Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

eamad mazouri · Feb 16, 2004, 02:05 pm

The challenges in Iraq today have historical roots.
The Article below sheds light on the subject. For those who are interested, please read the article.
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_rep...6&language_id=1

damnrad · Feb 16, 2004, 05:02 pm

Historical roots -- you bet! More history than any other civilization. Yes, the recent history is important, including how a Brit decided to carve out a country from various bits and pieces. Still, the roots are also ancient: as in the division between Sunni and Shia. Also as in the aspirations of a people who gave the Sunni Arab world another great leader (one from Tikrit): Saladin -- who by the way, was the scourge of the Fatamids, an Egyptian Shia dynasty. There are ancient reasons why the different peoples of Iraq fight one another; and why some would rather create nations out of parts of neighboring coutnries; and why neighboring countries will not allow Iraq to fragment in its own ways without intervening. For all his attrocities, and largely through them, Saddam held it all together in an iron fist. It might not have survived him anyway -- but now its coming apart can be laid at the door of the U.S. We will be sorry for a long time for the mess that Dubya has made.

momo · Feb 16, 2004, 05:14 pm

challenges just about EVERYWHERE have historical roots...
nevertheless it certainly can't hurt to inform people a little bit more about the Iraki situation.

eamad mazouri · Feb 17, 2004, 01:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)
Historical roots -- you bet! More history than any other civilization. Yes, the recent history is important, including how a Brit decided to carve out a country from various bits and pieces. Still, the roots are also ancient: as in the division between Sunni and Shia. Also as in the aspirations of a people who gave the Sunni Arab world another great leader (one from Tikrit): Saladin -- who by the way, was the scourge of the Fatamids, an Egyptian Shia dynasty. There are ancient reasons why the different peoples of Iraq fight one another; and why some would rather create nations out of parts of neighboring coutnries; and why neighboring countries will not allow Iraq to fragment in its own ways without intervening. For all his attrocities, and largely through them, Saddam held it all together in an iron fist. It might not have survived him anyway -- but now its coming apart can be laid at the door of the U.S. We will be sorry for a long time for the mess that Dubya has made.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
It is true it is a mass and it could get worse before it gets better.What do you think America should have done under the circumstances?

eamad mazouri · Feb 17, 2004, 01:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (momo,)
challenges just about EVERYWHERE have historical roots...
nevertheless it certainly can't hurt to inform people a little bit more about the Iraki situation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes, it is necessary people know the historical background of a subject that everybody is talking about today.

damnrad · Feb 17, 2004, 01:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (eamad mazouri,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)
Historical roots -- you bet! More history than any other civilization. Yes, the recent history is important, including how a Brit decided to carve out a country from various bits and pieces. Still, the roots are also ancient: as in the division between Sunni and Shia. Also as in the aspirations of a people who gave the Sunni Arab world another great leader (one from Tikrit): Saladin -- who by the way, was the scourge of the Fatamids, an Egyptian Shia dynasty. There are ancient reasons why the different peoples of Iraq fight one another; and why some would rather create nations out of parts of neighboring coutnries; and why neighboring countries will not allow Iraq to fragment in its own ways without intervening. For all his attrocities, and largely through them, Saddam held it all together in an iron fist. It might not have survived him anyway -- but now its coming apart can be laid at the door of the U.S. We will be sorry for a long time for the mess that Dubya has made.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
It is true it is a mass and it could get worse before it gets better.What do you think America should have done under the circumstances?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What circumstances? Those before the invasion? It should have gone on enforcing the no-fly zones, it should have supported changing the sanctions to allow needed goods to go to Iraq for the civilian infrastructure (e.g., chemicals needed for water treatment), it should have supported the UN inspection process (and it could have always pushed to make it more rigorous), and it should have respected international law and continued with international diplomacy. It should have also paid more intention to greater threats to world peace: North Korea; Pakistan and the Indian-Pakistani conflicts; genocide in Africa; and so on.

eamad mazouri · Feb 18, 2004, 02:26 pm

Quote:

Quote by: damnrad,

It is true it is a mass and it could get worse before it gets better.What do you think America should have done under the circumstances?

What circumstances? Those before the invasion? It should have gone on enforcing the no-fly zones, it should have supported changing the sanctions to allow needed goods to go to Iraq for the civilian infrastructure (e.g., chemicals needed for water treatment), it should have supported the UN inspection process (and it could have always pushed to make it more rigorous), and it should have respected international law and continued with international diplomacy. It should have also paid more intention to greater threats to world peace: North Korea; Pakistan and the Indian-Pakistani conflicts; genocide in Africa; and so on.[/quote]

I agree with all that you mentioned.But I also realize that Saddam had to be gone. In my view he was the WMD. He was killing hundreds of people on daily basis.The sanction basically hurt the people while saddam and his entourage managed around them.For instance Iraqi Kurdistan was under a double layer embargo, one from the international community and the other by Saddam's regime.
Iraqi people were unable to get rid of Saddam by themselves.They needed outside assistance.

rmnunez · Feb 20, 2004, 10:38 pm

damn; though the US "should have gone on enforcing the no-fly zones, it should have supported changing the sanctions to allow needed goods to go to Iraq for the civilian infrastructure (e.g., chemicals needed for water treatment), it should have supported the UN inspection process (and it could have always pushed to make it more rigorous), and it should have respected international law and continued with international diplomacy. It should have also paid more intention to greater threats to world peace: North Korea; Pakistan and the Indian-Pakistani conflicts; genocide in Africa; and so on." None of these actions would have accomplished the aim -Saddam's ouster. I think Eamad's got it, the Iraqis proved incapable of removing Saddam and his continued rule was no longer tolerable, too risky. We can question whether perceptions of risk or of a need for regime change were distorted, biased or the hallucinations of Bushians, but we cannot deny Saddam posed a serious risk in a strategically and economically important region rife with terrorism.

eamad mazouri · Feb 20, 2004, 11:25 pm

''''but we cannot deny Saddam posed a serious risk in a strategically and economically important region rife with terrorism.''''
That was the case. The problem was most of the countries, especially in the Arab-Islamic world continued not only to deal with Saddam regime, but they also took his side when he attacked the Kurds with chemicals. They refused to contribute to his demise.

