Oops, yes. And while we could certainly "pick up and go", it's not necessarily the best option because, as you say, everyone wants someone to be in charge. The problem is, your "free elections" had nothing to do with putting someone in charge.
Democracy is not a process, it is a culture. There is no culture of democracy is Iraq.
I disagree. I think it is a process. A process that takes time to accept. doesnt happen overnight.
Not really, no. An election is supposed to represent the will of the people with a purpose of enacting that will. The Iraqi elections did no such thing. Iraq is now a nation ruled by mobsters and your elections did nothing to prevent or change that.
Iraqis voted. those votes were counted and a president was elected. nation ruled by mobsters? come on. I admit America had alot of influence in the installation of this government but I dont see their leaders as mobsters. I mean, you are much smarter then that.
However, those with fundamental oppositions to this war are certainly justified in their positions. Iraq was not a truly sovereign state, but it was one full of millions of truly sovereign individuals. The death toll there amongst the civilians population is a crime perpetuated by everyone involved in American democracy. Furthermore, the costs in dollars and lives of the conflict are not likely to be outweighed by its benefits anytime soon, if at all.
call me a optimist but I think it can. One day Iraq will be free and people there will be allowed to say and think whatever they want. the only problem I see is how they all collectively feel about religion. here in america I can stand on the corner and say jesus is the devil or burn a bible and its tolerated because of free speech and freedom of expression. you and I both know that would never fly with the koran or allah. so maybe they really never can be truly free. I dont know.
fuck, I would love to visit Iraq one day. the history of the country and region is amazing. its where civilization began. maybe one day.
I disagree. I think it is a process. A process that takes time to accept. doesnt happen overnight.
If democracy were a process, one could have called pre-war Iraq a democracy.
Democracy requires people to believe in their shared purposes. Within a group of people with no or only a few shared purposes, democracy becomes impossible at best or fraudulent at worst.
For Iraq to be truly democratic, it's people must have universal goals that do not stand in direct opposition to one another. Unfortunately, the only universal goal shared by many Iraqis are survival and revenge. That mixture is responsible for what we see in Iraq today, and it does not bode well for the future.
Iraqis voted. those votes were counted and a president was elected.
Is a president a man who sits in a room with a fancy title, or is a president a man who represents the people and has both the authority and capability to enact their will and protect their rights? If a president is the former, then you are right. If a president is the latter, than you are wrong.
nation ruled by mobsters? come on. I admit America had alot of influence in the installation of this government but I dont see their leaders as mobsters. I mean, you are much smarter then that.
You don't see their leaders as mobsters because you're not seeing their leaders. Iraq is not ruled by the men they elected. Iraq is ruled by the men who the elected have no authority to stop.
call me a optimist but I think it can. One day Iraq will be free and people there will be allowed to say and think whatever they want. the only problem I see is how they all collectively feel about religion. here in america I can stand on the corner and say jesus is the devil or burn a bible and its tolerated because of free speech and freedom of expression. you and I both know that would never fly with the koran or allah. so maybe they really never can be truly free. I dont know.
Religion is an ideological barrier that Iraq must leap over, but they are not alone in that category. The faith of Iraqis cannot help them, but it also is not a brand of faith so corrupt that it will consume them.
Free expression, extending from free action, is a core component of democracy. Democracy stems from the will of the people and, with no measure of freedom, the will of the people becomes moot and therefore democracy crumbles. But Iraq is not a nation without a history of freedom. Its people desire to be free more than they wish to be slaves, which makes Iraq one of a few exceptions to the rule among nations united under Islam. The vast majority of its people are secular first, and that is where we can find hope for their future. The key is to ensure the freedoms of those people and to ensure the protection of their lives such that they can do their work and rebuild their nation. Unfortunately, no such protection exists.
fuck, I would love to visit Iraq one day. the history of the country and region is amazing. its where civilization began. maybe one day.
One can hope, but one can also help. As Americans, we are responsible for kicking the hornets nest, and it does no good to blame the hornets for their actions. We have given ourselves the responsibility to protect that which we have endangered. Iraq, as a nation, must be disolved. It needs to be sectioned into states based not on the whims of British mandates but rather based on the consistent will of combined individuals. And those who seek protection must get it, while those who seek revenge must be shown its logical end.
