<!--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-->Yes, good idea you two. Let's talk about that alot, and let's not fix the mess we made. Because talking about our past mistakes and doing nothing helps everyone, right?! Let's not fix it, let's point fingers to 1970, before any of us were born!!!
Bleh. Stop yammering about things from 30 years ago we can't change and offer some solutions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I must admit that around 6 months of debating on here have swayed me. I feel now that removing Saddam probably was a good thing to do, and that righting past wrongs is a just cause. Recent developments seem to indicate that the people behind the Iraq attacks were, or are, indeed Saddam loyalists and there does not seem to be popular support amongst the Iraqi population for their actions. The removal of Saddam, on the grounds that he was a tyrannical murderer, was probably justified.
But that's not why we went to war. We were told that there were WMD in Iraq, and that they, and Saddam needed to be removed because they were a threat to the world. We were also told there were terrorists hiding in Iraq, and that they would be given WMD to use against us. Because of this, we were told Saddam was a clear and present threat to the world, and only war could stop him.
That's why I'm still rather annoyed about the war. The question of whether we were lied to has not yet been answered, but the continueing absence of WMDs in Iraq, or terrorists, has made a lot of people question if what our respective governments told us was true. The end result of the war has been the liberation of the Iraqi people and hopefully, a better chance for all of them in achieveing their goals in life, but does the end justify the means? Is it ok for us to have been lied to so that this result could come about? I'm not so sure.
I said many posts back that many Iraqis do hold the US responsible for putting Saddam where he is and keeping him there. If the US presence in Iraq right now is to correct the damage done in the past, then do you feel that the US is taking the proper course of action to correct the situation?
I see the US presence in Iraq as a hostile occupation of the country. People are under martial law and are forced to abide by US demands. There is what I can only describe as an inquisition to root out "terrorists" in the country. People's privacy is being invaded in the search for weapons and some basic rights are being infringed upon in the numerous arrests without warrant. Checkpoints, etc. Basically, it's a reflection of what is happening to the Palestinians by Israel.
There are differences. There is talk of handing over Iraq to the Iraqi people and forming this democracy which I'm sure you're aware of. Though, I have my doubts about the building of an Iraq for the Iraqi people. A constitution is being drawn up right now by a group of people selected by the United States. Not the Iraqi people. I question the legitimacy of such an article that will form the rules and regulations the future Iraq will have to abide by. Some people on the council I have spoken negatively about, but there are some solid individuals on it that I admire, such as Jalal Talabani. It's a mixed issue, but I'm still leaning against it.
So back to my original question. It's easy to see that the original motivation of the US to influence Iraq was to remove communism in the region. So, taking all of that into account, is the current occupation a humanitarian effort, or is America only looking to satisfy its personal interests again?
I see Saddam on trial as the US being on trial. He is their man.
I'm not Larry or Barre, but I'll still reply <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.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-->I see the US presence in Iraq as a hostile occupation of the country. People are under martial law and are forced to abide by US demands. There is what I can only describe as an inquisition to root out "terrorists" in the country. People's privacy is being invaded in the search for weapons and some basic rights are being infringed upon in the numerous arrests without warrant. Checkpoints, etc. Basically, it's a reflection of what is happening to the Palestinians by Israel. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Allow me this: if you knew for a fact that the US was going to end its occupation of Iraq in 6 months (and you must admit that it would be politically impossible for the US to occupy and control Iraq indefinitely; the popularity of the occupation is barely over 50% in this country, and politicians do not like close margins), would you consider the martial law an acceptable expediency? People's rights, even under martial law, are considerably greater now that they were under Saddam. And if the US leaves and they come into a true democracy, that means that the complete lack of rights under Saddam was replaced with full rights. Do you believe that these rights would have come in the next 6 months if Saddam was still on power? How about 6 years? How about 20 years, when Saddam was dead and one of his sons was running things? 50?
<!--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-->There are differences. There is talk of handing over Iraq to the Iraqi people and forming this democracy which I'm sure you're aware of. Though, I have my doubts about the building of an Iraq for the Iraqi people. A constitution is being drawn up right now by a group of people selected by the United States. Not the Iraqi people. I question the legitimacy of such an article that will form the rules and regulations the future Iraq will have to abide by. Some people on the council I have spoken negatively about, but there are some solid individuals on it that I admire, such as Jalal Talabani. It's a mixed issue, but I'm still leaning against it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're against the iraqi's having democracy and a constitution no matter what? Even if the consitution was an excellent robust document like the magna carta, US or Canadian constitutions? Just because it was fomented by US invasion, it would be worthless? Were you ever taught in school how much of europe got their first constitutions ? I'll give you a hint for further research - much of it is based on Napoleonic Code, spread by Napoleon's invasion of europe and left behind after he was gone.
<!--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-->So back to my original question. It's easy to see that the original motivation of the US to influence Iraq was to remove communism in the region. So, taking all of that into account, is the current occupation a humanitarian effort, or is America only looking to satisfy its personal interests again?
I see Saddam on trial as the US being on trial. He is their man. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's a popular but incorrect statement to say that Saddam was installed by the US. He was not. His support from the US began basically in the late 70's under Carter, when he was used (mistakenly, I believe) as an attempt to keep Iran from being a threat to the US. Before that, for 15 years, we had no real involvement with him at all (not so the British - more research homework for you). Saddam became leader of Iraq without any US assistance, but you are correct in saying that he maintained power for some time with their (and Europe's - don't just say US, the exclusionary rhetoric weakens your argument) assistance. By the way, the US assistance ended after a few years, and he's been an enemy in our sights for 15 years since. Unlike France, Germany, and Russia, which were considerable economic partners before and during that timeframe. Aren't you going to reserve some of your considerable hatred for them too?
1) Sure, the human rights situation has progressed since the fall of saddam, but it could be a good deal better if the US were a bit more lenient. 2) Sure, it is better to have a constitution drawn up by invaders than have no constitution whatsoever, but it could be a good deal better if the UN ( not the US) only had an advisory role. 3) True, both Europe and the Us supported Saddam throughout the eighties, when he comited his largest atrocities ( like the gassing of Kurds, attacking Iran, etc). Economic ties are however, largely beyond the control of states.
Look, comparing the situation to what it was, it is easy to say there is progress. However, it is always good to be critical about the current situation and look for improvements.
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Dec 17 2003, 12:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Dec 17 2003, 12:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I neither Larry nor barr, but what the heck
1) Sure, the human rights situation has progressed since the fall of saddam, but it could be a good deal better if the US were a bit more lenient. 2) Sure, it is better to have a constitution drawn up by invaders than have no constitution whatsoever, but it could be a good deal better if the UN ( not the US) only had an advisory role. 3) True, both Europe and the Us supported Saddam throughout the eighties, when he comited his largest atrocities ( like the gassing of Kurds, attacking Iran, etc). Economic ties are however, largely beyond the control of states.
Look, comparing the situation to what it was, it is easy to say there is progress. However, it is always good to be critical about the current situation and look for improvements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
1) Yes, but you can't have everything all at once. It's a progression which takes some time. Look at Germany and Japan after WW2 - those occupations took the better part of a decade, and we're moving considerably faster than that.
2) I actually think that a single country creating the constitution WITH the Iraqi's is the best. The UN cannot agree on the most meaningless thing, the EU can't come up with a constitution of it's own, and the Iraqi's alone have no real experience in the matter.
3) I humbly but firmly disagree that economic ties are unrelated to states' control. Have you ever heard of political action committees? A state can always control its businesses, if it chooses to. Often times though, politicians give tacit approval the businesses doing bad things, for their own personal gain (kickbacks, constituency jobs, etc.).
And you are 100% correct in your last statement. There's always room for improvement, and healthy debate never hurt anyone. There is, however, also room for giving credit where it is due, and for being understanding of difficulties and compromises. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Thank you Urza. I welcome your response. I just wanted to free myself from having all my views automatically dubbed rhetorical and free myself of the generally rude behaviour of some individual on this forum.
