Middle eastern politics

[amoona]

I think that has to do with a lot of the topics we discussion in section of the forum have to do with current affairs. The Middle East is in the news everyday and everything that goes on there effects the rest of the world in today's day and age.

 

[amoona]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae So these lands have NEVER been conquored in the past? They were never part of the Roman empire? They have just been peaceful places where artisans made pretty things and scholors learned about the stars? I think we need to send a message to all the universities that their textbooks are wrong. Somebody is in SOOOOOO much trouble for not proof-reading.

I don't think that is what lemurian was trying to say.

I really can't speak for her but I think you may have misunderstood. Nobody said they weren't a part of the Roman Empire. I previously listed a lot of the other empires that the land was a part of.

Lemurian was trying to say (at least I believe) that the current affairs in the Arab world are a result of European Imperialism.

Quote:

it is the fault of European imperialism that things are the way that they are today.

 

[lemurian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae So these lands have NEVER been conquored in the past? They were never part of the Roman empire? They have just been peaceful places where artisans made pretty things and scholors learned about the stars? I think we need to send a message to all the universities that their textbooks are wrong. Somebody is in SOOOOOO much trouble for not proof-reading.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff.. it's like you're arguing with a ghost! And I'm tired of trying to explain the same thing fifty times over, so I'm just going to politely bow out of this discussion for now, leaving you at the mercy of amoona. Good luck!

 

[quandolak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer No, your point wasn't missed. However you're saying the military is doing no good. You're saying the average non combatant's quality of life has suffered since 2003. That's simply not true. Electricity? Jobs? Running water? These things are pretty important to the improvement of quality of life. Hospitals? REAL healthcare? Those are improvements whether you like who brought them or not.

Shimmer its not a matter of me supposedly not liking these hospitals being built cos they are being built by americans..

ALL im saying is that all these services were available before the war and saddam spent lots of money on them all. He killed kurds and that was awful but he did still let iraq have a very high quality of life overall.
Most had running water,schools,jobs electricity etc until the bombing started. You acting as if they never had that before. When the majority did have access to most services.

Also all these services are not now available in iraq after the devastation coalition forces have caused. Again your making it sound as if these services are an actual reality in current iraq.
*Real healthcare* whats that supposed to mean...the health care system has got worse there not better. people are dying in hospital floors as there arent enough hospitals any more to serve the population which inedentally is less than it has been in a decades.


So electricity,running water,jobs,healthcare are important to the quality of life. But fewer iraqis now have electricity. Many dont have running water. Healthcare is in shambles as so many hospitals have been destroyed and funding been cut off .

And about jobs Iraq has unemployment running at 70% now the forces are there . Compare that to the previous iraq unemployment rate of 4% and no matter how you wish to *interpret* it ...its obvious that things have infact got worse.


I cant belive that you can even claim for one moment that things have got in the slightest bit better despite the actual reality there that shows otherwise.

 

[Shimmer]

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[quandolak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae Many people dont support the war. Doesn't mean it changes anything. Were not in charge of who sends who where. I did not vote for any of the people responsible for thie war. Neigther have I voted for the representative who supported it in my State. As an American, thats about all I can do. ................. *quote* and this is the kind of democracy you feel is fit to be forced upon the iraqis??...cos thats whats being currently pushed. Quote* At least there re-building it. Sadam wasn't even doing that.

Thats rubbish. He was an awful man no doubt . His evil ways were selective but the majority of Iraqis had a high qulity of life.

Compare it to american standards and maybe people will think otherwise. But for that region it was a model of how good health care and education that was heavily funded by the government helped the economy and as a consequence they had a very low unemployment rate.


I had a wonderful national geographic article about this. Its at home in the uk though. Its several yers old . ..just before the war started and if anyone here collects that magazine then it would be great for them to dig it up and read its article on pre war iraq and what a success it was.
It was a nice unbiased story written before political points scoring dictated what people write on the subject currently.

 

[quandolak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amoona ITA. I know that when we lived in Kuwait many of my cousins went to universities in Iraq because of their outstanding educational programs. I also know many of my family living in the Middle East have said that Iraq had very good universities. Education has always been very important in Iraq whether they were in economic ruin or not. I don't know anyone from Iraq who doesn't have a college degree because there is a strong emphasis on getting your education there.

