And if the US had not invaded Iraq, or had invaded it with more adequate forces and a more effective postwar occupation plan, we almost certainly would have prevented the bombing of the Golden Dome.
To turn a stable if suffering country into a failed state with inadequate governance and security, where terrorists can carry out their aggressions pretty much at will, is to incur some responsibility for the consequences, like it or not.
That depends on the circumstances. However, I have no problem with stating that the minimum cutoff period is significantly longer than the two or three years that have elapsed since we dismantled Iraq.
So let’s follow your logic here. During Saddam’s time, all Sunni/Shiite bombings were Saddam’s responsibility … those occurring now are our responsibility … at what point do they become the bomber’s responsibility?
Yes, he killed them and controlled them, but not because they disagreed on the succession of the prophet. You might be able to convince me of your viewpoint if you produced statements by Saddam or the Baath party that the reason they invaded Iran was because of the succession issue. Until then, I remain unconvinced.
I notice you didn’t even bother to address my point that Saddam killed Sunnis as well.
Uh… I already stated that terrorists were assholes. If you’re unable to glean from this that I think the terrorists are responsible for the bombings, then let me state my viewpoint very clearly for you:
Terrorists are scum, and they are ultimately the cause of the violence in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was scum and perpetrated violence against both Sunnis and Shiites in order to maintain political power, and not for a religious purpose.
The Bush Administration has compromised our national security and behaved immorally for failing to plan for the outbreak of violence that would follow after Saddam was toppled.
This is the second time in this thread you have attempted to pin a viewpoint on me that I don’t hold. Furthermore, even though I have addressed your arguments, you have not bothered to address a single one of my counter-arguments. Instead, you keep reiterating your original points and bringing up irrelevancies. You are a dishonest debater who’s creating strawmen to argue against.
And who here in this thread has given you the idea that it’s ok to chop people’s hands off? This is another one of your strawmen which you disingeniously try to pin on anyone who disagrees with you. If you need me to spell it out, yes, I think it’s barbaric.
I’m done debating with you. I’m not going to spend my time in each and every post having to disclaim positions that I never espoused in the first place.
FYI. I didn’t make this statement. I think that was Tamerlane.
Another strawman argument. Of course acts of terror are primarily the responsibility of those who directly commit them. But those who deliberately or negligently make it easier to commit them are indeed partly responsible for them.
Caius, thanks for your post. I said that Saddam killed “anyone he thought was a danger to his rule”. This includes Sunnis, of course, and addresses your point completely.
Of course, Saddam never said he attacked Iran because of the Shiite/Sunni split. You are correct, he wanted land. But the fact that the Iranians were Shiites was certainly a factor, and made it very easy for him to sell the idea to the Iraqi Sunni majority.
Saddam is Sunni, was supported by Sunnis, and was well known for attacking, mistreating, and killing Shiites. In fact, he is currently on trial over his exterminating a Shiite town where they tried to assassinate him.
This same trick (trying to kill Saddam) happened in other towns as well, but in the Shiite town, he wiped them all out. You can believe that was just coincidence, but I don’t.
And it could also be coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the more than one million people killed in Saddam’s mad adventures were Shiites …
This whole point of discussion arises from your claim that Saddam had been “squelching this type of violence”, that is to say Sunni/Shiite violence. I said he did not squelch it, he institutionalized it. As an example of this, from the New Yorker magazine we have:
So in addition to outright killing Shiites, Saddam reduced their lives to misery … to me, that’s worse than bombing the Golden Dome.
Stating the terrorists are assholes does not mean that they are responsible for bombings. You have never, until this post, stated that the terrorists are in any way responsible for the bombings. I read your words, I take your meaning as best I can. If you think that calling someone an asshole means that he is responsible for bombings, that’s fine, but it’s hard for someone reading your words to follow that asshole = bomber kind of logic.
In addition to being contrary to SDMB policy, your comment about my honesty is a joke. You come on like the US is responsible for the bombing of the Golden Dome, then call me dishonest when I point out that you have not said a single word about the bombers responsibility … and your reply is that you called them “assholes”, and that’s supposed to settle the question of responsibility.
On my planet, if someone calls someone else an asshole, I assume they mean asshole, not “responsible for bombings”. That may make me foolish … but it doesn’t make me dishonest. Please back off on the personal attacks.
Caius, I did not say that you, or anyone on this thread espoused the idea that it’s OK to chop peoples hands off. I said:
I find it curious that you feel so strongly that this statement refers to you, that you have to issue a disclaimer …
A factor in his decision to exploit the chaos post-Iranian revolution and seize a long-disputed piece of territory? I seriously doubt it. He certainly didn’t have any religious motivation to invade Kuwait.
Now he certainly exploited worries about Iranian radicalism to gather aid from the Guld states and elsewhere after the fact ( i.e. after he started losing ). But SH never showed any signs of outward religiosity until and unless it suited him for propaganda purposes ( i.e. when beleaguered in the two Gulf wars ).
