There's a huge Chaldean community in Detroit. As a marketing manager for Costco, I traveled to the community and got to know many. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ~String
Well, seeing as how (a) I think GW is a douche and that (b) the war in Iraq was pointless, I find it hard to muster the energy to debate the counterpoint. But your geometric ignorance and vacuous comments are powerful motivating factors. I know this is a bitter pill for someone of your geometric bigotry to swallow, but the Chaldeans were militantly opposed to Saddam and were either for, or lukewarm on, the idea of an Iraqi invasion. If you knew enough to Google the word, you'd realize that Chaldeans, by definition, are a horrifically oppressed Iraqi Christian minority with a history of bloody pogroms carried out against them. Saddam tolerated Christians, but the Chaldeans didn't suffer Saddam lightly-- thus he made them suffer. The USA slaughtering him and their bloody Muslim oppressors didn't force too many tears out of their eyes. I'm sure you'll find a way to paint them as evil. You have a knack for that ~String
SAM, I'm not debating the ridiculous politics of supporting Saddam. If I had my way the middle east would be left for all of its inhabitants to sit around fighting eachother. The US has been politically short sighted in the whole affair. As usual you lack the intelligence to grasp the point of discussion: the Chaldeans hated Saddam and they AREN'T here as a result of the US invasion of Iraq. This is the point that YOU ignorantly asserted and then diverted away from in order to hide your stupidity. If you want to debate the Iraqi invasion: go right ahead, you won't find me on the other side. The only thing I'm pointing out is you usual hatred and stupidity regarding facts; which facts, you attempted to assert. ~String
I actually asked what rights Iraqis had in the US as comapred to the rights of Kurds in Turkey or the rights of Tibetans in China. That was a discussion I was having when you jumped in with the Chaldeans. I was continuing with my point. I don't see how the US establishing a dictator and then "protecting" people from him makes any case for the occupation or provides any rights to Iraqis from Iraq in the US. Frankly, I don't know what you're mumbling about, since this is a thread about the US.
This entire thread has no real motivation but to serve as another of the hate-America crowd's mouthpiece. As usual, your point was the usual bitchery ad nauseum with no real substance. Lemme guess: you're gonna' claim to have been in Iraq or some other lofty experience. Me neither. We should have never supported Saddam, and having done so, should have cut him off and left the him and the Middle East to rot and fester. The USA should switch to 100% non-petroleum electricity production, which would reduce petrol consumption to low enough levels to use Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, Nigeria and the USA as it's sole suppliers. But then, there's a political establishment that would allow for nothing short of an Iraqi invasion and occupation. Stupid. Again, I'm about as cold to the whole thing as a person can get. Well, starting with an admission of you not knowing is a beginning. I guess. It's an understatement, but it will suffice. My point, and I'm sure it was just a teeny-tiny bit too complicated for you to grasp: point out your hatred and ignorance. ~String
So basically you just butt into the middle of a discussion to adhom Nice. Its not my fault your country has a shitty foreign policy.
Nope. That's one parallel the situations don't have. Although what Iraqis are here do have the same basic rights as most people, and aren't punished for reading books in their own language (Kurds in Turkey), or deprived of their religion by force (Tibetans under China). So that's another missing parallel.
Well for one thing, they were all profiled before the war and questioned by the FBI. Second, there appears to have been a greater support for the war among the Muslims, than the Christians. Third, they want to go back to Iraq; many in fact have returned now to trace families and help rebuild their country. Last, they are devastated by the war. Under those circumstances, what does that say about the current situation?
Wrong. Kurds are free to use their language as they wish (of course, the official language is Turkish). Many of the Kurds near the Turkey-Iraq border don't even know Turkish. Besides, Ibrahim Tatlises, for example, a famous and fabulously wealthy Kurdish singer, has his Kurdish songs played across tons of Turkish channels daily.
Well, I recall Noam Chomsky retailing an anecdote of a visit of his to a Kurdish region of Turkey, and the emotion involved in the public presentation to him, by a couple of young Kurds, of a Kurdish dictionary - apparently an act of raw courage and defiance of the government. The Turkish government is not gentle with defiant Kurds. But that was a few years ago. I don't know. That it's screwed up ? Just a guess.
This is pretty absurd. The US relationship with Latin America, for example, during the first half of the 20th century had already crimped this 'loved by all'. Let's also not forget that JFK really got things rolling in Vietnam. You could say he started the American phase of that war. I think someone is hallucinating a golden age. Which tends to cause problems.
No not equivalent - the situation is much worse for the Kurds and Tibetans in terms of long term consequences. The USA will not remain in Iraq for maybe 5 more years - Turkey or China will never give back land that is part of their country. As one Kurd, who happens to make the best kebabs in Sydney put it: We have fought for over 100 years and many generations have died - if we have to we will fight forever, we will have our land back. The younger Tibetans seem to be thinking similarly. I'd say the similarity is more like the young America taking half of of Mexico and taking California. That's more apt.
