<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Based on your strict reasoning, we should not have participated in WW2 and let germany just gas all those jews, and japan gas all those chinese<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the flaw: It was Germany which started WW2 and not any other country. The USA was in a defensive war against Germany, while today they are the aggressors. The allies DID let Germany gas jews, they didn't bother about it during the war. There was not one air mission against the logistic of concentration camps. And to say correctly, it was the Soviet Union that freed the Jews from the Concentration camps and not the USA.
Whatever reasons you may give for that war against Iraq, it is a violation of international law and a crime against humanity in itself. The problem is that there ARE alternatives to that war which many Americans do not want to accept.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here's the flaw: It was Germany which started WW2 and not any other country. The USA was in a defensive war against Germany, while today they are the aggressors. The allies DID let Germany gas jews, they didn't bother about it during the war. There was not one air mission against the logistic of concentration camps. And to say correctly, it was the Soviet Union that freed the Jews from the Concentration camps and not the USA.
Whatever reasons you may give for that war against Iraq, it is a violation of international law and a crime against humanity in itself. The problem is that there ARE alternatives to that war which many Americans do not want to accept. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are at best arguing semantics, but in reality you're just mistaken. How is defending britain during a war which germany started, followed up by the US invading and subduing germany any different than the US defending kuwait during a war which Iraq started, followed up by the US invading and subduing Iraq?
It is not a violation of international law. Iraq signed legal cease-fire agreements in 1991 to abide by removing all weapons of mass destruction and other points. That cease-fire was rendered null and void by their inaction, and if anyone brings it to the world court in the Hague it will be upheld. <i>That's why nobody has bothered.</i> The 'violation of international law' slogans are just rhetoric, mouthed by people with no knowledge of international law.
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Mar 19 2003, 09:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Mar 19 2003, 09:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think what has disturbed me most, as one who is not Left-thinking, is that the general anti-war movement, within the U.S., doesn't really have a single voice. There are louder voices, like Hollywood celebrities, but they don't practice any real form of leadership. They just walk up to a camera and spew rhetoric. There are a few Congress people and Senators who have been fully against any military action, but I doubt if any one of the protesters could even give you their names. The Democrat leadership in the House has backtracked and flipflopped so many times that NOBODY believes anything coming out of their mouths anymore. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah I would say your right about that. I wouldnt be supprised if there is a split in the democratic party about this war. Look at how some democrats look at Tom Daschel when he was calling our President a failure.
I think it will result in an even larger republican majority in congress and bush wining in 2004.
Oh no I came late for the gravy train and all the good arguments have been put up and shot down <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyways, I read the whole salon article, thanks for the link. And it put many a doubt and question I am carrying into the light. That author is a brainy guy, he seemed to nail down just about all lose nails in the boardwalk. I now see the demonstrations against war as loud protest against USA's ways of acting, specifically Bush's way of conducting business. I still question his and his administrations motives, but it's too easy to knee-jerk against war for the sake of saying No. Any sane person says no to war unless they're really deep into the finer aspects of waging it. But I can also see a pragmatic angle on it: how can we deny the iraqi's a chance to escape the iron boot of a harsh dictator by actively advocating for a status quo policy that we know is costing thousands their lives each year? I can't any longer, and that is why I am now a wary proponent of the war. Wary because I fear the shite is going to hit the fan and a lot of unforeseen consequences will come out of it. At the best it is an uneasy marriage of Bushism where the side effect is that Iraqis are liberated from a tyrant. Not that I for one second believe that anyone waging this war really care a bit about the iraqi's for their own sake. All they worry about is not upsetting all the arab countries by killing too many civilians. But hey, if that's what it takes to save their lives, then I can live with it. But there are other aspects...
Who here believes Turkey will abuse the chance to venture into northern iraq and rough up the kurds? I do. Who here suspects this might cause some sort of trouble in Iran where liberals and orthodox muslims are fighting a so far non bloody battle for reforms or against reforms? I do. Who fears what might go wrong in Saudia Arabia when the oppressed masses rebel against their tyrant rulers? I do. I think the proverbial poweder keg in the middle east might blow up in all our faces if USA missteps in this situation. In the end I hope 24 mio iraqis remain around 24 mio iraqi's minus one dictator. But! His regime has a very rigid structure, and if he is gone, there are many ready to take his place. They simply have too much to lose if they were finding them selves as ordinary citizens all of a sudden. there gotta be helluva lot of pent up anger in Iraq. And it will become the night of the long knives when Saddam is gone.
Is it a bad idea to have oppressed people rise up and demand civil rights and their MTV? Or for women to have the right not be stoned to death in a backwards village because they had sex outside of marriage? Is it ok if you're allowed to VOTE for the ruler that you want? Or not have all your country's abundant energy resources flushed down the drain in a massive military buildup for wars with your neighbors and nearby israelis? Can you imagine what the Arabs could do to that desert if instead of wasting all that cash wasted on French and German nuclear power plants and instead irrigated that wasteland they call a country? It would make the Israeli green rennaissance of the 1940's look like a backyard garden plot. My god, all the possibilities they have wasted for 70 years, and no one wants to give them the slightest chance.
I am going to be traveling in europe in may (getting married). I'll be sure to bring along some pictures of crowds of happy, liberated people crowding around trying to give flowers to a couple of bewildered Marine Lance Corporals. Because that's what is going to be happening. It doesn't matter if Bush is doing this to protect the US economy or avenge his pop - children will get a chance to grow up with a fear of their parents being dragged off in the night to be tortured and killed, and the mideast will have its first arab democracy ever.
