The old mantra of statecraft from the early to mid 20th century focused on self-determination for ethnic, religious, racial, and cultural groups, as presumably a people with their own state are free to build that state and its laws according to their culture and values. It assumed that the differences between peoples were too vast and asking discordant cultures to coexist in a single state was a recipe for constant civil disorder, assassinations, rioting, guerilla groups, etc. It came out of a recognition of the failures and problems of Europe’s multicultural empires, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire. It was a driving force in the settlement treaties for both World Wars, the breakup of colonial empires, and the creation of Israel. It was a pragmatic philosophy that attempted to find the best solution for the world as it is, not an idealist dream that promised some utopia somewhere down the road. It was recognized and assumed that there might be wars between neighbors, but such wars would be contained, organized, and fought between disciplined armies targeting military objectives, all in all a less destructive and less bloody punctuation between periods of relative stability. Globalism, of course, an ideology that strives for a unified world government, explicitly rejected such notions, and this philosophy was largely abandoned, save in the case of Israel/Palestine, which already had a long history, and Yugoslavia, where it was assumed the new states would eventually become part of a larger EU (most of them have). The US always pushed for a unified Iraq for economic reasons (oil) and because they knew any Shi’ite state would fall into the orbit of Iran. In refusing to recognized the disparate cultures and histories of Iraq’s people, they created an unstable state in need of constant support to prevent it descending into anarchy. This is another example of the failure of globalism. At the end of the day, disparate cultures that don’t want to coexist can only be held together by brute force, a dictator like Saddam, or a situation like this. Iraq will eventually be three or more states. Whenever the US military gets tired of spending the resources to hold the lid on the pot, it will invariably boil over.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
The old mantra of statecraft from the early to mid 20th century focused on self-determination for ethnic, religious, racial, and cultural groups, as presumably a people with their own state are free to build that state and its laws according to their culture and values. It assumed that the differences between peoples were too vast and asking discordant cultures to coexist in a single state was a recipe for constant civil disorder, assassinations, rioting, guerilla groups, etc. It came out of a recognition of the failures and problems of Europe’s multicultural empires, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire. It was a driving force in the settlement treaties for both World Wars, the breakup of colonial empires, and the creation of Israel. It was a pragmatic philosophy that attempted to find the best solution for the world as it is, not an idealist dream that promised some utopia somewhere down the road. It was recognized and assumed that there might be wars between neighbors, but such wars would be contained, organized, and fought between disciplined armies targeting military objectives, all in all a less destructive and less bloody punctuation between periods of relative stability. Globalism, of course, an ideology that strives for a unified world government, explicitly rejected such notions, and this philosophy was largely abandoned, save in the case of Israel/Palestine, which already had a long history, and Yugoslavia, where it was assumed the new states would eventually become part of a larger EU (most of them have). The US always pushed for a unified Iraq for economic reasons (oil) and because they knew any Shi’ite state would fall into the orbit of Iran. In refusing to recognized the disparate cultures and histories of Iraq’s people, they created an unstable state in need of constant support to prevent it descending into anarchy. This is another example of the failure of globalism. At the end of the day, disparate cultures that don’t want to coexist can only be held together by brute force, a dictator like Saddam, or a situation like this. Iraq will eventually be three or more states. Whenever the US military gets tired of spending the resources to hold the lid on the pot, it will invariably boil over.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Anyone remember Tibet?
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Anyone remember Tibet?
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
Viva Kurdistan!
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
Viva Kurdistan!
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
And we learned nothing, and are destroying another place by war now.
The US/UK war machine – which also created the conditions for the current state of affairs. This shouldn’t be a surprise after the murdering of over a million civilians and allowing Isis to grow in power next door (what could go wrong? Oh wait…).
Apparently forever-wars are a perversely popular thing in the Anglosphere, judging from the never-ending entanglements elsewhere and the heedless warmongering that flares up (as can be seen in the comment sections on this site, despite it ostensibly catering to people who are sceptical of power/governments) whenever one of these wars start – which inevitably peters out and is then swept under the rug (as is currently being done with Iraq, Syria and Libya, among others).
The US and UK troops killed remarkably few people in Iraq. The vast majority of those who have died have been killed by other Muslims for the crime of being the wrong kind of Muslim.
According to whom? You? The US/UK Governments? I’m SURE Abu Ghraib is also accounted for in your statement and whatever numbers you have (if you have them) are 100% true and transparent.
Let’s also not forget, the Iraqis managed to not kill each other (Saddam excluded obviously) before you opened the shooting-season with an illegal war no one has (conspicuously) been jailed (or executed) for.
