Fact-Checking the President's Speech on Iraq
-
NPR goes through Bush's recent speech point-by-point. "The key question for U.S. leaders is how much time do you give the Iraqis to reconcile? Is it even achievable? Or does another way, such as partitioning, make more sense?" NPR fact-checks Bush's speech.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
how much time do you give the Iraqis to reconcile
How about 25 millenia?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
partitioning
After the first world war, the Ottoman Empire, as an ally of the loosers, was broken up into protectorates of two countries. France, and Britain. Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will bnever live together. It is an impossibility.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
how much time do you give the Iraqis to reconcile
How about 25 millenia?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
partitioning
After the first world war, the Ottoman Empire, as an ally of the loosers, was broken up into protectorates of two countries. France, and Britain. Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will bnever live together. It is an impossibility.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
These people will bnever live together. It is an impossibility.
We just need to send Dr. Phil over there...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
how much time do you give the Iraqis to reconcile
How about 25 millenia?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
partitioning
After the first world war, the Ottoman Empire, as an ally of the loosers, was broken up into protectorates of two countries. France, and Britain. Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will bnever live together. It is an impossibility.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will never live together. It is an impossibility.
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work. Democracy is as much a social system as a political one, and a society that is not ready for democracy will never be able to make a go of it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
fat_boy wrote:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will never live together. It is an impossibility.
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work. Democracy is as much a social system as a political one, and a society that is not ready for democracy will never be able to make a go of it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that.
Bullshit. If they had they would have partitioned it when they granted it independence. Iraq is as much a British creation as anyones.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will never live together. It is an impossibility.
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work. Democracy is as much a social system as a political one, and a society that is not ready for democracy will never be able to make a go of it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it.
I agree that Americans refuse to understand but I fail to see how "the British understand". They are the ones that pushed all 3 together into one country 90 years ago. :rolleyes:
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that.
Bullshit. If they had they would have partitioned it when they granted it independence. Iraq is as much a British creation as anyones.
Rob Graham wrote:
If they had they would have partitioned it when they granted it independence.
Well, ok. They understood it better than we apparently do :P
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Rob Graham wrote:
If they had they would have partitioned it when they granted it independence.
Well, ok. They understood it better than we apparently do :P
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
understood
Patrick Sears wrote:
They understood it better than we apparently do ;P
What, precisely, is your evidence for that assertion? As far as I can tell, they were no more insightful about Iraq than America was.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
understood
Patrick Sears wrote:
They understood it better than we apparently do ;P
What, precisely, is your evidence for that assertion? As far as I can tell, they were no more insightful about Iraq than America was.
As fat boy posted:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk.
Whereas the US approach seems to be "jam everyone into the same room and force them to work together." Anywho, my only real point was to insult American planners for not thinking of this ahead of time.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it.
I agree that Americans refuse to understand but I fail to see how "the British understand". They are the ones that pushed all 3 together into one country 90 years ago. :rolleyes:
At the risk of repeating myself.... http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=2231300&forumid=2605#xx2231300xx
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
You're right, it was not presented as factual, it was presented as an address by the President of the United States.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You're right, it was not presented as factual, it was presented as an address by the President of the United States.
And was countered not with fact...But with heavily biased opinions...Which you apparently confuse with "facts". That certainly explains a lot.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Which part of the article do you take issue with? Or would you rather play "kill the messenger" like you usually do?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Which part of the article do you take issue with? Or would you rather play "kill the messenger" like you usually do?
Besides the fact that it's a biased attack on the president paid for with my tax dollars...Nothing. They're entitled to their opinions (though I shouldn't have to pay for them). What I take issue with is your confusion between facts and opinions. But I can't blame you as you ripped this directly off of Digg (including the title).
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
As fat boy posted:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk.
Whereas the US approach seems to be "jam everyone into the same room and force them to work together." Anywho, my only real point was to insult American planners for not thinking of this ahead of time.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk.
Shoot, as I read that, it make the British the first to "jam everyone into the same room and force them to work together."
Patrick Sears wrote:
Anywho, my only real point was to insult American planners for not thinking of this ahead of time.
Actually I seem to recall that this was discussed as far back as 3-4 years ago and rejected. What people seem to conveniently forget is that Iraq is not in a vacuum. Turkey would not tolerate an independent Kurdish State, The Saudis would not tolerate the Sunnis in Baghdad and west being left out of the oil (most of the discovered stuff being in the Kurdish and Shia areas), nor would they be particularly happy with Iran getting too much influence over the southern Shia region. The Kurds might have second thoughts when they realized they would lose their access to the gulf for shipping their oil...Partition would be a hard sell to the neighbors and possibly the Iraqis themselves once they really consider the ramifications, so maybe it's not a good solution either.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will never live together. It is an impossibility.
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work. Democracy is as much a social system as a political one, and a society that is not ready for democracy will never be able to make a go of it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work.
