NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't mind the lack of stable electricity, clean water (let alone actual water), stable fuel supplies, stable food supplies, the shoddy (if any) education, the lack of doctors, the barely existent garbage collection, phone bills for lines that haven't worked in years, the rampaging militias, bombings, shootings, death squads, etc. At least you can speak out against things. Oh wait, you can't. You'll be shot to death by a death squad.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/juvanya/freebomb.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/juvanya/democracy.gif

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080316/wl_mcclatchy/2878538)

BAGHDAD — Iraq's most prominent clerics have ruled that using a water pump on one's own pipes is akin to stealing resources from a neighbor, so what does a person do when it takes half an hour to fill a cooking pot with water from the tap?

Iraqis pray for forgiveness, then pump away.

To them, the real crime is that five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq , they still swelter in the summer and freeze in the winter because of a lack of electricity. Government rations are inevitably late, incomplete or expired. Garbage piles up for days, sometimes weeks, emanating toxic fumes.

The list goes on: black-market fuel, phone bills for land lines that haven't worked in years, education and health-care systems degraded by the flight of thousands of Iraq's best teachers and doctors.

When the Iraqi government announced that 2008 would be "the year of services," workaday Iraqis had their doubts.

"Under Saddam's regime, we had limited salaries but we had security and decent services. Now, we have decent incomes but we lose it all to water, propane, groceries, fuel. We save nothing," said Balqis Kareem , 46, a Sunni Muslim housewife who lives in the predominantly Shiite Muslim district of Karrada. "This government gives with the right hand and takes away with the left."

At Kareem's modest, single-story home, a wall in the living room sprouts a tangle of electrical wires, a reflection of the three power sources she juggles throughout the day: the government's supply, her own small generator and the neighborhood's larger generator. Even so, for five years she hasn't been able to keep milk or meat in the refrigerator for more than a few hours because it spoils so quickly in the daily blackouts.

A kitchen cupboard holds a barely touched box of rationed tea, which Kareem described as "so bitter no amount of sugar can sweeten it." She said that she'd once used a magnet to clean metallic flakes from a bag of government-supplied rice. She barred her four children from drinking tap water after she found worms floating in a glass she'd poured.

The family's home phone rarely works, though earlier this month a worker from the phone company showed up demanding payment for calls that they both knew she hadn't made. Like so many employees of government utilities, he wanted a bribe.

"I just got to the point and told him, 'Don't waste my time. How much do you want?' " Kareem said. "He told me, I paid him and then went on with my day. I'm practical."

As another scorching summer approaches, everyone has to improvise to find electricity. Those who can't afford generators have to grease the meter men to look the other way as they splice wires and steal more than their permitted amount of power. At most, they'll be able to run a TV set, a couple of fluorescent bulbs and maybe the water pump. Of course, that's only when the electricity is on— never more than five hours a day and typically closer to two.

A popular joke here goes that a distraught boy approached his mother and sobbed that his father had touched a live wire and was electrocuted, to which the mother replied, "Thank God! There's electricity!"

When a reporter asked the official spokesman Ali Dabbagh how the Iraqi government could restore faith in its leaders' promises of services, he hung up the phone, offended at the question.

"Anyone who says that solving the services issue will take two or three years is exaggerating. Iraqi cities need years of work and billions of dollars," said Sadiq al Rikabi , a political adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki . "The destruction that we inherited, which was increased by terrorism, makes the suffering of Iraqis very difficult. Ending this needs time and effort, but the prime minister is determined to start the work and, God willing, Iraqis will feel the improvement in the coming few months."

Adil Hameed , a senior adviser to the minister of electricity, defended his embattled employer, listing a number of setbacks to power production that range from the devastating looting of a main control center in the early days of the U.S.-led invasion to the shortages in Baghdad caused by populous southern provinces using far more than their allotted share of electricity.

This year's electrical infrastructure-improvement budget of $1.4 billion is half of what it would take to make a dent in the problem, Hameed said. Yet there have been modest gains: a month-old operations room that reports directly to the prime minister, the deployment of U.S. forces to protect electricity facilities and a stepped-up search for international companies to build power plants.

"We're now producing at about 50 percent, but the people get only about 25 percent of their needs because we use nearly half the production to supply Iraqi infrastructure such as hospitals and government departments," Hameed said, adding that he expected outages to increase as usual during the summer.