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 20 2003, 06:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 20 2003, 06:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The allies DID let Germany gas jews, they didn't bother about it during the war. There was not one air mission against the logistic of concentration camps. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I must object to this statement. The Allies did not know about the concentration camps until they started beating the germans back into german territory, and until poland was liberated. Not even the people who lived a few miles away from the concentration camps, who smelt the ashes and such, knew about it (or at least, claimed they knew nothing). A few people did know, Hitler, Goebles, the SS, Schindler etc etc, but they did a fine job of keeping the largest systematic destruction of human life a secret until they were defeated.
You cant help those that you dont know need help.
Thats all, I'll just step out of this debate now...
I just re-read this article for about the 4th time. It's some of the most damned persuasive stuff I've ever seen. I wish there was some way to get more people out there to read it ...
<!--QuoteBegin--Zergling+Mar 21 2003, 01:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zergling @ Mar 21 2003, 01:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Imperialism, stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Imperalism? You mean when Europe screwed up everything in the Middle East? You mean the reason why people in the 3rd world cant feed themselves. Why we have to send forces all over the world?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 20 2003, 09:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 20 2003, 09:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am going to be traveling in europe in may (getting married). I'll be sure to bring along some pictures of crowds of happy, liberated people crowding around trying to give flowers to a couple of bewildered Marine Lance Corporals. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What are you talking about? Liberated Europeans? eh? Or are you refering to WW2 which ended 60 years ago and which you like to refer to in the USA every time you are criticised? If so, it is not mainly the USA that liberated those countries...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->or at least, claimed they knew nothing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the point! It is an absolute lie that the Germans did not know about what was going on. Moreover, the allies had 1) Intelligence reports 2) Spy plane reports 3) Witness reports 4) Government reports (with the liberation of Italy a lot of them) etc. etc.
"Starting a war is THE GREATEST CRIME IN HUMAN HISTORY EVER. "
Wrong. Wrong. Utterly totally and unsupportably wrong. The scale of the crime if there is one, is dictated by the conduct of the war. People sit in their comfortable, wealthy democracies and imagine war is the only and ultimate crime. Most of the world's population lives in hell, imposed on them by corrupt sadists growing obscene on the blood of their own people, and we sit in our comfortable homes whining about how "democracy is a joke and corporations run our lives and consumerism is wrong and war is always always the worst of all possible things". We sit without fear of death squads killing our children, or our wives being stoned on SUSPICION of adultery, or our daughters being subjected to FGM, or our food running out, or someone nailing the doors shut and burning our house with us in it because we do not conform. We do not act to save those people because we imagine war is worse.
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
This discussion is useless..
Sorry to say that, but Mr.Evil, most things that you say are... not realy wrong, but not complete. Your example with the 2WW is a little bit out of place. In the 2WW Germany was the agressor and a real danger for the USA. Now the iraq isnt a danger. You can turn it how you want but the iraq wasnt and isnt able to attack the USA. Wich means, this war us not self defense. The only other way to legitimate the war was that the UN security Council allows that war. But they didnt. This means this war is illegal. The other thing, im against sadam hussein and i think its a good thing that the USA kill him. But i think the way the USA are doing it, is completely wrong. The iraq cooperated with the UN inspectors, more or less. But you cannnot start a war just because you THINK that the iraq has mass destrucion waepons. But the USA had to begin the war, they spendet too much money in the to stop it. And now the oil will be theyrs.
So, i just wanted to say, those "leftist" are not for hussein, they are as much as you against him and know what he has done. But they also know what the USA has done (example.. you bring torture as a argument against the iraq, the USA is also using Torture and has the electro chair and so...), and they dont think that actualy war is the good solution. There were enough other possibilities to disarm hussein. I dont say that im completely against war, when its nescesary, im for, but actauly it wasnt nescesary.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "Starting a war is THE GREATEST CRIME IN HUMAN HISTORY EVER. "
Wrong. Wrong. Utterly totally and unsupportably wrong. The scale of the crime if there is one, is dictated by the conduct of the war. People sit in their comfortable, wealthy democracies and imagine war is the only and ultimate crime. Most of the world's population lives in hell, imposed on them by corrupt sadists growing obscene on the blood of their own people, and we sit in our comfortable homes whining about how "democracy is a joke and corporations run our lives and consumerism is wrong and war is always always the worst of all possible things". We sit without fear of death squads killing our children, or our wives being stoned on SUSPICION of adultery, or our daughters being subjected to FGM, or our food running out, or someone nailing the doors shut and burning our house with us in it because we do not conform. We do not act to save those people because we imagine war is worse.
I hate us all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is truth. Beware those of ill-logic.
#1Is this war right?(if that word means anything) Yes and no(see #2) , it does bring some good to the world. Did we go about it totally wrong? Yes, there was a lot of bad foreign policy here. Does everyone hate us? Not really, we still have large backing, and even then, there has been mostly smaller protests on the home front.
#2 We are at war, are we right in our actions? NO war is ever right...people die. But maybe, maybe..while we are getting our own interets(we are a country, OF COURSE we are gona look out for our selves over all others) accomplished, we might do some good in the middle east.
All these protesters.....what do the hope to accomplish? I am willing to bet not a single one of them will even attempt to get heavily politactly involved in our government and try to change anything. People are too lazy to actually care, and thats a problem. We have a governemt with its good and bad points...but we can change, though it takes alot of work and time.
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 21 2003, 08:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 21 2003, 08:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 20 2003, 09:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 20 2003, 09:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am going to be traveling in europe in may (getting married). I'll be sure to bring along some pictures of crowds of happy, liberated people crowding around trying to give flowers to a couple of bewildered Marine Lance Corporals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What are you talking about? Liberated Europeans? eh? Or are you refering to WW2 which ended 60 years ago and which you like to refer to in the USA every time you are criticised? If so, it is not mainly the USA that liberated those countries... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Liberated Iraqi's, naturally. I figured that was perfectly clear from the context of the sentence. Not to mention that US Marines did not fight in europe in WW2. Nobody was talking about european warfare, but good kneejerk reaction.
