anitram said:
Um, wtf? Yes, there is such a thing as a Bosnian.
I never claimed there wasn't. Just showing that Iraq and Iraqi's exist just as much as Bosnia and Bosnians.
anitram said:
Um, wtf? Yes, there is such a thing as a Bosnian.
Irvine511 said:
honey, there was no YUGOSLAVIA.
STING2 said:
I never claimed there wasn't. Just showing that Iraq and Iraqi's exist just as much as Bosnia and Bosnians.
Irvine511 said:
you really are McCarthy part 2. everyone who disagrees with you is an insurrectionist. right.
the definition of a Civil War rests upon two factors:
1. two warring groups withing a particular country are fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state, or to force a major change in policy
2. at least 1000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war
clearly, Iraq meets these definitions.
MadelynIris said:Headlines on CNN are all about Bush supporting AIDS help in Africa:
Bush urges aid for Africa
President Bush tonight used his State of the Union speech to try to find support for what has become a widely unpopular war in Iraq. He also turned his attention to Africa, asking Congress to help fund programs for HIV/AIDS and malaria patients and battling poverty.
Ironic eh?
phanan said:The best part of his speech was when he said "Madame Speaker" for the first time...
anitram said:
You said: "Was there ever Bosnia or a Bosnian?" I don't believe I misinterpreted you.
STING2 said:
Do you understand what "context" means?
Liesje said:I don't like Bush any more than the next person, but it's not totally his decision how much aid gets sent where. If I'm not mistaken, Congress has not passed the bills that would accomplish the original goal.
STING2 said:
I asked the question after the person I was responding to questioned the existence of Iraq. Obviously, Iraq and Iraqi's exist just as much as Bosnia and Bosnians. If Iraq does not exist, then neither does Bosnia.
Earnie Shavers said:
That's completely true, but I think a lot of people think he might just throw these statements out there (in Dr Evil voice "Send to Africa 100 trillion bazillion dollars!") well aware that Congress is just going to knock it on it's head sometime in the future. In the meantime, he gets big positive headlines, and more people are aware of his big Presidential statement than they are months later of the 'quiet' vote in Congress that kills it. That may be a completely cynical way of looking at it, and it wouldn't actually surprise me if Bush believed in what he was saying, but that's the way many see it, that Bush uses these big statements to get a thumbs up while he damn well knows it's not going to actually happen.
Liesje said:
I agree. I remember the first time when Bush mentioned aid to Africa in his State/Union speech my political science prof was entirely convinced he never would have mentioned it if not for the letter from Bono the Washington Post published the day before. If she's right (and I think she is, judging by the responses the letter created), he really did throw it in for some thumbs up and a pat on the back. I think they all may have been empty promises to being with, but we still can't place all of the blame on him, when after all someone elected him twice and the majority of this population has not made this an issue they care about and vote about.
Irvine511 said:
omg.
iraq = yugoslavia
shia, sunni, etc. = bosnians, serbians, slovenians, etc.
STING2 said:
Uh no, Iraq is similar to Bosnia. In Bosnia there are three major ethnic or religious groups just like in Iraq. In addition, in Iraq, they were mixed in such a way from the north of the country to the south, that there was no realistic way to seperate the major ethnic groups, despite the generalizations of Kurds in the North, Sunni's in the middle, and Shia's in the south. The reality is much different, and the Iraq Study Group picked up on this fact and has rejected the idea of partition of the country.
In yugoslavia, there were more than 7 major ethnic groups, primarily already divided into republics that were already heavily dominated by one ethnic group or another, the exception being Bosnia. Yugoslavia as a whole was largely already divided and unmixed relative to Iraq.
Bosnia by contrast was very mixed, and there was no real way to effectively divide the ethnic groups peacefully.
Bosnia in that sense, does = Iraq, Yugoslavia does not.
Irvine511 said:
Iraq = Yugoslavia, 1992. both were artificial creations.
like Yugoslavia, Iraq's previous government abruptly dissolved; as in Yugoslavia, the dissolution of a centralized national government exposed ethnic fault line; as in Yugoslavia, Iraq's fault lines only roughly correspond to geographic locality; as in Yugoslavia, Iraq's ethnic rivalries have become increasingly militarized.
in Croatia, the carnage basically ended by the expulsion of the Serbs. in Bosnia, it was ended by a de facto partition with two separate entities having nearly state interests.
there is a good lesson for Iraq. people cannot participate in government if it cannot keep them safe. tall fences make for good neighbors, and also for democracy. you bellow on and on and on about the two elections Iraq has had. but an election is not democracy. democracy requires the rule of law, respect for individual rights, the protection of property and basic fairness. these basic requirements did not exist in Iraq prior to the Potempkin elections held.
U2Fanatic4ever said:
gee I wonder who urged him to fund more money for these programs... Could it be>>>
A_Wanderer said:We should deal with reality; and that includes acknowledging the problems in Iraq and then rather than just walking away working on policy that can acheive the goals - it shouldn't be a dichotomy between staying the course and raising the Shiite cresent or leaving the country and handing religious fascists a victory.
phanan said:If one were to take all of STING2's posts on Iraq and put them together, that would be one huge book.