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.
What's interesting about you -- atleast in this thread -- is that you've created your opponets' arguments for them and then argued it. Naturally too, of course, the argument you gave for me(us) wasn't near my(our) actual. In fact, I didn't say any of those things and neither did anyone else.
There aren't solely two opinions in history, but plenty of grey area. My point in making my post was to state what seems to rarely be stated. We see all too often in all media outlets what Americans and what the administration thinks of a Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
I think even a friendly fellow like you would be surprised by a trip to certain parts of the Arab world. It isn't even my cup of tea but having traveled extensively through it (and speaking the language), there's too much misconception and misunderstanding to continue.
Why do you assume that I haven't been to the Arab world? That's a condescending remark. I have been to Egypt, the UAE, and Tunisia on business. Not on some overnight conference nor some backpacking jaunt either.
And, actually, my argument was with the original post that somehow contended that the Americans were solely responsible for the destruction of Iraqi civilization, which is ludicrous. Iraqi (And Arab) civilization has been in steady decline since the 1300s, thanks. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp.
What's interesting about you -- atleast in this thread -- is that you've created your opponets' arguments for them and then argued it. Naturally too, of course, the argument you gave for me(us) wasn't near my(our) actual. In fact, I didn't say any of those things and neither did anyone else.
There aren't solely two opinions in history, but plenty of grey area. My point in making my post was to state what seems to rarely be stated. We see all too often in all media outlets what Americans and what the administration thinks of a Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
I think even a friendly fellow like you would be surprised by a trip to certain parts of the Arab world. It isn't even my cup of tea but having traveled extensively through it (and speaking the language), there's too much misconception and misunderstanding to continue.
cpg was a little bit too hasty to start waffling on about Saddam etc.............................which is curious, given that he claims to have studied Arab history.
Correct me, if I am wrong but Iraqi's do not regard themslves as Arabs.
Given the mixed ethnicity of Iraq (Kurds, Shia, Sunni : dialects kurdish, Farsei etc)
You think that someone claiming to have studied Arab history would be aware of these distinctions and the fact that the country of Iraq was cobbled together
by various western imperialist powers.
I reckon cpg is chancing his arm - to put it politely.
cpg was a little bit too hasty to start waffling on about Saddam etc.............................which is curious, given that he claims to have studied Arab history.
Correct me, if I am wrong but Iraqi's do not regard themslves as Arabs.
You think that someone claiming to have studied Arab history would be aware of that distinction.
I reckon cpg is chancing his arm - to put it politely.
Oh, don't be pedantic -- to put it politely. They speak Arabic, even the Kurds and the Chaldeans. 65% of the country are Shiite Arabs, while 15% are Sunni Arabs. And Iraq is a founding member of the Arab League, a very odd organization to belong to if your country does not consider itself Arab, don't you think? I mean, the Iranians aren't members. Neither are the Turks. I guess that means that -- GASP -- the Iraqis consider themselves Arab.
In short, seems like you're the one who is not aware of Iraqi history, my friend.
As long as the Sunnis hate the Shias and the Shias hate the Kurds, any progress in Iraq will be stunted and short lived because all 3 groups will accuse each other of trying to dominate in one way or the other.
As long as the Sunnis hate the Shias and the Shias hate the Kurds, any progress in Iraq will be stunted and short lived because all 3 groups will accuse each other of trying to dominate in one way or the other.
Very similar to what happened when Tito died. He was the single unifying force holding Yugoslavia in one piece. When he was out of the picture, it turned out that Serbs, Croats and Bosnians didn't like living together.
Iraq really isn't any different--and remember that its boundaries were originally established by a colonial power; the country we call "Iraq" was never legitimate in the first place. If the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds really can't get along, the best solution would be to split the country into three separate states. (They still probably wouldn't get along, but the solution did work when colonial India was split into two countries--India and Pakistan--according to religious lines. So at least there's hope).
I suggest, despite the "best efforts" of western colonial powers to assemble and then destroy the Mesopotamian region, we should just get out and let the occupants settle accounts however they wish.
We should keep in mind that after the rearrangement is made the oil will still be available to the highest bidder.
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.
