They don''t want the Kurds forming their own nation. They are going to have a Federalist government which should make the tribes happy.
Aren''t they entitled to their own nation? After all, they''ve been an independent region since the end of the Gulf War, and ironically this independence was fostered by General Jay Garner, the same guy who will run Iraq.
Well I don''t see them giving up their fiercely fought-for independence very soon. Kurdistan was just developing into the number one smugglersstate and the tribesmen earned heaploads of cash with it. Seems to me that they won''t give it up that easily.
Aren''t they entitled to their own nation? After all, they''ve been an independent region since the end of the Gulf War, and ironically this independence was fostered by General Jay Garner, the same guy who will run Iraq.
They were independent because of the United States and that Saddam wanted them dead. Saddam is no longer in power. They can have their state which is part of the Federalist government.
Well I don''t see them giving up their fiercely fought-for independence very soon. Kurdistan was just developing into the number one smugglersstate and the tribesmen earned heaploads of cash with it. Seems to me that they won''t give it up that easily.
And now the Shi''ite''s won''t play ball with General Garner. Seems holding Iraq together is going to be a lot harder than previously thought. And let us not forget the Baathists are still roaming Iraq and using Tikrit as their base.
I guess I''m ignorant and cold hearted when I ask why they should have their own country. Why can''t they be part of the representation of everyone else?
I don''t know the answer when I ask: how are the independant nations of former USSR doing? Not thats a good example, since the USSR was HUGE. Same thing with Palesitine...why can''t they just get representation in Isreal? (Don''t get me started on that one though, I''m a huge pro-Isreali type of guy)
I dunno, I think you''re asking for a whole heap of trouble from Turkey by allowing them their own space. The last thing we need in the middle east is another miniority group fighting independence while surronded by those who would wish otherwise.
Well, Yomm, I dont see where you`re from in your profile, I think U.S. (but might be damn wrong as well) - that would explain your attitude (hey, no U.S. bashing here!) as citizens of U.S. have quite different perception of national ID than here in Europe or Asia. Mostly because (in my point of view) U.S. has evolved from different folks without firm national identity. Kinda strong nation without roots of folk.
U.S. as I see it, identifies itself more with ideology than nationality.
In most of the world however national ID is much more important for people. You asked how former USSR republics are doing now. I`m citizen of Latvia, and must say, that people there live very well there and they dont really like to be associated with Russia as it often happens.
We have our own identity and we preserved it through all these years. This is why Latvia (and Lithuania and Estonia) was so different from the rest of USSR and why we had no problem adapting to new way of thinking after collapse of Union.
From my perspective, I can see why Kurds would like their own state. They have different history, different culture, the question is - why would they NOT want independent state. It is like - ""hey, canadians are almost like americans and live just around the corner, maybe we should add one star on our flag?""
Canadians might have problems with such an idea.
Of course, creating an independent state right now when Turkey is watching recent developments with growling, wouldnt be wise, however, it might not satisfy kurds who have most likely waited for moment like this and know that such an opportunity might not show up for decades.
My guess is, trouble-greedy TV producers will get their share of ""breaking news"" in near future.
U.S. as I see it, identifies itself more with ideology than nationality.
I think you might be drawing the wrong conclusion from the right questions. That is to say, that I think you''re really on to something with the issue your proposing, but, as an American, I''d probably draw the opposite conclusion, that Americans are actually overcompensating nationality for a lack of shared heritage. Believe me, because I see it everyday, Americans are making one big damn deal about being American right now, and that has not much to do with the ideology. You can''t swing a dead badger in the US without hitting someone whose car is pasted with plastic American flags or wearing one of those ''These Colors Don''t Run'' T-shirts that I hate so much.
Ultimately I do agree that the US does not have a same self-perception and approach to nationalism as Europe for all the reasons you suggest. I just think your characterization of Americans may be a bit off, though I''m terribly interested to hear how Europeans see us from across the pond.
I have to ask some of our EU posters: Do people in your countries care about what the Americans think about you?
We often have reports on how the average american thinks about the drug & abortion laws we have here, that stuff sometimes leads to small outbursts of anti-americanism. Most of the time its just positive news though.
I think what he''s hoping for is for some European poster to say they don''t really care what Americans think right now, so he can feel justified in saying that we shouldn''t care what the rest of the world thinks of us or be concerned with our world image. It''s been one of the cornerstones of his arguments, I think.
Most,
Thanks. I found that to be very informative. A good point as well. Tocquville (sp, of course) in his Democracy in Americia argued (among other things) that we''re so large a nation (even back then) that the isolation alone would have profound effects on our culture and attitude towards the world.
