Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Owlbread]

Except, aren't the Shi'a a minority in Iraq? The minority Shi'a rule is what keeps causing problems, Saddam Hussein, Malikis power grab.....

Actually the Shia make up the majority of the Iraqi population, around 60-70% in fact, meaning that the Sunni Arabs are the minority. Iraq is pretty much a Shia country like Iran. Saddam and his administration were also Sunni.

[smjjames]

Except, aren't the Shi'a a minority in Iraq? The minority Shi'a rule is what keeps causing problems, Saddam Hussein, Malikis power grab.....

Actually the Shia make up the majority of the Iraqi population, around 60-70% in fact, meaning that the Sunni Arabs are the minority. Iraq is pretty much a Shia country like Iran. Saddam and his administration were also Sunni.

Oh I had it backwards, my bad. I think Al-Maliki is also Sunni? Also, if a majority Shia government starts persecuting the Sunni, you have the same problem all over again.

[XXSockXX]

The really big problem is "nation building", it just does not work without certain prerequisites that many regions do not have.

[smjjames]

The really big problem is "nation building", it just does not work without certain prerequisites that many regions do not have.

Like a national (or ethnic) identity? Not sure what you're trying to say here, besides the money and corruption issues.

[XXSockXX]

The really big problem is "nation building", it just does not work without certain prerequisites that many regions do not have.

Like a national (or ethnic) identity? Not sure what you're trying to say here, besides the money and corruption issues.

No, just basic statehood. Any pre-existing national or ethnic identity can help if it keeps a country together, but it can also be a problem like in the Middle East where there are ethnic conflicts. Getting a somewhat universally accepted government, a functional justice system etc, in a way that it can preserve itself without resorting to repression is really difficult.
"State building" is a better term probably.

Except, aren't the Shi'a a minority in Iraq? The minority Shi'a rule is what keeps causing problems, Saddam Hussein, Malikis power grab.....

Actually the Shia make up the majority of the Iraqi population, around 60-70% in fact, meaning that the Sunni Arabs are the minority. Iraq is pretty much a Shia country like Iran. Saddam and his administration were also Sunni.

Oh I had it backwards, my bad. I think Al-Maliki is also Sunni? Also, if a majority Shia government starts persecuting the Sunni, you have the same problem all over again.

AL-Maliki is Shia. That's why the Sunnis are against the government in the first place, they repressed the Shias for a very long time, now they fear persecution themselves.

[Owlbread]

AL-Maliki is Shia. That's why the Sunnis are against the government in the first place, they repressed the Shias for a very long time, now they fear persecution themselves.

It is an ancient pattern, repeated countless times throughout history; a recent example being Russians in Ukraine and Crimea.

[XXSockXX]

AL-Maliki is Shia. That's why the Sunnis are against the government in the first place, they repressed the Shias for a very long time, now they fear persecution themselves.

It is an ancient pattern, repeated countless times throughout history; a recent example being Russians in Ukraine and Crimea.

Yes, and in the case of Iraq, experts predicted that this would happen when there were the first signs that the US might invade and remove Saddam. It's also one reason why nobody wants to intervene in Syria.

[smjjames]

The really big problem is "nation building", it just does not work without certain prerequisites that many regions do not have.

Like a national (or ethnic) identity? Not sure what you're trying to say here, besides the money and corruption issues.

No, just basic statehood. Any pre-existing national or ethnic identity can help if it keeps a country together, but it can also be a problem like in the Middle East where there are ethnic conflicts. Getting a somewhat universally accepted government, a functional justice system etc, in a way that it can preserve itself without resorting to repression is really difficult.
"State building" is a better term probably.

Except, aren't the Shi'a a minority in Iraq? The minority Shi'a rule is what keeps causing problems, Saddam Hussein, Malikis power grab.....

Actually the Shia make up the majority of the Iraqi population, around 60-70% in fact, meaning that the Sunni Arabs are the minority. Iraq is pretty much a Shia country like Iran. Saddam and his administration were also Sunni.

Oh I had it backwards, my bad. I think Al-Maliki is also Sunni? Also, if a majority Shia government starts persecuting the Sunni, you have the same problem all over again.

