West Asia's future b better or worse?
-
After Saddam sudden capture -
what is everyone's views about the future prospects of West Asia? (and Central Asia too if including Afghanistan).
better ? - just because saddam is gone??
worse ? - because osama is likely still hiding in some caves or hills in West / Central Asia. Hamas will retaliate to revenge for Saddam. Palestinian Problem is not solved yet leh...and could end up negatively.
Same? - West Asia's Arab-Israeli problem will remain more or less the same violence level over the years and will hang on more or less the same. Other West Asian nations like Iran will not cause too much trouble to agitate US to preserve self rule.
Egypt will also not likely to send attacking army divisions across over from North Africa to Egypt's West Asian territories again to fight with Israel again. -
since you only offered two options, my choice of the answer will simply be that prospects are better.
yet the more accurate answer to your question is that although saddam's capture is positive news, not very much has changed in spite of the capture.
the significance of saddam's capture is at best a symbolic one. the problems in west asia remains as it was three days ago.
anti-american sentiments in the arab world remain strong and this cannot be helped by the way the americans paraded the specular capture and the footages showing the medical examination of pathetic ex-dictator. despite saddam's atrocities, arabs secretly admire and respect his bravery shown by his defiance against the U.S. arab pride was shattered over the weekend when saddam was captured shamefully without firing a single bullet.
the situation can only improve significantly if the americans make use of the news of saddam's capture to initiate new measures that is palatable to the arabs- greater arab participation and less U.S control.
america cannot win this war alone, as it is trying to do now in an effort to to maintain control of strategic resources in iraq. -
West Asia's future b better or worse?
is more porn in iraq good?
-
yeah , no good, but maybe have the effect of reducing rapes and molest cases - lets be more open minded, we never know the 'benefits' of porn.Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:West Asia's future b better or worse?
is more porn in iraq good? 
More press freedom is at least 1 good thing, different papers can NIOW scold US and scold Saddam at the same time - US would not kill the reporter and editor.
-
I am sorry that I had accidentally ¡®given only two options¡¯ ¨C worse or better. I personally also believe that it should remain more or less the same ¨C as I mentioned, Arab nations in both West Asia and North Africa should become more wary of US unilateral actions now , this also applies to non-Arab nations in West Asia e.g. Iran.Originally posted by schumi:since you only offered two options, my choice of the answer will simply be that prospects are better.
yet the more accurate answer to your question is that although saddam's capture is positive news, not very much has changed in spite of the capture.
the significance of saddam's capture is at best a symbolic one. the problems in west asia remains as it was three days ago.
anti-american sentiments in the arab world remain strong and this cannot be helped by the way the americans paraded the specular capture and the footages showing the medical examination of pathetic ex-dictator. despite saddam's atrocities, arabs secretly admire and respect his bravery shown by his defiance against the U.S. arab pride was shattered over the weekend when saddam was captured shamefully without firing a single bullet.
the situation can only improve significantly if the americans make use of the news of saddam's capture to initiate new measures that is palatable to the arabs- greater arab participation and less U.S control.
america cannot win this war alone, as it is trying to do now in an effort to to maintain control of strategic resources in iraq.
Saddam¡¯s capture is also no humiliation to himself or Arabs/Muslims.
Many Arab¡¯s, Muslims or those the dislike US (not necessarily terrorist or extremist) felt that Saddam had shamed himself; other Arab viewed his capture as another Arab humiliation by Western forces. Others tried in vain to give explanations why Saddam was captured without even fighting back or committed suicide ¨C giving unsubstantiated stories like he was drugged or gassed into submission and captured with fainted.
I don¡¯t agree to such views.
Putting Saddam¡¯s atrocities and moral rights/wrongs aside, Saddam defied US ¡®valiantly¡¯ before which may make him an Arab hero but that does not make him super human, Saddam, like most rational human, are afraid to get hurt and afraid to die.
The situation was very much against him, he already accomplished an amazing feat by escaping US forces for eight months, considering US forces are everywhere in Iraq. He no longer had large army protecting him, not even bodyguards (unlike his sons who fought back and was killed together with bodyguards), Saddam was also trapped in a hole with only 1 entrance/exit ¨C and that was block by his enemies, where else he could go?
Moreover, as reported, Saddam quickly identified himself just seconds before US forces threw in grenades to ensure no harm will befall on US forces. So Saddam was really forced into capture, no shame or humiliation for that.
Who is not afraid to die? Very few indeed, does the Arabs really still believe in those Saddam propaganda and bullshit that he is not afraid to die? Those are made for TV/media when he is still in power and possibility of death/capture is never in his mind, it is a very different story when you are the no. 1 wanted man in Iraq escaping from the US forces, no good food, shelter, water or entourage of bodyguards for many many months.
Showing Saddam¡¯s medical check up is also not ¡®humiliation¡¯ to Arabs, only showing standard of care giving to POW by Coalition/US forces, his interrogation was not showed on international TV or was Saddam paraded in a humiliating way.
Some Arab¡¯s insistence that Saddam should commit suicide or fight to the death when Saddam is already a very defeated man with no other means of escape is not only irrational, it also incites greater hatred and glorifies suicide bombing against innocent civilians.
Arabs and Muslim all over the world sometimes should ask themselves whether are the world portraying them in the wrong light or it is they themselves that prefer to die a pointless and violent death, especially against innocent civilians. -
Any suggestions / reasons why West Asia is the most 'troublesome' and dangerous region of Asia and also the world ?
Because of Arab-Israel conflict only?
traditional violent nature of the culture there ?
Shi'ite-Sunni conflict?
blame it on how colonial powers carved out West Asia (aka mid-east) and North Africa?
I welcome all views, especially from a Muslim's or Arab perspective . -
Originally posted by Rob Chen:
i m new here! and no muslim
Any suggestions / reasons [b]why West Asia is the most 'troublesome' and dangerous region of Asia and also the world ?
Because of Arab-Israel conflict only?
traditional violent nature of the culture there ?
Shi'ite-Sunni conflict?
blame it on how colonial powers carved out West Asia (aka mid-east) and North Africa?
I welcome all views, especially from a Muslim's or Arab perspective .[/b]
However, my views are simple, Arab-Israel fight will not end soon,
Yes, UK, France and UK should take some blame when carving out West Asia, putting different tribes with different religious sects under a same country
( West Asia is the true name within the Asia Continent for the western term 'Middle-east' - am i right ?)
I also think muslims' violent culture may be a little responsible too!
-
Originally posted by Linda L:
Linda, u r very right,
i m new here! and no muslim
However, my views are simple, Arab-Israel fight will not end soon,
Yes, UK, France and UK should take some blame when carving out West Asia, putting different tribes with different religious sects under a same country
( West Asia is the true name within the Asia Continent for the western term 'Middle-east' - am i right ?)
I[b] also think muslims' violent culture may be a little responsible too!
[/b]
West Asia is the true name of 'Middle East',
'Middle East', like 'Far East' which means East Asia (Jap, Greater China, 2 Koreas, Mongolia) are just laymen terms used by Americans and some other Westerners.
Western Media (affecting even some SE Asian media) used it as if 'Middle East' is a real name for a separate region/continent, it is not true since 'Mid-east' is only West Asia, like 'Far East' means East Asia.