<span style='color:red'> You have one last chance to stop acting like this. You have been warned in PM's several times now, knock off your passive-aggressive behavior, and learn to discuss calmly without taking everything personally. Next stop, no more discussion posting rights. - MonsE</span>
I have no doubts that the situation will improve in Iraq now that Saddam is gone, as you said. I agree with you that it is possible that the Iraqi situation could be better without the US presence. The US is for the most part ignorant of the culture, religion and language of Iraq. The governing council is supposed to bring a little more legitimacy to the whole deal, but they still answer to the US. It would be naive to believe that the governing council can create any constitution without first having it approved by the US administration. The main goal of this war was to liberate the people of Iraq, so that they can create a government that suits them best. If the US has the ability to force a government on them and alter the constitution as they see fit, then it just smells of conquest.
I think the US should hand the reconstruction over to the Arab nations. They are more familiar with the terroritory and any government they create would probably have more legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraq people. Forcing democracy on them is in no way freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 17 2003, 12:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 17 2003, 12:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1) Yes, but you can't have everything all at once. It's a progression which takes some time. Look at Germany and Japan after WW2 - those occupations took the better part of a decade, and we're moving considerably faster than that.
2) I actually think that a single country creating the constitution WITH the Iraqi's is the best. The UN cannot agree on the most meaningless thing, the EU can't come up with a constitution of it's own, and the Iraqi's alone have no real experience in the matter.
3) I humbly but firmly disagree that economic ties are unrelated to states' control. Have you ever heard of political action committees? A state can always control its businesses, if it chooses to. Often times though, politicians give tacit approval the businesses doing bad things, for their own personal gain (kickbacks, constituency jobs, etc.).
And you are 100% correct in your last statement. There's always room for improvement, and healthy debate never hurt anyone. There is, however, also room for giving credit where it is due, and for being understanding of difficulties and compromises. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1) True, progress does take time, but and one should not overrush it. But the best way to make progress is to stimulate democracy, like starting local elections and allow people to demonstrate, in stead of shooting them. The United States as an occupying force should try not to mingle in iraqi policy, but only try to maintain peace and rout out the last pockets of resistance. This will show the iraqis that the US has no intention to take control of the countries resources, or to give contracts to american companies to help their own economy.
2) Well, you are right that there is a lack of agreement in the UN Security Counsil, but that does not prevent the UN to form a commision of various experts from different countries to give advice to the iraqi's.
3) Again, you do have a point <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. On the other hand, the Iraqi's could just as well have imported weapons from other countries, since there was not a boycot until plusminus 1991, and saddam could just as well have imported weapons from the USA.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jamil+Dec 17 2003, 01:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Dec 17 2003, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have no doubts that the situation will improve in Iraq now that Saddam is gone, as you said. I agree with you that it is possible that the Iraqi situation could be better without the US presence. The US is for the most part ignorant of the culture, religion and language of Iraq. The governing council is supposed to bring a little more legitimacy to the whole deal, but they still answer to the US. It would be naive to believe that the governing council can create any constitution without first having it approved by the US administration. The main goal of this war was to liberate the people of Iraq, so that they can create a government that suits them best. If the US has the ability to force a government on them and alter the constitution as they see fit, then it just smells of conquest.
I think the US should hand the reconstruction over to the Arab nations. They are more familiar with the terroritory and any government they create would probably have more legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraq people. Forcing democracy on them is in no way freedom. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Was the US familiar with Japanese language and culture when they were occupied in 1945? Would you consider modern Japan to be a successful democracy, especially compared to its previous military junta? How about Germany? Familiarity is helpful, but not an overwhelming concern in my opinion - even to this day Japan is still a very alien culture to Americans and the rest of the world...
As for handing the reconstruction over to the arab nations... uhhh... which democratic arab nation would you use? At best, Egypt is close to one; not really a democracy, but certainly not a dictatorship or absolute monarchy like all other arab nations. They are pretty poor examples of civil rights, rule by law, and self-governance. Most are not as bad as Saddam, but none are all that wonderful.
Urza - good points, especially with number 1. I agree that Bush and the US State department have often bungled the democratization process in Iraq, and are only now beginning to make any real progress. Hopefully with the renewed optimism and security of Saddam finally being captured, the focus can expand faster to spreading the democratic ideal. Hell, a lot of it comes down to simple education. I don't believe most middle easterners have any concept of what democracy is, and certainly those in Iraq were not taught the truth about it by Saddam.
If the Iraqi people don't want a democracy, they'll probably undermine it. You can try, but you cannot force a democracy on a people and expect it to work. Just look what happened with the Weimar Republic. I see it preferable to try and set up a democracy, though, than leave a power vaccuum in Iraq. It would probably be snapped up by another dictator, and we're back to square one. We might as well try to do some good while we're there.
I agree that the US should take heed of any aid the region can offer, but I'm not convinced that they should just pull out and leave it to them. Given Iraq's history of tension and conflict with its neighbours, I'd have thought that it would be just as humiliating having them take over.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Dec 15 2003, 09:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Dec 15 2003, 09:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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 ignore 15 years of evidence from impartial scientists, health workers, survivors, and captured iraqi military?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, the US ignored that when they said Iraq had WMD... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem though, is that Saddam with his right hand would say he did not have any WMD's... That they had destroyed them all. Then, his left hand would do things that contradicted his Right... Whether it would be a lack of evidence supporting his Right's statements or real actions that were meant to give the impression that what his Right was saying was not the whole truth.
Saddam was playing poker... He bluffed... Put all his chips on the table... The US called his bluff... And the rest is history.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 17 2003, 12:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 17 2003, 12:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, good idea you two. Let's talk about that alot, and let's not fix the mess we made. Because talking about our past mistakes and doing nothing helps everyone, right?! Let's not fix it, let's point fingers to 1970, before any of us were born!!!
Bleh. Stop yammering about things from 30 years ago we can't change and offer some solutions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Here's the thing though. Is it better to treat the symptoms of a disease, or the root cause ?
Sure we need to fix the mess we made. My point is that in doing so we should take note of why the mess happened in the first place, and thus avoid the need to fix further messes altogether. Don't you agree ?
To do all this naturally means that we need to explore the history of Saddam, and more specifically, the support he received from various countries.
There is no easy solution for Iraq. Perhaps some back-channel offers could have avoided bloodshed though.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jamil+Dec 17 2003, 12:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Dec 17 2003, 12:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think the US should hand the reconstruction over to the Arab nations. They are more familiar with the terroritory and any government they create would probably have more legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraq people. Forcing democracy on them is in no way freedom. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The same Arab nations that have never thought highly of Iraq? The same Arab nations that support terrorrists ( whether in Palestine or abroad )? The same Arab nations that have given little to no help to rid the world of Saddam? The same Arab nations that oppress their own people?
The surrounding Arab nations in no way deserve any rewards from the fall of Saddam... Other than their national security being reinforced.
<!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Dec 17 2003, 03:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Dec 17 2003, 03:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure we need to fix the mess we made. My point is that in doing so we should take note of why the mess happened in the first place, and thus avoid the need to fix further messes altogether. Don't you agree ?
To do all this naturally means that we need to explore the history of Saddam, and more specifically, the support he received from various countries.
There is no easy solution for Iraq. Perhaps some back-channel offers could have avoided bloodshed though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Anyone who has been following my discussions posts here for the past few years knows that I harp on learning from past mistakes and from history. If anything, I berate people for not understanding things that they should know happened, but never learned due to incomplete history educations. So yes, I agree completely. My point was in this thread that it's not helpful for us to endlessly say 'but it's the US's/Europe's/Islam's/Etc. fault that we're in this mess' - we already know that. Lesson learned, we get it, and if any of this forum's discussers ever become head of the State Department, we'll not make the same mistake again we assure you. I grow weary of people not offering anything BUT that, though.
