I have studied a bit of Turkish history after the Ottoman empire, but most of my knowledge is about the linguistic reformation under Attaturk. Economically, they sometimes make a good case of getting into the EU. And as Brian points out, they are a secular nation of Muslims, not Arabs, and they have very few problems with extremists. However, as long as they continue their extreme persecution of the Kurds, I don't see them being a good model for the Arabs to follow. Not colonialism but neo-colonialism. I mean, at this point we're getting into an academic debate. FWIW, I don't see the difference between using force and/or coercion to enhance a country's geopolitical interests and straight up neocolonialism. The two have very similar results.
I was suggesting that Turkey is a good model for Arab nations to follow. I don't think neocolonialism had anything to do with Korea. It was less than 5 years after WW II ended, and Eastern Europe was ceded to the Russians. Stalin was making moves against neighboring countries. Why would we fight such a bloody war to then allow the kind of agression against nations to begin again?
Right. Arab nations should produce an enigmatic leader to usher them into a new age of cooperating with the West? Or, what? It depends not on the kind of aggression, but the source. We were clearly in a game of power against the USSR before the war even ended. Why were we even fighting communism? If you say, "to keep people free" then you probably think we invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqis.
I was thinking the non-secular democracy part. The Russians were an axis power before Germany turned on them. I wouldn't say they were our allies for the most part.
Anyhow, this is on topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/world/africa/algeria-militants-hostages.html?_r=0 Hostages Dead in Bloody Climax to Siege in Algeria BAMAKO, Mali — The four-day hostage crisis in the Sahara reached a bloody conclusion on Saturday as the Algerian Army carried out a final assault on the gas field taken over by Islamist militants, killing most of the remaining kidnappers and raising the total of hostages killed to at least 23, Algerian officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/world/europe/hollandes-intervention-in-mali-raises-concerns.html? But Mr. Traoré, 70, does represent the internationally recognized government of Mali, said a senior French official, shrugging. And then, like every French official on the topic, he asked a questioner to imagine the alternative — “another Somalia” on the western edge of Africa, lawless and dominated by Islamic radicals close to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, who would set about instituting the harshness of Shariah law all over Mali, stoning adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves, while engaging in the drug and arms smuggling, kidnapping and terrorism that funds their notion of jihad. That prospect, the officials insist, is why the entire region, including Algeria, has supported the French intervention, which was also backed by the Security Council. The French initiative has also had public support, if provoking quiet concern about overreaching, from allies like the United States and Britain.
http://www.thenational.ae/thenation...sion-to-mali-part-of-long-dangerous-tradition Guess there's two sides to everything.
We had propped up the Iraqi leader and then we drove him from power and let the people elect their own government.
We, as in the people? Nothing. We, as in America? We sent a "don't fuck with us" message to the rest of the region, which is very valuable when you're knee-deep in everyone's business over there. We, as in KBR and Halliburton? Billions of dollars of no-bid contracts.
I'm no student of middle eastern politics, but I can't accept the notion we went there to send a 'don't fuck with us' message. We sent that message the first time we went there, in spades, went we went through the 'invincible' Republican Guard like a hot knife through butter. I kept hearing how we went there for oil, but I've never seen any evidence of that. I guess the bottom line is you believe that we went to war to get work for Halliburton, even though the government spent 1000's of times more on the war than they made cleaning up the mess? Bush was a dumb ass, but I don't think he was that dumb. Second serious question. Do you think the people of Iraq are better off now, or before we ousted Saddam? Go Blazers
I cringe a little to ask this, but who else's business are we 'knee deep' in? I'll give you the country that allowed our sworn enemies a place to train their troops and plan their next attacks against us. Go Blazers
There is a difference between a. obliterating an army because they were fighting a war of aggression against an ally and b. invading, overthrowing and installing a new government unprovoked. This was a clear message to the rest of the Middle East (at the time), one that Bush started saying after 9/11: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Well, Saddam with with neither, and he was hanging before it was all said and done. Believe me, despots notice when one of their own falls. There's a difference between Halliburton and the government. Cheney has two million dollars of Halliburton money in his pocket when we went to war, and Halliburton and KBR (a Halliburton subsidiary) get over 8.2 billion dollars in no-bid contracts. This wasn't just about oil, it was about business. I've never been to Iraq so I can't really say. I see this question a lot, and there are honestly too many variables to give it a definitive answer. Iraq is a diverse place, so there are certain populations, the Kurds for example, who are thrilled to have Saddam gone. They are no longer persecuted and they live in a relatively violence free area, so the war did not effect them as it did other people. For others, such as middle class Arabs living in urban centers, the war was absolutely life-altering and still is. If you had a job and house and kids and kept your nose out of trouble living under Saddam, you probably wouldn't opt for all out war to overthrow him. Then again, I met numerous Iraqis who fled to Syria that told me they loved America. So go figure. It's all in who you ask. If you look at many of the issues in the Middle East today, it comes down to two places: Palestine and Saudi Arabia. We are knee deep in both. I'm sure you know the problem in Israel, so I don't need to go into why we are involved and why that is important. Saudi Arabia is a problem because during the first gulf war, we placed troops there and then kept them there after the war was over. This is a problem because it is the holy land. To have foreign troops (especially American) occupying pieces of the holy land is unforgivable to many. Everyone knows how friendly Saudi Arabia and America are to each other, and people don't approve. Besides those two issues, there's plenty of $$$ to be made by keeping the Middle East scared of us. Whatever. Doesn't change what happened. Who said any of these crooks were good businessmen anyway?
