If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
IRAQ - What no one has considered
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I know it's what everyones been tlaking about, but I haven't heard anyone mention this.
Once Saddam has been removed and everyones gone home, that part of the world is going to be a wreck. My theory is that that region has always had a 'dominant power' and there has always been wars over it (like the 80-88 war).
So once, Iraq is defeated, there will be a power vacum and therefore, a power struggle. The odds on favourite will be Iran, who are on the list of Americas 'Axis of terror'. So then they will have to be dealt with and the situation will snowball into something uncontrollable - dare I say it, another Vietnam, a term used too much these days.
I actually support a war, and I don't want this to turn into a debate, but can anyone else see where I'm coming from, or am I totally wrong? What does everyone think?
Once Saddam has been removed and everyones gone home, that part of the world is going to be a wreck. My theory is that that region has always had a 'dominant power' and there has always been wars over it (like the 80-88 war).
So once, Iraq is defeated, there will be a power vacum and therefore, a power struggle. The odds on favourite will be Iran, who are on the list of Americas 'Axis of terror'. So then they will have to be dealt with and the situation will snowball into something uncontrollable - dare I say it, another Vietnam, a term used too much these days.
I actually support a war, and I don't want this to turn into a debate, but can anyone else see where I'm coming from, or am I totally wrong? What does everyone think?
0
Comments
How is the power vacuum in Iraq filled? With a democracy? With a theocracy (ala Iran)? With another dictator? How powerful a dictator? By fragmentation? Each of these solutions creates different potential problems in the region. However, it isn't like coping with change is anything new for the region...
Related to the above is how much aid Iraq gets to rebuild, educate, reestablish trade, etc.
It'll be interesting...but there is no reason to believe that it will be any worse then when the Shah left power...or when the Ayatollah Khomeni died....or when Sadat was assassinated...
As I mentioned, this region is used to coping with change...
Just like the afgani people are trying to do.. It won't be easy, but its not impossible.
True, but I find it amazing how many willingly support tryants and the use of tyrannical force...
Here we've seen many TV news specials and documentarys about Afganistan and Iraq..
I still remember a taleban spokesman saying if the world did not like their use of the soccer stadium for executions, build them a stadium for executions..
Tales of lethal gas being used on Kurds.. The planned extinction of Iraq's "marsh" arabs, the methodical destruction of a people and a way of life that has existed for thousands of years.
The iraqi method of slowly dipping a human into acid.. Saddam's enjoyment of watching video's of torture before sacking his girl friend...
I still remember the interviews with afganis. They told us of the taliban and al-qaeda's torture, execution and rape. They told us so many things and the "civilized" world ignored it... The civilized world waited for some "real" atrocities, like the treatment of the POW's in Git-Mo.
Some times the "civilized" world makes me sick to my stomach..
I surprised a man with your knowledge, I am shocked... Especially since you know so much about me.. Me, with my mere 60 posts.. :rolleyes:
Yes, those poor people, we did interrupt the pillage, rape, torture, and murder in Kuwait...
How dare we rain upon the parade of peace saddam's republican guard brought to the Kuwaitis...
In Afganistan also... Such a horror to interrupt the peaceful taliban and al-qaeda as they culled the religiously unfit from the population...
Unlike you, I will never forget the eyes of the two pre-teen girls that were raped by the taliban as their mother's dead body laid in view.
Its so easy to sit back and ignore it all, isn't it.. Perhaps a little debate upon the inhumanity of it all...
Obviously you preferred the world's reaction to Cambodia's killing fields..
One "civilized nation" yelled "Murder of millions" And the others yelled "Hear Hear..."
Got something against breaking up these kind of parties or is it fine by you as long as its not you?
Im surprised that you as an adult haven't learned that the world is not black and white, but various shades of grey which do not fit neatly into the kind of rhetoric that has been dominating this international debate.