Same same. My sons uncle lives in kuwait and he completed his education in iraq...and that says something as kuwait is more than adequate at providing good education.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amoona I don't think that is what lemurian was trying to say. I really can't speak for her but I think you may have misunderstood. Nobody said they weren't a part of the Roman Empire. I previously listed a lot of the other empires that the land was a part of. Lemurian was trying to say (at least I believe) that the current affairs in the Arab world are a result of European Imperialism.

I agreed with her on that point.

Edit: Quoting myself

Quote:

While European Imperialism is a factor in how things are today, it's not the only reason.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemurian I don't know where you're getting this stuff.. it's like you're arguing with a ghost! And I'm tired of trying to explain the same thing fifty times over, so I'm just going to politely bow out of this discussion for now, leaving you at the mercy of amoona. Good luck!

Perhaps you need to be more specific in what you disgreeing with then. Your 1 line response a few posts up doesn't exactly sum up the multiple points that were brought up in that post. So I kinda have to guess which one your disagreeing with.

Which is why discussing a topic is sometimes difficult, because 2 people are discussing two different things, while thinking they are discussing the same.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC_Whore Thanks . I was aware of that. That's kind of my point as well. I was just stating that a lot of threads seem to head into the same old topics.

Regardless of that or not, I find them interesting in more than a just it's fun to have a message board discussion.

I've probably googled more websites and read more history about the middle east today, than I have since I was in college. All of these threads can be a great way to learn about topics. At least thats how I see them. Even if we can get passionate about things at times.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by quandolak Thats rubbish. He was an awful man no doubt . His evil ways were selective but the majority of Iraqis had a high qulity of life. Compare it to american standards and maybe people will think otherwise. But for that region it was a model of how good health care and education that was heavily funded by the government helped the economy and as a consequence they had a very low unemployment rate.

The problem that you glossing over, is that while as great of a life that Sadam and the Ba'ath Party created for their people over the last like 50 years (most of this started to decline in the 70's because of the War with Iran), he is also the reason ALL OF IT GOT DESTROYED.

The world is Global now, and you can't just do what you want to do, and expect the rest of the world to just sit back and watch. Sadam in both the war with Kuwait, and the most recent war, provoked the world into Military response.

Had he just complied with the requests, and the the demands of the rest of the Planet in the first place, none of the schools, water purification plants, power plants, oil fields, etc, would have been damaged.

He defied the world, and all it got him was a short trip to the gallows.

 

[amoona]

You say that in the most recetn war Saddam provoked the world into military response? Are you speaking of the current invasion of Iraq? If you are what exactly did he do to provoke the invasion?! Him killing people has gone on since day one. He didn't attack the US nor did he pose any threat to the US.

I've said before if the US wanted to invade the country and get rid of Saddam because they actually wanted to help Iraqis then that's understandable. But that wasn't the reason of the invansion, and it's only now that the US is saying that they're there to "liberate" the Iraqi people.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amoona You say that in the most recetn war Saddam provoked the world into military response? Are you speaking of the current invasion of Iraq? If you are what exactly did he do to provoke the invasion?! Him killing people has gone on since day one. He didn't attack the US nor did he pose any threat to the US.

Had he just complied with the UN, and allowed inspectors in w/out any smoke and mirrors, the US would have never had any grounds what so ever to use military action. 911 or not.

Same with the previous war in the early 90's over Kuwait. Had he withdrawn his military from Kuwait like the UN demanded, no military action would have been taken.

Each time Military Action has been taken againt Iraq, it was because Saddam's government was given a set of demands to comply with by the UN, and FAILED to comply. And it's not like they were given 1 warning. It's more like the UN gave Saddam 10 million chances, now it's time for Military action. As a result of him constantly defying the globe, he's caused the deaths and sufferings that have resulted in Iraq from both wars.

Thats the problem with being a Dictator like Saddam. You can't show weakness to ANYONE, else you risk losing control of your police state. You have to always show strength. The only problem is, Saddam was a scrawn little brat compared to the Military strength of the coalition. So every time his bluffs were called, he lost. Badly.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amoona I've said before if the US wanted to invade the country and get rid of Saddam because they actually wanted to help Iraqis then that's understandable. But that wasn't the reason of the invansion, and it's only now that the US is saying that they're there to "liberate" the Iraqi people.