Understand history: yes. Offer solutions: yes. Bring up history and just throw it in people's faces to feel better about your own nationalism, rhetoric, ideology, inflated ego, or whatever: no.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jamil+Dec 17 2003, 02:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Dec 17 2003, 02:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To Larry and Barre,
I said many posts back that many Iraqis do hold the US responsible for putting Saddam where he is and keeping him there. If the US presence in Iraq right now is to correct the damage done in the past, then do you feel that the US is taking the proper course of action to correct the situation? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I really don't know Jamil. As I mentioned to Monse it sounds like some back-channel deal could perhaps have achieved something without the need for loss of life on either side of the fence.
Looking at the invasion itself... I think the US did not have a good plan in place for the after-care necessary once the major fighting died down. The fact that alot of places were looted and so forth does not speak well of us.
It shocks me as well to learn of unexploded cluster-bombs finding their way into the hands of Iraqi children. This is unacceptable.
I don't see any easy answers or solutions here I'm afraid.
you stumble upon what i consider the main differance between the 'left' and the 'right'.
rights act, lefts react.*
I dont presume to know all the answers, sometimes (ok, most of the time) I dont even have a solution to offer. Its a big world, with vast amounts of events beyond my knowledge, I dont presume to think I know whats best for anyone else.
however, I do like to (try to) point out faults in other peoples plans.
I would like to comment on your asseration of Iraqi democracy, Snidely.
I say, give a man a job, a house and safety to raise his children for a meaningful future, and he'll accept anyhing you throw at him. Why do we want democracy? because that happens to be the western hemispheres best way to keep powermad people at bay. It creates stability because you create a sort of "national gyroscope". Always, internally, the parts that struggle for power will be pointed towards each other in a well defined system. None will get so much power that they will start killing off their opponents or sell off the minority to slavery.
That is the beauty of democracy, it's sort of a political WWE system. You can talk smack and make spectacular battles in the ring. But in reality, no one gets hurt and everyone is a winner when they go home after the match, richer or well entertained.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 17 2003, 02:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 17 2003, 02:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Dec 17 2003, 03:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Dec 17 2003, 03:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure we need to fix the mess we made. My point is that in doing so we should take note of why the mess happened in the first place, and thus avoid the need to fix further messes altogether. Don't you agree ?
To do all this naturally means that we need to explore the history of Saddam, and more specifically, the support he received from various countries.
There is no easy solution for Iraq. Perhaps some back-channel offers could have avoided bloodshed though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Anyone who has been following my discussions posts here for the past few years knows that I harp on learning from past mistakes and from history. If anything, I berate people for not understanding things that they should know happened, but never learned due to incomplete history educations. So yes, I agree completely. My point was in this thread that it's not helpful for us to endlessly say 'but it's the US's/Europe's/Islam's/Etc. fault that we're in this mess' - we already know that. Lesson learned, we get it, and if any of this forum's discussers ever become head of the State Department, we'll not make the same mistake again we assure you. I get grow weary of people not offering anything BUT that, though.
Understand history: yes. Offer solutions: yes. Bring up history and just throw it in people's faces to feel better about your own nationalism, rhetoric, ideology, inflated ego, or whatever: no. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with you in that living in the past does no good. Absolutely.
As for this topc in particular though. It seemed rather open to exploration. I mean you can only say "well, he should get trial x in country y" for so long <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm sure <i>you</i> get that past mistakes were made, however, I know that we sometimes have some younger members here who may not be aware of the full truth.
I deliberately avoided blaming the US solely for all of this, and it was not my intention to throw anything in anyones face, but rather to provide some pie for thought. Hell, I'm planning on US citizenship in the near future, as I've been a resident here for some time now.
Alot of people around me though, quite honestly do not know the full history of the US dealings with rather dodgy individuals. Coming from South Africa I am all too aware of what questionable stuff governments do.
This is also not just about history though. It is important to examine the US motivations for moving into Iraq. While I'm sure alot of the actual people here have good intentions - I'm not as convinced about that regarding Bush and Co.
I mean yes, the bottom line is that capturing Saddam is a good thing, and he will not be missed by me.
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Dec 17 2003, 03:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Dec 17 2003, 03:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That is the beauty of democracy, it's sort of a political WWE system. You can talk smack and make spectacular battles in the ring. But in reality, no one gets hurt and everyone is a winner when they go home after the match, richer or well entertained. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> O/T: One of the better analogies of democracy I have heard. How on earth do you get American pretend wrestling matches in Denmark? And more importantly, WHY do you WATCH them??? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Immac, you never fail to amaze...
FilthyLarry - it's much clearer to me now what you meant, and I agree wholeheartedly.
<!--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 really don't know Jamil. As I mentioned to Monse it sounds like some back-channel deal could perhaps have achieved something without the need for loss of life on either side of the fence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No back-channel deal would have made Saddam AND his sons leave Iraq. Thinking otherwise really isn't that realistic. An extreme utopian view... but not realistic. They would not have given up power... Peacefully that is.
<!--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-->Looking at the invasion itself... I think the US did not have a good plan in place for the after-care necessary once the major fighting died down. The fact that alot of places were looted and so forth does not speak well of us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There was very little the US troops could actually do when the majority of the looting actually took place. They were still in a state of war. There was still fighting going on. There was no way to have an organized police force operating in times like that. Again... Lets be realistic. Put the actual blame where it belongs... On those looting.
<!--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-->It shocks me as well to learn of unexploded cluster-bombs finding their way into the hands of Iraqi children. This is unacceptable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, it is unacceptable that those kids parents let them near the battlefields... Since cluster bombs were not used over cities or towns... The question that people should be asking is why were the kids even there?
<!--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--> No back-channel deal would have made Saddam AND his sons leave Iraq. Thinking otherwise really isn't that realistic. An extreme utopian view... but not realistic. They would not have given up power... Peacefully that is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, maybe not. It would also depend on who exactly the deal was made with.
<!--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--> There was very little the US troops could actually do when the majority of the looting actually took place. They were still in a state of war. There was still fighting going on. There was no way to have an organized police force operating in times like that. Again... Lets be realistic. Put the actual blame where it belongs... On those looting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All I'm saying is this. If you're 'liberating' a country you are responsible for providing order during your liberating. Could the US have protected every single important city building ? No. But why not certain key buildings ? Apparently the looters felt safe enough to loot.
<!--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--> Yes, it is unacceptable that those kids parents let them near the battlefields... Since cluster bombs were not used over cities or towns... The question that people should be asking is why were the kids even there? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your compassion is truly heart-warming. Are you certain cluster bombs were not used over cities or towns ?
We sure have come a long way from 'Saddam Caught'! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm going to go with Othell on the backroom deal scenario. People have been trying to assassinate, bribe, and overthrow Saddam for 30 years. Based on past performance, there was little to suggest that this would work. His cult of paranoia was too well wound. Heck, he was hard as hell to capture when his resources were greatly limited.
As to the looting thing, again I think it's pretty easy to say 'we should have prevented the looting', even if you are only referring to say, protecting the Iraqi museums. The problem is, the looting was pretty wildly misrepresented in reporting, so that we don't even really have an idea of what got looted. Take this article by Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist from the Washington post (reprinted <a href='http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer061303.asp' target='_blank'>here</a>, sorry I cannot find the original printing on WP.com:
<!--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-->Hoaxes, Hype and Humiliation <a href='http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com' target='_blank'>http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com</a> | "It took only 48 hours for the museum to be destroyed, with at least 170,000 artifacts carried away by looters."
-- New York Times, April 13
"You'd have to go back centuries, to the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258, to find looting on this scale."
-- British archaeologist Eleanor Robson, New York Times, April 16
Well, not really. Turns out the Iraqi National Museum lost not 170,000 treasures but 33. You'd have to go back centuries, say, to the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258, to find mendacity on this scale.
