The Iraqi Nightmare

[Noxvayl]

It was emotion, rather than facts, that led us in to Iraq in the first place, the consequences of which we're looking at right now. Its exactly that kind of emotion based reaction, as seen post 9/11, that plays into the perpetrators hands, and leads us, individually and collectively, to make the wrong decisions.

That people are being killed because of a difference of ideas is not some new, radical notion. Saudis have been doing that for years, and we all know how China deals with dissent. We've happily voted Government after Government who have been happy to ignore it, because it suited us and we weren't directly threatened. The 'battle of ideas' isn't a new thing. Its just that its our ideas have always won.

By appealing to people's emotion, asking them to ignore facts and inflating the threat posed by Iraq is precisely what allowed the fragmentation of the state and allowed ISIS to get where they are. Furthermore, those people who predicted this exact situation were dismissed as unpatriotic, liberal lefties or of being willfully ignorant.And now your saying that by looking at it without emotion is 'counterproductive'. Indeed.

It was emotion that gave governments the ability to make those decisions without worrying about consequences, and I agree with you that those decisions were mistakes. We should learn from them but I feel that learning from them by ignoring emotion is wrong. That is making another mistake, one we need not make. That is true of this discussion and of the situation in general. It is more complex than that and trying to simplify it to make it easier to understand doesn't help with thinking about the problem accurately.

I am probably wrong but you seem to think that ignoring emotion will lead to better decisions, I apologise if I am wrong but it concerns me that such a view would be taken. I feel that it will cause unnecessary suffering directly relating to the action taken due to that kind of thinking. It feels good to run in and affect change but it has consequences we are now witnessing first hand. The same way I dislike other people telling me how to think, groups of people dislike other groups influencing them forcefully which is what we have a long history of doing.

Something that I am very happy to see in some newspapers is the reporting of how towns are fighting back and succeeding, at least for now (http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08...stead-of-flee/). It seems that Kurdish people are controlling a larger region of land than IS currently occupy, not sure how accurate this is by the way but thought it was relevant; supporting them could mean the end of this conflict sooner than if we took back the land ourselves which is what seems to be happening, even from Iraq who wouldn't want the kurds to gain power. This may never have come to light had we immediately reacted to the problem and tried to eliminate it, which is what I think emotionless thinking would encourage us to do.

[HalloweenJack]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...on-of-war.html

the soviets built an entire programme in the 80`s dedicated to weaponising viri and bacteria..... and some of those scientists left when the soviet union collapsed.

and in other news - sob stories about the use of sarin gas against IS supporters are again in the media....

[j1979]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...on-of-war.html

the soviets built an entire programme in the 80`s dedicated to weaponising viri and bacteria..... and some of those scientists left when the soviet union collapsed.

and in other news - sob stories about the use of sarin gas against IS supporters are again in the media....

I'm no scientist, but don't those weapons have the potential be just as devastating for those that deploy them, as they are for the targets, i mean epidemics don't understand boarders or mission briefs .

------------------------------------

BBC debate this morning on multiculturalism, 95% thought multiculturalism doesn't work.

It is a little like putting hard core Leeds fans in the Sir Alex Ferguson stand. Those Leeds fans want to embrace Man United or those that simply love football are likely to be accepted, there will be Leeds fans that simply bubble with resentment especially if Man United are 2 - 0 up, and are just itching to start a fight, then cause a divide between the moderate Leeds fans and locals.

Simplistic yet that's what we see, the kid that killed James Foley was the son of an American embassy bomber, apparently, living and bubbling with resentment in London. He's not alone, if 500 went to syria / iraq, then there must be thousands that considered going, and those that wanted but could not afford it.

Muslim leaders call a Fatwa against IS British IS fighters.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/muslim-lea...6.html#JDCkbdL

Is it too little too late?

I read that all is not well inside the areas controlled by IS, that the economy and funding the war is based on extortion, and black market oil. Resentment is growing. We might be seeing some of these nut jobs coming back to the UK soon. The government's new approach ban the jihadists from reentering Briton for a period of time. Can't we all club together and build a huge floating prison and stick them all together (then accidentally sink it)


Gary Kasparov said it best on twitter, he was talking about the west's approach towards Putin but the same applies to ISIS.

"A surplus of Chamberlains & no Churchill in sight!"

[Noxvayl]

Interesting j1979. We have no choice with multiculturalism though, we either make it work or kill each other based on a difference in views. I think we still find it difficult to tolerate opposing views because most our lives, and most human evolution in general, is lived without our ideas being challenged. It isn't nice, it is very difficult but like puberty, we either get through it a better person (society, for context) or we alienate those around us a suffer for not getting through it. In the case of society I feel the choice is fighting or tolerance; fighting with our level of technology has proven to be very dangerous so I am on the side of increasing everyone's tolerance for differing views, it is a much better option for us.

