruler (nobody does), but some countries are just so divided, religiously or culturally, that fear is sadly the only way to stop different groups killing each other on the streets (as they are now in Iraq).

[Stroggy]

Are you suggesting that, should all forces retreat from Iraq right now, the country would not be torn apart? With the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds all willing to fight for an iraq under them it would not take long before it would end up in civil war ending in the creation of serveral small countries. It took a dictator to force these people to live together in one country (often by brutal repression by said dictator)
You seem to think I'm implying the existance of some sort of mysterious power driving people to live together in one country under democracy, whereas i am actually saying that in the case of iraq people (due to their different beliefs and their unability to reconcile these differences any time soon) are driven away from eachother which would cause the end of one uniform country (Iraq)
If you remember your history this is how Saddam got to power in the first  place, due to Al-Bakr's inability to keep the country together. If you don't take my word for it, maybe you'll take wikipedia's:

Quote

Saddam consolidated power in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Long before Saddam, Iraq had been split along social, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic fault lines: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arab versus Kurd, tribal chief versus urban merchant, nomad versus peasant. Stable rule in a country torn by political factionalism and conflict required the improvement of living standards. Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.

It is also because of Saddam's brutal policies to keep iraq united that these sides hate eachother even more than before Saddam's rise to power.

[Galadrin]

Which, of course, begs the question "Why is this a country?"

Wikkipedia missed the part where Saddams' Iraq was propped up by the US to keep out a more muslim government.

[Havell]

Galadrin, on Nov 1 2005, 11:22 PM, said:

Which, of course, begs the question "Why is this a country?"

Well you could make the different cultural groups into different countries, but then they'd just get oraganised and wage proper war on each other.

Also, that would involve creating an independant kurdish state.  A significant amount of the redefining of borders after World War II was preventing an independent state, many of the groups got their own countries (such as the Afgans and the Uzbecks) but the Kurds were spilt between a few countries.  The reason for this is the Kurds' reputation for being brave fighters, they would beat everyone else in the area to a pulp, that's why they are oppressed by many countries (Such as pre-war Iraq).

[Stroggy]

Iraq used to be a British mandate and it was granted independence in 1930 (not sure about the year, could be wrong)  It was formed out of three former Ottoman Willayats which are administrative regions (namely the regions Baghdad, Mosul and Basra. Of coarse the British had installed their own people, the Hashemite monarchy which lasted up and until somewhere before 1960 when it was overthrown. After a few coup d'etats the Ba'ath party came to power and the rest is history.
As you see Iraq was always forced together, first by the British mandate and then by monarchs and warlords.

Quote

Wikkipedia missed the part where Saddams' Iraq was propped up by the US to keep out a more muslim government.

Er, I believe you're talking about the Iran-Iraq war, where the US gave Saddam military equiptment to fight against the Islamic Revolution in Iran, in which case: Iran Iraq war

[Galadrin]

As opposed to forcing them all into a single state and imposing dictators whose primary interest lies with a foriegn power?  The division of the Kurdish nation has resulted in them being persecuted by both Turkey and Iraq, so what you're essentially saying is that it's OK to hurt the Kurds because if they don't get hurt they'll hurt us.

@ Stroggy:
yeah, and the reason for that was that Reagan really didn't want a Sunni government (presumably less friendly, definately less utilitarian) in power in Iraq too, which they felt was a possibility (domino theory was still big) and the best defence is a good offence.

[Havell]

Galadrin, on Nov 1 2005, 11:36 PM, said:

As opposed to forcing them all into a single state and imposing dictators whose primary interest lies with a foriegn power?  The division of the Kurdish nation has resulted in them being persecuted by both Turkey and Iraq, so what you're essentially saying is that it's OK to hurt the Kurds because if they don't get hurt they'll hurt us.

No, I was just stating fact in that last post.

That was the reason they were split, and that is what it has resulted in.  It's fairly certain (now I'm gonig into opinion a bit more) that the creatino of a kurdish state will result in huge amounts of the middle east being occupied by a culture which will generally be very pissed off with everybody else, and has the means (and the desire) to get their revenge.

Bear in mind that in these cases there is seldom a course of actions that can be taken that does not result mass suffering, all that can be done is the minimisation of this suffering.