I hope he is successful...

Post #175,912 by ChrisR 9/23/04 11:45:04 AM Reply	I hope he is successful... ...no matter who the next President is. My opinion says that the elections will be held. The results will be mixed, with some regions participating fully while others participating little at all. The reason it's considered a quaqmire is not because we made the mess. We just changed the balance of power and opened up what is obviously a deeply divided country. The Shia of the south and east in the country are the one pushing for the election to go ahead, and I think they will sweep into power. The Kurds have grown use to their semi-autonomous state since it was enforced with the no-fly zone of the early '90s. Which leaves the Sunni's. What to make of them. They are a minority that has been in power for some time. They reaped the benefit of the previous regime. Do we really think they want a democracy? And can Iraq exist as a democracy without their support? The battle between Persian (Shia) and Arab (Sunni) is pretty old. I hope they can get this under control, cause I'm tired of the senseless violence. It won't happen before the November Election. Heck the results probably won't be in for 5 to 10 years. In the meantime, I consider that our government is barely capable of governing it's own citizens, much less the citizens of another country where divisiveness is the order of the day.
Post #175,913 by Another Scott 9/23/04 11:57:18 AM Reply	We're blind men describing an elephant. (One touching a leg)"It's a cocoanut tree!" Etc., etc. The stories in the western press are about attacks on westerners or security forces in or near the cities. We don't hear much about Iraqi on Iraqi violence. I'm sure some must go on, but it's hard to gauge the scope. It's hard for me to judge how much support the "insurgents" have in the country. Recall that al Sadr was not popular in Najaf. I too expect the elections to go ahead. I expect them to be reasonably successful. I don't expect a full-scale civil war in Iraq because the population there has been through 20+ years of war and sanctions and I don't believe they would support it. I do expect attacks on the government and police to continue for a long time though. :-( I wouldn't be surprised if Iraq goes through a 20+ year transition the way Russia has. Whether it ends up being another dictatorship of some sort (the way Russia is leaning) is still an open question. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #175,914 by deSitter 9/23/04 11:58:36 AM Reply	Russia exists for thousand yrs - Iraq not a country at all -drl
Post #175,918 by Another Scott 9/23/04 12:17:26 PM Reply	Not exactly. Lots of countries have arbitrary boundaries. Germany, for instance. Changing Iraq's borders won't solve the moment's fundamental problem of Iraq: 1. Oil is not uniformly distributed in the country. There will be conflicts over who controls the oil fields and the money and power that goes with them. There would be a lot of conflict over how the border was drawn through the oil fields. 2. Iraq is made up of 3 main ethnic groups that have been in conflict for at least the last 30 years in recent times. There is a lot of mixing in their distribution, some of it at Saddam's behest. Many, many people would be displaced and feel resentment if the country was broken up. Some neighbors, e.g. Turkey, would be very upset if some ethnic groups got their own piece of the country. 3. Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. It became part of the Empire in [link\|http://i-cias.com/e.o/ottomans_4.htm\|1534]. Iraqi history is [link\|http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq_5.htm\|very long and complex]. Boundaries are arbitrary, to a great degree, but getting agreement on where they should be is a very difficult process. I don't think a partition of Iraq would make the situation better. In fact, I think it would make the situation a lot worse. So saying "Iraq isn't a country" doesn't say much about what should be done. And the facts on the ground say otherwise. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #175,924 by Arkadiy 9/23/04 12:30:45 PM Reply	Russia as we know it is a colonial empire Just like England used to be. Except its colonies are all at the borders. (yes, I did say Russia, not Soviet Union. Russia is still an empire, even though SU was much more so). -- ... a reference to Presidente Arbusto. -- [link\|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html\|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
Post #175,915 by Arkadiy 9/23/04 11:58:54 AM Reply	Scary and racist thought. At the worst estimates, we've been killing 15,000 Iraqi per year (or, rather, are responsible for the deaths of those Iraqi). We failed (so far) to keep the country under control. Hussein was in power for what, ~30 years. At the same rate, he would have killed 450,000 people. In fact, between Iran adventure, Quwait adventure, suppressing of Kurds and Shia, purges and so on he killed way more (is responsible for death of way more). At least 1 million in wars. But... He succesded where we're failing - he kept Iraq out of the claws of fundamentalists. So, could it be that Iraq simply cannot be kept out of trouble by killing less than 30,000 people a year? One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. One thug is a criminal, multiple thugs is a friendly government (or at least a tool of geopolitics). God damn Bush for commititing us to this mess. At least it was not our fault before. Now it is. This smacks of former communists converted to neocons - the same faith in perfectibility of human nature. -- ... a reference to Presidente Arbusto. -- [link\|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html\|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
Post #175,917 by deSitter 9/23/04 12:10:27 PM Reply	Absoultely Classic Jungian situation - bottled evil erupts spontaneously from the unconscious. -drl
Post #176,004 by Ashton 9/23/04 6:35:53 PM Reply	Excellent summation! Kudos.

Welcome to IWETHEY!