What happened? The source of the lie, Donny George, director general of research and study of the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities, now says (Washington Post, June 9) that he originally told the media that "there were 170,000 pieces in the entire museum collection. Not 170,000 pieces stolen. No, no, no. That would be every single object we have!"
Of course, George saw the story of the stolen 170,000 museum pieces go around the world and said nothing -- indeed, two weeks later, he was in London calling the looting "the crime of the century." Why? Because George and the other museum officials who wept on camera were Baath Party appointees, and the media, Western and Arab, desperate to highlight the dark side of the liberation of Iraq, bought their deceptions without an ounce of skepticism.
It played on front pages everywhere and allowed for some deeply satisfying antiwar preening. For example, a couple of nonentities on a panel no one had ever heard of (the President's Cultural Property Advisory Committee) received major media play for their ostentatious resignations over the cultural rape of Baghdad.
Frank Rich best captured the spirit of antiwar vindication when he wrote (New York Times, April 27) that "the pillaging of the Baghdad museum has become more of a symbol of Baghdad's fall than the toppling of a less exalted artistic asset, the Saddam statue."
The narcissism, the sheer snobbery of this statement, is staggering. The toppling of Saddam Hussein freed 25 million people from 30 years of torture, murder, war, starvation and impoverishment at the hands of a psychopathic family that matched Stalin for cruelty but took far more pleasure in it. For Upper West Side liberalism, this matters less than the destruction of a museum.
Which didn't even happen! What now becomes of Rich's judgment that the destruction of the museum constitutes "the naked revelation of our worst instincts at the very dawn of our grandiose project to bring democratic values to the Middle East"? Does he admit that this judgment was nothing but a naked revelation of the cheapest instincts of the antiwar left -- that, shamed by the jubilation of Iraqis upon their liberation, a liberation the Western left did everything it could to prevent, the left desperately sought to change the subject and taint the victory?
Hardly. The left simply moved on to another change of subject: the "hyping" of the weapons of mass destruction.
The inability to find the weapons is indeed troubling, but only because it means that the weapons remain unaccounted for and might be in the wrong hands. The idea that our inability to thus far find the weapons proves that the threat was phony and hyped is simply false.
If the U.S. intelligence agencies bent their data to damn Saddam Hussein, why is it that the French, German and Russian intelligence services all came to the same conclusion? Why is it that every country on the Security Council, including Syria, in the unanimous Resolution 1441, declared that Hussein had failed to account for the tons of chemical and biological agents he had in 1998? If he had destroyed them all by 2002, why did he not just say so, list where and when it happened, and save his regime?
If Hussein had no chemical weapons, why did coalition forces find thousands of gas masks and atropine syringes in Iraqi army bunkers? And does anybody believe that President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks ordered U.S. soldiers outside Baghdad to don heavy, bulky chemical-weapons suits in scorching heat -- an encumbrance that increased their risks in conventional combat and could have jeopardized their lives -- to maintain a charade?
Everyone thought Hussein had weapons because we knew for sure he had them five years ago and there was no evidence that he had disposed of them. The weapons-hyping charge is nothing more than the Iraqi museum story Part II: A way for opponents of the war -- deeply embarrassed by the mass graves, torture chambers and grotesque palaces discovered after the war -- to change the subject and relieve themselves of the shame of having opposed the liberation of 25 million people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And before you think otherwise, this fellow is not particulary conservative in his usual views. He's rather liberal actually, but more in the 1930's Abe Lincoln Brigade anti-fascist way, not the modern quailing wienie way. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> For all we know, looting of "important" items was quite minimized. That does not offer an excuse, but it does offer mitigation.
As for the cluster bombs, you're both right and you're both wrong <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> . If you meant that the US does not use cluster munitions on large population centers (such as cities, large towns, etc.) then you're right. If you meant that they did not use them near small villages and enclaves, then you're wrong. Iraq is a very urbanized country - there's no way to have avoided using cluster munitions in some situations, especially when Iraqi military forces were deployed in small hamlets and such. It's misleading to think that they were used indiscriminately though, and that US armed forces are callous with civilian lives. They are in fact the most civilian casualty-minimizing forces in human history, bar none, with no one even close to second place.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 17 2003, 05:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 17 2003, 05:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They are in fact the most civilian casualty-minimizing forces in human history, bar none, with no one even close to second place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki (> 100,000 deaths) , and the lasting effects of Agent Orange ( 800,000-1,000,000 vietnamese with AO-related healthproblems, about 330,000 killed) , I seriously doubt that.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 17 2003, 10:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 17 2003, 10:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> O/T: One of the better analogies of democracy I have heard. How on earth do you get American pretend wrestling matches in Denmark? And more importantly, WHY do you WATCH them??? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Immac, you never fail to amaze...
FilthyLarry - it's much clearer to me now what you meant, and I agree wholeheartedly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Does EA ring a bell? We get spoonfed their trite wrestling games <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Besides, I watched some wrestling on sattelite tv when I was a teenager. I was unaware that it was make-believe <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The cluster munitions most folks describe are the ones we dropped during the first Iraq war. In fact, the only pictures I've seen are of the same type. I can only assume the reporters used stock photos and pretended they were current, or the folks pointing them out just threw a bunch they found from Gulf War I on the ground. The modern ones have a dudding time and are intended to explode before they hit the ground. We didn't use area denial submunitions and I'm pretty sure we didn't use canister-dispersed mines.
I doubt there are any cases of Agent Orange poisoning that didn't originate during the war. It has, however, been linked to certain types of cancer... but through clever wordage most folks overlook that it was more likely to be the chemical used to thin the agent than the agent itself. And that's a chemical you probably use every day.
Comparatively the dosage of the thinner was about 1/100 of an ounce per square foot. The dosage of dioxin was 0.0002% of that.
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Dec 17 2003, 07:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Dec 17 2003, 07:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 17 2003, 05:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 17 2003, 05:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They are in fact the most civilian casualty-minimizing forces in human history, bar none, with no one even close to second place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki (> 100,000 deaths) , and the lasting effects of Agent Orange ( 800,000-1,000,000 vietnamese with AO-related healthproblems, about 330,000 killed) , I seriously doubt that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you think the modern US armed forces, with modern ideas about warfare and civillians, are hell bent on attacking noncombatants on purpose, you are living in a dream world. The last time that happened was WW2; a different era, with different thoughts about war. That kind of deliberate attack ended 60 years ago with our grandparents.
The agent orange piece is not applicable, as that was not a deliberate attack on anyone except trees. No one knew it was bad for you until a decade after the war was over.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 18 2003, 03:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 18 2003, 03:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The agent orange piece is not applicable, as that was not a deliberate attack on anyone except trees. No one knew it was bad for you until a decade after the war was over. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What about depleted uranium ammunition?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 17 2003, 09:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 17 2003, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you think the modern US armed forces, with modern ideas about warfare and civillians, are hell bent on attacking noncombatants on purpose, you are living in a dream world. The last time that happened was WW2; a different era, with different thoughts about war. That kind of deliberate attack ended 60 years ago with our grandparents.
The agent orange piece is not applicable, as that was not a deliberate attack on anyone except trees. No one knew it was bad for you until a decade after the war was over. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, that means you wll have to specify your opinion to the US Army being the best civilian-casualty-minimizing troops since 1945. On Agent Orange, sure it was not meant to kill civilians, but that is besides the point; do you think you can say O I am sorry but we did not mean to kill your family and that's ok? nope, people are killed, no matter whether it was the goal of the US or not. Saying that the military did not know using the agents caused health problems, might be true. But still, when using something on that large a scale, one should always try to find out what risks there are for the population. In the Gulf War, the US used depleted Uranium, and since then cases of Leukemia in Iraq have grown by 600 percent. Birth defects have grown from 11 per 100.000 to 116 per 100.000 ( yea, probably also caused by malnutrition) Cancer increased dramatically, up to 10 times the pre-1991 numbers. Besides this, the US continues to use cluster bombs in populated ares <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Dec 18 2003, 05:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Dec 18 2003, 05:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok, that means you wll have to specify your opinion to the US Army being the best civilian-casualty-minimizing troops since 1945. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Vietnam?
