Why Islam is a problem for the integration of immigrants

[El_Machinae]

So everyone who disagrees with American Liberalism is a troll, the news is fake, or they are lying and this is what now constitutes liberal thought?

Nope. Your summary is incorrect.

Also last I checked, trolling calling is against the forum rules. As a former moderator you should know better.

Welcome to the RD era

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That was smooth...just after he blatantly violates the rules El Mach gets him to claim familiarity with the rules. Well played.

 

[NovaKart]

Really this thread has just been pages of personal arguments at this point. It started out as a possibly interesting topic.

 

[Synobun]

Chalk it up however you like. I have already stated my position for you.

Right, and that's what we're discussing. We're discussing your position, a position which lacks specificity and which we're trying to narrow down.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Really this thread has just been pages of personal arguments at this point. It started out as a possibly interesting topic.

This topic was not likely to provide a lot of reasoned discussion and it had hit all the expected snags. There is an element that wants to see unique problems with assimilation because they desperately want to believe Islam is uniquely bad. Even without open trollery it was not likely to be interesting for long.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Right, and that's what we're discussing. We're discussing your position, a position which lacks specificity and which we're trying to narrow down.

Actually I think he has been as specific as forum rules (which are inhibiting him) and common decency (which doesn't seem to be) would allow.

 

[W|M]

 

[Ryika]

Careful, this is a Normie appropriating a meme from yesteryear, do not invest.

 

[RomanKing]

And not to mention a boring one at that.

Any of the really good ones would get you banned here.

 

[Ajidica]

VP Biden actually admitted that Iraq was shaping up to be a resounding success. At least until Obama pulled out all the troops and let it implode which led to regional destabilization in Syria and an emboldened iran. So Romanking is correct in his statement here.

Obama was bound by a Bush-era treaty that would see US combat forces out of Iraqi cities by mid-2009 and completely out of Iraq by 2011.

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
Now, one could make the argument he could have tried to renegotiate the Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi Government; but in 2011 the Syrian Civil War was just starting and it was unclear what would happen and ISIS wasn't a Thing. The current regional conflagration we see now was in no way foreseeable in 2011.

After removing the US troops, the US government supplied enough military aid to keep South Vietnam viable. When the Democrats ceased funding the country quickly fell and the ensuing regional destabilization led to Pol Pot and the Cambodian genocide.

You don't think propping up a French puppet government for over a decade had something to do with "regional destabilization"?

Actually in the case of the South Africa Bush wars with the communist insurgents in Angola, the SA military did achieve victory using military force. it was one of the few times that an insurgency was defeated and it was accomplished by large scale killing of civilians who supported the insurgents. Insurgents were tracked back to their village and then SA forces would kill everything in the village. As Gen Curtis Lemay said "If you kill enough of them they give up".

If South Africa won, remind me again why there is no longer white rule in South Africa? Despite giving the MPLA and its Cuban allies a thrashing at Cuito Cuanavale; the South African military leadership realized that without fellow white-rule states in Angola, Mozambique, and Rhodesia, it was only a matter of time before a general armed insurgency would erupt against continued white rule in South Africa. Aparthied didn't end because the National Party woke up one morning and decided it was really terrible and they needed to reach out to their fellow humans. What happened was the same thing that happened in Rhodesia (SA military intelligence happened to notice it faster than Rhodesian intelligence did to their credit); military leaders told the political leadership they can either accept majority rule, seek a political solution, and work with moderate black politicians (like Mandela) or they could repeat what Rhodesia did and discover what happens when you kill off or disenfranchise the moderate opposition leadership.
No amount of military victory allowed the preservation of white rule in South Africa - the goal of National Party politicians.

 

[Lexicus]

The current regional conflagration we see now was in no way foreseeable in 2011.

Er, I dunno about that. Honestly, the de-stabilization of the region was predictable from when the key decisions were taken after Saddam's government fell...but I suppose the Arab Spring wasn't particularly predictable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Er, I dunno about that. Honestly, the de-stabilization of the region was predictable from when the key decisions were taken after Saddam's government fell...but I suppose the Arab Spring wasn't particularly predictable.