Asraniel - are you going to tell me that you can read that article and feel no sympathy for the iraqi people? Or that somehow the US government is the same as the iraqi government? Or that based on the last 12 years that iraq has complied with the ceasefire and allowed true instpections (Hans Blix would not agree with you).
I keep asking the more left-leaning people how they would disarm iraq, free its people, and prevent hussein and his sons from ruling iraq forever. I still have not gotten one good answer from any of you, and I doubt I ever will. But I'll keep waiting.
On the general topic of left and right, wasn't left originally to denote those in favour of change in principle, and right to denote conservatism? So often today it is the opposite, the "left" are arch conservatives, and only the "conservatives" take real action (right or wrong). Surely this was not always the case.
On the topic of war, hypothetical: if someone puts a bullet in the head of the man who raped my wife in a government cell, do I care what the shooters motives were? No. Will the Iraqis? No. If I am starving, do I care that the thousands of tonnes of Australian grain about to land at port are seen as a political stunt? Well, lets see. Will the taint of suspect motives render it inedible? No? Then I don't care.
But hey, maybe that's just me. My proirities are all scewy.
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
Well, Mr.Evil, dont missunderstand me, when war is the only solution im for. But there were enough possibilities. Like continue the inspections. I dont say that would realy work, but i think we should try every possibility and war should be the last one, but in this case it was nearly the first one.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 21 2003, 03:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 21 2003, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Asraniel - are you going to tell me that you can read that article and feel no sympathy for the iraqi people? Or that somehow the US government is the same as the iraqi government? Or that based on the last 12 years that iraq has complied with the ceasefire and allowed true instpections (Hans Blix would not agree with you). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well the US government represents to me crystalized hypocrisy when it comes to Iraq - but earlier in this thread I think we already agreed that hypocrisy is a common sightning in the World of Politics, no matter what country. Do I remember wrong when I believe there was some sort of urging rebellion from the US administration after the Kuwait War of '91 - and a complete lack of support by said administration when iraqi's rebelled and got brutally suppressed?
I can sympathize with the Iraqis and hope that the war being fought now will lead to them being liberated, having better lives, perhaps even the Middle East getting a stable solid and wealthy democracy. And I hope the war will not open too large schisms in the world as a consequence. Already the unity of Europe is creaking and all are being sour faced - idjits. I hope it does not spread and we soon can get on with our wary mellowness. But I will still reserve every right to think that George W. "Butcher" is the king pin of one of the worst bigotist and myopic administrations to rule america in my life (as seen from a foreigners point of view). Call me an old leftist hypocrit then - I am clearly not guilty of worse crimes than anyone else around, then. And I'll throw in France for good measure, to show you all that I am not anti-american as much as I am anti-Bush. And anti-Chirac. Geez, how EU would be a nicer place if Chirac was a BIT more interested in creating some consensus. Luckily for us, the gallic **** is crowing a lot more than he pecks <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
[edit] Bloody heck. I can't even make a tounge-in-cheek pun of the gallic man-chicken AKA a ****. The symbol of gaul/france has been the proud man-chicken ruling over his roost. [/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I keep asking the more left-leaning people how they would disarm iraq, free its people, and prevent hussein and his sons from ruling iraq forever. I still have not gotten one good answer from any of you, and I doubt I ever will. But I'll keep waiting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well there really isn't any way. Pop their heads off by some clandestine operation - which is just about impossible - or remove them in a war. I can ignore that it's Bush and his cronies that are doing it and just look at the results. My own country is supporting the war and offering 1 submarine, 1 corvette (a ship class) and a field hospital under american command. Which is really little, but my goodness our government are getting a LOT OF grief because of it by knee-jerkers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do I remember wrong when I believe there was some sort of urging rebellion from the US administration after the Kuwait War of '91 - and a complete lack of support by said administration when iraqi's rebelled and got brutally suppressed? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just a side note as it's fairly off-topic, but the protected nothern area of iraq ('Kurdistan') is full of people who revolted against saddam's regime and have enjoyed freedom from the iraqi army, government, and everything else due to American aircraft and aid for 12 years. The northern half of the country is basically a separate country under a protectorate of the US and Britain. So while you're correct in regards to the south, the north is a different story. That it's wrong and that we should have gone all out in the last war to finish the job is both correct, and a different topic.
/Back on:
Popping of heads with assasination isn't going to work - see the topic 'Why We Fight' on Husseins sons and family groomed for succession. Removing saddam just gives you saddam jr. Removing the entire government and occupying the country ala 1945 Japan and Germany? Proven results with democracy. Go ahead and roll your eyes at me europeans that we keep bringing up that broken record, but it was barely 2 generations ago, and the fact that you're even talking to us right now is a direct result of forcibly implemented democracy. The germans and japanese people were not able to do it for themselves, and neither are the iraqi's.
If you don't like BUsh - hey man, that's democracy. Not liking people and that being ok is what the US constitution is all about. But not liking bush and letting that be your reason to have millions of iraqis held in a police state, tortured, raped, murdered, poison gassed, and forced to fight the iranians? Disgusting and inhuman.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 21 2003, 04:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 21 2003, 04:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just a side note as it's fairly off-topic, but the protected nothern area of iraq ('Kurdistan') is full of people who revolted against saddam's regime and have enjoyed freedom from the iraqi army, government, and everything else due to American aircraft and aid for 12 years. The northern half of the country is basically a separate country under a protectorate of the US and Britain. So while you're correct in regards to the south, the north is a different story. That it's wrong and that we should have gone all out in the last war to finish the job is both correct, and a different topic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thank you MonsieurEncyclopædiEvil <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->/Back on:
Popping of heads with assasination isn't going to work - see the topic 'Why We Fight' on Husseins sons and family groomed for succession. Removing saddam just gives you saddam jr. Removing the entire government and occupying the country ala 1945 Japan and Germany? Proven results with democracy. Go ahead and roll your eyes at me europeans that we keep bringing up that broken record, but it was barely 2 generations ago, and the fact that you're even talking to us right now is a direct result of forcibly implemented democracy. The germans and japanese people were not able to do it for themselves, and neither are the iraqi's. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I merely suggested the assasination as an alternative, but as I described somewhere in some of the loooooong discussions around here, I do not believe that will work. Too many have too much to lose by a reform of power in Iraq so that it will not happen by itself. I am still puzzled on how East Germany managed to crack like it did. That state was so souped up in corruption and STASI informers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you don't like BUsh - hey man, that's democracy. Not liking people and that being ok is what the US constitution is all about. But not liking bush and letting that be your reason to have millions of iraqis held in a police state, tortured, raped, murdered, poison gassed, and forced to fight the iranians? Disgusting and inhuman.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No it was lottery >_<. Anyways, I am - as you - sad to see that so many people react with hostility towards the war without reasoning. But for many people I believe it is in large part due to Bush - they don't like him and therefore anything he does must have some underhanded purpose. Their disdain towards the current american administration is clouding their good judgement.
I would disagree with the statement that most people have any good judgement. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
And I agree with you basically on the rest. There are some examples of dictatorships toppling without invasion. Most people here are too young to remember Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Bulgaria, and other eastern european communist totalitarian states falling in the 80's. BUt the reason that happened was that they were surrounded by free western neighbors and longed for the same. Iraq will be the first mideast arab democracy - it has no examples to see, as all its neighbors are run by kings and religious councils as well. Hopefully this will begin the '21st century Domino Effect', already brewing in Iran for certain. It certainly happened that way in eastern europe once the ball got rolling after 50 years of pressure...
I suppose if I really sat down here and wrote long and hard, I could prove that every single toppled dictatorship was due to external influence. Maybe I'll do that if I get too many people saying 'not true', then failing to provide any evidence (as usual >_<).
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 21 2003, 10:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 21 2003, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hopefully this will begin the '21st century Domino Effect', <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yes it surely will, but in a different manner than you suppose it to happen. I am <i>really</i> scared of the upcoming consequences. The threat of new terrorist attacks will rise exponentially all over the West. New wars are to come all over the globe with whatever justification and new Dictatorships will be backed up by the powerful in order to meet its needs. That's my view and the view of about 80% of the world's population. And that is the reason why we are against the war.
Great posts Immacolata, I find myself nodding to nearly everything you say. MonsE, your knowledge astounds.
Don't forget! You can hate Bush and be pro this war! Bush is a slimeball that appears to be motivated for personal revenge and money. However, he's doing the right thing here...even if it may be for the wrong reasons.
Lefties (including me I guess): fight for human rights, don't find Bush's evillness. Which is more important?
Such strange bedfellows - Flayra and I are usually in disagreement on everything left and right! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Well said, Charlie.
As for your point eggmac... not attacking terrorists and dictators because it might anger them? Nevermind that it makes no logical or historical sense (I would submit that attacking dictators like ghadaffi, tojo, hitler, mussillini, and many others certainly put an end to their attacking us), but also just means you stick your heads in the sand and say to teh world: 'we don't care about you at all. If you don't attack us with your crazed uncontrollable state-sponsored terrorists, we will leave you alone'. Utter naivete.
These evil governments and leaders operate through force and inspiration of fear. If you show fear and cower, they, like any bully, take it as a sign of weakness and press harder. And stabilizing the mideast with its first arab democracy ever is certainly not going to cause more terrorism. I fail to understand any of your arguments here in the slightest as they seem to be based purely on emotion and not the least on thought. Correct me if I'm wrong - not trying to be insulting, just saying what I see.
And being with 80% of the world's population - who has gathered that statistic reliably? I'm sure I'd notice 5 billion people marching in protest. I'll wager if the economies weren't so bad you wouldn't have so many marchers with nothing better to do, or students looking to skip out of class and impress girls with their moral outrage ala 1968.
The problem I see when you try and say the war is justified for humanitarian reason is that there are much worse places on earth that the U.S. is doing precisely jack about. See my earlier reference to machete massacres going on in Africa right now.
And as for the claim that we're going to turn Iraq into a stable democracy through war, <a href='http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/14/MN22108.DTL' target='_blank'>well it's not very likely.</a>
If you read that whole article, you get this final quote (one of the few times I can agree with a litteral bush statement):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush has responded to such assessments by assailing the "soft bigotry of low expectations." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i.e. 'Those dumb darkies aren't smart enough to be democratic' is what your paper says. Pure racism, nothing more. Well, after decades of continuous warfare and some of the most barabaric behavior in the history of the human race, plus an absence of democracy in their society for the better part of 2000 years, both Germany and Japan are now model citizens. Feel free to explain.
As for the ridiculus attitude that the US doesn't do enough for humanitarianism elsewhere, so we aren't allowed to do it here, I say: get hot making a difference. We can't be everywhere at once, but we're working on it. Although it willl just be classified it as imperialism at that point. I am especially intersted in hearing about what place on earth is worse for human rights than Iraq, considering that once you become a land of imprisonment and torture of olympic athletes for losing a soccer game, saying somewhere is is worse is 100% subjective.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 21 2003, 03:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 21 2003, 03:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i.e. 'Those dumb darkies aren't smart enough to be democratic' is what your paper says. Pure racism, nothing more. Well, after decades of continuous warfare and some of the most barabaric behavior in the history of the human race, plus an absence of democracy in their society for the better part of 2000 years, both Germany and Japan are now model citizens. Feel free to explain.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you're wrong about that.
Please note that we do not know EVERYTHING! The CIA and Pentagon most definately know more about Iraq and such than we do, and saying that this war is not in self-defense is definately false.
1) Saddam has never destroyed his WoMD's (or at least proven it). Guess what, missiles and agents dont 'disappear.' What's to stop him from selling it to terrorists and attacking via carbomb?
2) Based on his past history, he has been known to aggressively attack countries (Kuwait?) even when he said that 'he wants only peace and no aggression.' --------------- <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as for the claim that we're going to turn Iraq into a stable democracy through war, well it's not very likely. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's right, we should just back off or let the country fall into anarchy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's called oil and freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Anti-American Sentiment? Radical Muslims aside, how many people do you think will throw down freedom just because America gave it to them? The thing is, people learn from their mistakes.
---------
But then again, this topic has nothing to do with the war. It has to do with leftist values.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Critics say even establishing a democratic government in Iraq will be extremely difficult. Iraq is made up of ethnic groups deeply hostile to one another. Ever since its inception in 1932, the country has known little but bloody coups and brutal dictators. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq will not look the same after the campaing it will not be one large country. The reason why countries have ethnic groups that hate each other in it is because of Britan France Italy and Germany. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By some estimates, 65 million adults in the Mideast can't read or write, and 14 million are unemployed, with an exploding, poorly educated youth population. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know alot of democracies started with everybody having an education. ie US and Britan
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Middle East societies are riven" by political, economic and social problems that are likely to undermine stability "regardless of the nature of any externally influenced or spontaneous, indigenous change," the report said, according to the source. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like how the author dosent really quote the whole sentence he goes like "we have weapons" of mass destruction and "will use" them on any "arab" nation. Most societies do break down a bit when thier are political, economical and social problems. But i think with nationalism and making states on ethnic poplulation will make the communities stronger.
That article sucks if i wrote something like that in highschool i would have gotten an F.
Comments
Here's the flaw: It was Germany which started WW2 and not any other country. The USA was in a defensive war against Germany, while today they are the aggressors.
The allies DID let Germany gas jews, they didn't bother about it during the war. There was not one air mission against the logistic of concentration camps. And to say correctly, it was the Soviet Union that freed the Jews from the Concentration camps and not the USA.
Whatever reasons you may give for that war against Iraq, it is a violation of international law and a crime against humanity in itself. The problem is that there ARE alternatives to that war which many Americans do not want to accept.
/me points to previous post. Get your own damn thread.
The allies DID let Germany gas jews, they didn't bother about it during the war. There was not one air mission against the logistic of concentration camps. And to say correctly, it was the Soviet Union that freed the Jews from the Concentration camps and not the USA.
Whatever reasons you may give for that war against Iraq, it is a violation of international law and a crime against humanity in itself. The problem is that there ARE alternatives to that war which many Americans do not want to accept.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are at best arguing semantics, but in reality you're just mistaken. How is defending britain during a war which germany started, followed up by the US invading and subduing germany any different than the US defending kuwait during a war which Iraq started, followed up by the US invading and subduing Iraq?
It is not a violation of international law. Iraq signed legal cease-fire agreements in 1991 to abide by removing all weapons of mass destruction and other points. That cease-fire was rendered null and void by their inaction, and if anyone brings it to the world court in the Hague it will be upheld. <i>That's why nobody has bothered.</i> The 'violation of international law' slogans are just rhetoric, mouthed by people with no knowledge of international law.
I am still waiting to hear your alternatives.
Yeah I would say your right about that. I wouldnt be supprised if there is a split in the democratic party about this war. Look at how some democrats look at Tom Daschel when he was calling our President a failure.
I think it will result in an even larger republican majority in congress and bush wining in 2004.
Anyways, I read the whole salon article, thanks for the link. And it put many a doubt and question I am carrying into the light. That author is a brainy guy, he seemed to nail down just about all lose nails in the boardwalk. I now see the demonstrations against war as loud protest against USA's ways of acting, specifically Bush's way of conducting business. I still question his and his administrations motives, but it's too easy to knee-jerk against war for the sake of saying No. Any sane person says no to war unless they're really deep into the finer aspects of waging it. But I can also see a pragmatic angle on it: how can we deny the iraqi's a chance to escape the iron boot of a harsh dictator by actively advocating for a status quo policy that we know is costing thousands their lives each year? I can't any longer, and that is why I am now a wary proponent of the war. Wary because I fear the shite is going to hit the fan and a lot of unforeseen consequences will come out of it. At the best it is an uneasy marriage of Bushism where the side effect is that Iraqis are liberated from a tyrant. Not that I for one second believe that anyone waging this war really care a bit about the iraqi's for their own sake. All they worry about is not upsetting all the arab countries by killing too many civilians. But hey, if that's what it takes to save their lives, then I can live with it. But there are other aspects...
Who here believes Turkey will abuse the chance to venture into northern iraq and rough up the kurds? I do. Who here suspects this might cause some sort of trouble in Iran where liberals and orthodox muslims are fighting a so far non bloody battle for reforms or against reforms? I do. Who fears what might go wrong in Saudia Arabia when the oppressed masses rebel against their tyrant rulers? I do. I think the proverbial poweder keg in the middle east might blow up in all our faces if USA missteps in this situation. In the end I hope 24 mio iraqis remain around 24 mio iraqi's minus one dictator. But! His regime has a very rigid structure, and if he is gone, there are many ready to take his place. They simply have too much to lose if they were finding them selves as ordinary citizens all of a sudden. there gotta be helluva lot of pent up anger in Iraq. And it will become the night of the long knives when Saddam is gone.