If we truly want to ensure more security for our children, we must stop resorting to guns and bombs and start dealing justice through international structures on a global scale, addressing the methodology of financing developing nations, ensuring greater equity in international trade opportunities for LDCs (Least Developed Countries), learn to curtail our gluttonous consumption which comes at the expense of human suffering throughout the developing world, and roll up our sleeves and truly support proper nation building. Looking at Afghanistan and all the promises that were made prior to the invasion about not repeating our former negligence (following our institution of the Taliban government after the defeat of the Soviet invasion), we are right back to the same negligence, with our attention and gun sites pointed in a new direction.
I don't know how widely traveled you are but I have seen our legacy of negligence in numerous countries in the course of my political work, and it only reinforces my understanding of how we arrived at Sept. 11th.
If the US has been acting in such noble way to help oppressed citizens from ruthless dictators, perhaps it would care to explain in detail to the people of Chile. Just in case you haven't heard of it, on September 11th (no kidding) 1973, General Augusto Pinochet staged a coup against the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. Allende was a socialist (bad!) and had been critical of US foreign policy (bad bad!). Pinochet was sponsored and helped by the US and succeeded in removing the democratic government of Allende, murdering him in the process. He then presided over one of the most murderous and atrocious regimes of recent times. Thousands of people, in their majority university students, were kidnapped, tortured, killed and their bodies disposed of by Pinochet death squads. Survivors' accounts tell of torture by electrodes to the genitals, rapes, beatings and one such abomination involving dogs that I'd rather not write it down.
At no time did the US complain about his puppet's behaviour, or cared to explain to the world why it had helped remove a democratically elected government in a sovereign nation and sponsored an evil bastard like Pinochet. Then again, Allende was critical of America and unhelpful to its requests so I guess the US was within its right to take action eh?
Perhaps you might want to read my post above once again.
That isnt the point. Most Western nations have done many things wrong in this world- dont ever forget it was the British who invented the concentration camp.
The point is whether or not it should continue. I would quite heartily say that it should not, just because Saddam Hussein doesnt want to lick out Bushs arsehole doesnt mean he should attacked. Because if we were gonna go around bombing all the tin-pot dictators surely wed have to attack China, Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast and, even now, places such as Mynamar. But of course the US wont attack them, because they are eitehr too powerful to pick a fight with (China), or else they serve US economic policy (Myanmar).
Hussein is evil, and should be dealt with by the UN, but it is not up to a sovereign nation to determine the affairs of another sovereign nation. especially sovereign nations with the record of tolerance and aptitude the US and the UK have. Every time we meddle, the world gets worse. Thats what brought Saddam Hussein, General Pinochet and the Taleban into power.
Fantasies are fine, but sooner or later you have to face reality. I'm curious as to how you think the policy on Myanmar fits US economic policy? I'm also curious which of those nations you named has demonstrated a willingness to use WMD?
Quite frankly, if anyone is ignoring the larger geo-political picture in all this mad rush for war as the only solution it is those who so vehemently scream "attack".
With all due credit to your own work, I nonetheless see as much oversight in the position you advocate as any opposing analysis of the current myopic foreign policy methodology being applied by the Bush admin.
One cannot rail about oppressive regimes as evil and then cozy up to some whilst bombing others. If you can't see the hypocrisy in this I sincerely have to wonder just what kind of world you want and how you think further destruction is going to achieve that end?
The others are simply questions.
As for your foolishness, sometimes the choices are all bad, but you still have to make one. Reality hasn't given you that kick in the pants yet, has it?
Considering the US is one of the supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi and helped to organize the business pullout from Myanmar in the mid-90s (although behind the scenes and in a very low-key manner), I don't see how Kermit's comment is valid.
As for attacking them, none of those countries have a demonstrated willingness to use Weapons of Mass Destruction. Does change the equation a bit. Reality, not fantasy, not idealism.
The larger picture, does that mean following the UN's resolutions or ignoring them on the local iraqi level??
Point is, if saddam had followed the UN Resolutions, none of this would be happening. Now isn't that logical..
Shame on you!!!
Delivering up a prima facie argument, and depriving certain posters of their requisite opportunity to justify their emotional issues.
:eek: