Over 100 killed in recent Iraqi blast

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Car bombs tore through mainly Shi'ite Baghdad districts on Sunday after Iraq's fugitive Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi was sentenced to death, as more than 100 people were killed across the country in one of the bloodiest days this year.

ca.news.yahoo.com...

Wild. This would be international news for a full year if it happened in a "Western" country...

My question is, what if NATO, mainly the US, was still guarding every corner and doing routine patrols though dense areas. Would they have been able to prevent this type of reckless action?

I don't believe for a second they would.

My question is, what if NATO, mainly the US, was still guarding every corner and doing routine patrols though dense areas. Would they have been able to prevent this type of reckless action?

Are you encouraging imperialism? That is what it sounds like. The USA has no business in Iraq, why are you calling for the USA to babysit other countries? You are not the police of the world.

reply to post by InfamousRebel

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I don't believe for a second they would.

I took this to mean that US presence wouldn't have made any difference. Isn't that the opposite of promoting imperialism? Perhaps I read it wrong...

In any case this is sad news.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


I don't believe they could either. The whole situation is sad.

I can't stand the mentality of the perpetrators. Blowing up your country, and countrymen helps nothing!!! It's idiotic no matter what your ideals or religion is.

Originally posted by InfamousRebel

My question is, what if NATO, mainly the US, was still guarding every corner and doing routine patrols though dense areas. Would they have been able to prevent this type of reckless action?

Are you encouraging imperialism? That is what it sounds like. The USA has no business in Iraq, why are you calling for the USA to babysit other countries? You are not the police of the world.

What are you talking about. read my last sentence lol

I'm surprised the death toll was that low. You'd figure muslims would get tired of being blown up by other muslims and tell Allah and his followers to piss off.

Originally posted by Miri08
reply to post by InfamousRebel

 

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I don't believe for a second they would.

I took this to mean that US presence wouldn't have made any difference. Isn't that the opposite of promoting imperialism? Perhaps I read it wrong...

In any case this is sad news.

Dude, they kill eachother when they don't have a threat to focus on. This has always been the Arab way starting with Ishmael and Esau. Even their "peace" is a bloody joke.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Way to generalize.

You do realize that not all Middle Easterners are Arab, right? Iraq is something like 80% Arab with the other 20% Assyrians, Turkish, Kurds and Chaldeans. As for Iran, Something like 55% of the population is of Persian Ethnicity.

Yes there is violence in the Middle East. How do we go from there being violence in the Middle East to the assumption that every "Arab" is violent? That's a pretty skewed way to look at the world.

The Middle east has three major religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Add to that prevalent minority religions like Zoroastrianism and Mandeanism. Then realize that within all those religions you have extremists and other factions.

Now look at the politics. In the Middle East we find: Monarchy in many forms - including absolute, Republics in various forms, and democratic areas.

Add to that economic issues, vast social issues and pressure from "outsiders".

That's a lot of variables in one region, of course there's going to be violence. It's sad when it happens. It's sad when a person kills some people in downtown whatever USA too. It's sad when an idiot decides to blow up a court house.

Violence happens all over the world - That doesn't mean the whole world is violent.