War: Is it worth it?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

I haven't heard much of the Kurdish people at all, as crazy as it seems. Could you give me a brief overview of their involvement in the conflicts in the Middle East?

The Kurds are the other main ethnic group in the middle east after Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. They're found primarily in the area you'd get drawing a circle around the overlap of the borders of large parts of eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, northwestern Iran and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia.

They represent as much as 20% of the population of some of these countries, but are incredibly underrepresented in any kind of political control or positions of authority. In places like Turkey, speaking Kurdish was actually illegal for a lot of years, and pretty much all the middle eastern governments are very repressive of their kurdish populations, because it is widely feared that all of these people (somewhere around 30 MILLION of them) might one day get it in their heads to band together and declare themselves an independant state. That's mostly troubling because Kurds religiously are a lot more tolerant than most branches of Islam. They have less harsh strictures for women etc.

Chances are very good that a large-scale internal civil war in Iraq would basically result in the creation of three seperate countries, a Sunni, a Shi'a and a Kurdish state. If that happened, it would be very likely that Turkish Kurds would start agitating to join the new country, and there would be some pretty far-reaching political consequences for the area.

What about the Israel/Palestine conflict? Perfect example of war going nowhere.

The Israel/Palestine conflict is also pretty unique in the annals of war, so I'm not sure it should be used as a case example of anything.

Israel and Palestine were created by writ by the UN after the second world war, and basically said "We're making a two-state system in this country, one state is jewish, and the other is muslim" Pretty much as soon as this went through, Israel declared its independance from Palestine, and the arab league declared war and attacked Israel.

Israel managed to get the US on board helping them out and they won that war, and then later invaded and annexed a bunch of land that was Palestine's.

The entire conflict at this point centres around for one, whether the UN actually had a mandate to just plop down national lines like that, and two, if they did, how to resolve their mutual claims to Jerusalem, and how to resolve the issue of the large number of palestinian refugees living in areas that Israel took over and are now expanding into.

The fact that if at any point the US withdrew their support from Israel, they would probably get flattened like a mack truck certainly doesn't help anything, though teh US has been supplying and training them for so long now that it would take a while for things to wind down.

It is a really dirty and ugly conflict because both of these people are fighting in what they consider to be defense of their homeland. It isn't something that could ever have been ended easily, because there's no possible win/win compromise in their minds.

[rzr]

If this group of people is more tolerant than the others it seems to me that they should gain power. It would be less violent, in my opinion.

Also, thanks, devonin, for answering my question. I was slightly confused.

[devonin]

Just because they are more in line in some of their attitudes with the west doesn't mean they ought to get power just because. And while I'm all for the creation of an independant Kurdistan, they are individually too small a percentage of the population in their home nations to ever win democratic elections.

[rzr]

Why wouldn't it be a good idea to put a lenient Middle Eastern group in power? Even if their democracy dwindled the other countries would want to keep them in power because they would need to take advantage of the fact that they wouldn't have to put up with the other Middle Eastern countries, therefore the Western countries would support their democracy.

[Zythus]

Western countries does not affiliate with whatever system the Middle Easterns have, I certainly doubt the Middle East would gain redemption due to their new and hopeful democracy from western nations, not to mention support it and also assuming it would even succeed.

"Get non violent people running the show! That way, we wouldn't need to worry about them anymore because they won't cause trouble anyways." is your opinion, I presume.

[rzr]

Though I normally frown upon a one word answer in CT, all I have to say is "yes" because that is my opinion.

[devonin]

But you're suggesting that what American should do is depose a government and replace it with a government of their own choosing, and then using American military power to keep that government in control of the state, solely because America has decided they like them more. What's more, you're putting a MINORITY in charge of the whole country? 17% of the population gets their regime put into power?

[rzr]

Pretty much what I'm saying is if the need to actually avoid war is there, using pacifists/ignorant people to calm a country is better than using bombs. If we put lenient people in charge then that eliminates the aspect of war [, moderately]. However, putting a hostile group in charge almost directly advocates war.

My basic theory for the Middle East: force a democracy to remain in Iraq and influince the other Middle Eastern countries into a democratic union. Keep it forced for approximately 70 years. My point to that theory? Because the people that are in charge now have been used to a dictatorship their entire lives. Once their dead and the next generation is in power they'll keep ve democracy because they were used to the [forced] democracy their entire lives.