History shows that the rebellious will still resist but the majority tend to be happy to go down a more amicable path so I am cautiously optimistic about multiculturalism working in the long run. I mean the UK is the most multicultural society I know of and it hasn't destroyed itself, yet...

I liked your point about fighters going to Syria/Iraq to fight being only a small portion of those that wanted to go; that might not be proven but is highly likely to be true. It is good to hear other sources are showing that IS is not a stable rebellion as well, it might be possible to leave them to self implode but I am not sure that is the best course of action though. The Kurds are reported to be practical when it comes to caring for people in trouble, religion has nothing to do with whether they take care of you; their presence and power in the region is growing thanks to IS which might be a good thing but could cause other tensions to surface once the dust has settled.

[wasabi]

Interesting j1979. We have no choice with multiculturalism though,

Why? Certainly we can starve it at source by locking the floodgates to new immigrants.

Strangely it is only white Brits who bear this responsibility. They have to be multicultural, those who come over but want to stick to the old ways are monocultural but automatically tick the box of being multicultural anyway thanks to PC wonky logic.

No. We've HAD no choice with multiculturalism. Stupidly letting millions of underpaid low end workers in to live in slums while keeping their own culture has never worked peacefully in the entire history of mankind, not once, not anywhere in the world. Yet we continue to live the lie thanks to a mixture of big-business greed ( senior managers want cheap labour but don't live near the slums) meets leftie PC naivete.

[TooNice]

^ Yet if not for people from other cultures coming in the UK, we'd have no Chinese food, no Indian food, no Pakistan food (or very little of it). Personally, I do not believe that London is better off without a Chinatown.

Some people are more resistant to change (it gets harder as one gets older, though some still manage to be flexible). That is also why you get a lot of British overseas living exclusively in expats / areas with a high population of British. Yet some do break those rules and I think that if more people do, and adopt multiculturalism, we would see less divide amongst fellow humans, which can only be a good thing. So no, I do not believe that only white British need to bear the responsibility, and I also expect that in the short term, many (be it white/non-white British, or the immigrants) will struggle with it. Many, but certainly not all.

But I also believe that multiculturalism lends to multiculturalism and it is worthy to pursue. I spent my development years in 3 continents, and twice as many countries (and lived in a couple more countries since then). One of those 3CKs who do not really believe that I am part of any single culture, but integrate pretty quickly regardless of where I am.. well, as long as I am welcome to anyway. I have relatively little issue making friends / connecting people from different cultures (even those I have never been part of). I love international cities like London because there is offers so much opportunities for cultural exchange. But I am also happy to stay in small towns in various countries where I may be a "rare foreigner", so long as they aren't unfriendly towards foreigners. One thing I have noticed though is that whenever I meet another 3CK from a vastly different background (someone who may grown up in many countries like myself, but with no countries in common), we still connect very easily. That is why I think multiculturalism is worthy: a difference in culture presents a barrier for connection between two individuals.

This is exactly the same as a UK Muslim claiming that ISIS are not muslim, because they aren't following his brand of Islam.

And vice-versa: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...er.cnn-ap.html

In the end though, I do not think it is all that important. There are over 2 billion Christians in the world, and 1.5 billion Muslims. Even excluding those who do not really identify themselves with their religion (e.g. born into it but do not practice anything related to the religion) that is a pretty big population. Personally I never really see much point in painting such a large number of people in the same brush nor criticising/vilifying them. There are definitely people in this group whom I do not associate with and/or wish me harms. But I am certain that if you take 3.5 billion non-religious people, I am sure that I will also find people whom I do not want to associate with / who wish harm upon me.

I have a small number of Muslim friends. Several doctors / medic students, a researcher, several business professionals amongst other. Unlike j1979, I haven't been spit at, and at no point have felt like a second class citizen (I will also point out that I have met some of them outside the UK). If any of them wanted to wish me harm, they would've had plenty of chances over the years. I have no reason to group them with IS or insinuate their religion is evil or whatnot. If I was to do so, they would have every reason to be upset and disassociate with me. And for what gain?

I take the view that yes, those who seek to impose their faith on others should be stopped, even more so if it is a group who will take violent means like IS. But I prefer to align myself with "Us, who are happy to co-exist with other humans vs Them, who would try to harm fellow humans" than "Us, who do not believe in a religion / are non-Christian/Muslim vs Them who believe in a certain religion".

