[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by Variable

I don't think the majority of Iraqis are participating in violent activities.

I'm sure. What I meant is that the majority of Iraqis, regardless of their sectarian differences, don't feel like they're not the same people (maybe not the Kurds, though).

[MossadConspiracy]

Marriages across sectarian or ethnic lines are much rarer now. Mixed villages or neighborhoods are much less mixed than they used to be. Sectarian or ethnic identities are now either the primary identities in the country or they are quickly becoming that way, and have absorbed or shoved aside political affiliations, heritage, nationality, regional affiliation, and everything else except for tribe

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

I'm sure. What I meant is that the majority of Iraqis, regardless of their sectarian differences, don't feel like they're not the same people (maybe not the Kurds, though).

salam

i think that view overlooks the sectarianism that is destroying iraq right now

if we make the assumption that the americans stirred it up on purpose to serve some sinister agenda, fair enough. but the sectarianism is there now and its tearing apart the national fabric

as for the kurds, forget it, they dont even fly the iraqi national flag over government buildings in the Autonomous Region

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Marriages across sectarian or ethnic lines are much rarer now. Mixed villages or neighborhoods are much less mixed than they used to be. Sectarian or ethnic identities are now either the primary identities in the country or they are quickly becoming that way, and have absorbed or shoved aside political affiliations, heritage, nationality, regional affiliation, and everything else except for tribe

And you got to blame who for that?

Not that I think Saddam was great, but if he was able to eliminate these differences between Iraqis, then he was a good leader in my eyes.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

And you got to blame who for that?

Not that I think Saddam was great, but if he was able to eliminate these differences between Iraqis, then he was a good leader in my eyes.

I dont think we can say that Saddam Hussein eliminated differences, since they were so quick to spring up again after his downfall (and boiled over on various occasions during his reign). We can definitely give him credit for imposing order though, and making it impossible for all these rival agendas to be pursued while his clique owned Iraq.

As for who is to blame, obviously the buck stops with President Bush. There's plenty of blame to go around, but in the end, the American government decided to invade Iraq by choice and unleashed all this

ws

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

salam

i think that view overlooks the sectarianism that is destroying iraq right now

if we make the assumption that the americans stirred it up on purpose to serve some sinister agenda, fair enough. but the sectarianism is there now and its tearing apart the national fabric

as for the kurds, forget it, they dont even fly the iraqi national flag over government buildings in the Autonomous Region

You'll have to agree that as much as Saddam was horrible, that's one thing he should be praised for.

I think the Kurds should have their own country.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

You'll have to agree that as much as Saddam was horrible, that's one thing he should be praised for.

I think the Kurds should have their own country.

I disagree about Saddam, because the force and violence that he used to subjugate Kurdish and Shia culture, identity, political organizations, and nationalist or sectarian agendas was the fuel for the fire that took hold after Saddam was gone. If those resentments hadnt been building for many decades, I think alot of the sectarian conflict could have been avoided. Maybe not all of it, but alot of it.

And I agree with you that the Kurds should be independent. It wouldnt be easy, but why shouldnt that nation of people have their own state?

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

I disagree about Saddam, because the force and violence that he used to subjugate Kurdish and Shia culture, identity, political organizations, and nationalist or sectarian agendas was the fuel for the fire that took hold after Saddam was gone. If those resentments hadnt been building for many decades, I think alot of the sectarian conflict could have been avoided. Maybe not all of it, but alot of it.

Saddam oppressed all, including Sunnis. He murdered his own family members. It's not like he was targeting the Shias and the Kurds only. It just happened that those two groups were the bravest to stand up against him.

And I agree with you that the Kurds should be independent. It wouldnt be easy, but why shouldnt that nation of people have their own state?

If the various tribes of Arabia can pitch a flag and declare a country of their own, even though they could have formed one state, then why not the Kurds? They have a completely different language and culture. They should have a country, too.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

Saddam oppressed all, including Sunnis. He murdered his own family members. It's not like he was targeting the Shias and the Kurds only. It just happened that those two groups were the bravest to stand up against him..

That's nothing new.

Iraq has often been ruled by iron-fisted rulers, starting from Hajjaj and onwards, and many say that such a ruler is the only one suitable for Iraq - because its people are so fickle.

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

That's nothing new.

Iraq has often been ruled by iron-fisted rulers, starting from Hajjaj and onwards, and many say that such a ruler is the only one suitable for Iraq - because its people are so fickle.

I agree.

And from what I read (and I'm not sure how accurate this is), the Prophet's (sAaw) granddaughter made dua against the people of Iraq.

I say a devil you know better than a devil you don't.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

That's nothing new.

Iraq has often been ruled by iron-fisted rulers, starting from Hajjaj and onwards, and many say that such a ruler is the only one suitable for Iraq - because its people are so fickle.

I've heard that too. But don't you think it's kind of patronising to the people, to tell them they need to be ruled with an iron fist because they're fickle. All people are fickle, not just Iraqis.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

I've heard that too. But don't you think it's kind of patronising to the people, to tell them they need to be ruled with an iron fist because they're fickle. All people are fickle, not just Iraqis.

*shrug* ... no bro I don't think that. Different regions of the world are known for the collective mentalities or behaviors of their people. Some of it is due to long-standing cultural traditions, other times its due to geography and whatnot.

In any case, from what others have observed throughout history and from my own observations of Iraqi friends that I have [both Sunni and Shia], the people of Iraq really are very fickle. It's just in their nature to be so, and their may be some goodness to it, but God knows best.

[MossadConspiracy]

Even if Iraqi Arab or Kurdish culture is fickle, that doesnt necessarily mean that the country has to be ruled by a dictator or a tyrant or a strongman. It just means that they need to establish a political order that takes their national character into account if that happens to be their character. It could be undemocratic, but it could also be democratic, lots of countries have notoriously fickle electorates. I dont think the problem is fickle people, it could be fickle people with tens of millions of guns on the streets and the total collapse of all government institutions

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

... It just means that they need to establish a political order that takes their national character into account if that happens to be their character ...

And as time has told, that political order has often been strong-handed rulers, in Iraq.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

And as time has told, that political order has often been strong-handed rulers, in Iraq.

it has often been, but that does not mean it has to necessarily always be so.

strong handed rulers are the tradition in many parts of the world, but things can and do