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by rzr

My basic theory for the Middle East: force a democracy to remain in Iraq and influince the other Middle Eastern countries into a democratic union. Keep it forced for approximately 70 years. My point to that theory? Because the people that are in charge now have been used to a dictatorship their entire lives. Once their dead and the next generation is in power they'll keep ve democracy because they were used to the [forced] democracy their entire lives.

Yes. Brilliant. 70 year occupations! Forced Democracies! Belittling of the savage Arab, incapable of functioning on his own! Encourage ethnocentric beliefs! Yes! The perfect path to peace.

[purebloodtexan]

I don't think that Rzr realizes that many jihadis are trained from the time that they can speak. One man passes his learning to his child, that child passes it onto his child, and it continues. Even if we force a democracy, there will still be fighting, possibly a never-ending struggle.

[JonXia]

Originally Posted by Shenlon

Wars may be driven by a leader's need for enjoyment? What the hell? Point out one example of that, please.

If I was Hitler, I'd take a relaxing day sniping out some Jews, no offense but the thrill of battle sometimes gets people off, or is just plain fun. Nowadays poeple have fun contolling people in a simulated enviroment making others fight for them. from Warcraft 3 to Halo people enjoy the whole army thing and have fun doing it, who is to say that ths would be like the same thing for a general with no videogames?

Originally Posted by Shenlon

War is a costly, risky endeavor.

Pre-WW1, not very good economy. During and after, good economy. We start to go down into the great depression, Germany builds an army. We go to war. Economy good. Hell, Japan wouldn't be like it is today if we didn't drop the bomb (I'm Canadian, so I guess it wouldn't be "we" would it?) and to make myself sound like Stephen Colbert, You're welcome

Originally Posted by Shenlon

And it seems you contradict yourself by also saying that war is not most likely driven by our more animalistic side but enjoyment as itself seems a pretty base reason for war.

Not contradiction, it is an animal side, yet we take enjoyment from it. Kind of like we are born predators and we go hunting to enjoy the hunt (As an example, not a clarification). We go to war yet we enjoy doing so.


Thanks Zythus and rzr. Props to you too.

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

I don't think that Rzr realizes that many jihadis are trained from the time that they can speak.

Which will further war, somebody has to make a profit and since they are trained from the time they can speak they also are taught to enjoy it.

The reason why we need democracy is to avoid power hungry individuals, like what I said before, that enjoy war or have their own ideals. We could just leave them in power, where there is no peace, women get raped like it is something you do before you have dinner, child executions are right beside the adults. How about we go in and try to do something about it. I don't care if there is an scondary motive like oil. If peace eventually comes out of it, then why not?

[Zythus]

Originally Posted by rzr

My basic theory for the Middle East: force a democracy to remain in Iraq and influince the other Middle Eastern countries into a democratic union. Keep it forced for approximately 70 years. My point to that theory? Because the people that are in charge now have been used to a dictatorship their entire lives. Once their dead and the next generation is in power they'll keep ve democracy because they were used to the [forced] democracy their entire lives.

And there at the other thread, you say that US should be extracted from Iraq because they are stirring more trouble. This recolutionary theroy of yours, how does it differ signifigantly from the woes they are doing now?
Again, a contradiction. Next generation? Their religion will influence them more than some preliminary democracy we throw at them. I'm inclined to think a revolt will occur pretty soon after this nice simulating democracy.

[rzr]

I have not once, on any thread, said that I think America should withdraw from Iraq.
I do, however, agree with you that a revolt will occur in the near future. Hence why we should keep troops there, to control it.

[JonXia]

And to shoot them, less people means more fearing America and more going to Democracy.

Then again more extremists

So we go to far black/whites.

Meh

[devonin]

Okay, maybe this is the question that needs to be asked of you guys:

Why are you so sure that an American style democracy is the best form of government for everybody? What makes the American system so perfect and flawless that it ought to be forced onto everybody in the world? What if the people don't -want- a democracy? What if the culture and the society are based around tribal lines, respecting elders, or authority coming down from the church?