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Dec 18 2003, 06:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Dec 18 2003, 06:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok, that means you wll have to specify your opinion to the US Army being the best civilian-casualty-minimizing troops since 1945. On Agent Orange, sure it was not meant to kill civilians, but that is besides the point; do you think you can say O I am sorry but we did not mean to kill your family and that's ok? nope, people are killed, no matter whether it was the goal of the US or not. Saying that the military did not know using the agents caused health problems, might be true. But still, when using something on that large a scale, one should always try to find out what risks there are for the population. In the Gulf War, the US used depleted Uranium, and since then cases of Leukemia in Iraq have grown by 600 percent. Birth defects have grown from 11 per 100.000 to 116 per 100.000 ( yea, probably also caused by malnutrition) Cancer increased dramatically, up to 10 times the pre-1991 numbers. Besides this, the US continues to use cluster bombs in populated ares <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would have thought that it would be pretty clear that we're talking about modern military forces. It's not in any way applicable to the discussion to be talking about the army of the 1940's. But if you need the clarification, I'll specifically say "the modern US Army, as of roughly 1990 to the present".
And no, it's absolutely not besides the point. If you run me over with your car because of an accident, that's unintentional vehicular manslaughter. If you chased me down the street in your car then ran me over, that's vehicular homicide. You have to have intent - wars have rules and laws, just like civilian life. Intent and accidents are not the same thing.
Please show me your sources for leukemia and cancer increases, I'm interested in reading more. While you do that, think about this: wouldn't you expect higher instances of leukimia and cancer in the millions of men in the US armed forces that have sat around in tanks handling that ammunition since it was invented in the mid-80's? And no, they do not wear any special protective gear to handle them, as they are almost completely inert.
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Dec 17 2003, 02:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Dec 17 2003, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would like to comment on your asseration of Iraqi democracy, Snidely.
I say, give a man a job, a house and safety to raise his children for a meaningful future, and he'll accept anyhing you throw at him. Why do we want democracy? Because that happens to be the western hemispheres best way to keep powermad people at bay. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, definately. But are the Iraqi people getting those three things? From what I've been reading in the papers, electricity is <i>still </i>not restored there - and with all the terrorists/freedom fighters, it's far from safe. Hopefully this will change in the next few months, and living conditions for the average Iraqi will be satisfactory; but if it doesn't, an Iraqi democracy will become more and more unstable.
Comments
Bleh. Stop yammering about things from 30 years ago we can't change and offer some solutions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I must admit that around 6 months of debating on here have swayed me. I feel now that removing Saddam probably was a good thing to do, and that righting past wrongs is a just cause. Recent developments seem to indicate that the people behind the Iraq attacks were, or are, indeed Saddam loyalists and there does not seem to be popular support amongst the Iraqi population for their actions. The removal of Saddam, on the grounds that he was a tyrannical murderer, was probably justified.
But that's not why we went to war. We were told that there were WMD in Iraq, and that they, and Saddam needed to be removed because they were a threat to the world. We were also told there were terrorists hiding in Iraq, and that they would be given WMD to use against us. Because of this, we were told Saddam was a clear and present threat to the world, and only war could stop him.
That's why I'm still rather annoyed about the war. The question of whether we were lied to has not yet been answered, but the continueing absence of WMDs in Iraq, or terrorists, has made a lot of people question if what our respective governments told us was true. The end result of the war has been the liberation of the Iraqi people and hopefully, a better chance for all of them in achieveing their goals in life, but does the end justify the means? Is it ok for us to have been lied to so that this result could come about? I'm not so sure.
I said many posts back that many Iraqis do hold the US responsible for putting Saddam where he is and keeping him there. If the US presence in Iraq right now is to correct the damage done in the past, then do you feel that the US is taking the proper course of action to correct the situation?
I see the US presence in Iraq as a hostile occupation of the country. People are under martial law and are forced to abide by US demands. There is what I can only describe as an inquisition to root out "terrorists" in the country. People's privacy is being invaded in the search for weapons and some basic rights are being infringed upon in the numerous arrests without warrant. Checkpoints, etc. Basically, it's a reflection of what is happening to the Palestinians by Israel.
There are differences. There is talk of handing over Iraq to the Iraqi people and forming this democracy which I'm sure you're aware of. Though, I have my doubts about the building of an Iraq for the Iraqi people. A constitution is being drawn up right now by a group of people selected by the United States. Not the Iraqi people. I question the legitimacy of such an article that will form the rules and regulations the future Iraq will have to abide by. Some people on the council I have spoken negatively about, but there are some solid individuals on it that I admire, such as Jalal Talabani. It's a mixed issue, but I'm still leaning against it.
So back to my original question. It's easy to see that the original motivation of the US to influence Iraq was to remove communism in the region. So, taking all of that into account, is the current occupation a humanitarian effort, or is America only looking to satisfy its personal interests again?
I see Saddam on trial as the US being on trial. He is their man.
<!--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 see the US presence in Iraq as a hostile occupation of the country. People are under martial law and are forced to abide by US demands. There is what I can only describe as an inquisition to root out "terrorists" in the country. People's privacy is being invaded in the search for weapons and some basic rights are being infringed upon in the numerous arrests without warrant. Checkpoints, etc. Basically, it's a reflection of what is happening to the Palestinians by Israel. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me this: if you knew for a fact that the US was going to end its occupation of Iraq in 6 months (and you must admit that it would be politically impossible for the US to occupy and control Iraq indefinitely; the popularity of the occupation is barely over 50% in this country, and politicians do not like close margins), would you consider the martial law an acceptable expediency? People's rights, even under martial law, are considerably greater now that they were under Saddam. And if the US leaves and they come into a true democracy, that means that the complete lack of rights under Saddam was replaced with full rights. Do you believe that these rights would have come in the next 6 months if Saddam was still on power? How about 6 years? How about 20 years, when Saddam was dead and one of his sons was running things? 50?
<!--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-->There are differences. There is talk of handing over Iraq to the Iraqi people and forming this democracy which I'm sure you're aware of. Though, I have my doubts about the building of an Iraq for the Iraqi people. A constitution is being drawn up right now by a group of people selected by the United States. Not the Iraqi people. I question the legitimacy of such an article that will form the rules and regulations the future Iraq will have to abide by. Some people on the council I have spoken negatively about, but there are some solid individuals on it that I admire, such as Jalal Talabani. It's a mixed issue, but I'm still leaning against it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're against the iraqi's having democracy and a constitution no matter what? Even if the consitution was an excellent robust document like the magna carta, US or Canadian constitutions? Just because it was fomented by US invasion, it would be worthless? Were you ever taught in school how much of europe got their first constitutions ? I'll give you a hint for further research - much of it is based on Napoleonic Code, spread by Napoleon's invasion of europe and left behind after he was gone.
<!--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-->So back to my original question. It's easy to see that the original motivation of the US to influence Iraq was to remove communism in the region. So, taking all of that into account, is the current occupation a humanitarian effort, or is America only looking to satisfy its personal interests again?
I see Saddam on trial as the US being on trial. He is their man. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a popular but incorrect statement to say that Saddam was installed by the US. He was not. His support from the US began basically in the late 70's under Carter, when he was used (mistakenly, I believe) as an attempt to keep Iran from being a threat to the US. Before that, for 15 years, we had no real involvement with him at all (not so the British - more research homework for you). Saddam became leader of Iraq without any US assistance, but you are correct in saying that he maintained power for some time with their (and Europe's - don't just say US, the exclusionary rhetoric weakens your argument) assistance. By the way, the US assistance ended after a few years, and he's been an enemy in our sights for 15 years since. Unlike France, Germany, and Russia, which were considerable economic partners before and during that timeframe. Aren't you going to reserve some of your considerable hatred for them too?