Saddam was an opportunist who played both the secularist and religious card as it suited him. As you note several factions are on the books for plotting and even rebelling against him, including very Sunni Arab Dulaimi tribe in the town of Ramadi. The fact that he felt more free to massacre Shi’a peasants may play to the reality of power politics in Iraq, 'tis true. But it doesn’t mean that Saddam nursed a particular grievance against Shi’a for religious reasons. They were just a restive non-power sharing populace that could be dealt with in harsher terms, just as with the Sunni Kurds.
They formed the majority of his foot soldiers and never responded much to Iranian pressure to turn on him.
Nah - I don’t buy it. SH was not a font of religious hatred. He was just a font of non-denominational evil tyranny. He used religion when expedient, ignored it when it was not.
His villainy I’d consider uncontested. His piety I would not.
Attack on Iran was done not on religious but racial basis. It was set as Arabs against Persians. As Saddam declared:
Important to keep in mind that Ba’th Party is really Arab Socialist Ba’th Party, which by definition is close to other National Socialist parties (such as NSDAP).
Saddam is a fascist and fascists always put race above religion.
New Iskander, and Tamerlane, your points are good and are well taken.
I do not deny that Saddam was an opportunist, who would kill anyone who opposed him. However, calling the opponents “Persians” is clear Mideast-speak for “Shiites”. It’s like Bush and company talking about “welfare recipients”. Everyone knows he means “people of color”. The same is true about “Persians”, Persians means Shiites.
Saddam’s point of view about the Shiites mirrors, as this citation shows, “much of Iraqi history”. Yes, he ran a “secular” state, but he kept his thumb on the Shiites just the same as the rulers of Iraq had done for the last 400 years. Coincidence?
The fight between Sunnis and Shiites has continued, in an on-again, off-again, now here, now there form, for 14 centuries. As the quote above shows, Shiites in Iraq were opressed long before America was even a country.
Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq have fought for at least 400 years. Now you say that the US has “partial responsibility” for the bombing of the Golden Dome.
I suppose, by this kind of logic, that the Indonesian Government has “partial responsibility” for the nightclub bombings in Bali …
If we accept your logic, then “Arabs” would be “Mideast speak” for Sunni. Which is ridiculous, because Arab Shia make majorities in populations of Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon, plus there are great more Arab Shia in other mideast countries.
You concentrate on sectarian animosities in the Moslem world while completely ignoring the racial ones, which are extremely strong.
As one example, did you hear about Persian Gulf naming dispute? Do you know that many Arab countries have laws against using the name Persian Gulf?
Likewise, many Persians hate Arabs and consider invasion of Islamic armies in 7th century AD as one of the greatest tragedies to happen to Persia. Many of them go even further and call the rule of Khomeini and other mullahs “the second Arabian invasion”. So there are Persians accusing their Shia mullahs of being Arabs!
I also disagree with your description of Sunni/Shia relations through history as “fight”. I think a word like ‘split’ is more appropriate. It was always present, but it was not a ‘fight’. Shi’a were persecuted most of the time, as they denied the legitimacy of the ruler as a matter of faith, kind of like early Christians in ancient Rome or Confucians in ancient China. However, there were very long periods of peace and prosperity and Shia fortunes were slowly improving.
The ‘split’ still exists, of course, and nowadays there are bad people trying to inflame into actual war to achieve their own goals.
Well, it is true, at any rate, that Hussein’s pretext for attacking Iran was to “liberate” the Arabs of the southwestern province of Khuzestan from Persian rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war#Background:
Nevertheless . . . I don’t believe Hussein or any of his Ba’athist followers would have gotten so exercised over the fate of the Khuzestan Arabs, if Khuzestan were not one of Iran’s most important oil-producing regions. :dubious:
“Arab” would be Mideast speak for “Sunni”? No way, because a good chunk of the Arab world is Shiite.
Very few “Persians”, on the other hand, are Sunni, and the government of Iran is a strict Shiite theocracy, which openly discriminates against Sunnis (there’s not one Sunni mosque in Teheran, for example). This Shiite dominance is not true of any other nation in the Middle East, which is why Saddam could use “Persian” and all of his followers would hear “Shiite”.
“Split” is perhaps acceptable for the description of Sunni/Shia relations, although it’s kind of bland for a disagreement where people are blowing up villages and killing women and children by the handfuls … surely that’s more than a “split”? A “split” is what I had with my ex-girlfriend. The Sunni/Shia difference involves civil wars, mass killings, and the destruction of each other’s holy sites on and off over a fourteen century period. The killing is continuing as you read this posting … that’s not a “split”, that’s a fight. Yes, at times it has been more peaceful, but much of the time, it’s the same fight as in the first Islamic Civil War, 30 years after Mohammed’s death – Shiites and Sunnis, killing each other once again.
Islam … the religion of peace. (Of course, you gotta admit, it gets much more peaceful once you kill all your “enemies”, so let the work of peace continue …)