Democracy is not a process, it is a culture. There is no culture of democracy in Iraq.
Wow. I'm very, very impressed with this. Finally someone has put their finger on exactly what many of us know quite sickenly within. This is exactly why it is not okay to dysfunctionally go bombard your way into other people's lives and force your way on them, and call it "right". Not only is it not okay, but it doesn't work, for the same reasons. Brilliant. Thank you for your discernment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This is exactly why it is not okay to dysfunctionally go bombard your way into other people's lives and force your way on them, and call it "right".
And thank you for the above. Too often the crimes of democratic governments are excused by those who cite the "rule of the majority" as if percentages and morality are synonymous. The dividing line between a democracy and a lynch mob is plain and simple: a democracy acts to protect the natural rights of its citizens while the lynch mob uses the strength of its citizens to violate the natural rights of the few.
If democracy were a process, the lynch mob would be the most democratic body known to man.
I cant keep up with you but you make great intelligent points. I wont claim to be any type of expert on the middle east and whats best. I would like to believe democracy and freedom works. in the middle east, I'm starting to think it doesnt. people will continue to live under the boot of a suppressive government all in the name of allah. religion is much too large a factor and the peoples history goes too far back for in to change in a couple years.
if I can ask you a question.
what would you do if you were elected president of the US tomorrow? you can limit your answer to the Iraq situation.
edit. I'm also glad you dont end your arguments with fuck bush I want to piss on his grave like some here.
Taking out Saddam Hussein was not dreamed up — as is sometimes alleged — by sneaky supporters of Israel. Nor did oil-hungry CEOs or Halliburton puppeteers pull strings in the shadows to get us in. And the go-ahead wasn't given merely on the strength of trumped-up fears of weapons of mass destruction: The U.S. Congress authorized the war on 23 diverse counts, from Iraq's violation of the 1991 armistice to its record of giving both money and sanctuary to terrorists.
George W. Bush resolved to democratize Iraq also as a way to confront three grim facts of our recent past.
First, the United States had been far too friendly with atrocious regimes in the Middle East. And when bloodletting inevitably broke out, either internally or between aggressive regimes, too often we cynically played one side off the other. Or we backed repugnant insurgents, with little thought of the "blowback" that would result. We outsourced sophisticated arms and training to radical Islamists fighting against the Soviet-backed Afghan government. We hoped the murderous Saddam might check the murderous Iranian theocracy — and then again sold arms to the mullahs during the Iran-Contra affair.
We breezily called for an uprising of Shiites and Kurds only to abandon them to be slaughtered by Saddam after the first Gulf War. We cynically gave the Mubarak dynasty of Egypt billions in protection money to behave. While we thought we were achieving short-term expediency, American policy only increased long-term instability by not pressuring these tyrants to reform failed governments.
Second, at key moments in the 1980s and '90s, the United States signaled that it would appease its terrorist enemies rather than engage in the difficult work of uprooting them. We did little other than file an indictment or shoot a missile at the killers who murdered American citizens, diplomats and soldiers in East Africa, Lebanon, New York City, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Leaving Lebanon, scurrying out of Somalia, and continually flying through Saddam's skies for 12 long years without removing him only cemented the image of an uncertain America.
Third, September 11 changed the way the U.S. looked at the status quo in the Middle East. That attack was the work of terrorists who were enabled by our autocratic clients in the Middle East, and emboldened by our previous inaction. In response, Iraq was an effort to end both the cynical realism and the convenient appeasement of the past — and so to address the much larger problems of the Middle East that, if left alone, could lead to another large-scale terrorist attack in the United States.
Whatever one thinks of our mistakes after Saddam was toppled, those three facts remain central to American foreign policy. Saudi subsidies to jihadists, Pakistani sanctuary for them, and Egyptian propaganda are all symptoms of these dictatorships hedging their bets — hoping their bought terrorists don't turn on them for their own failures and illegitimacy.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri will still connive to bring the new caliphate to Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. And they won't be stopped by either cruise missiles or court subpoenas, but only by a resolute United States and Middle Eastern societies that elect their own leaders and live with the results.
