648 Dead, 322 Hurt in Iraq Bridge Stampede

[Drakron]

The Bible is a funny thing.  On one hand, it has described lost cities which we lated discovered with incredible accuracy.  We even found Noah's Ark right where the Bible said it was.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No we did not, we find wood that after some dating testing it was dated about the 10th century, likely it was some structure build for the obvious reason at that site.

 

Please dont be absurd enough to say the great flood was true, the fact there are "great floods" myths that predate the original bible story for several centuries and its more that likely that the old testement is just a adaptation of such myths (that are too much similar ).

 

And before I have to heard crap about it might be true ... sorry, if it was there would be GLOBAL EVIDENCE of it existing, one thing is local floods (since there is tons of evidence that happened) but a global one? ... no.

 

Also its hardly a suprise the old testement used REAL LOCATIONS for its stories, but I have a old radio show that said Martians landed in New jersey and a book that said Martians have invaded England ...

[EnderAndrew]

No, we didn't get an accurate dating on the wood. Each test yielded different results, and we also know that freezing alters the dating process. Yet several scientists have said that you can't get an accurate reading, and it very well may be thousands of years old.

 

It has been covered by ice and snow for ages, and extremtly well preserved because of the ice. It only became visible after the hottest summer in over 500 years, the only partially revealed the Ark.

 

The Bible mentions several cities that we discovered based on the description the Bible gave for where they would be. The Bible then said the Ark would be on Mount Ararat, and where did we find it?

 

Mount Ararat.

 

You compare it to Martians landing in England. Have scientists stood behind quanitifiable evidence of Martians in England? No.

 

Have scientists stood behind quanitifiable evidence of the Ark on Mount Ararat? Yes.

 

Your lack of objectivity in the matter is duly noted however.

[EnderAndrew]

It is in the shape of a boat, with a pointed bow and rounded stern.

 

Exact length as noted in biblical description, 515 feet or 300 Egyptian cubits. (Egyptian not Hebrew cubit would have been known to Moses who studied in Egypt then wrote Genesis.)

 

It is on a mountain in Eastern Turkey, as stated in the Bible, "The ark rested . . . upon the mountains of Ararat" Genesis 8:4. (Ararat being the name of the ancient country Urartu which covered this region.)

 

Contains petrified wood, as proven by lab analysis.

 

Contains high-tech metal alloy fittings, as proven by separate lab analyses paid for by Ron Wyatt, then later Kevin Fisher of this web site. Aluminum was found in the fittings which is a MAN-MADE metal!

 

Vertical rib timbers on its sides, comprising the skeletal superstructure of a boat. Regular patterns of horizontal and vertical deck support beams are also seen on the surface of the ark.

 

Occupied ancient village at the ark site at 6,500 ft. elevation matching Flavius Josephus' statement "Its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day."

 

Dr. Bill Shea found an ancient pottery sherd within a few yards of the ark which has a carving on it that depicts a bird, a fish, and a man with a hammer wearing a headdress that has the name "Noah" on it. In ancient times these items were created by the locals in the village to sell to visitors of the ark. The ark was a tourist attraction in ancient times and today.

 

Recognized by Turkish Government as Noah's Ark National Park and a National Treasure. Official notice of its discovery appeared in the largest Turkish newspaper.

 

Visitors' center built by the government to accommodate tourists further confirms its authenticity.

 

Huge anchor stones were found near the ark and in a village, Kazan, 15 miles away, which hung off the rear of the ark to steady its ride.

 

The ark rests upon Cesnakidag (or Cudi Dagi) Mountain, which is translated as "Doomsday" Mountain.

 

Dr. Salih Bayraktutan of Ataturk University stated, "It is a man made structure, and for sure it's Noah's Ark" Common Sense. This same article also states "The site is immediately below the mountain of Al Judi, named in the Qur'an as the resting place of the Ark." Houd Sura 11:44

 

Radar scans show a regular pattern of timbers inside the ark formation, revealing keels, keelsons, gunnels, bulkheads, animal chambers, ramp system, door in right front, two large barrels in front 14 x 24', and an open center area for air flow to all three levels.

 

I've been looking for a single site that debunks this, but I haven't found it.