1) Sure, the human rights situation has progressed since the fall of saddam, but it could be a good deal better if the US were a bit more lenient.
2) Sure, it is better to have a constitution drawn up by invaders than have no constitution whatsoever, but it could be a good deal better if the UN ( not the US) only had an advisory role.
3) True, both Europe and the Us supported Saddam throughout the eighties, when he comited his largest atrocities ( like the gassing of Kurds, attacking Iran, etc). Economic ties are however, largely beyond the control of states.
Look, comparing the situation to what it was, it is easy to say there is progress. However, it is always good to be critical about the current situation and look for improvements.
1) Sure, the human rights situation has progressed since the fall of saddam, but it could be a good deal better if the US were a bit more lenient.
2) Sure, it is better to have a constitution drawn up by invaders than have no constitution whatsoever, but it could be a good deal better if the UN ( not the US) only had an advisory role.
3) True, both Europe and the Us supported Saddam throughout the eighties, when he comited his largest atrocities ( like the gassing of Kurds, attacking Iran, etc). Economic ties are however, largely beyond the control of states.
Look, comparing the situation to what it was, it is easy to say there is progress. However, it is always good to be critical about the current situation and look for improvements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
1) Yes, but you can't have everything all at once. It's a progression which takes some time. Look at Germany and Japan after WW2 - those occupations took the better part of a decade, and we're moving considerably faster than that.
2) I actually think that a single country creating the constitution WITH the Iraqi's is the best. The UN cannot agree on the most meaningless thing, the EU can't come up with a constitution of it's own, and the Iraqi's alone have no real experience in the matter.
3) I humbly but firmly disagree that economic ties are unrelated to states' control. Have you ever heard of political action committees? A state can always control its businesses, if it chooses to. Often times though, politicians give tacit approval the businesses doing bad things, for their own personal gain (kickbacks, constituency jobs, etc.).
And you are 100% correct in your last statement. There's always room for improvement, and healthy debate never hurt anyone. There is, however, also room for giving credit where it is due, and for being understanding of difficulties and compromises. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<span style='color:red'> You have one last chance to stop acting like this. You have been warned in PM's several times now, knock off your passive-aggressive behavior, and learn to discuss calmly without taking everything personally. Next stop, no more discussion posting rights. - MonsE</span>
I have no doubts that the situation will improve in Iraq now that Saddam is gone, as you said. I agree with you that it is possible that the Iraqi situation could be better without the US presence. The US is for the most part ignorant of the culture, religion and language of Iraq. The governing council is supposed to bring a little more legitimacy to the whole deal, but they still answer to the US. It would be naive to believe that the governing council can create any constitution without first having it approved by the US administration. The main goal of this war was to liberate the people of Iraq, so that they can create a government that suits them best. If the US has the ability to force a government on them and alter the constitution as they see fit, then it just smells of conquest.
I think the US should hand the reconstruction over to the Arab nations. They are more familiar with the terroritory and any government they create would probably have more legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraq people. Forcing democracy on them is in no way freedom.
2) I actually think that a single country creating the constitution WITH the Iraqi's is the best. The UN cannot agree on the most meaningless thing, the EU can't come up with a constitution of it's own, and the Iraqi's alone have no real experience in the matter.
3) I humbly but firmly disagree that economic ties are unrelated to states' control. Have you ever heard of political action committees? A state can always control its businesses, if it chooses to. Often times though, politicians give tacit approval the businesses doing bad things, for their own personal gain (kickbacks, constituency jobs, etc.).
And you are 100% correct in your last statement. There's always room for improvement, and healthy debate never hurt anyone. There is, however, also room for giving credit where it is due, and for being understanding of difficulties and compromises. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) True, progress does take time, but and one should not overrush it. But the best way to make progress is to stimulate democracy, like starting local elections and allow people to demonstrate, in stead of shooting them. The United States as an occupying force should try not to mingle in iraqi policy, but only try to maintain peace and rout out the last pockets of resistance. This will show the iraqis that the US has no intention to take control of the countries resources, or to give contracts to american companies to help their own economy.
2) Well, you are right that there is a lack of agreement in the UN Security Counsil, but that does not prevent the UN to form a commision of various experts from different countries to give advice to the iraqi's.
3) Again, you do have a point <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. On the other hand, the Iraqi's could just as well have imported weapons from other countries, since there was not a boycot until plusminus 1991, and saddam could just as well have imported weapons from the USA.
I think the US should hand the reconstruction over to the Arab nations. They are more familiar with the terroritory and any government they create would probably have more legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraq people. Forcing democracy on them is in no way freedom. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was the US familiar with Japanese language and culture when they were occupied in 1945? Would you consider modern Japan to be a successful democracy, especially compared to its previous military junta? How about Germany? Familiarity is helpful, but not an overwhelming concern in my opinion - even to this day Japan is still a very alien culture to Americans and the rest of the world...
As for handing the reconstruction over to the arab nations... uhhh... which democratic arab nation would you use? At best, Egypt is close to one; not really a democracy, but certainly not a dictatorship or absolute monarchy like all other arab nations. They are pretty poor examples of civil rights, rule by law, and self-governance. Most are not as bad as Saddam, but none are all that wonderful.
Urza - good points, especially with number 1. I agree that Bush and the US State department have often bungled the democratization process in Iraq, and are only now beginning to make any real progress. Hopefully with the renewed optimism and security of Saddam finally being captured, the focus can expand faster to spreading the democratic ideal. Hell, a lot of it comes down to simple education. I don't believe most middle easterners have any concept of what democracy is, and certainly those in Iraq were not taught the truth about it by Saddam.
I agree that the US should take heed of any aid the region can offer, but I'm not convinced that they should just pull out and leave it to them. Given Iraq's history of tension and conflict with its neighbours, I'd have thought that it would be just as humiliating having them take over.
Hey, the US ignored that when they said Iraq had WMD... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem though, is that Saddam with his right hand would say he did not have any WMD's... That they had destroyed them all. Then, his left hand would do things that contradicted his Right... Whether it would be a lack of evidence supporting his Right's statements or real actions that were meant to give the impression that what his Right was saying was not the whole truth.
Saddam was playing poker... He bluffed... Put all his chips on the table... The US called his bluff... And the rest is history.
Bleh. Stop yammering about things from 30 years ago we can't change and offer some solutions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the thing though. Is it better to treat the symptoms of a disease, or the root cause ?
Sure we need to fix the mess we made. My point is that in doing so we should take note of why the mess happened in the first place, and thus avoid the need to fix further messes altogether. Don't you agree ?
To do all this naturally means that we need to explore the history of Saddam, and more specifically, the support he received from various countries.
There is no easy solution for Iraq. Perhaps some back-channel offers could have avoided bloodshed though.
The same Arab nations that have never thought highly of Iraq? The same Arab nations that support terrorrists ( whether in Palestine or abroad )? The same Arab nations that have given little to no help to rid the world of Saddam? The same Arab nations that oppress their own people?
The surrounding Arab nations in no way deserve any rewards from the fall of Saddam... Other than their national security being reinforced.
To do all this naturally means that we need to explore the history of Saddam, and more specifically, the support he received from various countries.
There is no easy solution for Iraq. Perhaps some back-channel offers could have avoided bloodshed though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyone who has been following my discussions posts here for the past few years knows that I harp on learning from past mistakes and from history. If anything, I berate people for not understanding things that they should know happened, but never learned due to incomplete history educations. So yes, I agree completely. My point was in this thread that it's not helpful for us to endlessly say 'but it's the US's/Europe's/Islam's/Etc. fault that we're in this mess' - we already know that. Lesson learned, we get it, and if any of this forum's discussers ever become head of the State Department, we'll not make the same mistake again we assure you. I grow weary of people not offering anything BUT that, though.
Understand history: yes.
Offer solutions: yes.
Bring up history and just throw it in people's faces to feel better about your own nationalism, rhetoric, ideology, inflated ego, or whatever: no.
