How bad does it have to get?

[yesdachi]

There is a point where you have to take responsibility for yourself. The problems in Iraq were there long before the US butted in but with the US’s involvement the Iraq people have at least gotten the opportunity to do things the way they want thru a democratic process and some people still just don’t get it. They don’t get that they are a part of something bigger, they don’t get that their actions may not be acceptable to others and until they get it, the country is going to be a stinking mess.

The problems existed prior to US involvement and after the US’s involvement the people of Iraq have an opportunity to make a change for the better, that’s the part they need to get and they haven’t yet. The “west” does hold some responsibility for the current situation but it is lunacy to suggest that the “west” is responsible for creating the conditions or playground or whatever, that is there, when the conditions have always been there. Actually the difference is that now when something like this happens people actually get to know about it and express disgust and encourage a change, that’s something that wouldn’t have happened 5, 10, 20 or 100 years ago. The price has been ridiculously high but we are doing good there.

[Watchman]

Actually, the West quite directly created the basis of the current conditions in the partitions after WW1. A few of the explorers with extensive hands-on experience on the region who'd been consulted in the process said as much in disgust. Until then the problems in the region had, indeed, been largely "middle eastern problems". After that the region was quite firmly in the colonial orbit for decades, and deeply entwined in shady and opportunistic geopolitics once the colonial empires evaporated. Which in practice makes the problems there somehting quite different from "middle eastern problems".

Putting down rebellions against the puppet regime in Iraq (occasionally with mustard gas) kept the British military more occupied than any other issue in the interwar period, for example.

So that "always been there" apparently takes "always" to be under a century...

Yes, I do dislike the simplistic "well they've always been fighting each other right?" explanation model. How'd you tell ?

Why is does this have to be our problem? I don't see saudi Arabia yearning to help its fellow Muslims. Iran is positively making things worse.

Given that the Saudis are Wahhabis and the majority of Iraqis Shi'ites, I'm guessing the former would rather chew off their right arms than help the latter. Shi'ite Iran is doing its damnedest to make its Iraqi sect-brethren the dominant faction of the country. Syria and the rest are dirt poor (and the wealth in Saudi Arabia isn't exactly easy to mobilize for official purposes anyway) and probably not one bit interested. They have their own worries.

It has to be our problem because directly and indirectly we're responsible for the general degree of ****ed-upness in the region from quite a while back already, and quite explicitly and directly for the current bloody anarchy in Iraq.

Such irresponsibility.

[Devastatin Dave]

Lest we forget that before the invasion. Iraq was similar to Disney land and Uncle Saddam would travel arounfd the country handing out candy to the kiddies and while he walked around, little birdies followed him and cute little fuzzy wuzzy bunnies nibbled on the buetiful green foilage all around. All the muslims were of the moderate voriaty, you know the peaceful one's that supposedly dominate the Islamic world, and they prayed hand in hand with Christians and Jews while Uday and Kusay sang hyms. Man those were thegood ol' days...

I love you guys, my nipples ache with anticipation for the next "We want Saddam back" post. Aching I tell you!!!!

[rory_20_uk]

So Muslims don't get on / refuse to help each other. Leaving aside why should we, how can we?

Iraqis have wanted us out of there since we were first there, to the extent we used mustard gas. The only thingg groups agree on is that they want the westeners out.

Whilst we are there supporting the regieme charges that it is a puppet regeime can be laid against us.

What are we doing there? The American's seem to want to fight fire with petrol. Since they are the biggest contingent they set the tone.

What is the plan?
"hold on until it gets better"?
"We caused 100 years of problems, so we deserve 100 years of them to equal the Karma"?

The UN needs to be involved in this. At least then it is the will of the world.

We caused the anarchy after stopping the state sanctioned killing. Religious murder rather than political.

[Watchman]

Well, what there was was a rank police state. What there is now is borderline anarchy, civil war, and warlords.

I'd say the improvement is marginal.

The important point, however, is that it didn't have to turn out that way. Thanks to the bungling of Bush and the Boys it did. Anyway, the exact only thing they can do that is even remotely ethical is to stick in and fix the mess they made, since the alternatives are worse. Plus it's generally considered proper to clean after yourself.

Wanting to get the UN and the "will of the world" involved strikes me as downright perverse, given that both were against the invasion in the first place and had their warnings not only ignored but a lot of rude insults thrown their way...

[yesdachi]

Well, what there was was a rank police state. What there is now is borderline anarchy, civil war, and warlords.

I'd say the improvement is marginal.

The important point, however, is that it didn't have to turn out that way. Thanks to the bungling of Bush and the Boys it did. Anyway, the exact only thing they can do that is even remotely ethical is to stick in and fix the mess they made, since the alternatives are worse. Plus it's generally considered proper to clean after yourself.

Wanting to get the UN and the "will of the world" involved strikes me as downright perverse, given that both were against the invasion in the first place and had their warnings not only ignored but a lot of rude insults thrown their way...

I agree with most of what you say, my only additional comment would be that the improvement is currently marginal but has the potential to be significant if we clean up after ourselves.

[rory_20_uk]

I agree that the UN was against the current situation occurring. But the UN has to deal with things as they are now, not sulk like a toddler. I agree that most of the blame can easily be placed on Bush.

I agree that this mess is mainly due to extremely poor planning.

I agree that it would be nice if the current forces were able to correct matters, but I feel that their inability to treat the locals as human, complete unawareness of the culture or almost any other facet of the local population is going to ensure that they alienate more, not less. Bombs from the air, mass arrests, a "shoot first and why question as we don't speak the language" again breeds hatred rather than hope.

The UN might have a chance at drawing something of a line under the past unmitigated failures. More troops and police from Islamic countries would again help dilute the "then and us" mentality that is currently in place.

I still feel that the hope for a united country is limited, especially as more and more wish for there to be at least 2, if not 3. And why should the West stop them? Havn't we intefered enough?

[Fragony]

I agree with most of what you say, my only additional comment would be that the improvement is currently marginal but has the potential to be significant if we clean up after ourselves.

I agree. It is the way it is, and the arabs are too busy building more palaces to celebrate the fact they were born. So it was a mistake to invade, I still don't believe it was mind you, but it aren't the allied forces that are currently beheading just about anything that has a neck to set a blade on. If Saddam was good at keeping things together then it was only a matter of time before these necrophiles did their sick thing anyway.

[LeftEyeNine]

Anybody knows if those two victims were performing in times of Saddam as well ?

[Watchman]

I agree. It is the way it is, and the arabs are too busy building more palaces to celebrate the fact they were born. So it was a mistake to invade, I still don't believe it was mind you, but it aren't the allied forces that are currently beheading just about anything that has a neck to set a blade on. If Saddam was good at keeping things together then it was only a matter of time before these necrophiles did their sick thing anyway.

Please don't be tendentiously dumb, it's unsightly. Under Saddam many of the nice folks who now chop heads off weren't even in the country (they came later specifically to mess with the Americans and their efforts), and even those who were weren't doing it (since Saddam's goons would have taken them in for disturbing the peace, insurrection, or whatever charges they'd now have bothered thinking up - these kinds of systems tend not be overly pedantic about the details).

Police states are kind of funny in that they're often quite jealous about being the only ones allowed to brutalize and terrorize their populace. They don't seem to like the competition or something. Could also be that letting some wonks run around unchecked would kinda kill their credibility, as they usually try to make a point of claiming they're trying to protect the common folks, honest.

That overall they tend to be the biggest threat to the common folks tends to be generally realized by everyone involved, but obviously not said out loud (without getting visits from the secret police, anyway).