If the Iranians/Russians/Chinese assassinated the US president and reduced Washington to rubble, I somehow doubt you’d be blaming the republicans and democrats if a civil war broke out thereafter. As such, it’s unbelievable that you’re trying to put the consequences of an ILLEGAL WAR (which seems to be super pertinent when it’s the Russians invading, but totally fine when it’s the Anglos) on the Iraqis, as if it was their idea to be “bombed back into the stone age” (as the phrase went).
The US didn’t even bother to create the pretext of backing some “good guys” until afterwards, much as you seem to be trying to whitewash this as something other than an atrocity and war crime(s) committed by the US/UK after the fact.
Shame on you.
According to whom? You? The US/UK Governments? I’m SURE Abu Ghraib is also accounted for in your statement and whatever numbers you have (if you have them) are 100% true and transparent.
Let’s also not forget, the Iraqis managed to not kill each other (Saddam excluded obviously) before you opened the shooting-season with an illegal war no one has (conspicuously) been jailed (or executed) for.
If the Iranians/Russians/Chinese assassinated the US president and reduced Washington to rubble, I somehow doubt you’d be blaming the republicans and democrats if a civil war broke out thereafter. As such, it’s unbelievable that you’re trying to put the consequences of an ILLEGAL WAR (which seems to be super pertinent when it’s the Russians invading, but totally fine when it’s the Anglos) on the Iraqis, as if it was their idea to be “bombed back into the stone age” (as the phrase went).
The US didn’t even bother to create the pretext of backing some “good guys” until afterwards, much as you seem to be trying to whitewash this as something other than an atrocity and war crime(s) committed by the US/UK after the fact.
Shame on you.
The US and UK troops killed remarkably few people in Iraq. The vast majority of those who have died have been killed by other Muslims for the crime of being the wrong kind of Muslim.
The US/UK war machine – which also created the conditions for the current state of affairs. This shouldn’t be a surprise after the murdering of over a million civilians and allowing Isis to grow in power next door (what could go wrong? Oh wait…).
Apparently forever-wars are a perversely popular thing in the Anglosphere, judging from the never-ending entanglements elsewhere and the heedless warmongering that flares up (as can be seen in the comment sections on this site, despite it ostensibly catering to people who are sceptical of power/governments) whenever one of these wars start – which inevitably peters out and is then swept under the rug (as is currently being done with Iraq, Syria and Libya, among others).
The old mantra of statecraft from the early to mid 20th century focused on self-determination for ethnic, religious, racial, and cultural groups, as presumably a people with their own state are free to build that state and its laws according to their culture and values. It assumed that the differences between peoples were too vast and asking discordant cultures to coexist in a single state was a recipe for constant civil disorder, assassinations, rioting, guerilla groups, etc. It came out of a recognition of the failures and problems of Europe’s multicultural empires, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire. It was a driving force in the settlement treaties for both World Wars, the breakup of colonial empires, and the creation of Israel. It was a pragmatic philosophy that attempted to find the best solution for the world as it is, not an idealist dream that promised some utopia somewhere down the road. It was recognized and assumed that there might be wars between neighbors, but such wars would be contained, organized, and fought between disciplined armies targeting military objectives, all in all a less destructive and less bloody punctuation between periods of relative stability. Globalism, of course, an ideology that strives for a unified world government, explicitly rejected such notions, and this philosophy was largely abandoned, save in the case of Israel/Palestine, which already had a long history, and Yugoslavia, where it was assumed the new states would eventually become part of a larger EU (most of them have). The US always pushed for a unified Iraq for economic reasons (oil) and because they knew any Shi’ite state would fall into the orbit of Iran. In refusing to recognized the disparate cultures and histories of Iraq’s people, they created an unstable state in need of constant support to prevent it descending into anarchy. This is another example of the failure of globalism. At the end of the day, disparate cultures that don’t want to coexist can only be held together by brute force, a dictator like Saddam, or a situation like this. Iraq will eventually be three or more states. Whenever the US military gets tired of spending the resources to hold the lid on the pot, it will invariably boil over.