But that begs some questions doesn't it? Suppose the rest of us morons came to possess your amazing political acumen. What then? Does the world go spinning happily off into the future with an ever shrinking island of western democracies floating on an ocean of peoples who just cannot grasp our way of life? Do we integrate them by migration into our society? Do we build walls between us and them? Do we obliterate them? Do we allow them to overwhelm us by sheer numbers? It would seem to me that it isn't an issue of who understands what about who, its an issue of what do we wish the ultimate status quo to be. For my part, when push comes to shove, which it alwas does, I want my way of life to be the last one standing, regardless of what has to happen for that to occur. Aside from that, I really don't give a good goddamn what the Iraqi people are, or are not, capable of.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work.
But that begs some questions doesn't it? Suppose the rest of us morons came to possess your amazing political acumen. What then? Does the world go spinning happily off into the future with an ever shrinking island of western democracies floating on an ocean of peoples who just cannot grasp our way of life? Do we integrate them by migration into our society? Do we build walls between us and them? Do we obliterate them? Do we allow them to overwhelm us by sheer numbers? It would seem to me that it isn't an issue of who understands what about who, its an issue of what do we wish the ultimate status quo to be. For my part, when push comes to shove, which it alwas does, I want my way of life to be the last one standing, regardless of what has to happen for that to occur. Aside from that, I really don't give a good goddamn what the Iraqi people are, or are not, capable of.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Does the world go spinning happily off into the future with an ever shrinking island of western democracies floating on an ocean of peoples who just cannot grasp our way of life?
Why do you expect that to happen? If you go back less than 20 years, you see the opposite happening in Eastern Europe.
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Does the world go spinning happily off into the future with an ever shrinking island of western democracies floating on an ocean of peoples who just cannot grasp our way of life?
Why do you expect that to happen? If you go back less than 20 years, you see the opposite happening in Eastern Europe.
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
I don't necessarily expect it to happen, but if one posits that we are to accept that not all cultures are amenable to our political beliefs, what do we do? Nothing stays the same, things that do not grow generally die. Change is a constant. So, the scenario would seem to me to be a distinct possibility given modern attitudes in the west concerning the acceptance of multiculturalism. If we are culturally bound to be more accepting towards them than they to us, and if we are not as demographically robust as they, then certainly, over time, baring no overt effort on our part to direct change in a way conducive to our beliefs, they win
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
At the risk of repeating myself.... http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=2231300&forumid=2605#xx2231300xx
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
At the risk of repeating myself....
Wrong then, wrong again..
-
fat_boy wrote:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will never live together. It is an impossibility.
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work. Democracy is as much a social system as a political one, and a society that is not ready for democracy will never be able to make a go of it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
As fat boy posted:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk.
Whereas the US approach seems to be "jam everyone into the same room and force them to work together." Anywho, my only real point was to insult American planners for not thinking of this ahead of time.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work.
But that begs some questions doesn't it? Suppose the rest of us morons came to possess your amazing political acumen. What then? Does the world go spinning happily off into the future with an ever shrinking island of western democracies floating on an ocean of peoples who just cannot grasp our way of life? Do we integrate them by migration into our society? Do we build walls between us and them? Do we obliterate them? Do we allow them to overwhelm us by sheer numbers? It would seem to me that it isn't an issue of who understands what about who, its an issue of what do we wish the ultimate status quo to be. For my part, when push comes to shove, which it alwas does, I want my way of life to be the last one standing, regardless of what has to happen for that to occur. Aside from that, I really don't give a good goddamn what the Iraqi people are, or are not, capable of.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Well, for sure PAtrick is being superior. Britain is a guilty as hell of making mistakes in Iraq, and is in no position to preach. Look at Norther Ireland, Britain IS in no position to preach to anyone about how to manage an 'empire'. However Stan you are exagerating a little. Your culture isnot under threat. Dont wory about it, Westyer culture is the most pervasive the world has ever seen (excepting perhaps the Roman culture, although it could be argued present day western culture is an extension of Roman culture). Its not about to die antytime soon Stan, rest asssured.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Well, for sure PAtrick is being superior. Britain is a guilty as hell of making mistakes in Iraq, and is in no position to preach. Look at Norther Ireland, Britain IS in no position to preach to anyone about how to manage an 'empire'. However Stan you are exagerating a little. Your culture isnot under threat. Dont wory about it, Westyer culture is the most pervasive the world has ever seen (excepting perhaps the Roman culture, although it could be argued present day western culture is an extension of Roman culture). Its not about to die antytime soon Stan, rest asssured.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
I would probably share your optimisim if it were not for the modern western cultural mandate to be 'inclusive' of other cultures and peoples. At some point a culture must have some degree of xenophobia to survive. I mean, there has to be some 'line in the sand' that a people collectively refuse to cross. As far as I can tell the only 'line in the sand' that we are allowed to draw is that we can never draw a line in the sand. It is our only social imperative. All the onus for cultural change seems to be on us and no one else.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.