Civilization, Revolution and Anarchy - Iraq

[Robert]

Discussion from this thread continued to prevent threadjacking: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=165590


CyberShy:

Civilization is most of the time being born through war and revolution and anarchy.

That's why people can't say: "It's a mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, blame Bush" since that mess would have happened anyway eventually. Maybe after Saddam died, maybe after his son died, maybe after another incident. And then the crap that happens now would have started in a maybe even more bloodthirsty way. After all right now the Americans can try to save the civilizations as much as possible.

There's hope for Iraq and Afthanistand, civilization and freedom and democracy are on their way. The anarchy proves it.

BeBro:

Countering a factual mess with a hypothetical mess isn't that great of an idea.

Bosh:

So if everything is peaceful and nice Bush's plan is working. If there's horrific anarchy Bush's plan is working. How very convenient.

Cort Haus:

I'm sorry, but this sounds barmy. Let's nuke Cybershy's town, as sh1t will probably happen there eventually.

CyberShy:

When Iraq was invaded the current mess was also hypothetical.
At that moment both messes were most probably both as hypothetical as they were realistic.

----

No, his plan failed. He wanted to bring peace immediately. I also think that despite the current mess the things that happen right now are the best for Iraq. The fools must learn peace through war. Unfortunately. It would be best if the warmongers would understand that war doesn't solve anything BEFORE the war. But they always first need to see that even the winner loses before they can come to peace.

----

I think that the current anarchy / revolution in Iraq fits very well in this thread.

----

Currently there's no mess to be expected in my city or country. We have no dictator who keeps the different tribes together with pure evil force.
History has proven that war breaks out among different tribes after the dictator has been removed. This could be expected.

All the invasion did was hurrying the current process.
There's no process to hurry in my town.
As soon as a dictator comes to bully me, please invade us and get rid of him.

BeBro:

But it isn't now.

CyberShy:

But people blame Bush for the current mess only with the knowledge from now.

I say that with the knowledge on before the decision of Iraq was good, since the current mess was unavoidable in the end anyway.
I fear that he was a bit too optimistic about it though.

Ecthy:

CyberShy, you can judge their past action by looking at how well prepared they were for any kind of aftermath. I hear they had NO concepts at all as to what to do with a free Iraq, thinking it would all happen all by itself. "A bittoo optimistic" is rather a euphemism for that.

BeBro:

If there's a mess "on the ground" now, then of course people should take that into account, no?

1. Are you now claiming the mess was unavoidable? Then you do exactly use the "knowledge from now". If you mean it was clear that it was unavoidable before the invasion, your complaint about people blaming Bush "only with the knowledge from now" is wrong.

2. Aside from this I still reject your "was unavoidable" bit if you mean this kind of mess would have come for sure with or without invasion. That's still just speculation, totally unprovable.

[Robert]

Ecthy: CyberShy, you can judge their past action by looking at how well prepared they were for any kind of aftermath. I hear they had NO concepts at all as to what to do with a free Iraq, thinking it would all happen all by itself. "A bittoo optimistic" is rather a euphemism for that.

I think that you're right about that.
The Bush administration was way too optimistic. (I tried it with an euphymism )

BeBro: 1. Are you now claiming the mess was unavoidable? Then you do exactly use the "knowledge from now". If you mean it was clear that it was unavoidable before the invasion, your complaint about people blaming Bush "only with the knowledge from now" is wrong.

No, I think that on beforehand mess is unavoidable if a land that hosts different tribes/civilizations/tongues is being ruled with a hard hand by a dictator, that a mess is the result after the dictator is gone.

As long as the dictator is there, the rival parties forget their problems. But if the dictator is gone they dig up their age old hostilities and start to attack each other.
That's why I believe that in the end Iraq must be divided. But first the Turks, Iranians and Syrians must understand that that's the only solution.

2. Aside from this I still reject your "was unavoidable" bit if you mean this kind of mess would have come for sure with or without invasion. That's still just speculation, totally unprovable.

yes, it is speculation, but I think that history proofs that it's true.
The Balkan wars are a perfect example.
Maybe in a small number cases peace naturally flowed out of the dead of the dictator, in nations that host different civilizations.

[Ecthy]

Can we +1 here too?

[Robert]

+1 means in most forums that you agree with the speaker just above you.

Thanks for agreeing with me

[Last Conformist]

Iraq already was a bloody mess, so Shrub's invasion was a waste of money.

[LordShiva]

WTF is this thread about?

[Ecthy]

I hope at least CyberShy knows the answer.

[Robert]

I removed the iraq-posts from the linked thread to this thread as asked by the OP of the linked thread.

It is about the question if the current mess in Iraq was unavoidable and would have started anyday that Saddam or one of his successors would die/step up and the dictator state would have ended.

My answer is: yes, the current mess would have erupted eventually and the Bush administration is not to blame for it. (though the Bush administration didn't prepare well for it either and are to blame for a bad approach)

[OzzyKP]

They should have waited for an Oedo year.

[General Ludd]

How do armed militias, terrorist organizations, military occupations and organized resistence groups qualify as anarchy?