Sadly something I, among others, could easily foresee due to the US's recent history of myopic foreign policy.
*
« Reply #8 on: Mar 21st, 2003, 9:29pm »To build something takes time, to blow something up takes no time at all.
The aftermath is bound to be infinitely more difficult, and could quite possibly plunge the entire region into crisis. Old claims will be brought up. Scores will be settled. Ambitions will be tested. I shudder to imagine the possible magnitude of all this. Especially if the Infidel occupies a Muslim country on whatever pretext.
The restructuring of Iraq is best left to the UN. The Americans are a useful tool with their technology in the first stage of the process, but their Coca Cola foreign policy should be kept on this side of the Atlantic after that.
« Reply #16 on: Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:38am »Increasingly lost in the hysteria and testosterone rush of wanting and seeing big explosions is the fact that very few have advocated keeping Saddam in power. His removal has been called for by almost all. It is the question of methods and motives (or M&Ms as I'm sure the Cheerleader News Network would quickly get around to calling it) that is eyed with suspicion.
The Americans are far from holier than thou: In fact, employing rhetoric slung about in recent years, this can be described as a battle between The Great Satan and The Axis of Evil (there's a working title for a Sunday morning cartoon show for some enterprising young American). This mortal coil is, after all, the domain that was granted to the Fallen One.
As for the Shocking and Aweful photos: so what? Such photos can be dredged up daily from the four corners of the world. Might as well show photos of homeless people dead on heating grates and in alley ways, subway suicide victims; and make the claim that a nation that can't guarantee the safety and well-being of its own population has no business policing the world.
It is ironic to see the Americans using the two things that they have more of than anyone else in the world to destroy one of their own creations. What remains to be seen is what the embryo they will seek to nourish with their money and weapons will look like as it grows. Recent past history has not been flattering in this regard.
« Reply #18 on: Mar 22nd, 2003, 1:48pm »What really sucks is that the American government created and sustained Saddam in the first place.
Reality doesn't suck. It just is. The American government (especially its foreign policy) is what sucks.
The Americans are not the only ones who could remove Saddam. They are the ones who have chosen to do it in their own unpopular fashion. Though in a sense it's fitting that they clean up the mess they created in the first place. Of course, that they leave a greater mess behind them due to their shortsightedness won't be surprising, given their lack of understanding of the greater reality beyond their insular boundaries.
-
habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&action=display&n=1&thread=12089***
« Thread started on: Mar 23rd, 2003, 2:01pm » What's good for the goose is good for the gander:
- launching a missile into southwestern Iran is always an attention getter
- having 10,000 armed Iraqi Muslim fundamentalists lined up on the Iranian side of the border, wating for their chance adds spice
- allowing Turkish troops to cross the border and mingle with their close buddies, the Kurds, couldn't possibly be a bad idea
- vehement anti-American demonstrations in the region, where public protest is generally good for an automatic go to jail card at best
- shooting down an RAF jet
- underestimating armed resistance
- more self-inflicted casualties than those caused by the enemy
And it's just early days, the fun's barely begun.
The actual occupation, if and when it occurs, ought to be a morass to rival Vietnam. But hey, in the Nintendoland (courtesy Japan Inc) of North America, who thinks ahead that far realistically (and then decides on what course of action to take)?
The silver bullet is a myth.
America now is not what America was (despite the unconscious and sometimes legal absorption of past experience). The question is: "What are you doing to me now (and how will it affect *my* [insert appropriate region of the world] future)?"
It is fascinating, and frightening, to see the Oedipal saga of father and son Bush played out on the world stage. Beware ancient Greek playwrights .
And, oh yeah, God Bless America, and may Allah protect all Muslims.
***
« Reply #21 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 09:39am »Actually the point I made was contained in my summary paragraph, and is as follows:
"I stand by my original assertion that the war won't be the worst of what is to come for this region. Though the war will have served to provoke the impending crisis. The United States with its typically ignorant "my-way-or-the highway" blundering in far corners of the world will be stirring up a hornet's nest."
As for the assertion that I have ignored the present or past: that is laughable. The articles themselves are a synopsis of past and present conditions in the area. I used them as a basis for making my prediction that the region will be far more unstable once Saddam is gone, thanks to the Bush Power Vacuum.
Yugoslavia - Tito = Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Muslim, Christian.
Iraq - Saddam = Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Baath party supporters, religious fundamentalists, clans, and possibly outsiders (Turks and Iranians).
Rebuilding will be a long, painful process.
« Reply #23 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 12:13pm »Saddam is a strong man, not a good man. Perversely he is a better short term guarantor of regional stability than the vacuum his absence would create will be. Long term, one hopes that Iraq will be better off without him, of course.
It would be absurd of me to say that there is no possibility that American intervention could bring good. I just think that, given the numerous volatile factors and factions in the area, the probability is low. That plus the flair for diplomatic ham-fistedness American administration are prone to displaying abroad, makes for an explosive roostertail, IMO. The US's strengths are guns and money, not bringing people together.
Iraq is a balkanized state, cobbled out of disparate demographic elements by a colonial administration. Heterogenous states have historically been far more prone to internal instability than homogenous states. Sad but true.
-
habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&thread=1048382316&action=display&start=15 
