Zarqawi Killed

[LoneWolf]

This man was a monster and deserves his fate but no doubt tomorrow there will be revenge attacks for his death and that of the other people who died with him.

Presumably you are not referring to George Galloway

Yes I agree there is a high probability of unrest following his demise [not George Galloway]

[Charles Flynn]

George is "gorgeous" some say, others say something else.

[Gladys]

Being a bit of a simple soul, I do wonder if we have created the problem we (they) sought to solve.

 

Simplistic again, but: everyone out, sort the problems on your own home turf and, when you have that right, go and TALK to these people.

 

Probably too late for that!

[VinnieK]

Simplistic again, but: everyone out, sort the problems on your own home turf and, when you have that right, go and TALK to these people.

 

That was precisely what the British did when they originally left Iraq prematurely (under parliamentary and similar popular pressure to do so), instead of overseeing the establishment of political institutions, the rule of law, and a democratic culture, and waiting for them to mature.

 

The result being that those institutions swiftly collapsed, leading eventually to dictatorship and tyranny.

[Roger Smelly]

This fella might be gone but i am sure that there will be plenty of fools to step into his shoes.

 

The only way this problem will be sorted is when the people of iraq stop surporting these idiots.

 

What needs to be done is to have iraq split into states and have locals in control of each state and then they meet at a central government.

 

Most people in iraq want a free life its just the 1% the ruin it for the 99%

 

Iraq is like northern ireland, until the people realise that the only way to get freedom is through political means you are going to have a war for a very long time i reckon

[Albert Tatlock]

Simplistic again, but: everyone out, sort the problems on your own home turf and, when you have that right, go and TALK to these people.

 

That was precisely what the British did when they originally left Iraq prematurely (under parliamentary and similar popular pressure to do so), instead of overseeing the establishment of political institutions, the rule of law, and a democratic culture, and waiting for them to mature.

 

The result being that those institutions swiftly collapsed, leading eventually to dictatorship and tyranny.

The British were in Iraq for many years after the first world war. IMHO these people don't want democracy as it is 'against' their religeon and their way of life, and they are currently about 400 years behind the West with regard to political institutions, the rule of law, and a democratic culture that anywhere near approach our definitions. Anyone who thinks these people can and want to be converted at the moment has another think coming. Anyone thinking it is working, IMHO, demonstrates nothing but a lack of understanding of the situation. All that will happen again - whenever we leave - is that these temporary changes will be washed away with the tide as the countries surrounding Iraq and the religeous fanatics within Iraq eventually restore their influence on it.

 

It is their religeon that rules their lives and which makes them so dangerous. Until religeon is taken out of all politics this situation will continue indefinately. In the past this has not affected us much, but with this mix of politics, religeon and technology they need to be 'managed' more than ever before. If we can do that through negotiations and all live happily ever after - great.

 

If they are not mature enough to negotiate with, then when they start messing about with nukes etc. (like Iran) - our only option will be to periodically bomb such facilities back into the stone age, and if we need their oil to maintain our economies then (preferably through the UN) in the interests of global stability the major countries of the world should just take it and pool it - and not pretend we are 'liberating' them.

[VinnieK]

The British were in Iraq for many years after the first world war. IMHO these people don't want democracy as it is 'against' their religeon and their way of life, and they are currently about 400 years behind the West with regard to political institutions, the rule of law, and a democratic culture that anywhere near approach our definitions.

 

The British were only in Iraq for thirteen years after the first world war, and a six year military occupation after the second. Compare this with the American presence in Japan or the allied forces in Germany. Typically, political institutions and the rule of law take at the very least a generation to establish, which was not the case in Iraq. I disagree that the Muslim religion excludes them from taking up democracy, the experience of a great many Muslims in Britain, as well as the enthusiastic participation in elections both in Afghanistan and Iraq I think suffices to show that this is not the case.

 

In my personal view, which may smack of a modern form of imperialism, but is I believe at least borne out by history is that rebuilding Iraq's political structure is proceding 'backwards'. Historically, true liberal democracy as we know it has only ever flourished after the rule of law and it's associated institutions have been established on a firm basis and given a chance to become a part of the culture. This power of law provides the foundations upon which democratic society is built. As such, I believe that the coalition should have concentrated far more on, in consultation with the Iraqis themselves, building up education, a powerful judiciary, and a 'clean' police force guided and answerable to the coalition administration, and only then transferring power to an elected government. The worst thing that the coalition could have done is to repeatedly state and intimate that they're going to leave soon. As such, any faction with it's eye on ultimate power knows that it can simply bide its time untilt they can seize it, until then encouraging civil strife to keep up the pressure to 'get out quick' on coalition forces.

[Tugger]

Christ is this Albert Tatlock for real?

[Albert Tatlock]

Christ is this Albert Tatlock for real?

I admit I do like to stimulate debate, as few people talk in any depth about this as it is.

 

You above all people on this forum have seen the consequences of religious divide first hand. IMHO, until religeon is placed firmly in the history bin where it belongs, the world will continue to move from one crisis to another.

 

Would you really be happy for the Iranian leadership and other associated religeous fanatics to be in control of this kind of technology? I firmly agree negotiation is the preferred option, but what's your solution if negotiations fail and this technology could be potentially sold on through various means to other fanatics in other states e.g. Syria, Palestine etc. ?

[VinnieK]

until religeon is placed firmly in the history bin where it belongs, the world will continue to move from one crisis to another.

 

North Korea, Zimbabwe, and the long running dispute between China and Taiwan all suggest that the world is perfectly capable of manufacturing its own crises without the convenient excuse of religion to mask the motives at play.

[GD4ELI]

Let's see what the 72 virgins he meets do - when they consider the life he led.

 

They will all look like Marty Feldman with any luck

I thought it was 28? 72 is a low power Amateur Radio salutation.

[GD4ELI]

IMHO, until religeon is placed firmly in the history bin where it belongs, the world will continue to move from one crisis to another.

Well said.

[Albert Tatlock]

until religeon is placed firmly in the history bin where it belongs, the world will continue to move from one crisis to another.

 

North Korea, Zimbabwe, and the long running dispute between China and Taiwan all suggest that the world is perfectly capable of manufacturing its own crises without the convenient excuse of religion to mask the motives at play.

Minutae in the big scheme of things. Whether you are talking about 'all hail god' or 'all hail certain individuals' the result is the same. We are really talking about control in the hands of a few individuals - if that's a church, a right wing or facist government, the result is the same.

[Alias]

Minutae in the big scheme of things. Whether you are talking about 'all hail god' or 'all hail certain individuals' the result is the same. We are really talking about control in the hands of a few individuals - if that's a church, a right wing or facist government, the result is the same.

So what would cutting religion do? It'd just leave a gap to be filled by a 'revolutionist' and you'd be back where you started. We instinctively are led or lead as humans, and the leaders aren't always peacemakers.

[Albert Tatlock]

Minutae in the big scheme of things. Whether you are talking about 'all hail god' or 'all hail certain individuals' the result is the same. We are really talking about control in the hands of a few individuals - if that's a church, a right wing or facist government, the result is the same.

So what would cutting religion do? It'd just leave a gap to be filled by a 'revolutionist' and you'd be back where you started. We instinctively are led or lead as humans, and the leaders aren't always peacemakers.

...exactly...choose the right leaders. Go for brains not money or religeous beliefs. People usually only vote for revolutionists because they're peed off an don't have a job. If you think religeon has the answer why not sign up for my 'omnipitant squirrel' party? or better still ake a good long look at the system.