I said many posts back that many Iraqis do hold the US responsible for putting Saddam where he is and keeping him there. If the US presence in Iraq right now is to correct the damage done in the past, then do you feel that the US is taking the proper course of action to correct the situation? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't know Jamil. As I mentioned to Monse it sounds like some back-channel deal could perhaps have achieved something without the need for loss of life on either side of the fence.
Looking at the invasion itself... I think the US did not have a good plan in place for the after-care necessary once the major fighting died down. The fact that alot of places were looted and so forth does not speak well of us.
It shocks me as well to learn of unexploded cluster-bombs finding their way into the hands of Iraqi children. This is unacceptable.
I don't see any easy answers or solutions here I'm afraid.
rights act, lefts react.*
I dont presume to know all the answers, sometimes (ok, most of the time) I dont even have a solution to offer. Its a big world, with vast amounts of events beyond my knowledge, I dont presume to think I know whats best for anyone else.
however, I do like to (try to) point out faults in other peoples plans.
sorry its just the way I work.
*warning this theory is work in progress.
I say, give a man a job, a house and safety to raise his children for a meaningful future, and he'll accept anyhing you throw at him. Why do we want democracy? because that happens to be the western hemispheres best way to keep powermad people at bay. It creates stability because you create a sort of "national gyroscope". Always, internally, the parts that struggle for power will be pointed towards each other in a well defined system. None will get so much power that they will start killing off their opponents or sell off the minority to slavery.
That is the beauty of democracy, it's sort of a political WWE system. You can talk smack and make spectacular battles in the ring. But in reality, no one gets hurt and everyone is a winner when they go home after the match, richer or well entertained.
To do all this naturally means that we need to explore the history of Saddam, and more specifically, the support he received from various countries.
There is no easy solution for Iraq. Perhaps some back-channel offers could have avoided bloodshed though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyone who has been following my discussions posts here for the past few years knows that I harp on learning from past mistakes and from history. If anything, I berate people for not understanding things that they should know happened, but never learned due to incomplete history educations. So yes, I agree completely. My point was in this thread that it's not helpful for us to endlessly say 'but it's the US's/Europe's/Islam's/Etc. fault that we're in this mess' - we already know that. Lesson learned, we get it, and if any of this forum's discussers ever become head of the State Department, we'll not make the same mistake again we assure you. I get grow weary of people not offering anything BUT that, though.
Understand history: yes.
Offer solutions: yes.
Bring up history and just throw it in people's faces to feel better about your own nationalism, rhetoric, ideology, inflated ego, or whatever: no. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you in that living in the past does no good. Absolutely.
As for this topc in particular though. It seemed rather open to exploration. I mean you can only say "well, he should get trial x in country y" for so long <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm sure <i>you</i> get that past mistakes were made, however, I know that we sometimes have some younger members here who may not be aware of the full truth.
I deliberately avoided blaming the US solely for all of this, and it was not my intention to throw anything in anyones face, but rather to provide some pie for thought. Hell, I'm planning on US citizenship in the near future, as I've been a resident here for some time now.
Alot of people around me though, quite honestly do not know the full history of the US dealings with rather dodgy individuals. Coming from South Africa I am all too aware of what questionable stuff governments do.
This is also not just about history though. It is important to examine the US motivations for moving into Iraq. While I'm sure alot of the actual people here have good intentions - I'm not as convinced about that regarding Bush and Co.
I mean yes, the bottom line is that capturing Saddam is a good thing, and he will not be missed by me.
O/T: One of the better analogies of democracy I have heard. How on earth do you get American pretend wrestling matches in Denmark? And more importantly, WHY do you WATCH them??? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Immac, you never fail to amaze...
FilthyLarry - it's much clearer to me now what you meant, and I agree wholeheartedly.
No back-channel deal would have made Saddam AND his sons leave Iraq. Thinking otherwise really isn't that realistic. An extreme utopian view... but not realistic. They would not have given up power... Peacefully that is.
<!--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-->Looking at the invasion itself... I think the US did not have a good plan in place for the after-care necessary once the major fighting died down. The fact that alot of places were looted and so forth does not speak well of us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was very little the US troops could actually do when the majority of the looting actually took place. They were still in a state of war. There was still fighting going on. There was no way to have an organized police force operating in times like that. Again... Lets be realistic. Put the actual blame where it belongs... On those looting.
<!--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-->It shocks me as well to learn of unexploded cluster-bombs finding their way into the hands of Iraqi children. This is unacceptable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it is unacceptable that those kids parents let them near the battlefields... Since cluster bombs were not used over cities or towns... The question that people should be asking is why were the kids even there?
No back-channel deal would have made Saddam AND his sons leave Iraq. Thinking otherwise really isn't that realistic. An extreme utopian view... but not realistic. They would not have given up power... Peacefully that is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, maybe not. It would also depend on who exactly the deal was made with.
<!--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-->
There was very little the US troops could actually do when the majority of the looting actually took place. They were still in a state of war. There was still fighting going on. There was no way to have an organized police force operating in times like that. Again... Lets be realistic. Put the actual blame where it belongs... On those looting.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All I'm saying is this. If you're 'liberating' a country you are responsible for providing order during your liberating. Could the US have protected every single important city building ? No. But why not certain key buildings ? Apparently the looters felt safe enough to loot.
<!--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-->
Yes, it is unacceptable that those kids parents let them near the battlefields... Since cluster bombs were not used over cities or towns... The question that people should be asking is why were the kids even there?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your compassion is truly heart-warming. Are you certain cluster bombs were not used over cities or towns ?
<a href='http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s841391.htm' target='_blank'>bomb</a>
<a href='http://www.infoimagination.org/ps/iraq/support_troops.html' target='_blank'>more bombs</a>
A little difficult to avoid a "battlefield" that is oh.... your house for example, wouldn't you say ?
I'm going to go with Othell on the backroom deal scenario. People have been trying to assassinate, bribe, and overthrow Saddam for 30 years. Based on past performance, there was little to suggest that this would work. His cult of paranoia was too well wound. Heck, he was hard as hell to capture when his resources were greatly limited.
As to the looting thing, again I think it's pretty easy to say 'we should have prevented the looting', even if you are only referring to say, protecting the Iraqi museums. The problem is, the looting was pretty wildly misrepresented in reporting, so that we don't even really have an idea of what got looted. Take this article by Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist from the Washington post (reprinted <a href='http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer061303.asp' target='_blank'>here</a>, sorry I cannot find the original printing on WP.com:
<!--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-->Hoaxes, Hype and Humiliation
<a href='http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com' target='_blank'>http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com</a> | "It took only 48 hours for the museum to be destroyed, with at least 170,000 artifacts carried away by looters."
-- New York Times, April 13
"You'd have to go back centuries, to the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258, to find looting on this scale."
-- British archaeologist Eleanor Robson, New York Times, April 16
Well, not really. Turns out the Iraqi National Museum lost not 170,000 treasures but 33. You'd have to go back centuries, say, to the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258, to find mendacity on this scale.
What happened? The source of the lie, Donny George, director general of research and study of the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities, now says (Washington Post, June 9) that he originally told the media that "there were 170,000 pieces in the entire museum collection. Not 170,000 pieces stolen. No, no, no. That would be every single object we have!"
Of course, George saw the story of the stolen 170,000 museum pieces go around the world and said nothing -- indeed, two weeks later, he was in London calling the looting "the crime of the century." Why? Because George and the other museum officials who wept on camera were Baath Party appointees, and the media, Western and Arab, desperate to highlight the dark side of the liberation of Iraq, bought their deceptions without an ounce of skepticism.
It played on front pages everywhere and allowed for some deeply satisfying antiwar preening. For example, a couple of nonentities on a panel no one had ever heard of (the President's Cultural Property Advisory Committee) received major media play for their ostentatious resignations over the cultural rape of Baghdad.
