Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Between 632 and now? Not really. The thing is, 1400 years isn't much compared to 200,000 years. It's a huge exaggeration to say that "there has never been a peaceful generation in the Middle East since humans have occupied the area." But yes, the ME hasn't been very peaceful for a while, at least not skipping a generation.....
|
I glad we have agreement so far. Next question - or just a statement - We know there was not peace during Muhamad's life time. Before he was born can't we trace wars back through the Roman Empire, Alexander, and even as far back as the golden age of Egypt? Were there gaps in violence and war, I doubt it. But hey what do I know, since I am so, so far off base in making extreme statements.
Quote:
|
I don't think it's fair to generalize like that.
|
The reason I don't pet polar bears at the zoo is because I generalize. I agree it is not fair to friendly ploar bears to generalize like that. But who said everything has to be fair.
Getting back to the question in the OP. Iraq is asking for help from a polar bear. It looks good from a distance, but as soon as it has you in its claws
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
wow, ace....so fill me in...how is it that the debacle in iraq as it stands at the end of november 2006--3 years into a war undertaken without anything approaching an adequate rationale by the bush administration, launched without anything seemingly like a rational plan for anything beyond the "they will greet us as liberators and strew the streets with flowers beneath our feet" fantasy
|
I think that was Chaney's fantasy, not mine. After taking Sadaam out, I did not care how we were greeted. The rational for the war has been debated over and over. Some don't agree with the reasons others do, but there were reasons and justification.
Quote:
|
"o those arabs are just violent crazy people.
|
People in general are violent. The weak get screwed.
Quote:
|
the american debacle in iraq simply provided them with an occaision to express their violent craziness yet again. therefore the american debacle in iraq plays no meaningful role in the unfolding of civil war in iraq because those crazy people would probably have had a civil war anyway because they like that sort of thing."
|
Again you may disagree, but it is better that the fighting occur in Iraq than here.
Quote:
even if that is not exactly what you had in mind--though it makes sense in a kinda noxious way of your posts to this thread--what is obvious is that the central motor of your "view" of this fiction you call "the history of the region" is geared around one empirical factor: the defense of american conservatism and all it stands for even in the face of a disaster for which there is no-one---at all---anywhere---to blame BUT american conservativism in the personae of those glory-covered figures of the bush administration. whose statues will no doubt litter parks around america eventually, once the erasure of the present and its replacement with some schizophrenic conservative-friendly narrative happens.
"donald rumsfeld: defender of freedom everywhere, a well-meaning fellow who stumbled into the eternal chaos of the middle east blah blah blah....we won that war too"
try again, ace.
|
I am looking forward to the next Democratic Pary President. I think the party leadership in congress have already started changing thei positions on the war and immediate withdral. I think we are see a more moderate stance, don't you agree. So perhaps they don't disagree with Bush as much as you think.
Now you have Iraq looking to Iran for help because Iraq is in fear of being left high and dry when Bush leaves office. That will be the biggest mistake ever.