AL-Maliki is Shia. That's why the Sunnis are against the government in the first place, they repressed the Shias for a very long time, now they fear persecution themselves.

And then Al-Maliki actually goes and persecutes them, which he did when the US had barely even left Iraq.

AL-Maliki is Shia. That's why the Sunnis are against the government in the first place, they repressed the Shias for a very long time, now they fear persecution themselves.

It is an ancient pattern, repeated countless times throughout history; a recent example being Russians in Ukraine and Crimea.

Yes, and in the case of Iraq, experts predicted that this would happen when there were the first signs that the US might invade and remove Saddam. It's also one reason why nobody wants to intervene in Syria.

Well, we kind of invaded for all the wrong reasons (aside from toppling a dictator). However, the problem is that ISIS very well could target the US, which would force us to intervene.

[XXSockXX]

And then Al-Maliki actually goes and persecutes them, which he did when the US had barely even left Iraq.

I don't know to what extent he actually persecutes anybody, but he certainly has managed to totally alienate the Sunnis and to some extent the Kurds too.

Well, we kind of invaded for all the wrong reasons (aside from toppling a dictator). However, the problem is that ISIS very well could target the US, which would force us to intervene.

Saddam deserved what he got, but the biggest fault of the Bush administration (apart from the illegality of the invasion) was not having a real plan for after Saddam. Building a democracy from scratch is incredibly difficult to pull off, especially if you have nothing to work with and plenty of latent conflicts, and they were absurdely naive about that. Same thing in Afghanistan. And it looks like the effort that was put in falls apart the moment the troops leave.

ISIS doesn't even need to target the US, targeting Turkey would be enough to get NATO involved. Further destabilizing the region might be enough actually. Pretty sure involvment will be limited to logistical support for as long as possible though.

[SalmonGod]

Saddam deserved what he got, but the biggest fault of the Bush administration (apart from the illegality of the invasion) was not having a real plan for after Saddam.

You forgot the absurd recklessness with which the whole war effort was carried out, with much indiscriminate killing documented, and little effort made in general to minimize the effects of the conflict on the civilian population.

[GlyphGryph]

Except there is no law enforcement and the spousal abuse gets really fucked up, even effecting their immediate neighborhood.

And it wouldn't be ourselves that went in to help, it would be us asking the nice people from the bar down the street that have a reputation for raping, murdering, and at least stealing the belongings of those they are supposed to be helping in exchange.

And now for something completely different:

When Authoritarians Ran the World
http://realityenthusiast.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/bob-altemeyers-the-authoritarians-2/
What happens when you give authoritarians control of the world, and Elites interested in personal advancement the resources to fuel their dominance?

The world burns.

Every. Single. Time. :V

Elites neglected the social, environmental, and economic issues of their regions, choosing to use their resources to increase military power (and their own personal wealth) instead. By the end of the game, the authoritarians had divided their world into armed camps, each threatening the others with nuclear war. Over a billion people died of starvation and disease, bringing the final death toll to 2.1 billion. It was a spectacularly unsuccessful run of the game, one which Altemeyer would later refer to as “Doom Night”.

High-RWAs tend to value lawfulness above human life, except when the law-breaker is one of their treasured authority figures. Altemeyer writes, “If you give them moral dilemmas (e.g. should one steal an absurdly expensive drug to save a life?) they’re more likely to say, ‘The law is the law and must be obeyed’ than most people are.” However, “they do not see laws as social standards that apply to all. Instead, they appear to think that authorities are above the law, and can decide which laws apply to them and which do not–just as parents can when one is young.”

[10ebbor10]

I wonder what would happen in a world populated half by authoritarians, and half by non-authoritarians?

Probably end up in favour of the them, giving you a traditional prisoners dilemma.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, in the recorded non-authoritarian game the North American Elite acted more-or-less as an authoritarian, and he was ganged up on by the others and peacefully suppressed. Clearly, authoritarians aren't predominant.

[10ebbor10]

Yes, but that was just one in an overwhelming majority. There'll be probably be a tipping point.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But we don't know that. It may be that non-authoritarians are the predominant ones and there being enough of them to have their foot in the door draws the authoritarians in to a non-authoritarian structure, where they are contained. We don't have this information.