What you're suggesting is that the best course of action for America is enforced cultural genocide, enforced conversion to secular politics, and an insistance that these cultures, that are thousands of years old are -inferior- to the piddly little 230 years America has been around.

You don't find anything morally ambiguous about the suggestion that America is better than everyone else, so everyone else should be forced to become like America?

[Zythus]

it is our discretion to promote democracy, mainly because US and Canada both use (or supposedly use) this system of government. I do not believe that democracy is the only choice for the middle east, but knowing that we live in peace in Canada or US, we are inclined to induce our successful government system upon theirs. Maybe dictatorship is the best government for them (hopefully, not an evil dictator). Maybe their religious factions are so intolerant of each other, we need the arbitration of dictatorship to preserve peace. Its not an easy question, its paradoxic and ideological at the same time.

At the same time, democracy isn't the flawless cogs and gears to success and power. A comparison to dictatorship, communism, or facism, democracy gives you the aluring chance to speak your mind, however this does not guarntee your happiness to one decision. You could have voted for a party, but they didn't get elected. But it is resentment knowing that you had a say in things, yet you never got it.

Dictatorship, one authoritarian figurehead makes the decisions, don't like it? Die. Its more sliding on your fear to obey the laws. If you don't like it here, its resentment without choice, one would feel like they just have to suck it up and live with it.

So the comparison would be:
Democracy: You were given a chance, yet your minority didn't call the shots like the majority did.
Dictatorship: You live to obey, you do not get any options. Hate us because you won't ever call the shots.

Preference perhaps depend on the individual to choose one of these. Some would perfer be not given a chance to say their mind because an elected government could not be a government they wish for. Others might find it invaluable to have their decision change and shape the country.

I personally, would go for democracy, yet (as long as the dictator is not evil) dictatorship wouldn't be too awful either.

[devonin]

it is our discretion to promote democracy

Do you see a difference between promoting democracy and forcibly overthrowing a government and implementing a democracy despite being uninvited and unwelcome to do so?

[Zythus]

Yeah, I do see the part where we made it a requisition of democracy, but perhaps it is just induction because we live in such a system, so we feel we need to have a "crusade" to convert other countries to our liking.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by JonXia

If I was Hitler, I'd take a relaxing day sniping out some Jews, no offense but the thrill of battle sometimes gets people off, or is just plain fun. Nowadays poeple have fun contolling people in a simulated enviroment making others fight for them. from Warcraft 3 to Halo people enjoy the whole army thing and have fun doing it, who is to say that ths would be like the same thing for a general with no videogames?



Pre-WW1, not very good economy. During and after, good economy. We start to go down into the great depression, Germany builds an army. We go to war. Economy good. Hell, Japan wouldn't be like it is today if we didn't drop the bomb (I'm Canadian, so I guess it wouldn't be "we" would it?) and to make myself sound like Stephen Colbert, You're welcome



Not contradiction, it is an animal side, yet we take enjoyment from it. Kind of like we are born predators and we go hunting to enjoy the hunt (As an example, not a clarification). We go to war yet we enjoy doing so.


Thanks Zythus and rzr. Props to you too.



Which will further war, somebody has to make a profit and since they are trained from the time they can speak they also are taught to enjoy it.

The reason why we need democracy is to avoid power hungry individuals, like what I said before, that enjoy war or have their own ideals. We could just leave them in power, where there is no peace, women get raped like it is something you do before you have dinner, child executions are right beside the adults. How about we go in and try to do something about it. I don't care if there is an scondary motive like oil. If peace eventually comes out of it, then why not?

I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. My point is that no matter how long we keep trying to force democracy upon the extremists, they'll keep repelling us, possibly until every single jihadi is dead or until American troops surrender. Our only slim hope of winning is if one of the jihadis with a lot of influence decides that they should change their initiative and support democracy. Even then, that person will most likely be overthrown and killed by the rest of the militia.

[Zythus]

I guess they are called extremeists for a reason, but not just the jihadis that go to those lengths. But if they reject a democracy, forced or not, then they would be basically asking for an authoritarian system or willing to fall into pandemonium. If they are faithful enough to "transcend" any efforts to resuscitate their position, forced or not, then be it and we shall await their fated war. I am not in the position to impose that they are blighted by their religious beliefs, but to go to that extremity, I would beg to differ.