There is never a good reason for wars. But sometimes thats the only option left. What do you do, when negoations fail? Keep asking for more negotiations? At what point does your ability to negotiate lose meaning. Appeasement never works, we saw that with WW2 and Germany.

If anything Iraq hopefully will serve as an example to other police states that you can't defy the rest of the world. As a political leader, it's your job to protect your people's best interests, not just your own. Unfortunateley those two things dont really mix well when your a dictator.

 

[amoona]

And you think that justifies an invasion of a country? Since this thread has become an entire Middle Eastern politics thread then I can say this. Israel defies the UN all the time, the US doesn't invade them. I honestly don't think it's a good reason to invade Iraq and not a good reason to invade Israel.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amoona And you think that justifies an invasion of a country? Since this thread has become an entire Middle Eastern politics thread then I can say this. Israel defies the UN all the time, the US doesn't invade them. I honestly don't think it's a good reason to invade Iraq and not a good reason to invade Israel.

What do you do when diplomacy fails Amoona? Wars only start when the talking stops.

 

[amoona]

But that's ok for Iraq and not for Israel? Why is Iraq more obligated to listen to everything the UN says when Israel isn't. That's what I'm saying.

You brought up that Saddam didn't listen to the UN so the US invaded right? Well Israel never listens to the UN so why doesn't the US invade them?! I know politics isn't fair but you really can't justify the invasion of Iraq by saying Saddam didn't listen.

My original point was that the invasion of Iraq was done for a b.s. reason. Saddam not allowing the UN to inspect doesn't mean jack. Even a UN weapons inspector has said that the war wasn't justified. And the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iraq hasn't resumed any nuclear weapons program since the dismantlement of the program in 1997.

I could go on but basically in a nutshell the reasons for the invasion were b.s.

 

[Raerae]

I do agree with most of your post. But, your ignoring the global political climate following 9/11. Is it a escuse? Maybe, maybe not. Hindsight is 20/20 so while it's easy to look back today after investigations and reports and say, that Nuculear Weapons may not have been present, it's also a question of, would they have been present again, just in the future? Sometimes the only way to prevent a threat, is to eliminate it before it is one. Not wait until it's too late (WW2 taught the world a valuable lesson, appeasement is a poor political platform). Also, personally, I dont think it takes a Nuculear Bomb for something to be considered a WMD. There are plenty of other clemicals and lethal substances that are equally destructive. And you can't say Saddam was exactly open with inspectors. He did everything in his power to make inspecting as difficult as possible. There is a lot of sand out there...

Regarding Israel. Israel isn't playing bad politics. What I mean by bad politics, is you have to look at who is the most influencial on the global political scene, when your a tiny little country with little global influence. The reason Israel isn't invaded by the US when they defy the UN? Simple. Israel isn't a threat to the US. Israel isn't fundung terrorists groups who bomb the US. A threat to countries in the region? Probably. There is no justification for the US to invade israel. Israel isn't a threat to the US. Yes Israel is percieved a threat to countries in the Region. But thats regional politics, not global. Which is why if other nations need to declare war on Israel, they can (hasn't stopped them from doing it in the past).

 

[amoona]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae I do agree with most of your post. But, your ignoring the global political climate following 9/11. Is it a escuse? Maybe, maybe not. Hindsight is 20/20 so while it's easy to look back today after investigations and reports and say, that Nuculear Weapons may not have been present, it's also a question of, would they have been present again, just in the future? Sometimes the only way to prevent a threat, is to eliminate it before it is one. Not wait until it's too late (WW2 taught the world a valuable lesson, appeasement is a poor political platform). Also, personally, I dont think it takes a Nuculear Bomb for something to be considered a WMD. There are plenty of other clemicals and lethal substances that are equally destructive. And you can't say Saddam was exactly open with inspectors. He did everything in his power to make inspecting as difficult as possible. There is a lot of sand out there...