GOOD GOOD GOOD!!!
Is it a bad idea to have oppressed people rise up and demand civil rights and their MTV? Or for women to have the right not be stoned to death in a backwards village because they had sex outside of marriage? Is it ok if you're allowed to VOTE for the ruler that you want? Or not have all your country's abundant energy resources flushed down the drain in a massive military buildup for wars with your neighbors and nearby israelis? Can you imagine what the Arabs could do to that desert if instead of wasting all that cash wasted on French and German nuclear power plants and instead irrigated that wasteland they call a country? It would make the Israeli green rennaissance of the 1940's look like a backyard garden plot. My god, all the possibilities they have wasted for 70 years, and no one wants to give them the slightest chance.
I am going to be traveling in europe in may (getting married). I'll be sure to bring along some pictures of crowds of happy, liberated people crowding around trying to give flowers to a couple of bewildered Marine Lance Corporals. Because that's what is going to be happening. It doesn't matter if Bush is doing this to protect the US economy or avenge his pop - children will get a chance to grow up with a fear of their parents being dragged off in the night to be tortured and killed, and the mideast will have its first arab democracy ever.
I must object to this statement. The Allies did not know about the concentration camps until they started beating the germans back into german territory, and until poland was liberated. Not even the people who lived a few miles away from the concentration camps, who smelt the ashes and such, knew about it (or at least, claimed they knew nothing). A few people did know, Hitler, Goebles, the SS, Schindler etc etc, but they did a fine job of keeping the largest systematic destruction of human life a secret until they were defeated.
You cant help those that you dont know need help.
Thats all, I'll just step out of this debate now...
Imperalism? You mean when Europe screwed up everything in the Middle East? You mean the reason why people in the 3rd world cant feed themselves. Why we have to send forces all over the world?
What are you talking about? Liberated Europeans? eh?
Or are you refering to WW2 which ended 60 years ago and which you like to refer to in the USA every time you are criticised? If so, it is not mainly the USA that liberated those countries...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->or at least, claimed they knew nothing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the point! It is an absolute lie that the Germans did not know about what was going on.
Moreover, the allies had
1) Intelligence reports
2) Spy plane reports
3) Witness reports
4) Government reports (with the liberation of Italy a lot of them)
etc. etc.
But that's not the topic anyway...
Obviously, that hasn't stopped you yet.
Wrong. Wrong. Utterly totally and unsupportably wrong. The scale of the crime if there is one, is dictated by the conduct of the war. People sit in their comfortable, wealthy democracies and imagine war is the only and ultimate crime. Most of the world's population lives in hell, imposed on them by corrupt sadists growing obscene on the blood of their own people, and we sit in our comfortable homes whining about how "democracy is a joke and corporations run our lives and consumerism is wrong and war is always always the worst of all possible things". We sit without fear of death squads killing our children, or our wives being stoned on SUSPICION of adultery, or our daughters being subjected to FGM, or our food running out, or someone nailing the doors shut and burning our house with us in it because we do not conform. We do not act to save those people because we imagine war is worse.
I hate us all.
Sorry to say that, but Mr.Evil, most things that you say are... not realy wrong, but not complete.
Your example with the 2WW is a little bit out of place. In the 2WW Germany was the agressor and a real danger for the USA. Now the iraq isnt a danger. You can turn it how you want but the iraq wasnt and isnt able to attack the USA. Wich means, this war us not self defense.
The only other way to legitimate the war was that the UN security Council allows that war. But they didnt.
This means this war is illegal.
The other thing, im against sadam hussein and i think its a good thing that the USA kill him. But i think the way the USA are doing it, is completely wrong.
The iraq cooperated with the UN inspectors, more or less. But you cannnot start a war just because you THINK that the iraq has mass destrucion waepons.
But the USA had to begin the war, they spendet too much money in the to stop it. And now the oil will be theyrs.
So, i just wanted to say, those "leftist" are not for hussein, they are as much as you against him and know what he has done.
But they also know what the USA has done (example.. you bring torture as a argument against the iraq, the USA is also using Torture and has the electro chair and so...),
and they dont think that actualy war is the good solution. There were enough other possibilities to disarm hussein. I dont say that im completely against war, when its
nescesary, im for, but actauly it wasnt nescesary.
Wrong. Wrong. Utterly totally and unsupportably wrong. The scale of the crime if there is one, is dictated by the conduct of the war. People sit in their comfortable, wealthy democracies and imagine war is the only and ultimate crime. Most of the world's population lives in hell, imposed on them by corrupt sadists growing obscene on the blood of their own people, and we sit in our comfortable homes whining about how "democracy is a joke and corporations run our lives and consumerism is wrong and war is always always the worst of all possible things". We sit without fear of death squads killing our children, or our wives being stoned on SUSPICION of adultery, or our daughters being subjected to FGM, or our food running out, or someone nailing the doors shut and burning our house with us in it because we do not conform. We do not act to save those people because we imagine war is worse.
I hate us all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is truth. Beware those of ill-logic.
#1Is this war right?(if that word means anything) Yes and no(see #2) , it does bring some good to the world.
Did we go about it totally wrong? Yes, there was a lot of bad foreign policy here.
Does everyone hate us? Not really, we still have large backing, and even then, there has been mostly smaller protests on the home front.
#2 We are at war, are we right in our actions? NO war is ever right...people die. But maybe, maybe..while we are getting our own interets(we are a country, OF COURSE we are gona look out for our selves over all others) accomplished, we might do some good in the middle east.
All these protesters.....what do the hope to accomplish? I am willing to bet not a single one of them will even attempt to get heavily politactly involved in our government and try to change anything. People are too lazy to actually care, and thats a problem. We have a governemt with its good and bad points...but we can change, though it takes alot of work and time.