Frank Rich best captured the spirit of antiwar vindication when he wrote (New York Times, April 27) that "the pillaging of the Baghdad museum has become more of a symbol of Baghdad's fall than the toppling of a less exalted artistic asset, the Saddam statue."
The narcissism, the sheer snobbery of this statement, is staggering. The toppling of Saddam Hussein freed 25 million people from 30 years of torture, murder, war, starvation and impoverishment at the hands of a psychopathic family that matched Stalin for cruelty but took far more pleasure in it. For Upper West Side liberalism, this matters less than the destruction of a museum.
Which didn't even happen! What now becomes of Rich's judgment that the destruction of the museum constitutes "the naked revelation of our worst instincts at the very dawn of our grandiose project to bring democratic values to the Middle East"? Does he admit that this judgment was nothing but a naked revelation of the cheapest instincts of the antiwar left -- that, shamed by the jubilation of Iraqis upon their liberation, a liberation the Western left did everything it could to prevent, the left desperately sought to change the subject and taint the victory?
Hardly. The left simply moved on to another change of subject: the "hyping" of the weapons of mass destruction.
The inability to find the weapons is indeed troubling, but only because it means that the weapons remain unaccounted for and might be in the wrong hands. The idea that our inability to thus far find the weapons proves that the threat was phony and hyped is simply false.
If the U.S. intelligence agencies bent their data to damn Saddam Hussein, why is it that the French, German and Russian intelligence services all came to the same conclusion? Why is it that every country on the Security Council, including Syria, in the unanimous Resolution 1441, declared that Hussein had failed to account for the tons of chemical and biological agents he had in 1998? If he had destroyed them all by 2002, why did he not just say so, list where and when it happened, and save his regime?
If Hussein had no chemical weapons, why did coalition forces find thousands of gas masks and atropine syringes in Iraqi army bunkers? And does anybody believe that President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks ordered U.S. soldiers outside Baghdad to don heavy, bulky chemical-weapons suits in scorching heat -- an encumbrance that increased their risks in conventional combat and could have jeopardized their lives -- to maintain a charade?
Everyone thought Hussein had weapons because we knew for sure he had them five years ago and there was no evidence that he had disposed of them. The weapons-hyping charge is nothing more than the Iraqi museum story Part II: A way for opponents of the war -- deeply embarrassed by the mass graves, torture chambers and grotesque palaces discovered after the war -- to change the subject and relieve themselves of the shame of having opposed the liberation of 25 million people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And before you think otherwise, this fellow is not particulary conservative in his usual views. He's rather liberal actually, but more in the 1930's Abe Lincoln Brigade anti-fascist way, not the modern quailing wienie way. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> For all we know, looting of "important" items was quite minimized. That does not offer an excuse, but it does offer mitigation.
As for the cluster bombs, you're both right and you're both wrong <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> . If you meant that the US does not use cluster munitions on large population centers (such as cities, large towns, etc.) then you're right. If you meant that they did not use them near small villages and enclaves, then you're wrong. Iraq is a very urbanized country - there's no way to have avoided using cluster munitions in some situations, especially when Iraqi military forces were deployed in small hamlets and such. It's misleading to think that they were used indiscriminately though, and that US armed forces are callous with civilian lives. They are in fact the most civilian casualty-minimizing forces in human history, bar none, with no one even close to second place.
Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki (> 100,000 deaths) , and the lasting effects of Agent Orange ( 800,000-1,000,000 vietnamese with AO-related healthproblems, about 330,000 killed) , I seriously doubt that.
O/T: One of the better analogies of democracy I have heard. How on earth do you get American pretend wrestling matches in Denmark? And more importantly, WHY do you WATCH them??? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Immac, you never fail to amaze...
FilthyLarry - it's much clearer to me now what you meant, and I agree wholeheartedly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does EA ring a bell? We get spoonfed their trite wrestling games <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Besides, I watched some wrestling on sattelite tv when I was a teenager. I was unaware that it was make-believe <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I doubt there are any cases of Agent Orange poisoning that didn't originate during the war. It has, however, been linked to certain types of cancer... but through clever wordage most folks overlook that it was more likely to be the chemical used to thin the agent than the agent itself. And that's a chemical you probably use every day.
Comparatively the dosage of the thinner was about 1/100 of an ounce per square foot. The dosage of dioxin was 0.0002% of that.
Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki (> 100,000 deaths) , and the lasting effects of Agent Orange ( 800,000-1,000,000 vietnamese with AO-related healthproblems, about 330,000 killed) , I seriously doubt that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you think the modern US armed forces, with modern ideas about warfare and civillians, are hell bent on attacking noncombatants on purpose, you are living in a dream world. The last time that happened was WW2; a different era, with different thoughts about war. That kind of deliberate attack ended 60 years ago with our grandparents.
The agent orange piece is not applicable, as that was not a deliberate attack on anyone except trees. No one knew it was bad for you until a decade after the war was over.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about depleted uranium ammunition?
The agent orange piece is not applicable, as that was not a deliberate attack on anyone except trees. No one knew it was bad for you until a decade after the war was over. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, that means you wll have to specify your opinion to the US Army being the best civilian-casualty-minimizing troops since 1945.
On Agent Orange, sure it was not meant to kill civilians, but that is besides the point; do you think you can say O I am sorry but we did not mean to kill your family and that's ok? nope, people are killed, no matter whether it was the goal of the US or not. Saying that the military did not know using the agents caused health problems, might be true. But still, when using something on that large a scale, one should always try to find out what risks there are for the population.
In the Gulf War, the US used depleted Uranium, and since then cases of Leukemia in Iraq have grown by 600 percent. Birth defects have grown from 11 per 100.000 to 116 per 100.000 ( yea, probably also caused by malnutrition) Cancer increased dramatically, up to 10 times the pre-1991 numbers.
Besides this, the US continues to use cluster bombs in populated ares <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->.
Vietnam?
Correct me if i'm wrong....
On Agent Orange, sure it was not meant to kill civilians, but that is besides the point; do you think you can say O I am sorry but we did not mean to kill your family and that's ok? nope, people are killed, no matter whether it was the goal of the US or not. Saying that the military did not know using the agents caused health problems, might be true. But still, when using something on that large a scale, one should always try to find out what risks there are for the population.
In the Gulf War, the US used depleted Uranium, and since then cases of Leukemia in Iraq have grown by 600 percent. Birth defects have grown from 11 per 100.000 to 116 per 100.000 ( yea, probably also caused by malnutrition) Cancer increased dramatically, up to 10 times the pre-1991 numbers.
Besides this, the US continues to use cluster bombs in populated ares <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would have thought that it would be pretty clear that we're talking about modern military forces. It's not in any way applicable to the discussion to be talking about the army of the 1940's. But if you need the clarification, I'll specifically say "the modern US Army, as of roughly 1990 to the present".
And no, it's absolutely not besides the point. If you run me over with your car because of an accident, that's unintentional vehicular manslaughter. If you chased me down the street in your car then ran me over, that's vehicular homicide. You have to have intent - wars have rules and laws, just like civilian life. Intent and accidents are not the same thing.
Please show me your sources for leukemia and cancer increases, I'm interested in reading more. While you do that, think about this: wouldn't you expect higher instances of leukimia and cancer in the millions of men in the US armed forces that have sat around in tanks handling that ammunition since it was invented in the mid-80's? And no, they do not wear any special protective gear to handle them, as they are almost completely inert.
I say, give a man a job, a house and safety to raise his children for a meaningful future, and he'll accept anyhing you throw at him. Why do we want democracy? Because that happens to be the western hemispheres best way to keep powermad people at bay. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, definately. But are the Iraqi people getting those three things? From what I've been reading in the papers, electricity is <i>still </i>not restored there - and with all the terrorists/freedom fighters, it's far from safe. Hopefully this will change in the next few months, and living conditions for the average Iraqi will be satisfactory; but if it doesn't, an Iraqi democracy will become more and more unstable.