So because there MIGHT be a threat then the US should invade another country? Then there's a WHOLE list of countries they should be invading. I also don't think 9/11 is a good excuse either, yes I know the politicial climate after that day and how everyone went ape sh-ts and was paranoid out of their minds. I mean people today still think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. I'm not saying Saddam welcomed them with open arms, I mean who would expect him to? That would be WAY out of character for him. I just think all the excuses that were thrown out as being the reason were bull. I mean everyone knows it's bull. Regardless of what people thought Saddam may have had or anything like that the point is that this war was not fought for the right reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae Regarding Israel. Israel isn't playing bad politics. What I mean by bad politics, is you have to look at who is the most influencial on the global political scene, when your a tiny little country with little global influence. The reason Israel isn't invaded by the US when they defy the UN? Simple. Israel isn't a threat to the US. Israel isn't fundung terrorists groups who bomb the US. A threat to countries in the region? Probably. There is no justification for the US to invade israel. Israel isn't a threat to the US. Yes Israel is percieved a threat to countries in the Region. But thats regional politics, not global. Which is why if other nations need to declare war on Israel, they can (hasn't stopped them from doing it in the past).

You think Israel is a little country with little global influence? Um, that couldn't be further from the truth.

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

You may think that Israel has little global influence but according to them you're wrong. Israel has plenty of influence in the world because they are the object of a lot of conflicts in the Middle East. The US feels that the Middle East is a big enough influence to invade the region. You may think Israel isn't a threat to the US but Iraq wasn't a threat either. Why not invade North Korea then?

Also, no other country in the world will ever attack Israel except maybe Iran because they're President is a lil out there. Israel is backed by the US, who wants to go up against that? Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world. The Arab leaders have become America's bitches and are too big of cowards to do anything. And even when they did things in the past it's not like they were trying to win. They were just standing up for the Palestinians so we couldn't say that they don't help us. Trust me, Palestinians are treated like dirt in other Arab countries. We're like a burden to them. Hell Kuwait kicked us all out of the country!

Basically the only power that can stand up to Israel is America, and I don't see them doing that because they need a friend in the Middle East. The Arab leaders are "friends" but it's all b.s. and it's all about money. With Israel, they're not going to turn on the US because both countries need each other.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amoona I'm not saying Saddam welcomed them with open arms, I mean who would expect him to? That would be WAY out of character for him.

Thats why I say he played a bad hand of global politics and lost. But as a dictator, he kinda painted himself in the corner. For Sadam it was pretty much a lose lose situation. Chances are if he had started negotiating with the US, someone in his regime would go behind his back calling him a coward, and he would have been killed. But standing up to the US cost him his country too.

Kinda sucks sometime

Quote:

Why not invade North Korea then?

3 reasons. 1, there still talking. 2. The US is already involved in a huge mess in Iraq, another war? The president would never get enough support. 3. Invading N Korea is a much riskier indeavor, than invading Iraq ever was. While Iraq may have once had a fairly strong Military, by the time the invasion took place, it was a pretty pathetic army. N Korea on the other hand has a large military. And N Korea's military technology is more advanced than Iraq's. Not to mention their leader is a nut job too.

N Korea has cards in their hand that Iraq didn't. N Korea has the abiity to cause a lot of death in S Korea. While it's not US citizens (other than the military there) that has to be taken into consideration b4 attacking them. It was pretty obvious that if Iraq was attacked, no other countries would be affected.

N Korea has some form of a Nuculear weapon. Whether or not it can reach the United States at this point is irrelevant, it could probably reach S Korea, or Japan. Thats something else that has to be thought about b4 attacking N Korea. And considering the form of government, they would use the bomb. Dictators typically will do anything they can to keep power. Human life doeant mean anything to these types of governments.

So the US just can't invade N. Korea. They had their chance to fix the problem back during Veitman, and they screwed up. And now were seeing the results of that.


Quote:

Also, no other country in the world will ever attack Israel except maybe Iran because they're President is a lil out there. Israel is backed by the US, who wants to go up against that? Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world. The Arab leaders have become America's bitches and are too big of cowards to do anything. And even when they did things in the past it's not like they were trying to win. They were just standing up for the Palestinians so we couldn't say that they don't help us. Trust me, Palestinians are treated like dirt in other Arab countries. We're like a burden to them. Hell Kuwait kicked us all out of the country! Basically the only power that can stand up to Israel is America, and I don't see them doing that because they need a friend in the Middle East. The Arab leaders are "friends" but it's all b.s. and it's all about money. With Israel, they're not going to turn on the US because both countries need each other.

No gonna disagree with this.

Edit: added a 3rd reason.