The leftists....well, their values are shifting.
What are you talking about? Liberated Europeans? eh?
Or are you refering to WW2 which ended 60 years ago and which you like to refer to in the USA every time you are criticised? If so, it is not mainly the USA that liberated those countries...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Liberated Iraqi's, naturally. I figured that was perfectly clear from the context of the sentence. Not to mention that US Marines did not fight in europe in WW2. Nobody was talking about european warfare, but good kneejerk reaction.
Asraniel - are you going to tell me that you can read that article and feel no sympathy for the iraqi people? Or that somehow the US government is the same as the iraqi government? Or that based on the last 12 years that iraq has complied with the ceasefire and allowed true instpections (Hans Blix would not agree with you).
I keep asking the more left-leaning people how they would disarm iraq, free its people, and prevent hussein and his sons from ruling iraq forever. I still have not gotten one good answer from any of you, and I doubt I ever will. But I'll keep waiting.
On the topic of war, hypothetical: if someone puts a bullet in the head of the man who raped my wife in a government cell, do I care what the shooters motives were? No. Will the Iraqis? No. If I am starving, do I care that the thousands of tonnes of Australian grain about to land at port are seen as a political stunt? Well, lets see. Will the taint of suspect motives render it inedible? No? Then I don't care.
But hey, maybe that's just me. My proirities are all scewy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the US government represents to me crystalized hypocrisy when it comes to Iraq - but earlier in this thread I think we already agreed that hypocrisy is a common sightning in the World of Politics, no matter what country. Do I remember wrong when I believe there was some sort of urging rebellion from the US administration after the Kuwait War of '91 - and a complete lack of support by said administration when iraqi's rebelled and got brutally suppressed?
I can sympathize with the Iraqis and hope that the war being fought now will lead to them being liberated, having better lives, perhaps even the Middle East getting a stable solid and wealthy democracy. And I hope the war will not open too large schisms in the world as a consequence. Already the unity of Europe is creaking and all are being sour faced - idjits. I hope it does not spread and we soon can get on with our wary mellowness. But I will still reserve every right to think that George W. "Butcher" is the king pin of one of the worst bigotist and myopic administrations to rule america in my life (as seen from a foreigners point of view). Call me an old leftist hypocrit then - I am clearly not guilty of worse crimes than anyone else around, then. And I'll throw in France for good measure, to show you all that I am not anti-american as much as I am anti-Bush. And anti-Chirac. Geez, how EU would be a nicer place if Chirac was a BIT more interested in creating some consensus. Luckily for us, the gallic **** is crowing a lot more than he pecks <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
[edit] Bloody heck. I can't even make a tounge-in-cheek pun of the gallic man-chicken AKA a ****. The symbol of gaul/france has been the proud man-chicken ruling over his roost. [/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I keep asking the more left-leaning people how they would disarm iraq, free its people, and prevent hussein and his sons from ruling iraq forever. I still have not gotten one good answer from any of you, and I doubt I ever will. But I'll keep waiting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well there really isn't any way. Pop their heads off by some clandestine operation - which is just about impossible - or remove them in a war. I can ignore that it's Bush and his cronies that are doing it and just look at the results. My own country is supporting the war and offering 1 submarine, 1 corvette (a ship class) and a field hospital under american command. Which is really little, but my goodness our government are getting a LOT OF grief because of it by knee-jerkers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just a side note as it's fairly off-topic, but the protected nothern area of iraq ('Kurdistan') is full of people who revolted against saddam's regime and have enjoyed freedom from the iraqi army, government, and everything else due to American aircraft and aid for 12 years. The northern half of the country is basically a separate country under a protectorate of the US and Britain. So while you're correct in regards to the south, the north is a different story. That it's wrong and that we should have gone all out in the last war to finish the job is both correct, and a different topic.
/Back on:
Popping of heads with assasination isn't going to work - see the topic 'Why We Fight' on Husseins sons and family groomed for succession. Removing saddam just gives you saddam jr. Removing the entire government and occupying the country ala 1945 Japan and Germany? Proven results with democracy. Go ahead and roll your eyes at me europeans that we keep bringing up that broken record, but it was barely 2 generations ago, and the fact that you're even talking to us right now is a direct result of forcibly implemented democracy. The germans and japanese people were not able to do it for themselves, and neither are the iraqi's.
If you don't like BUsh - hey man, that's democracy. Not liking people and that being ok is what the US constitution is all about. But not liking bush and letting that be your reason to have millions of iraqis held in a police state, tortured, raped, murdered, poison gassed, and forced to fight the iranians? Disgusting and inhuman.
Thank you MonsieurEncyclopædiEvil <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->/Back on:
Popping of heads with assasination isn't going to work - see the topic 'Why We Fight' on Husseins sons and family groomed for succession. Removing saddam just gives you saddam jr. Removing the entire government and occupying the country ala 1945 Japan and Germany? Proven results with democracy. Go ahead and roll your eyes at me europeans that we keep bringing up that broken record, but it was barely 2 generations ago, and the fact that you're even talking to us right now is a direct result of forcibly implemented democracy. The germans and japanese people were not able to do it for themselves, and neither are the iraqi's. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I merely suggested the assasination as an alternative, but as I described somewhere in some of the loooooong discussions around here, I do not believe that will work. Too many have too much to lose by a reform of power in Iraq so that it will not happen by itself. I am still puzzled on how East Germany managed to crack like it did. That state was so souped up in corruption and STASI informers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you don't like BUsh - hey man, that's democracy. Not liking people and that being ok is what the US constitution is all about. But not liking bush and letting that be your reason to have millions of iraqis held in a police state, tortured, raped, murdered, poison gassed, and forced to fight the iranians? Disgusting and inhuman.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it was lottery >_<. Anyways, I am - as you - sad to see that so many people react with hostility towards the war without reasoning. But for many people I believe it is in large part due to Bush - they don't like him and therefore anything he does must have some underhanded purpose. Their disdain towards the current american administration is clouding their good judgement.
