Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is time we come to this realization. Iraq in it's present form is incapable of governing and bringing stability to it's country.
The US needs to take over the country and run it for them until they are capable and ready to behave like civil human beings.
We can split the oil profits for bringing some stability to the country.
It would be a win win for both parties.
What a case of the kettle calling the pot "Black". It's seems quite clear that the USA "is incapable of governing and bringing stability to it's country". Obviously, it would be a lose lose situation for the USA to try to run any country when it casn't even begin to solve it's own freakin problems.
What a case of the kettle calling the pot "Black". It's seems quite clear that the USA "is incapable of governing and bringing stability to it's country". Obviously, it would be a lose lose situation for the USA to try to run any country when it casn't even begin to solve it's own freakin problems.
Us is the most power country in the world and one of the most prosperous.
I am for number #1 redrawing borders to match ethnicity and religion. However, if we will not do that the next best thing is to take it over and bring stability to the region and for that help ourselves to the oil profits.
After a certain amount of time the leaders of each faction will get tired of the West running their country. They will have all along been educated in proper democracy ie voting on issues and compromising amongst themselves. At which point they will understand how a civil country is run and what it looks like and will want the US gone and not taking their money. So they will be ok. This will take time though. They cant learn this over night. Would likely take a decade of proper rule and showing each faction how democracy works.
Once we hand it over they know we will be back the moment someone fugs up.
After a certain amount of time?????
Like immediately.
And Americans have difficulty compromising on issues. And which issues are often most divisive? Religious issues.
We didn't create the religious divisions in the Middle East. Those divisions already existed. We didn't create the cultural and tribal divisions, they already existed. England, along with the United States and France tried to resolve some of the problems, and actually succeeded in some instances. But if the people of the Middle East want lasting peace, it will be up to them to resolve their differences. And how they resolve it won't be the same way we would resolve it. Just like how we resolve our differences and problems are not the same way they would do it.
And Americans have difficulty compromising on issues. And which issues are often most divisive? Religious issues.
We didn't create the religious divisions in the Middle East. Those divisions already existed. We didn't create the cultural and tribal divisions, they already existed. England, along with the United States and France tried to resolve some of the problems, and actually succeeded in some instances. But if the people of the Middle East want lasting peace, it will be up to them to resolve their differences. And how they resolve it won't be the same way we would resolve it. Just like how we resolve our differences and problems are not the same way they would do it.
The US wouldnt be the ones compromising. We would just be providing stability and depositing our oil share.
The Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiias would be the ones to have to work together and compromise.
We created the issues by putting the different groups and religions in the same pond / fence.
The West created this mess and the West needs to solve it.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,171,154 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
It is time we come to this realization. Iraq in it's present form is incapable of governing and bringing stability to it's country.
The US needs to take over the country and run it for them until they are capable and ready to behave like civil human beings.
We can split the oil profits for bringing some stability to the country.
It would be a win win for both parties.
We can't force democracy on people who want a theocracy, they just seem to turn around and elect theocrats who don't want democracy.
However we do have a practical interest in preventing more terrorist regimes from taking over entire countries....... and then joining the nuclear club. It's bad enough that Pakistan, NKorea, and soon Iran are nuclear powers, since any one of them could sell even just one nuke to a terrorist organization which could hold the world hostage ...... and such organizations don't present a target that can be destroyed in retaliation. You can't nuke al Qaeda.
Basically, we have to at least prevent the most brutal and irrational Islamists from gaining control over a country and using its manufacturing capabilities to wage jihad, particularly against Israel and the US. There's a reason Israel is crapping its pants over the prospect of Iran rolling off nukes on an assembly line, and it has to do with one nuke on Tell Aviv being able to destroy them as a nation. We in the US are in not much better position ....... could you imagine even a small true nuke going off in DC, followed by threats of more?
We don't need to put boots on the ground in Iraq, but we do need to ensure that ISIL can't take over entirely.
The US wouldnt be the ones compromising. We would just be providing stability and depositing our oil share.
The Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiias would be the ones to have to work together and compromise.
We created the issues by putting the different groups and religions in the same pond / fence.
The West created this mess and the West needs to solve it.
Only we didn't put them in the same pond. They were already in the same pond. The British/French/Americans simply divided the pond up in a way they thought would promote peace and stability. And they really did think so. They had a vested interest in peace and stability in the region.
Religious/cultural/political differences are unique to every region. The WEST cannot tell the people of the Middle East how to resolve those differences. We have a different religious/cultural/political mindset. The people within the region have to WANT to resolve those differences, and then DO IT THEMSELVES.
Your approach is like someone who thinks they can fix an alcoholic. Only the alcoholic can decide what he WANTS, and then resolve his issues for himself. No one else can fix him. You can help him, but the help lies in helping him help himself.
We can help the Middle East. But we cannot fix the Middle East. Only the people of the Middle East can decide what kind of government they want, what kind of society they want, what kind of freedom they want. We can't make those decisions for them. Those decisions belong to the people of the Middle East, not to us.
And we can't take total responsibility for the mess, either. The people of the Middle East have had a lot of power in choosing to end the violence or to continue it.
Seriously, I"m now pretty sure this is a troll thread. DNFTT.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