 

This is from a Scientist, not a Christian:

Yes, indeed, Wyatt's evidence is very credible. The 515 foot object found in the Mountains of Ararat can be non-other than a massive ship. Ron Wyatt excavated a deck timber which scientifically proved in Galbraith Labs that it was indeed once wood. You can see the inseems, the petrified pitch coating, etc. Virtually every radar scannar has shown evenly spaced horrizontal and vertical lines ONLY on the site. Off the boat shaped object, the radar scannars pick nothing up. Ask yourself the question, what are those lines coming from? Why are these detected lines straight under a "boat shape"? Why not a "box shape"? The only time the radar scannar did not pick lines was during Tom Fenner's numerous 1986 and 1987 scans. But he could have. Research has shown that Tom Fenner did not have his scanner set on the correct settings. Not only did they penetrate too deep (set at maximum penetration)--but they scanned forgetting that the it was late summer when the ground was relatively dry. Radar scanners need moisture effectively pick up readings. Ron Wyatt on the other hand, had returned to the site many times and with a SIR-3 scanner performed scans at varying frequencies, which penetrated to varying depths, AND he also performed scans i nearly spring when a greater amount of moisture is held in the fossilized superstructure which made it more reflective than in July when it is relatively dry. Wet fossilized wood gives a more powerful reflection, so it would be much easier to locate on the radar.

 

And then there is this:

 

On the surrounding terrain, biblical archaeologist Ron Wyatt has identified huge stones with holes carved at one end. Researchers believe that these are "drogue stones," which in ancient times were dragged behind ships to stabilize them. Images returned by ground-penetrating radar indicate unusual levels of iron-oxide distribution, suggesting metal fittings. Salih Baryraktutan, head of geology at Turkey's Ataturk University, estimates the age of the "vessel" at more than 100,000 years. "It is a man-made structure and, for sure, it is Noah's ark," Bayraktutan said at the time of the discovery.

 

David Fasold, an American shipwreck specialist with no religious affiliation, has led the investigation. He says the subsurface radar surveys of the site have yielded good results. The radar imagery at about 82 ft. down from the stern is so clear that Fasold could count the floorboards between the walls. Fasold believes the team has found the fossilized remains of the upper deck and that the original reed substructure has disappeared.

[Drakron]

Sorry pal, you can have faith is what you want but when people ignore cold hard facts that is called IGNORANCE.

 

Oh and guess we found TWO of then ...

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/kids/2004/05/noahark.html

 

Maybe you are talking about the one this article talks about:

 

http://www.grisda.org/origins/07089.htm

 

Heck maybe Noa build a fleet!

 

Oh yes, I rather take all these decades of fossile evidence, backed by geological date over the ramblings of pseudo scientists with a agenda ... yes, we CAN date wood, not that it matters since we have long put to rest the Great Flood as a myth.

[EnderAndrew]

First off, multiple people have claimed to have seen Elvis.

 

I am talking about the claim that has scientific proof behind it, including matching the measurements listed in the Bible.

 

I did a Google search for Noah's Ark date and Noah's Ark dating and I haven't found a single link of someone who dated the wood to the 10th century.

 

The link you gave me lists six tests, and six very different dates. Not only does this confirm what I said earlier about how how the ice throws off the testing, but those dates are from a 1969 expedition, which none one in the scientific community stands behind.

 

The discovery that Popular Science wrote about, and that scientists do stand behind is the Ark I'm talking about, and it wasn't discovered until 1998 if I recall.

 

Just because people were mistaken in the past, doesn't destroy the validity of the current claim.

[Drakron]

I written 10th century on the top of my head remenbering something I read about finding Noa Ark.

 

Look there is NO scientific proof, you COULD date it and the results say -10,000 BC but you still have to explain how there is no geological evidence of a gobal flood ... if there was there would be no need to find ark to start with.

 

And sorry the "ice" does not throw the dates, READ IT to understand why it does not.

 

Also it fails to example why there are TWO of then, the one I linked above simply CANNOT be the other I linked.

 

Basic you are asking me to have "faith" on something, its the same as saying "you can walk over the clift and reach the other side" and I can see there is no bridge and if I test the air I find it does not support my weight.

 

And yes people have claimed to seen Elvis ... then again people have claimed to see a lot of things (such as the Jersey Devil and Mothman).

[EnderAndrew]

I have said nothing about faith.

 

One man in 1969 thought he saw something.

 

In 1998 scientists have discovered what looks to be Noah's Ark, and there is science to back it up.

 

Show me one bit of science that debunks the 1998 claim.

 

You're flipping out over a 1969 claim and now talking about faith. You're jumping all over the place and avoiding facts. Why?

[metadigital]

...

Then again, the Bible also lists some people living hundreds of years, but we just throw that out the window.

 

What is metaphor and what is literal?

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I tend to regard it this way: the biblical writers were (men) of their time, and may were recycling old retreads of oral traditions; one thing that has definitely changed over the millennia is how humans measure time. (This obviously doesn't include the Nicen

[metadigital]

...

Contains high-tech metal alloy fittings, as proven by separate lab analyses paid for by Ron Wyatt, then later Kevin Fisher of this web site.  Aluminum was found in the fittings which is a MAN-MADE metal!

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, I was under the impression that it was pseudoscience proving the Ark was there.

 

Two points:

Aluminium was discovered and named in the nineteenth century. One major reason is that it is very difficult to smelt from the naturally occurring ores, to wit:

...

The basis for all modern primary aluminium smelting plants is the Hall-H

[Drakron]

I have said nothing about faith.

 

One man in 1969 thought he saw something.

 

In 1998 scientists have discovered what looks to be Noah's Ark, and there is science to back it up.

 

Show me one bit of science that debunks the 1998 claim.

 

You're flipping out over a 1969 claim and now talking about faith.  You're jumping all over the place and avoiding facts.  Why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The 1998 claim is a picture, personaly I think its just a exposed rock formation and it does not seen I am alone thinking that.

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ark_hunt_020830.html

 

Many years ago we discovered "the face of Mars" and later found out the probe picture was wrong, there was no "face"... just a bad quality picture from the probe of a rock formation.

 

Funny thing is I am not avoid facts either, I linked to articles with data ... one simply shown a picture that a creationist "scientist" said was from Noa ark and THAT is faith, there is NO DATA to support that the picture is from a wooden ship, let alone from Noa ark.

 

I can take a picture with a orb and say its a ghost but I can I prove its a ghost ... of course not because the picture alone shows a orb, futher testing is required to determine what exactly is in the picture.

 

Here lies the diference, if I make a claim I have to PROVE IT (or supply enough data to support a theory), that "scientist" however seen a picture (of something he happened to be looking for) and claimed to be something without any type of supporting evidence and no, the picture shows a dark shadow that can be a lot of things, Noa ark one of such things if we decide to completly overlook geological and fossile evidence that continue to not support the Great Flood theory.

 

The only person avoiding facts here is you, I stated AGAIN and AGAIN fossil and geological evidence do not support the Great Flood, I could point out several sites that will backup such claim like this one:

 

http://www.chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSte...lood-report.htm

 

Since burden of evidence lies with my claims, of course you could do the same with a google search but I spare you the trouble.

 

Oh when someone goes up there to check the shadow THEN you can argue its Noa Ark ... providing they find it really is a ship, until then you and nobody else cannot make that claim.

 

Odd that 7 years later nobody checked ... perhaps because its better having a picture of something that look like a ship that having the same piture and several others of a exposed rock formation?

[EnderAndrew]

Scientists have dated the ark as possibly 100,000 years old.

 

Non-Christian scientists have stood behind the claim, and said that not only are there clear pictures where they can make out rooms and features of the ark, but they measured it.

[Cantousent]

Okay, this is fun and all, but either create a new thread for this argument, ask me to move your posts into a thread of your choosing, or stop posting this argument in this thread. In any case, this thread is headed for imminent lockdown unless someone finds interest in something remotely related to the original topic.

[Gabrielle]

Many years ago we discovered "the face of Mars" and later found out the probe picture was wrong, there was no "face"... just a bad quality picture from the probe of a rock formation.

False. Government conspiracy at it's best.

[Walsingham]

i happen to think there is still mileage in the Iraq incident which started this thread. Has anyone seen any reports coming ack as to how the incident will affect the referendum?

[Hildegard]

i happen to think there is still mileage in the Iraq incident which started this thread. Has anyone seen any reports coming ack as to how the incident will affect the referendum?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Regarding the effects on the referendum/constituition....well it goes like this: Thousands of Shi'ite Muslims held a rally in the southern Iraqi city of Basra Friday to show support for the country's draft constitution. An estimated 5,000 Iraqi Shi'ites marched through the streets of Basra chanting, "yes to the constitution." On the other hand the proposed charter is opposed by many Iraqi Sunni Arabs, and several hundred of them in the western town of Ramadi showed their displeasure Friday with a noisy demonstration of their own, so it's really nothing new - just a new episode Shi'ite vs. Sunni.

 

When it comes to the march - It was the largest such gathering in Iraq since the country's Shi'ite and Kurdish-dominated National Assembly adopted the charter five days ago. The event is believed to have been organized by the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa Party.

The two political entities have ties to neighboring Iran, and form the largest majority Shi'ite grouping in Iraq. They dominate the country's interim government, and their representatives played a key role in shaping the draft constitution.

But the document, which advocates a federalist arrangement for the Kurdish oil-rich north and the predominantly Shi'ite oil-rich south, is bitterly opposed by the country's minority Sunni Arabs.

 

The Sunnis view federalism in the constitution as a blueprint for dividing Iraq into sectarian-based, semi-autonomous regions, leaving the Sunni Arabs in the middle of the country unable to share in the country's oil wealth.

 

Sunni Arabs have also rejected phrases in the constitution referring to Iraq as an Islamic, but not Arab, country. The omission of the word Arab was a concession to the non-Arab Kurds. But Sunnis say it threatens the nation's ties to other Arab countries in the region.

 

On Friday, several hundred people in the Sunni stronghold of Ramadi, in western Anbar province, staged their own demonstration against the proposed charter. The protesters urged ordinary Sunnis and Shi'ites to unite against what they perceive as a ploy by the Shi'ite politicians in government to bring Iraqis under the influence of Shi'ite Iran.

 

A prominent Sunni Iraqi-American activist, Hatem Mukhlis, says he believes, if the draft constitution is put before a national referendum on October 15 without any changes, it has the potential to worsen the chaos and violence in Iraq.

 

"A bad constitution is much worse than no constitution," he said and I think he's right. The draft constitution has been disastrous, unfortunately, because there are so many points there that are not going to be acceptable to many Iraqis, let alone in Sunni areas. What they need to do is to have a draft constitution modified enough, so that everybody could accept it for this period of time, so that they can get over this period. They can get to the elections, without going through this battle of trying to knock it out.

 

If at least three out of Iraq's 18 provinces reject the charter in the referendum, new elections will have to be held to choose another transitional assembly, which would then have to start writing another constitution from scratch.

If Iraqis approve the draft constitution on October 15, that will pave the way for national elections on December 15 to choose a permanent government.

 

Some angry Sunni leaders have vowed to launch a no-vote campaign in four Sunni-dominated provinces, in an attempt to defeat the charter in the referendum. But last week, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, suggested that further changes may be made to the document in order to win Sunni Arab approval, so it's still unclear how this will unfold......

[Walsingham]

Thanks for the update on that, Hildegarde. I may have not read it properly, but what is your viw on the federal nature of the constitution? So far as I can see it is a pretty sensible reaction to the divided nature of the country. Over time I expect it will drift together, as all federal groiupings have a tendency to do. My feeling about Sunni objections is that they should be keen to accept this compromise rather than provoke a civil war which they would lose without intervention from naighbouring Sunni states. Unless this is exactly the plan: to ignite a conflict, scare off the coalition and bring in say Syria...

 

If that is the gameplan then we can expect many more deliberately inflammatory acts.

[metadigital]

The Kurds how a powerbase in the north. This is because they are motivated (by decades of oppression and exploitation and genocide by their three landlords: Turkey, Iran and Iraq), so they have made the Kurdish part of Iraq almost totally self-sufficient and a de facto country.

 

I would expect they are quite happy to succeed, given the chance. And I think it wouldn't be terrible if they did, providing they permitted the persecuted Kurdish populations in Turkey and Iran to migrate (which I couldn't see them not doing).

 

I can't see anyone, not Sunnis or Shi'ites, from stopping them. It's only the requests of the US and Britin that are keeping them part of the country, so I don't think anything except a Federalist system will keep them.