We can demonize President Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld all we want, or wish they presented their views in a kindlier and more artful fashion. We can wish that the United States were better at training Iraqis and killing terrorists to secure Iraq. But the same general mess in the Middle East will still confront Bush's and Rumsfeld's successors.
And long after the present furor over Iraq dies down, the idea of trying to help democratic reformers fight terrorists, and to distance America from failed regimes that are antithetical to our values, simply will not go away.
That tough idealism will stay — because in the end it is the only right and smart thing to do.
I think Victor Davis Hanson might want some credit for the above.
I cant keep up with you but you make great intelligent points. I wont claim to be any type of expert on the middle east and whats best. I would like to believe democracy and freedom works. in the middle east, I'm starting to think it doesnt. people will continue to live under the boot of a suppressive government all in the name of allah.
There was once another nation where people feared that faith would trump reason. That nation is called America. And while reason never completely fully defeated faith here, it became the core value of our culture and made nearly everything we now enjoy possible.
Democracy and freedom do work, the latter often in spite of the former. But they do not work as ends unto themselves, however. That's why a "free election" is not an achievement. A free election is a means to achievement -- the achievement being a government that protects the natural rights of all its citizens such that those citizens can live.
religion is much too large a factor and the peoples history goes too far back for in to change in a couple years.
Certainly. But, as we see in nations throughout this world, freedom and democracy can thrive in spite of religion.
if I can ask you a question.
what would you do if you were elected president of the US tomorrow? you can limit your answer to the Iraq situation.
If I had the authority and the ability and the desire to command US forces in Iraq at this time, I'd take some very simple steps:
- I'd hold an immediate referendum on the existing Iraqi federal government and constitution, giving the people of Iraq a simple proposition: continue with the federal system or abandon it.
- If the people choose the former (continue with a unified Iraq), I'd remove US troops over the course of 2 years since the United States people have not the will nor the resources to combat the inevitable civil war that would arise. During those 2 years, 200,000 US troops would be tasked with the protection of Baghdad and Iraqi oil infrastructure and nothing else, giving the Iraqi government the only chance it has to both establish a base of authority while giving it the resources it needs for its people to maintain an economy.
- If people choose the latter (dissolve a unified Iraq), I'd assist in the dissolution of the federal system and begin the rebuilding of the region by first assiting Iraqi Kurds in establishing an independent state and establishing a US operational base there. I'd establish an interim federal authority with only one purpose: processing requests for statehood that would be evaluated based on one standard alone -- a demonstrated shared peaceful purpose represented by subsets of the Iraqi population. As those states were formed, I would immediately dedicate US troops for border protection alone based on the wishes of the individual nascent state governments. In essense, Iraq would be carved up into a collection of n-number of states and each of those states would be individually defended but not policed. It would be the hope that the states would one day align and reform something looking like the Iraqi nation, but such a federal end would not be a requirement.
Neither path would be pleasant, nor would either necessarily prevent Iraq from dissolving into a full-scale civil war or returning to strong-arm rule. But both provide a basic purpose for US involvement while giving the Iraqi people a way to determine their future.
edit. I'm also glad you dont end your arguments with fuck bush I want to piss on his grave like some here.
George Bush is just one of many hurdles in this world for both the Iraqi people and the American people. We are all best served by simply leaving him and the many like him behind. Pissing on his grave would be an act of revenge and revenge cannot build, it can only destroy.
There was once another nation where people feared that faith would trump reason. That nation is called America. And while reason never completely fully defeated faith here, it became the core value of our culture and made nearly everything we now enjoy possible.
Democracy and freedom do work, the latter often in spite of the former. But they do not work as ends unto themselves, however. That's why a "free election" is not an achievement. A free election is a means to achievement -- the achievement being a government that protects the natural rights of all its citizens such that those citizens can live.
Certainly. But, as we see in nations throughout this world, freedom and democracy can thrive in spite of religion.