[j1979]

I have a small number of Muslim friends. Several doctors / medic students, a researcher, several business professionals amongst other. Unlike j1979, I haven't been spit at, and at no point have felt like a second class citizen (I will also point out that I have met some of them outside the UK).

We are products of our environment according to Jack Nicholson in the Departed.

The area of Sheffield I was spat at is not the best, it's run down, and consists of a mix Asian families, student houses and even a brothel which proudly advertises on the outside.

Seriously though the clue to the different experiences lies in the jobs or lack of jobs that these people do. Muslims with a healthy salary are probably not heading down the extremist road. Same as EDL members, rarely are they highly educated from a upper class background. You won't find a lawyer or doctor shouting E'E'EDL, it's not because they're thick, same as the Jihadist's. Being below average IQ is a factor, but poverty is the main factor IMHO.

Extremists on both sides are almost always from poor backgrounds, maybe the real enemy is the government.

I know when I read stats on the average wage, and the difference between median or mode from the mean wage, it tells a story. The gap tells us a lot. There needs to better wealth distribution, personally that's the main enemy... as much as, jihadist's and Putin.

I have mellowed over the years on Islam, although I still stand by my earlier comments. If a person doesn't like Western life / European values, then that person should kindly smile and walk to the exit / Dover.

[HalloweenJack]

I'm no scientist, but don't those weapons have the potential be just as devastating for those that deploy them, as they are for the targets, i mean epidemics don't understand boarders or mission briefs .

like any wide area effect weapon its down to how you use them and in what concentration - the sarin used in Syria has all but gone whilst the after effects linger on


bio weaponeers though want to sow the effects on a wider scale and much longer term , one reason why it scares me much much more than the bucket of instant sunshine ever will.

why? the same weaponeers which made anthrax bombs in the 70`s , made an RNA chimera of Ebola in the 90`s.

[OilSheikh]

I want to know why we, Germany, etc. are giving weapons to the Kurds? Why not give them to the Iraqi army and let them handle things ?

Or, do foreign powers consider the Iraqi govt. or the Iraqi army to be weaker than the Kurds ?

Keep on supplying weapons to the Kurds, and they will take over all of Iraq and we'll be back to Square 1. They didn't hesitate to take over nearby cities when Iraqi army left.

[kalniel]

I want to know why we, Germany, etc. are giving weapons to the Kurds? Why not give them to the Iraqi army and let them handle things ?

I think you answer your own question:

They didn't hesitate to take over nearby cities when Iraqi army left.

[wasabi]

I think you answer your own question:

I think it is also a tacit admission you're going to arm either Shias or Sunnis in Iraq, despite all the democracy kerfuffle.

[Noxvayl]

My best friend at Uni is Kurdish and from what I have learned they are very practical. I would be more comfortable with the Kurds getting the region back from IS, rather than the Iraqi government, since they have never been allowed to govern themselves in the region and have lived there long enough to be allowed that privilege we take for granted. Plus doing us a favour by getting rid of IS without us having to send troops is a massive diplomatic bonus to them.

I'd rather have more smaller regions governed by locals than let a larger region be governed by a group that is unlikely to do right by the people living under their control. We are doing that in the UK with small policy changes and allowing the Scots to decide if they want to leave or not so why not let it happen elsewhere.

[HalloweenJack]

arming the kurds is really sticking 2 figers up at a NATO alli - the turks.

why? for years the turks and kurds have been fighting over land - Kurdistan would mean taking a chunk of turkey!

[Noxvayl]

Perhaps, there are loads of Kurds in Turkey, but they currently have land under their control in Northern Iraq so if they are granted it due to their help with the IS issue then I am not sure they would get greedy; they haven't had their own land before so it would be stupid to demand more than is reasonable, at least at first. Diplomatic relations with the west will be really good for them which seems to be doing very well for Israel.

[TooNice]

Keep on supplying weapons to the Kurds, and they will take over all of Iraq and we'll be back to Square 1.

I do not see any evidence to that. They are taking territories either occupied by the IS or occupied then abandoned by the IS (which basically means that they IS would have to fight to get it back). Hardly enough to conclude that they are planning to take over Iraq. From what we have seen, better the Kurds than IS if the Iraqi army isn't doing it (taking back towns). And it isn't like the Iraqi army weren't provided with training and gear (I remember reading that the US provided $25B in arms/training to the Iraqi). And lastly, a weak Kurdish military could be vulnerable to the IS. The governments opting to assist the Kurds probably decided to give the Kurds the benefit of doubt for now to combat a bigger threat. It also means that the IS will have two front to deal with.

[OilSheikh]

I don't understand this bit about Kurds governing their own area ? Your area belongs to Iraq and the central Iraqi govt. controls it! What is this self governing bs ?