 

I am also optimistic that the Federated territories might end up being a lot closer than initally set out.

 

It is a good point, though, that if there is a bland initial constitutional statement, this might help prevent violence as the parties believe they have more to lose by not being a part of the diplomatic process.

 

OTOH any intial line in the sand made by a progressive constituition can sometimes be the furtherest a constitution gets, with subsequent negotiations just tweaking the existing status quo. And it is quite posible that the Sunni extremists won't adopt even the mildest and blandest constitution, prefering to cause anarchy in an attempt to wrest more control over the entire country.

 

Tough call.

[Hildegard]

Thanks for the update on that, Hildegarde. I may have not read it properly, but what is your viw on the federal nature of the constitution?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The current constitution basicly reflects reality of nation it is meant to serve, creating loose federation that will be good deal for Kurds, Shiites and even ordinary Sunnis, the country is divided and we shouldn't delude ourselves otherwise. Drawing up constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies together at this point would only polarize and create only friction, violence and civil war....

 

The new constitution must achieve the country's interests and bring democratic and political reforms. One of the main dangers is rushing into finalizing the document, by rushing into meeting its deadline on August 25th, the leaders had still not resolved substantive differences, hastening to finalize the draft constitution on a tight schedule while the different forces hold on to their demands could delay this step indefinitely.

 

Rushing into endorsing a draft charter 'in the eleventh hour' will have dangerous results and it could only open the door to more violence and bloodshed, taking apart what is left of the political and constitutional institutions.

 

One of the main problem lies in the US-sponsored January elections that were boycotted by the Arab Sunnis, or 20 percent of the population, and they are now politically weak.

The Sunni support is vital for ending the growing insurgency, adding their fear was justified in losing out in a federal state envisioned by the country's Shiites and Kurds. As the Sunnis have a major role in the resistance against the country's 'occupation' by US-led foreign troops and the US-guided transitional government, the ongoing anarchy will not end quickly if an agreement or a compromise isn't reached with Sunni's and all sides, but this could easily qualify as 'mission impossible'.

 

On the other side the new breed of pro-US Iraqi leaders will not be able to achieve a peaceful and stable Iraq by sidelining the Sunnis, whom have governed the country for decades, the new government can benefit from their experience ( I'm not talking here about Saddam's butchers but regural goverment officials and administration) instead of ignoring them, because let's not forget most of the Shi'it and Kurd leaders have little experience when it comes to governing a nation.

 

When I see all the rush meeting the deadline to complete the constitution and the last-minute concessions it only shows it came to serve the American, not Iraqi interests, unfortunatly so.

President George W. Bush was seeking to endorse this constitution through any means to tell his growing opposition at home that Iraq's political process and democracy is moving forward. I think draft charter will not save Bush nor stop his declining popularity at home, nor will it be a step towards his 'strategy to escape'( many predict Christmas 2006), because the war in Iraq for the US is like quicksand, the harded it tries to get out, deeper it will sink in the cycle of unstability and violence.

 

The oponnents of the constitution argue that the draft charter is not preparing Iraq for a peaceful country, but for a possible civil war because in their opinion it consolidates the dictatorship of the majority in an ugly and unprecedented manner, they see it as a dictatorship based on the force of occupation, not on the basis of ethics and logic.

 

The US must be very careful to evenly distribute power amongst all sides as much as possible, Meta said it pretty much all when it comes to the Kurds, but if too much power goes to the Iraqi Shi'it there is a credible danger of Iraq turning into an fundamentalist state because of their rather extreme points of view when it comes to Islam and because of strong influence of Shi'it Iran on the Iraqi Shi'it political party.....therefor Sunni must given an according amount of political power they deserve and also to be 'the safety brake' of the new Iraq so the things above wouldn't happen - it would be a complete fiasco and a disaster for the US to spend more then $200 billion dollars and more then 2000 of its troops so far to support a constitution that would in the end establish an Islamic fundamentalist state in Baghdad.

 

There just isn't a clear and simple solution to this question, no matter what path they take there will certainly be many problems and obstacles in the way - my philosophy would be E doubus malis minus eligere oportet, but as I said it's not that simple - I sincerely hope when the time comes the people who are running the show will make the 'right' decisions....onwards we can only hope everything will turn out to be O.K.