If Ulari, as Elysium suggests, is saying we shouldn''t care about world opinion, I''m afraid I''m going to have to agree. Honestly, the only country''s opinion that matters to me, would be the one I visit. I mean, I don''t want a target painted on my back while on vacation. Of course, it''s funny that as much as any country may hate us, they''ll still take our dollar. 
I''m all for world peace. I''m also against the lowest-common-denominator way of making policy/choices. If I had to wait for every country to agree on something, that something would be a waste.
Look, there''s not a political body around, that isn''t self-interested (as it should be), so you''ll excuse my ignorance when I say, that other countries'' self-interest is going to take second place to my own. It''s not my fault that the US is one of the largest and strongest military and economic powerhouses of the world. It may be partly my fault that the policies of the US go against what other countries may want for the world, but you''ll again excuse my hubris, when I say, I don''t care.
As soon as another country comes into the world stage thats stronger that the United States, rest assured, they''ll have my undivided attention.
I think what he''s hoping for is for some European poster to say they don''t really care what Americans think right now, so he can feel justified in saying that we shouldn''t care what the rest of the world thinks of us or be concerned with our world image. It''s been one of the cornerstones of his arguments, I think.
No. I just want to point out that our only friends in the world are the UK, Spain, Japan, the Ozies, and the former Soveit Republic.
We have a lot of allies but not that many friends. 
Spain?
I just want to point out that our only friends in the world are the UK, Spain, Japan, the Ozies, and the former Soveit Republic.
Well, in almost all those cases, ""our"" friends are the governments of those countries, not their people.
"Elysium" wrote:I think what he''s hoping for is for some European poster to say they don''t really care what Americans think right now, so he can feel justified in saying that we shouldn''t care what the rest of the world thinks of us or be concerned with our world image. It''s been one of the cornerstones of his arguments, I think.
No. I just want to point out that our only friends in the world are the UK, Spain, Japan, the Ozies, and the former Soveit Republic.
We have a lot of allies but not that many friends. :)
Mmh germans consider the US friends. Maybe this is one sided, but we do not care ;). And I would be careful with listing Spain. Especially with their current prime minister.
And yes germans can distinct between your administration and the actual population of the US ;).
And yes germans can distinct between your administration and the actual population of the US ;).
Let me guess the current administration isn''t grand enough for you? 
neither is the one here in Germany ;). But one cannot have everything.
It is true I do not agree how your administration handles their foreign policy, but at the same time I am worried with how our government handles our internal affairs. And that is far more important for me at the moment. And no I was not against this war because Bush is in the white house. But that should be clear already from what I have posted on this board :).
I would very much consider Germany to be an important US ally. What is frustrating is the administration equating opposition to the war as opposition to the US. I''m glad to see, Ulairi, that you haven''t done so by listing Russia as an ally, but I genuinely believe that Germany has the potential to be a much stronger and more rewarding relationship.
Seriously, Ulairi? Canada''s not an ally? Mexico? If you''re close to correct then you''ve provided the best indictment yet against the Bush administration for destroying our alliances (not that you were a Bush fan to begin with, though I think you are so more than you''d like to suggest).
The US should not be and I dont think it is against constructive opposition. Even if that constructive opposition is motivated by the countries self interests. Self interest and constructive opposition arent mutually exclusive.
We have to care about the welfare of other nations. Darwinism doesnt work anymore. Self destructive regimes, religious sects, states, countries dont wipe themselves out. They linger and pollute.
We have a large powerfull army but how many more wars fought in rapid succession do you think they can handle. We are going to have to use diplomacy if only to strengthen our force.
Seriously, Ulairi? Canada''s not an ally? Mexico? If you''re close to correct then you''ve provided the best indictment yet against the Bush administration for destroying our alliances (not that you were a Bush fan to begin with, though I think you are so more than you''d like to suggest).
Canada is an ally. Mexico is an ally. Germany is an ally. Being a friend and ally are different. Let me put it this way. America is the biggest kid on the block and has a few friends but gets along with most people on the block. A few blocks over there is another kid call Iraq who is being a real pain in the ass. America for whatever reason thinks that Iraq is planning to help f*ckED UP BOY by handing FUB a gun. Iraq is also terrorizing the kids on his block. America says to his friends and allys that we need to do something about Iraq. Three of his allys are agaisnt it because they''ve been cutting deals with Iraq and don''t want their shit to be stepped on. But, they say they''re better friends with America. They try to talk America out of it but America says they''re going to do it.
A friend comes along and helps America because they would rather be with America even if they don''t agree 100%. An ally says ""ok, we won''t cause any trouble but we''re not going to help you.""
Is the ally evil or wrong? No. Just not a friend.
Many countries love us when they need us but when they don''t they really aren''t going to be friends. Does this have to do with Bush? No. This happened before Bush. Once the USSR fell they didn''t need us.
