Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by ncbullgator, Jun 17, 2014.
Iraq was part of persia and the city of babylon is located near Baghdad.
The Tigris and Euphrates, run through the center of Iraq, flowing from northwest to southeast then into the shat al arab then to the persian gulf this was very important to ancient persia.
Historically, the territory comprising Iraq was known in Europe by the Greek toponym 'Mesopotamia' (Land between the rivers). Iraq has been home to continuous successive civilizations since the 6th millennium BC. The region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is identified as the cradle of civilization and the birthplace of writing and the wheel.
In the early Middle Ages, the capital of Persia was Ctesiphon, a city just a few miles from modern Iraq. Very little of this ancient city remains.
You're looking at the pre-Islamic history of the Middle East, which isn't terribly relevant.
After that they were both under the Ummayid Caliphate (along with the entire Middle East, South Central Asia, North Africa, and much of the Iberian Peninsula). The Abbasid Caliphate which followed (which was housed in Baghdad) is the last time they were really united, and that is before "Persia" really became any meaningful distinct entity.
After the Mongol conquest and the sacking of Baghdad, the two cultures went in entirely different ways. Persia essentially became its own kingdom, while the Turks began their control of Iraq.
to say the least
Damn, I was looking forward to discussing Zoroastrianism.
I cheer only for the Gators. No man or no party.
So, when are cutlers developed oh wise one? So is Iraq's culture more like the Turks, the Persians (Iran), the Kurds… Is most of the culture from Islam? or Before Islam? The Iranian's will tell you they are PERSIAN not Arabic.
And there are a boat load of Kurds in Turkey but the Turks hate the Kurds. Oh, and are they not ALL Muslim?
And why is Turkey more secular (But that is changing)?
I'm not sure what all of this is supposed to actually be asking. Yes, Iranians will say they're Persians, because, well, they are.
That's why you take everyone out of power, for at least a generation. It can be done, and they have the oil to pay for it. Iraq was considered a nation of well-educated, somewhat secular people (by middle eastern standards) before Saddam came to power. They did not always identify themselves primarily by their religious affiliation. Saddam got that started with his Baath Party persecution of Shi'ites, Kurds, and anyone who didn't agree with him. If the majority is desperate enough for a solution from a third party, they will agree to a U.S. plan to end the violence. We just have to be prepared to go the distance. Depending on how much involvement we have, there may be some American soldiers die in Iraq in the future. If we have an intelligent plan, it will be successful and their deaths will not be in vain. There isn't much point in being hysterical about the 4,500 troops who have already died in Iraq. Their deaths were obviously tragic, but pale in comparison to the 58,000 we lost in Vietnam, or the 36,500 that died in Korea. It is important to value human life, but also important to value principles and to have a long-term view of national security. IOW, there are some things worth fighting for.
Walking away is not really an option. To pretend it is only prolongs and expands the agony when we finally return. Iraq has too much oil money to turn it over to Al Qaeda. First thing AQ does when they get in power and stabilize the country is call Dr. Khan in Pakistan for the secrets to making a nuclear weapon. Dr. Khan has never said no to an Islamic country.
And replace it with what? A generation is about 20 years.
Bartman: singlehandedly (well, he used both) causing the Cubs to lose 105 consecutive World Series.
And replace it with a structured government, wherein an outside agency (the U.S.) handles decision-making and spending issues, and delegates responsibility as the population becomes ready for it. The first goal, once security is established, is to give Iraqis jobs and a stable economy. The next goal is to educate the younger generation to be ready for a democracy. We already tried letting the U.S. taxpayer pay for the transition to the new Iraq. That won't fly this time around. We take control of Iraq's oil, allow it to be sold on the international market, and use the profits to fund the transition to the new Iraq. You would want someone smart to be in charge of Iraq, not an idiot like Bremer.
And if you want to be creative, take all the illegal aliens we catch crossing our southern border, sign them up for the Peace Corps, and send them to Iraq to volunteer to earn their American citizenship. It's a win-win. (Probably never happen, of course.)
Holy cow that is the worst, most expensive idea I've ever heard.
Thanks for making the internet so awesome.
And the sun will never set on the American Empire until the enlightened Great White Fathers in Washington decide the less worthy peoples are ready to be allowed some sort of self-determination and self-rule. I get it. We can then also bring in as second class citizens those swarthy immigrants we exported to Iraq to earn their right to live amongst us.
The idea might have gained some traction in the 18th or 19th centuries, but paternalistic colonialism has little chance of success in today's world.
One of Too Hot's craziest ideas ever.
Hey, the fact that American-style nation building hasn't worked well recently doesn't mean we should give up on nation building.
We haven't even put the Soviet command-economy satellite state model through its paces yet, after all.
Well, as someone else said, at least he's offering a specific suggestion rather than the usual conservative "I don't know what to do but whatever Obama is doing must be wrong."
I mean, it's a ridiculous idea, but at least it's an idea.
It doesn't cost us anything if we assume control of Iraq's oil. (And we're going to invade Iraq anyway, so you might as well get used to it.)
Don't worry, FDR faced the same problem of cowardice and isolationism that liberals are currently experiencing. He understood that the U.S. was part of a global economy (even in the late 1930's) and that we could not afford to lose our most reliable trading partner, Europe, if we were to emerge from the Great Depression. Nazi Germany, of course, was a very formidable opponent, and when they finished off Europe (which they would have done without the Lend-Lease Act), could easily come to the U.S. and start invading here. Iraq is much less formidable militarily, but nuclear (and biological) weapons are the great equalizer in modern times. Even a dimwit like Obama understands that we cannot turn over a large oil-producing nation like Iraq to AQ, and we cannot afford to allow Iran to take over Iraq and start a regional war with the Saudis.