I would love to believe you but I fear its not possible with Islam. or at least the extreme view of Islam. I can see it striving in other parts of the world or with other religions. but not in the middle east. they are trained from birth to love and worship and defend allah by any means necessary. their dedication is amazing. morning, afternoon, evening prayers are madatory. but they dont even see it as a choice. it has to be done. religion will always come first and trump freedom or democracy. like my example of freedom of expression. never never never will someone be allowed to hold a sign, or write a newspaper article that says jesus is great allah is the devil. (or something along those lines). I hope i'm wrong.
If I had the authority and the ability and the desire to command US forces in Iraq at this time, I'd take some very simple steps:
- I'd hold an immediate referendum on the existing Iraqi federal government and constitution, giving the people of Iraq a simple proposition: continue with the federal system or abandon it.
- If the people choose the former (continue with a unified Iraq), I'd remove US troops over the course of 2 years since the United States people have not the will nor the resources to combat the inevitable civil war that would arise. During those 2 years, 200,000 US troops would be tasked with the protection of Baghdad and Iraqi oil infrastructure and nothing else, giving the Iraqi government the only chance it has to both establish a base of authority while giving it the resources it needs for its people to maintain an economy.
- If people choose the latter (dissolve a unified Iraq), I'd assist in the dissolution of the federal system and begin the rebuilding of the region by first assiting Iraqi Kurds in establishing an independent state and establishing a US operational base there. I'd establish an interim federal authority with only one purpose: processing requests for statehood that would be evaluated based on one standard alone -- a demonstrated shared peaceful purpose represented by subsets of the Iraqi population. As those states were formed, I would immediately dedicate US troops for border protection alone based on the wishes of the individual nascent state governments. In essense, Iraq would be carved up into a collection of n-number of states and each of those states would be individually defended but not policed. It would be the hope that the states would one day align and reform something looking like the Iraqi nation, but such a federal end would not be a requirement.
Neither path would be pleasant, nor would either necessarily prevent Iraq from dissolving into a full-scale civil war or returning to strong-arm rule. But both provide a basic purpose for US involvement while giving the Iraqi people a way to determine their future.
sounds good to me. but you dont pose a solution to quell the sunni shiite hatred. maybe a summit with religious leaders? local respected political leaders? get them in a room and spell out what both sides want. I understand its not that easy, hell if I know how to make that happen. but that needs to be addressed.
The apologies and excuses for this complete disaster are becoming as redundant as Bush's template speeches on the matter. It must be a hell of a morale booster for the troops to hear this idiot blather on without acknowledging the reality of the situation. Disgusting that the same administration that takes credit for the military successes still is underhanded in their treatment of the soldiers themselves.
Also, whoever didn't see a Shiite vs Sunni civil war coming out of this must be completely ignorant of the history of that region, Bill-O being a glaring example. That voracious cheerleader is "getting tired" of hearing about Sunni and Shiite, like it's just a passing disagreement that just popped up out of nowhere. This kind of thing is what earns the label of dumbassery.
I would love to believe you but I fear its not possible with Islam. or at least the extreme view of Islam.
It's not possible with the extreme view of any religion. But most Iraqis do not subscribe to an extreme Islam. That should give us hope. There's no reason to give up in the face of a minority group who has nothing to offer other than faith and death. Yes they will cause problems. Yes they will make things difficult. But they will not find friends among the dominant population unless that population sees them as the lesser of evils in relation to us.
We're currently giving the Iraqi people a very poor proposition: cheat or die. We're doing nothing to adaquately protect the secular parts of Iraqi society and just blaming an Iraqi force that is too corrupt and inept to do the job themselves. That won't help. We need American forces to protect sovereign, secular elements of Iraqi society to give them the chance they need to establish the basic functions of civilization. We need to stop speaking of "Iraq" and start talking on the level of towns and regions.
I can see it striving in other parts of the world or with other religions. but not in the middle east. they are trained from birth to love and worship and defend allah by any means necessary. their dedication is amazing. morning, afternoon, evening prayers are madatory. but they dont even see it as a choice. it has to be done. religion will always come first and trump freedom or democracy. like my example of freedom of expression. never never never will someone be allowed to hold a sign, or write a newspaper article that says jesus is great allah is the devil. (or something along those lines). I hope i'm wrong.