Now for me supporting Bush. What has been the major topic on this forum? Iraq. I support Bush on Iraq. I also don''t think Bush is the spawn of satan and will cause WWIII. Will I vote for Bush? No. If we started talking about Bush''s economic policy, faith based policy, etc, I would be different than how I am on forign policy.
I''m a classic liberal hawk. When it comes to forign policy I don''t think we should buy off dictators or think we''re ok because they''re in a box. Do I want to go to war with every nation? No. But if the U.N. had a spine we wouldn''t. If Syria and Iran thought that they couldn''t get away with building WMD (which they can''t legally) they wouldn''t try.
Sanctions just hurt the people living under the despots. Is war the answer? No. What is? MAD.
Well, I`m ok with the thought that most americans do not care about the opinion of rest of the world. See, I`m kind of isolationist in heart and believe that its (often, but not always) wiser to not interrupt. The issue is, while americans may not care about the outside world, government does and changes global agenda on regular basis.
I`d say, it would be safer (for americans as well) to let many problems solve themselves.
Looking at Iraq as example of totalitarian regime, it would be wiser (in my point of view, again) not to interrupt. Freedom does not arise from liberators no matter who they are, freedom arises from within the people themselves. Every totalitarian regime is doomed to collapse, I know it, as I have lived in one for relatively short time. I can tell you that your perception of such regimes is a bit wrong, its not like in movies where secret agents can see people, terrified to say anything, waiting for cleaning squads or whatever.
Totalitarian regime which has *settled down* can be best described as *boring*, *apathic*, *slow*. Government officials are apathic, life is boring as hell (watching TV of totalitarian regime is like new class of torture on its own and it uses the most terrible torture techniques in the world, based on *boredom*).
Such regimes lose their control over peoples` minds slowly over time, apathy in higher echelons spreads slowly and at one point they understand that they can not control periodic outbursts of people who want to change the system.
BUT, if someone or something keeps pressure form outside, regime gets more fuel, it keeps government mobilized and propoganda machine points at potential liberators as enemies.
I think this is what has been happening in North Korea although there is so few reliable information about the state that I`m not sure.
What is the point of this paperback formatted ""War and Peace""?
Every action creates reaction no matter how right or wrong it is. If you see that some regime is wrong, amoral and so on and so forth, and its economy is falling apart and new political ideas are poping up, please wait. History has seen many empires and opressive regimes falling down, it just happens. Best liberations have been done by oppressed people themselves with little or no input from outside.
A friend comes along and helps America because they would rather be with America even if they don''t agree 100%. An ally says ""ok, we won''t cause any trouble but we''re not going to help you.""
See to me a friend steps in when I am trying to do something that could get me into a lot of trouble, and tells me about his concerns. Just talking after my mouth are friends I do not need.
Also your talk about the deals we have with Iraq: Our deals with the US are a lot bigger than the deals with Iraq. Plus the deals with the Iraq are not government sanctioned in any way. You really think we would risk our good relations with the US for that? You cannot be serious.
Also your talk about the deals we have with Iraq: Our deals with the US are a lot bigger than the deals with Iraq. Plus the deals with the Iraq are not government sanctioned in any way. You really think we would risk our good relations with the US for that? You cannot be serious.
No. We get more oil from Iraq than other countries. That''s true. We use more oil than any country. I wasn''t even talking about the Germans and Iraq. Germany actually has taken action to stop it. I''m talking about France and Russia who both have sweetheart deals for oil once the sanctions are lifted.
Americans are actually overcompensating nationality for a lack of shared heritage. Believe me, because I see it everyday, Americans are making one big damn deal about being American right now, and that has not much to do with the ideology. You can''t swing a dead badger in the US without hitting someone whose car is pasted with plastic American flags or wearing one of those ''These Colors Don''t Run'' T-shirts that I hate so much.
That''s pretty ridiculous. Just because your country is only 200 some years old and is made up of people from around the world that its people can''t be patriotic or cannot show signs of patriotism? Were the flag waving after 9/11 overcompensating as well?
That''s pretty ridiculous.
I''m going to stop you here, because I don''t think that''s called for. I think Ulairi got it right the other day, that while the general respect level on this forum is still very high, it has taken a dip recently. I''ve been as guilty of this as anyone else, and I was pretty rightly called on it.
I''d be happy to explain why I stand by my opinion, if you''d like to rephrase your position with a bit more civility, but I really don''t think we need this kind of statement. I''ll try to be more careful in the way I discuss and argue, but I''m going to expect the same from everyone else to.
Just because your country is only 200 some years old and is made up of people from around the world that its people can''t be patriotic or cannot show signs of patriotism? Were the flag waving after 9/11 overcompensating as well?
No, but I thought all those drunk sailors getting the Stars and Stripes tatooed on their privates was a little overboard.
Pages