The destabilization of the region was predictable when action on the decision to topple Saddam was initiated. Everything after that is just consequences.

 

[Lexicus]

The destabilization of the region was predictable when action on the decision to topple Saddam was initiated. Everything after that is just consequences.

I'm not sure that's wholly true. If the administration hadn't been, ah, corrupt is a polite way of putting it, it might have been possible to build something in Iraq that precluded the emergence of ISIS. But we had the administration we had, and we probably needed that administration to attack Iraq in the first place, so...

 

[Ajidica]

Er, I dunno about that. Honestly, the de-stabilization of the region was predictable from when the key decisions were taken after Saddam's government fell...but I suppose the Arab Spring wasn't particularly predictable.

I don't think that the emergence of ISIS or the Syrian war carrying on as long as it has was foreseeable. In 2011 ISIS was little more than the glint in a demonic milkman's eye; and it taking any power was entirely predicated on the Shia-dominated Iraqi government decided that sectarian score-settling was a better use of their time than attempting a half-hearted Truth and Reconciliation Committee.
As far as I can remember in 2011 nobody was quite sure what path the Syrian conflict would take. It seemed like the FSA was making great inroads among the SAR military and it was only a matter of time. That the FSA fell apart under internal contradictions and the SAR proved to have more support than expected was either missed by Intelligence or discounted by politicians.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not sure that's wholly true. If the administration hadn't been, ah, corrupt is a polite way of putting it, it might have been possible to build something in Iraq that precluded the emergence of ISIS. But we had the administration we had, and we probably needed that administration to attack Iraq in the first place, so...

The premise was so flawed that I see no reason to think anything could have been built, by anyone. Three wildly disparate groups are combined into a "nation" such that at any given moment two of the three groups will be on the verge of open rebellion and the third will be violently suppressing them so as to avoid being subject to the mass executions that they probably have earned. Obviously, this is ruled over by a total authoritarian who has no moral compass restraining him because there's no other way to do it.

Enter Pollyanna saying "try democracy...here, let us destroy all existing authority."

There is no f'ing way that is going to turn out any way other than it did.

 

[Ajidica]

The premise was so flawed that I see no reason to think anything could have been built, by anyone. Three wildly disparate groups are combined into a "nation" such that at any given moment two of the three groups will be on the verge of open rebellion and the third will be violently suppressing them so as to avoid being subject to the mass executions that they probably have earned. Obviously, this is ruled over by a total authoritarian who has no moral compass restraining him because there's no other way to do it.

Iraqi nationalism is a Thing though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Iraqi nationalism is a Thing though.

No doubt. No matter how much those three groups hate each other they will rally together against an invader. That too was predictable.

 

[Lexicus]

The premise was so flawed that I see no reason to think anything could have been built, by anyone. Three wildly disparate groups are combined into a "nation" such that at any given moment two of the three groups will be on the verge of open rebellion and the third will be violently suppressing them so as to avoid being subject to the mass executions that they probably have earned. Obviously, this is ruled over by a total authoritarian who has no moral compass restraining him because there's no other way to do it.

Enter Pollyanna saying "try democracy...here, let us destroy all existing authority."

There is no f'ing way that is going to turn out any way other than it did.

Well, I'm thinking that if the breakup of Iraq into three states had been planned from the start things might've gone a bit differently. I suppose then war between those states might have been hard to avoid.

 

[El_Machinae]

"It's amazing what happens when kings draw lines on far away maps" says the philosopher.

Borders drawn without adequate insight tends to work poorly. The rule of thumb I was taught was to look for straight lines that were externally imposed. Finding trouble there is usually pretty common

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, I'm thinking that if the breakup of Iraq into three states had been planned from the start things might've gone a bit differently. I suppose then war between those states might have been hard to avoid.

I would substitute "inevitable" there. Less wordy, more concise.