People grasp to their religion because it gives them hope. It explains that which they feel they cannot control. To so many in the Middle East, Islam is the only thing that binds them to one another and allows them to escape and justify the chaos in their lives. The wonderful thing is that a crutch can be removed when the wounds are healed. When Iraqis and anyone enslaved by faith are able to control their lives and see their will put into action by their own hands, the religion becomes superfluous. It is resigned to tradition, rather than dependence.
There is nothing fundamentally different between you and the average Iraqi. You have much the same desires. You have much the same values. What is different is the realities of the world you live in. We have the luxury of a society that values freedom instead of subservience, that values justice instead of revenge, that values ability over need. Those values allow us to achieve our chosen purposes. The inverse situation in many Middle East nations allows them to only work toward the purposes of others, thereby indirectly forcing them to seek ideological shelter in the confines of illogical faiths and faulty pretenses.
This is not to absolve the average Iraqi from his or her failure to affect positive change in their own lives by abandoning the shackles that are only half-real. But the reality of the situation is that they will not do it alone and, if we believe that positive change in our lives can come from positive change in their lives, we must help them. And we must help them one at a time, evaluating each sector of Iraqi society for what it is and what value it has to us.
sounds good to me. but you dont pose a solution to quell the sunni shiite hatred. maybe a summit with religious leaders? local respected political leaders? get them in a room and spell out what both sides want. I understand its not that easy, hell if I know how to make that happen. but that needs to be addressed.
The leaders you speak of are those that largely benefit from hatred. They will not help you solve it. The Sunni/Shiite hatred is not a new quality of Iraqi society -- our actions have simply created a climate where that hatred faces no reprisal and is free to be carried out to its logical end.
Hatred is fought not with a gun but rather a mind. Hatred has no basis in logic, particularly racial hatred. The hate between two men cannot be solved by pretending that hate doesn't exist or by attempting to wipe it out by force. Hatred may only be solved by giving those men a reason not to hate one another, meaning by establishing a common bond between them where both may benefit by working together. So far we have pretended that such a bond can be created by uniting these men under a common national banner known as Iraq. But those men are telling us now that no such real bond exists and that each sees himself as the rightful owner alone of that nation. We must stop pretending that they share an interest other than survival.
Comments
I disagree. I think it is a process. A process that takes time to accept. doesnt happen overnight.
Iraqis voted. those votes were counted and a president was elected. nation ruled by mobsters? come on. I admit America had alot of influence in the installation of this government but I dont see their leaders as mobsters. I mean, you are much smarter then that.
call me a optimist but I think it can. One day Iraq will be free and people there will be allowed to say and think whatever they want. the only problem I see is how they all collectively feel about religion. here in america I can stand on the corner and say jesus is the devil or burn a bible and its tolerated because of free speech and freedom of expression. you and I both know that would never fly with the koran or allah. so maybe they really never can be truly free. I dont know.
fuck, I would love to visit Iraq one day. the history of the country and region is amazing. its where civilization began. maybe one day.
If democracy were a process, one could have called pre-war Iraq a democracy.
Democracy requires people to believe in their shared purposes. Within a group of people with no or only a few shared purposes, democracy becomes impossible at best or fraudulent at worst.
For Iraq to be truly democratic, it's people must have universal goals that do not stand in direct opposition to one another. Unfortunately, the only universal goal shared by many Iraqis are survival and revenge. That mixture is responsible for what we see in Iraq today, and it does not bode well for the future.
Is a president a man who sits in a room with a fancy title, or is a president a man who represents the people and has both the authority and capability to enact their will and protect their rights? If a president is the former, then you are right. If a president is the latter, than you are wrong.
You don't see their leaders as mobsters because you're not seeing their leaders. Iraq is not ruled by the men they elected. Iraq is ruled by the men who the elected have no authority to stop.
Religion is an ideological barrier that Iraq must leap over, but they are not alone in that category. The faith of Iraqis cannot help them, but it also is not a brand of faith so corrupt that it will consume them.
