In what countries or occasions have there been transitions from

[Archaea]

a hostile, sectarian violence riddled situations to peaceful, and relatively successful societies.

What factors guaranteed success?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

a hostile, sectarian violence riddled situations to peaceful, and relatively successful societies.

What factors guaranteed success?

tribal warfare probably makes up most of human history.

when has there ever been peace?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

when has there ever been peace?

Two places: Xanadu and orderville.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

tribal warfare probably makes up most of human history.

when has there ever been peace?

There have always been conflicts but the constant, insane assassinations seem extreme.

[woot]

Originally Posted by creekster

Two places: Xanadu and orderville.

I had a mission companion from Orderville. He opened my eyes to a level of hickdom that I thought only existed in Mississippi. In addition to the thick accent, his pastimes growing up were apparently rolling old washing machines down big hills and shooting varmints.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

a hostile, sectarian violence riddled situations to peaceful, and relatively successful societies.

What factors guaranteed success?

The answer has that it has happened many, many times in history. Just not in a way that our modern sensibilities would like.

There is no independent Wales or Flanders or Basque Country or Confederate States of America. At one time these places had independent existences until a larger more powerful neighbor forcefully subjugated them, and in the most successful cases, assimilated them. This is the reason that I think peace keeping missions are a fool's errand.

We can stay in South Korea until the end of time and as soon as we go, there will be an attempt to reunite it.

So my answer to your question is, where there is sectarian violence it doesn't make sense for us to be impartial. If we are being completely pragmatic, the way you get peace is by allowing there to be a civil war and backing the winner. This is why I have thought (probably naively) that we ought to remove ourselves to Kurdistan (which really ought to be its own country) and Kuwait, and then let the rest of Iraq fight until there is a winner.

As much as we hate war, it results in more stability that smoldering hostilities that last forever. The Arabs and Persians understand this. It is the reason their objective is to eradicate Israel rather than live peacefully. They understand that peaceful coexistence is unlikely.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by woot

I had a mission companion from Orderville. He opened my eyes to a level of hickdom that I thought only existed in Mississippi. In addition to the thick accent, his pastimes growing up were apparently rolling old washing machines down big hills and shooting varmints.

Orderville is one of my favorite places in the state of Utah. I love it down there.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

I had a mission companion from Orderville. He opened my eyes to a level of hickdom that I thought only existed in Mississippi. In addition to the thick accent, his pastimes growing up were apparently rolling old washing machines down big hills and shooting varmints.

Shooting varmints can be quite satisfying.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

The answer has that it has happened many, many times in history. Just not in a way that our modern sensibilities would like.

There is no independent Wales or Flanders or Basque Country or Confederate States of America. At one time these places had independent existences until a larger more powerful neighbor forcefully subjugated them, and in the most successful cases, assimilated them. This is the reason that I think peace keeping missions are a fool's errand.

We can stay in South Korea until the end of time and as soon as we go, there will be an attempt to reunite it.

So my answer to your question is, where there is sectarian violence it doesn't make sense for us to be impartial. If we are being completely pragmatic, the way you get peace is by allowing there to be a civil war and backing the winner. This is why I have thought (probably naively) that we ought to remove ourselves to Kurdistan (which really ought to be its own country) and Kuwait, and then let the rest of Iraq fight until there is a winner.

As much as we hate war, it results in more stability that smoldering hostilities that last forever. The Arabs and Persians understand this. It is the reason their objective is to eradicate Israel rather than live peacefully. They understand that peaceful coexistence is unlikely.

You bring up an excellent, though unsavory, point. It could be argued that one of the main reasons the U.S. is such a strong, peaceful, stable, country is because we completely dominated, destroyed, subjugated, etc. those who stood in our way. The treatment of native Americans, the Civil War, and the Mexican-American war are a few examples that come to mind.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

So my answer to your question is, where there is sectarian violence it doesn't make sense for us to be impartial. If we are being completely pragmatic, the way you get peace is by allowing there to be a civil war and backing the winner. This is why I have thought (probably naively) that we ought to remove ourselves to Kurdistan (which really ought to be its own country) and Kuwait, and then let the rest of Iraq fight until there is a winner.

This is exactly what a friend of mine (who is a naturalized citizen from Saudi Arabia) believes. He thinks the US ought to pull it's military out of Iraq and into Kuwait and watch what happens and that when one side has won, the US should immediately show strong support for the winner.

He also believes the US should let all involved in civil war know that if either side tries to do any damage outside the borders of Iraq to anyone other than who is fighting Iraq's civil war, that the US will send them all to hell and claim Iraq for itself.