And I agree with you basically on the rest. There are some examples of dictatorships toppling without invasion. Most people here are too young to remember Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Bulgaria, and other eastern european communist totalitarian states falling in the 80's. BUt the reason that happened was that they were surrounded by free western neighbors and longed for the same. Iraq will be the first mideast arab democracy - it has no examples to see, as all its neighbors are run by kings and religious councils as well. Hopefully this will begin the '21st century Domino Effect', already brewing in Iran for certain. It certainly happened that way in eastern europe once the ball got rolling after 50 years of pressure...
I suppose if I really sat down here and wrote long and hard, I could prove that every single toppled dictatorship was due to external influence. Maybe I'll do that if I get too many people saying 'not true', then failing to provide any evidence (as usual >_<).
Oh yes it surely will, but in a different manner than you suppose it to happen. I am <i>really</i> scared of the upcoming consequences. The threat of new terrorist attacks will rise exponentially all over the West. New wars are to come all over the globe with whatever justification and new Dictatorships will be backed up by the powerful in order to meet its needs. That's my view and the view of about 80% of the world's population. And that is the reason why we are against the war.
Don't forget! You can hate Bush and be pro this war! Bush is a slimeball that appears to be motivated for personal revenge and money. However, he's doing the right thing here...even if it may be for the wrong reasons.
Lefties (including me I guess): fight for human rights, don't find Bush's evillness. Which is more important?
As for your point eggmac... not attacking terrorists and dictators because it might anger them? Nevermind that it makes no logical or historical sense (I would submit that attacking dictators like ghadaffi, tojo, hitler, mussillini, and many others certainly put an end to their attacking us), but also just means you stick your heads in the sand and say to teh world: 'we don't care about you at all. If you don't attack us with your crazed uncontrollable state-sponsored terrorists, we will leave you alone'. Utter naivete.
These evil governments and leaders operate through force and inspiration of fear. If you show fear and cower, they, like any bully, take it as a sign of weakness and press harder. And stabilizing the mideast with its first arab democracy ever is certainly not going to cause more terrorism. I fail to understand any of your arguments here in the slightest as they seem to be based purely on emotion and not the least on thought. Correct me if I'm wrong - not trying to be insulting, just saying what I see.
And being with 80% of the world's population - who has gathered that statistic reliably? I'm sure I'd notice 5 billion people marching in protest. I'll wager if the economies weren't so bad you wouldn't have so many marchers with nothing better to do, or students looking to skip out of class and impress girls with their moral outrage ala 1968.
And as for the claim that we're going to turn Iraq into a stable democracy through war, <a href='http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/14/MN22108.DTL' target='_blank'>well it's not very likely.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush has responded to such assessments by assailing the "soft bigotry of low expectations." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i.e. 'Those dumb darkies aren't smart enough to be democratic' is what your paper says. Pure racism, nothing more. Well, after decades of continuous warfare and some of the most barabaric behavior in the history of the human race, plus an absence of democracy in their society for the better part of 2000 years, both Germany and Japan are now model citizens. Feel free to explain.
As for the ridiculus attitude that the US doesn't do enough for humanitarianism elsewhere, so we aren't allowed to do it here, I say: get hot making a difference. We can't be everywhere at once, but we're working on it. Although it willl just be classified it as imperialism at that point. I am especially intersted in hearing about what place on earth is worse for human rights than Iraq, considering that once you become a land of imprisonment and torture of olympic athletes for losing a soccer game, saying somewhere is is worse is 100% subjective.
i.e. 'Those dumb darkies aren't smart enough to be democratic' is what your paper says. Pure racism, nothing more. Well, after decades of continuous warfare and some of the most barabaric behavior in the history of the human race, plus an absence of democracy in their society for the better part of 2000 years, both Germany and Japan are now model citizens. Feel free to explain.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you're wrong about that.
Please note that we do not know EVERYTHING! The CIA and Pentagon most definately know more about Iraq and such than we do, and saying that this war is not in self-defense is definately false.
1) Saddam has never destroyed his WoMD's (or at least proven it). Guess what, missiles and agents dont 'disappear.' What's to stop him from selling it to terrorists and attacking via carbomb?
2) Based on his past history, he has been known to aggressively attack countries (Kuwait?) even when he said that 'he wants only peace and no aggression.'
---------------
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as for the claim that we're going to turn Iraq into a stable democracy through war, well it's not very likely. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's right, we should just back off or let the country fall into anarchy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's called oil and freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Anti-American Sentiment? Radical Muslims aside, how many people do you think will throw down freedom just because America gave it to them? The thing is, people learn from their mistakes.
---------
But then again, this topic has nothing to do with the war. It has to do with leftist values.
Iraq will not look the same after the campaing it will not be one large country. The reason why countries have ethnic groups that hate each other in it is because of Britan France Italy and Germany. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By some estimates, 65 million adults in the Mideast can't read or write, and 14 million are unemployed, with an exploding, poorly educated youth population. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know alot of democracies started with everybody having an education. ie US and Britan
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Middle East societies are riven" by political, economic and social problems that are likely to undermine stability "regardless of the nature of any externally influenced or spontaneous, indigenous change," the report said, according to the source. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like how the author dosent really quote the whole sentence he goes like "we have weapons" of mass destruction and "will use" them on any "arab" nation. Most societies do break down a bit when thier are political, economical and social problems. But i think with nationalism and making states on ethnic poplulation will make the communities stronger.
That article sucks if i wrote something like that in highschool i would have gotten an F.