Free expression, extending from free action, is a core component of democracy. Democracy stems from the will of the people and, with no measure of freedom, the will of the people becomes moot and therefore democracy crumbles. But Iraq is not a nation without a history of freedom. Its people desire to be free more than they wish to be slaves, which makes Iraq one of a few exceptions to the rule among nations united under Islam. The vast majority of its people are secular first, and that is where we can find hope for their future. The key is to ensure the freedoms of those people and to ensure the protection of their lives such that they can do their work and rebuild their nation. Unfortunately, no such protection exists.
One can hope, but one can also help. As Americans, we are responsible for kicking the hornets nest, and it does no good to blame the hornets for their actions. We have given ourselves the responsibility to protect that which we have endangered. Iraq, as a nation, must be disolved. It needs to be sectioned into states based not on the whims of British mandates but rather based on the consistent will of combined individuals. And those who seek protection must get it, while those who seek revenge must be shown its logical end.
Wow. I'm very, very impressed with this. Finally someone has put their finger on exactly what many of us know quite sickenly within. This is exactly why it is not okay to dysfunctionally go bombard your way into other people's lives and force your way on them, and call it "right". Not only is it not okay, but it doesn't work, for the same reasons. Brilliant. Thank you for your discernment.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And thank you for the above. Too often the crimes of democratic governments are excused by those who cite the "rule of the majority" as if percentages and morality are synonymous. The dividing line between a democracy and a lynch mob is plain and simple: a democracy acts to protect the natural rights of its citizens while the lynch mob uses the strength of its citizens to violate the natural rights of the few.
If democracy were a process, the lynch mob would be the most democratic body known to man.
I cant keep up with you but you make great intelligent points. I wont claim to be any type of expert on the middle east and whats best. I would like to believe democracy and freedom works. in the middle east, I'm starting to think it doesnt. people will continue to live under the boot of a suppressive government all in the name of allah. religion is much too large a factor and the peoples history goes too far back for in to change in a couple years.
if I can ask you a question.
what would you do if you were elected president of the US tomorrow? you can limit your answer to the Iraq situation.
edit. I'm also glad you dont end your arguments with fuck bush I want to piss on his grave like some here.
There was once another nation where people feared that faith would trump reason. That nation is called America. And while reason never completely fully defeated faith here, it became the core value of our culture and made nearly everything we now enjoy possible.
Democracy and freedom do work, the latter often in spite of the former. But they do not work as ends unto themselves, however. That's why a "free election" is not an achievement. A free election is a means to achievement -- the achievement being a government that protects the natural rights of all its citizens such that those citizens can live.
Certainly. But, as we see in nations throughout this world, freedom and democracy can thrive in spite of religion.
If I had the authority and the ability and the desire to command US forces in Iraq at this time, I'd take some very simple steps:
- I'd hold an immediate referendum on the existing Iraqi federal government and constitution, giving the people of Iraq a simple proposition: continue with the federal system or abandon it.
- If the people choose the former (continue with a unified Iraq), I'd remove US troops over the course of 2 years since the United States people have not the will nor the resources to combat the inevitable civil war that would arise. During those 2 years, 200,000 US troops would be tasked with the protection of Baghdad and Iraqi oil infrastructure and nothing else, giving the Iraqi government the only chance it has to both establish a base of authority while giving it the resources it needs for its people to maintain an economy.
- If people choose the latter (dissolve a unified Iraq), I'd assist in the dissolution of the federal system and begin the rebuilding of the region by first assiting Iraqi Kurds in establishing an independent state and establishing a US operational base there. I'd establish an interim federal authority with only one purpose: processing requests for statehood that would be evaluated based on one standard alone -- a demonstrated shared peaceful purpose represented by subsets of the Iraqi population. As those states were formed, I would immediately dedicate US troops for border protection alone based on the wishes of the individual nascent state governments. In essense, Iraq would be carved up into a collection of n-number of states and each of those states would be individually defended but not policed. It would be the hope that the states would one day align and reform something looking like the Iraqi nation, but such a federal end would not be a requirement.
Neither path would be pleasant, nor would either necessarily prevent Iraq from dissolving into a full-scale civil war or returning to strong-arm rule. But both provide a basic purpose for US involvement while giving the Iraqi people a way to determine their future.