[Walsingham]

Well I knew I wouldn't be agreeing with you for ever, Hildegarde.

 

Certainly the views of 20% of the popn. should not be ignored. However, they should also not be able to dictate against the views of the remaining 80%, as I'm sure you'd agree. On balance I feel the burden of being reasonable ought to fall on them, and to count themselves rather lucky if they don't get completely funted in the deal. They ought to be more pleased with the fact they will have a degree of autonomy from their fellows in North and South than angry that they can't tell them what to do any more.

 

Regarding a fundamntalist state, this would be extremely undesirable from a perspective of fostering democracy. However, I think it would have a couple of useful implications.

 

1) No-one could accuse us of deliberately rigging such an event.

2) No-one could accuse of being anti-islamic or anti-democratic

3) Rather a fundamentalist regime influenced by the increasingly moderate Iranians than one adhering to al-qaeda/talib doctrine.

[Commissar]

Well I knew I wouldn't be agreeing with you for ever, Hildegarde. 

 

Certainly the views of 20% of the popn. should not be ignored. However, they should also not be able to dictate against the views of the remaining 80%, as I'm sure you'd agree. On balance I feel the burden of being reasonable ought to fall on them, and to count themselves rather lucky if they don't get completely funted in the deal. They ought to be more pleased with the fact they will have a degree of autonomy from their fellows in North and South than angry that they can't tell them what to do any more.

 

Regarding a fundamntalist state, this would be extremely undesirable from a perspective of fostering democracy. However, I think it would have a couple of useful implications.

 

1) No-one could accuse us of deliberately rigging such an event.

2) No-one could accuse of being anti-islamic or anti-democratic

3) Rather a fundamentalist regime influenced by the increasingly moderate Iranians than one adhering to al-qaeda/talib doctrine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it's very possible that they'll get severely funted if they give in, since they'll have zero control over any of Iraq's oil wealth, while the guys to the north (Kurds) and South (Shia) will be rolling in dough. That's their biggest fear, really.

 

And a fundamentalist state won't happen. Bush won't let it. If the Iraqis go hardcore Muslim all of a sudden, I have little doubt that the government will be deposed and we'll all get to go through this particular ringer again.

 

That's really the only thing that can happen; if they went fundamentalist and we pulled out, we'd actually be worse off than before we went in. No matter what you right-wingers say, Saddam couldn't move an inch beyond his borders. He had no links with al-Qaeda (as he was a secularist, and ObL isn't a fan of those guys), and while he may have been crazy, he also knew that you don't win a war against the US by attacking the US. We were completely safe with Saddam in power; his people and the region might not've been. If fundamentalists step to the plate, though, it's a whole new ballgame.

 

I hate to be a naysayer, but I think we're going to learn some hard lessons about nation-building over the next few months.

[Walsingham]

1. But it's very possible that they'll get severely funted if they give in, since they'll have zero control over any of Iraq's oil wealth, while the guys to the north (Kurds) and South (Shia) will be rolling in dough.  That's their biggest fear, really.

 

2. And a fundamentalist state won't happen.  Bush won't let it.  If the Iraqis go hardcore Muslim all of a sudden, I have little doubt that the government will be deposed and we'll all get to go through this particular ringer again. 

 

3. That's really the only thing that can happen; if they went fundamentalist and we pulled out, we'd actually be worse off than before we went in.  No matter what you right-wingers say, Saddam couldn't move an inch beyond his borders.  He had no links with al-Qaeda (as he was a secularist, and ObL isn't a fan of those guys), and while he may have been crazy, he also knew that you don't win a war against the US by attacking the US.  We were completely safe with Saddam in power; his people and the region might not've been.  If fundamentalists step to the plate, though, it's a whole new ballgame.

 

4. I hate to be a naysayer, but I think we're going to learn some hard lessons about nation-building over the next few months.

 

 

1. But the capital will still be in the middle. Even in a federation the capital attracts investment, bureaucrats, companies and other goodies. bear in mind that if we Brits had just drawn a line around the region and had tried to be all sensitive about ethnic roots then the Sunnis would have got feth all from the get go.