Feb 17, 2004, 01:01 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
eamad mazouri Molten Ash Posts: 64	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,) Historical roots -- you bet! More history than any other civilization. Yes, the recent history is important, including how a Brit decided to carve out a country from various bits and pieces. Still, the roots are also ancient: as in the division between Sunni and Shia. Also as in the aspirations of a people who gave the Sunni Arab world another great leader (one from Tikrit): Saladin -- who by the way, was the scourge of the Fatamids, an Egyptian Shia dynasty. There are ancient reasons why the different peoples of Iraq fight one another; and why some would rather create nations out of parts of neighboring coutnries; and why neighboring countries will not allow Iraq to fragment in its own ways without intervening. For all his attrocities, and largely through them, Saddam held it all together in an iron fist. It might not have survived him anyway -- but now its coming apart can be laid at the door of the U.S. We will be sorry for a long time for the mess that Dubya has made.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It is true it is a mass and it could get worse before it gets better.What do you think America should have done under the circumstances?

Feb 17, 2004, 01:03 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
eamad mazouri Molten Ash Posts: 64	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (momo,) challenges just about EVERYWHERE have historical roots... nevertheless it certainly can't hurt to inform people a little bit more about the Iraki situation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, it is necessary people know the historical background of a subject that everybody is talking about today.

Feb 17, 2004, 01:39 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (eamad mazouri,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,) Historical roots -- you bet! More history than any other civilization. Yes, the recent history is important, including how a Brit decided to carve out a country from various bits and pieces. Still, the roots are also ancient: as in the division between Sunni and Shia. Also as in the aspirations of a people who gave the Sunni Arab world another great leader (one from Tikrit): Saladin -- who by the way, was the scourge of the Fatamids, an Egyptian Shia dynasty. There are ancient reasons why the different peoples of Iraq fight one another; and why some would rather create nations out of parts of neighboring coutnries; and why neighboring countries will not allow Iraq to fragment in its own ways without intervening. For all his attrocities, and largely through them, Saddam held it all together in an iron fist. It might not have survived him anyway -- but now its coming apart can be laid at the door of the U.S. We will be sorry for a long time for the mess that Dubya has made.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It is true it is a mass and it could get worse before it gets better.What do you think America should have done under the circumstances?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What circumstances? Those before the invasion? It should have gone on enforcing the no-fly zones, it should have supported changing the sanctions to allow needed goods to go to Iraq for the civilian infrastructure (e.g., chemicals needed for water treatment), it should have supported the UN inspection process (and it could have always pushed to make it more rigorous), and it should have respected international law and continued with international diplomacy. It should have also paid more intention to greater threats to world peace: North Korea; Pakistan and the Indian-Pakistani conflicts; genocide in Africa; and so on.

Feb 20, 2004, 10:38 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	damn; though the US "should have gone on enforcing the no-fly zones, it should have supported changing the sanctions to allow needed goods to go to Iraq for the civilian infrastructure (e.g., chemicals needed for water treatment), it should have supported the UN inspection process (and it could have always pushed to make it more rigorous), and it should have respected international law and continued with international diplomacy. It should have also paid more intention to greater threats to world peace: North Korea; Pakistan and the Indian-Pakistani conflicts; genocide in Africa; and so on." None of these actions would have accomplished the aim -Saddam's ouster. I think Eamad's got it, the Iraqis proved incapable of removing Saddam and his continued rule was no longer tolerable, too risky. We can question whether perceptions of risk or of a need for regime change were distorted, biased or the hallucinations of Bushians, but we cannot deny Saddam posed a serious risk in a strategically and economically important region rife with terrorism. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Feb 16, 2004, 02:05 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
eamad mazouri Molten Ash Posts: 64	The challenges in Iraq today have historical roots. The Article below sheds light on the subject. For those who are interested, please read the article. http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_rep...6&language_id=1

Feb 16, 2004, 05:02 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	Historical roots -- you bet! More history than any other civilization. Yes, the recent history is important, including how a Brit decided to carve out a country from various bits and pieces. Still, the roots are also ancient: as in the division between Sunni and Shia. Also as in the aspirations of a people who gave the Sunni Arab world another great leader (one from Tikrit): Saladin -- who by the way, was the scourge of the Fatamids, an Egyptian Shia dynasty. There are ancient reasons why the different peoples of Iraq fight one another; and why some would rather create nations out of parts of neighboring coutnries; and why neighboring countries will not allow Iraq to fragment in its own ways without intervening. For all his attrocities, and largely through them, Saddam held it all together in an iron fist. It might not have survived him anyway -- but now its coming apart can be laid at the door of the U.S. We will be sorry for a long time for the mess that Dubya has made.

Feb 16, 2004, 05:14 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
momo Sedimentary Rock Location: Montreal, for now Posts: 11	challenges just about EVERYWHERE have historical roots... nevertheless it certainly can't hurt to inform people a little bit more about the Iraki situation.

Feb 20, 2004, 11:25 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
eamad mazouri Molten Ash Posts: 64	''''but we cannot deny Saddam posed a serious risk in a strategically and economically important region rife with terrorism.'''' That was the case. The problem was most of the countries, especially in the Arab-Islamic world continued not only to deal with Saddam regime, but they also took his side when he attacked the Kurds with chemicals. They refused to contribute to his demise.