George Bush is just one of many hurdles in this world for both the Iraqi people and the American people. We are all best served by simply leaving him and the many like him behind. Pissing on his grave would be an act of revenge and revenge cannot build, it can only destroy.
great points.
I would love to believe you but I fear its not possible with Islam. or at least the extreme view of Islam. I can see it striving in other parts of the world or with other religions. but not in the middle east. they are trained from birth to love and worship and defend allah by any means necessary. their dedication is amazing. morning, afternoon, evening prayers are madatory. but they dont even see it as a choice. it has to be done. religion will always come first and trump freedom or democracy. like my example of freedom of expression. never never never will someone be allowed to hold a sign, or write a newspaper article that says jesus is great allah is the devil. (or something along those lines). I hope i'm wrong.
sounds good to me. but you dont pose a solution to quell the sunni shiite hatred. maybe a summit with religious leaders? local respected political leaders? get them in a room and spell out what both sides want. I understand its not that easy, hell if I know how to make that happen. but that needs to be addressed.
Also, whoever didn't see a Shiite vs Sunni civil war coming out of this must be completely ignorant of the history of that region, Bill-O being a glaring example. That voracious cheerleader is "getting tired" of hearing about Sunni and Shiite, like it's just a passing disagreement that just popped up out of nowhere. This kind of thing is what earns the label of dumbassery.
It's not possible with the extreme view of any religion. But most Iraqis do not subscribe to an extreme Islam. That should give us hope. There's no reason to give up in the face of a minority group who has nothing to offer other than faith and death. Yes they will cause problems. Yes they will make things difficult. But they will not find friends among the dominant population unless that population sees them as the lesser of evils in relation to us.
We're currently giving the Iraqi people a very poor proposition: cheat or die. We're doing nothing to adaquately protect the secular parts of Iraqi society and just blaming an Iraqi force that is too corrupt and inept to do the job themselves. That won't help. We need American forces to protect sovereign, secular elements of Iraqi society to give them the chance they need to establish the basic functions of civilization. We need to stop speaking of "Iraq" and start talking on the level of towns and regions.
People grasp to their religion because it gives them hope. It explains that which they feel they cannot control. To so many in the Middle East, Islam is the only thing that binds them to one another and allows them to escape and justify the chaos in their lives. The wonderful thing is that a crutch can be removed when the wounds are healed. When Iraqis and anyone enslaved by faith are able to control their lives and see their will put into action by their own hands, the religion becomes superfluous. It is resigned to tradition, rather than dependence.
There is nothing fundamentally different between you and the average Iraqi. You have much the same desires. You have much the same values. What is different is the realities of the world you live in. We have the luxury of a society that values freedom instead of subservience, that values justice instead of revenge, that values ability over need. Those values allow us to achieve our chosen purposes. The inverse situation in many Middle East nations allows them to only work toward the purposes of others, thereby indirectly forcing them to seek ideological shelter in the confines of illogical faiths and faulty pretenses.
This is not to absolve the average Iraqi from his or her failure to affect positive change in their own lives by abandoning the shackles that are only half-real. But the reality of the situation is that they will not do it alone and, if we believe that positive change in our lives can come from positive change in their lives, we must help them. And we must help them one at a time, evaluating each sector of Iraqi society for what it is and what value it has to us.
The leaders you speak of are those that largely benefit from hatred. They will not help you solve it. The Sunni/Shiite hatred is not a new quality of Iraqi society -- our actions have simply created a climate where that hatred faces no reprisal and is free to be carried out to its logical end.
Hatred is fought not with a gun but rather a mind. Hatred has no basis in logic, particularly racial hatred. The hate between two men cannot be solved by pretending that hate doesn't exist or by attempting to wipe it out by force. Hatred may only be solved by giving those men a reason not to hate one another, meaning by establishing a common bond between them where both may benefit by working together. So far we have pretended that such a bond can be created by uniting these men under a common national banner known as Iraq. But those men are telling us now that no such real bond exists and that each sees himself as the rightful owner alone of that nation. We must stop pretending that they share an interest other than survival.