 

2. I love this constant 'Left Wing' fantasy that the US has dark Sith-like powers. It may have escaped your notice but the US can't choose governments just like that. It has backed coups in the past, and even assassinated people, but that was a long while ago with a different CIA, and a different world. I don't believe they could do it again. Or would try.

 

3. A fundamentalist Shia state couldn't move beyond its borders in any direction either, for it would be trying to move on Sunni states, the Turks or the Afghans. All of whom would send them packing in no uncertain terms.

 

Not going to argue with you on the alleged Al Qaeda links to Saddam. Even on the internet I've only come across a single individual who believed that.

 

The Iranian Shias are becoming progressively more moderate. Debate, calls for more democratic freedom, and even native (ghastly) rock and roll.

 

4. Nation building has never been easy.

[Commissar]

1. But it's very possible that they'll get severely funted if they give in, since they'll have zero control over any of Iraq's oil wealth, while the guys to the north (Kurds) and South (Shia) will be rolling in dough.  That's their biggest fear, really.

 

2. And a fundamentalist state won't happen.  Bush won't let it.  If the Iraqis go hardcore Muslim all of a sudden, I have little doubt that the government will be deposed and we'll all get to go through this particular ringer again. 

 

3. That's really the only thing that can happen; if they went fundamentalist and we pulled out, we'd actually be worse off than before we went in.  No matter what you right-wingers say, Saddam couldn't move an inch beyond his borders.  He had no links with al-Qaeda (as he was a secularist, and ObL isn't a fan of those guys), and while he may have been crazy, he also knew that you don't win a war against the US by attacking the US.  We were completely safe with Saddam in power; his people and the region might not've been.  If fundamentalists step to the plate, though, it's a whole new ballgame.

 

4. I hate to be a naysayer, but I think we're going to learn some hard lessons about nation-building over the next few months.

 

 

1. But the capital will still be in the middle. Even in a federation the capital attracts investment, bureaucrats, companies and other goodies. bear in mind that if we Brits had just drawn a line around the region and had tried to be all sensitive about ethnic roots then the Sunnis would have got feth all from the get go.

 

2. I love this constant 'Left Wing' fantasy that the US has dark Sith-like powers. It may have escaped your notice but the US can't choose governments just like that. It has backed coups in the past, and even assassinated people, but that was a long while ago with a different CIA, and a different world. I don't believe they could do it again. Or would try.

 

3. A fundamentalist Shia state couldn't move beyond its borders in any direction either, for it would be trying to move on Sunni states, the Turks or the Afghans. All of whom would send them packing in no uncertain terms.

 

Not going to argue with you on the alleged Al Qaeda links to Saddam. Even on the internet I've only come across a single individual who believed that.

 

The Iranian Shias are becoming progressively more moderate. Debate, calls for more democratic freedom, and even native (ghastly) rock and roll.

 

4. Nation building has never been easy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I may have missed something, but I'm fairly sure we forcibly removed two different governments within the past four years. So yeah, I'd say we could do it again.

 

A fundamentalist Shia state can't move beyond its borders in a conventional sense, but it sure as hell can start exporting suicide bombers and the like - and another thing I might've missed, but I don't recall too many Iraqi suicide bombers hitting international targets under Saddam's regime.

[EnderAndrew]

The Taliban controlled government was already on the way out as the people were rebelling for freedom.

 

There is a vast difference between disposing a government that supports terrorism, and taking out a government simply because you disagree with their views.

[Commissar]

The Taliban controlled government was already on the way out as the people were rebelling for freedom.

 

There is a vast difference between disposing a government that supports terrorism, and taking out a government simply because you disagree with their views.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was there honestly a rash of Iraqi terror attacks that I never heard about or something?

 

You can certainly say we thought they were building WMD, but it's hard to make the case that beyond that absurdly false premise (hindsight, of course), they were a threat to the US.

 

If you don't think a fundamentalist Islamic state added to that region is going to be a threat, you're just nuts.

[EnderAndrew]

They didn't have to be a threat to the US. 12 years of UN Security Resolutions said we had a right to go in, and the UN validated the war anyway.

 

What about Saddam being a threat to his people?

 

Should 30 million lives not count for anything?

 

And if 9/11 taught us anything, it is that people who attack our country likely won't with ICBMs. When leaders of nations openly support terrorism, as Saddam did, I think they have to be prepared for consequences.