The old mantra of statecraft from the early to mid 20th century focused on self-determination for ethnic, religious, racial, and cultural groups, as presumably a people with their own state are free to build that state and its laws according to their culture and values. It assumed that the differences between peoples were too vast and asking discordant cultures to coexist in a single state was a recipe for constant civil disorder, assassinations, rioting, guerilla groups, etc. It came out of a recognition of the failures and problems of Europe’s multicultural empires, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire. It was a driving force in the settlement treaties for both World Wars, the breakup of colonial empires, and the creation of Israel. It was a pragmatic philosophy that attempted to find the best solution for the world as it is, not an idealist dream that promised some utopia somewhere down the road. It was recognized and assumed that there might be wars between neighbors, but such wars would be contained, organized, and fought between disciplined armies targeting military objectives, all in all a less destructive and less bloody punctuation between periods of relative stability. Globalism, of course, an ideology that strives for a unified world government, explicitly rejected such notions, and this philosophy was largely abandoned, save in the case of Israel/Palestine, which already had a long history, and Yugoslavia, where it was assumed the new states would eventually become part of a larger EU (most of them have). The US always pushed for a unified Iraq for economic reasons (oil) and because they knew any Shi’ite state would fall into the orbit of Iran. In refusing to recognized the disparate cultures and histories of Iraq’s people, they created an unstable state in need of constant support to prevent it descending into anarchy. This is another example of the failure of globalism. At the end of the day, disparate cultures that don’t want to coexist can only be held together by brute force, a dictator like Saddam, or a situation like this. Iraq will eventually be three or more states. Whenever the US military gets tired of spending the resources to hold the lid on the pot, it will invariably boil over.
Anyone remember Tibet?
Anyone remember Tibet?
Viva Kurdistan!
Viva Kurdistan!
And we learned nothing, and are destroying another place by war now.
Who is this “we”? The locals seem quite capable of causing destruction themselves.
The US/UK war machine – which also created the conditions for the current state of affairs. This shouldn’t be a surprise after the murdering of over a million civilians and allowing Isis to grow in power next door (what could go wrong? Oh wait…).
Apparently forever-wars are a perversely popular thing in the Anglosphere, judging from the never-ending entanglements elsewhere and the heedless warmongering that flares up (as can be seen in the comment sections on this site, despite it ostensibly catering to people who are sceptical of power/governments) whenever one of these wars start – which inevitably peters out and is then swept under the rug (as is currently being done with Iraq, Syria and Libya, among others).
The US and UK troops killed remarkably few people in Iraq. The vast majority of those who have died have been killed by other Muslims for the crime of being the wrong kind of Muslim.
According to whom? You? The US/UK Governments? I’m SURE Abu Ghraib is also accounted for in your statement and whatever numbers you have (if you have them) are 100% true and transparent.
Let’s also not forget, the Iraqis managed to not kill each other (Saddam excluded obviously) before you opened the shooting-season with an illegal war no one has (conspicuously) been jailed (or executed) for.
If the Iranians/Russians/Chinese assassinated the US president and reduced Washington to rubble, I somehow doubt you’d be blaming the republicans and democrats if a civil war broke out thereafter. As such, it’s unbelievable that you’re trying to put the consequences of an ILLEGAL WAR (which seems to be super pertinent when it’s the Russians invading, but totally fine when it’s the Anglos) on the Iraqis, as if it was their idea to be “bombed back into the stone age” (as the phrase went).
The US didn’t even bother to create the pretext of backing some “good guys” until afterwards, much as you seem to be trying to whitewash this as something other than an atrocity and war crime(s) committed by the US/UK after the fact.
Shame on you.
According to whom? You? The US/UK Governments? I’m SURE Abu Ghraib is also accounted for in your statement and whatever numbers you have (if you have them) are 100% true and transparent.
Let’s also not forget, the Iraqis managed to not kill each other (Saddam excluded obviously) before you opened the shooting-season with an illegal war no one has (conspicuously) been jailed (or executed) for.
If the Iranians/Russians/Chinese assassinated the US president and reduced Washington to rubble, I somehow doubt you’d be blaming the republicans and democrats if a civil war broke out thereafter. As such, it’s unbelievable that you’re trying to put the consequences of an ILLEGAL WAR (which seems to be super pertinent when it’s the Russians invading, but totally fine when it’s the Anglos) on the Iraqis, as if it was their idea to be “bombed back into the stone age” (as the phrase went).
The US didn’t even bother to create the pretext of backing some “good guys” until afterwards, much as you seem to be trying to whitewash this as something other than an atrocity and war crime(s) committed by the US/UK after the fact.
Shame on you.
The US and UK troops killed remarkably few people in Iraq. The vast majority of those who have died have been killed by other Muslims for the crime of being the wrong kind of Muslim.
The US/UK war machine – which also created the conditions for the current state of affairs. This shouldn’t be a surprise after the murdering of over a million civilians and allowing Isis to grow in power next door (what could go wrong? Oh wait…).
Apparently forever-wars are a perversely popular thing in the Anglosphere, judging from the never-ending entanglements elsewhere and the heedless warmongering that flares up (as can be seen in the comment sections on this site, despite it ostensibly catering to people who are sceptical of power/governments) whenever one of these wars start – which inevitably peters out and is then swept under the rug (as is currently being done with Iraq, Syria and Libya, among others).
Who is this “we”? The locals seem quite capable of causing destruction themselves.
And we learned nothing, and are destroying another place by war now.