Increasingly, Iraqis are relying on militias and other armed groups to fill the services void. Stories abound of neighborhood militiamen commandeering power plants and forcing terrified engineers to flip the switches even during government blackouts, turning militants into heroes and further undermining the unpopular Maliki administration.

In some poor areas of Baghdad , militias or Iranian-backed charities have become the main source of propane tanks, food staples, garbage collection and other services that the government should provide.

"They always talk, but nothing is tangible so far," Karam Hussein , 60, a Shiite retiree, said of the government. He lives in Baghdad's Shaab neighborhood, which is mostly under the control of the Mahdi Army militia. "On the contrary, when they talk, things always get worse. It's better if they just stop talking."

In the hardscrabble, mostly Shiite neighborhood of Shohada, 67-year-old Hani Abdel Hussein is desperately trying to sell the family home in hopes of moving to an area with better services. Damage from a stray mortar shell that plunged through the roof isn't the only deterrent for buyers, however.

Trash collection is so sporadic that residents tie up their garbage in plastic bags and fling them onto a reeking pile at the end of the street. Electricity is mainly from a private generator, and water shortages have forced Abdel Hussein to shower at a public bathhouse in another neighborhood.

His land line has been dead for the past three years, though he recently received a bill for about $70 .

"If the phone actually worked, I'd be happy to pay today," the soft-spoken father of three said. "I don't believe it's that hard for the government to bring back services. But they had 50 sessions of parliament just to remove the stars from the flag. I guess they're too busy."

Seriously, I dare you to argue that life is better without Saddam.

Clearly at the moment its not. However what if Iraq becomes a stable democracy? What if infrastructure, services and security are established? Then question becomes is life better under a sadistic tyrant or in a relatively modern, relatively democratic society. I think the answer to that question is self-apparent.

Under Saddam there was brutal repression, but at least there was peace.

Now, there is brutal repression, but no peace.

Quality of life in Iraq has deteriorated significantly since the 2003 invasion in virtually all measurable areas, and the prospects of this changing anytime soon are nil.

Clearly at the moment its not. However what if Iraq becomes a stable democracy? What if infrastructure, services and security are established? Then question becomes is life better under a sadistic tyrant or in a relatively modern, relatively democratic society.

What if poverty vanished tomorrow? What if famine and wars and crime went the way of the dodo today?

That's the level of silliness your question is at.

Not going to happen anytime in generations barring a miracle. It's like those credit card commercials. Selling a dream that will never come true.

Saddam was a tyrant, that is a fact. But he kept his country modern, relatively secure, and unlike the mess it is today, livable for most of its people.

Quality of life in Iraq has deteriorated significantly since the 2003 invasion in virtually all measurable areas, and the prospects of this changing anytime soon are nil.

I disagree. al-Anbar province was a mess just a short while ago and is now largely peacefully, as is the south of the country and Kurdistan. Baghdad continues to be the biggest problem; both in terms of violence and the complete and utter failure that is the Iraqi government.

Whether Iraq is better or worse without Saddam Hussein is not the fucking point.

Whether Iraq is better or worse without Saddam Hussein is not the fucking point.

its not THE point but it might be A point.

it may be that the iraqis are happy to be shut of him.

or maybe theyre not. i dont think we can know for sure.

Doesn't sound much different than what it was like before the war. Saddam allowed the country's infrastructure to decay to a point where it was barely functional anyways, preferring to spend money on palaces and other corrupt patronage at the expense of a functioning country. The war and subsequent violence was merely the straw that pushed it in to total breakdown.

its not THE point but it might be A point.

It is if we are now to believe that this was the pretence of invasion, or when it is used as a catch-all counter to any argument about the way the invasion and subsequent occupation have been handled.

Bringing war to a country that isn't, until that point, at war usually makes things worse in the short term, no? We have a large responsibility there, to rebuild what's broken, among other tasks.

The poll is biased! I do not trust the poll!

I don't believe Saddam was a competent ruler who cared about his people. That's also my opinion of Bush. I think life could be better for the Iraqis than it was under Saddam if more responsible management is put into place...and the religious extremists calm down.

Bringing war to a country that isn't, until that point, at war usually makes things worse in the short term, no? We have a large responsibility there, to rebuild what's broken, among other tasks.

Which begs the question: Should we have brought war to the country, and "broke" it in the first place?

My answer is an emphatic "no."

Which begs the question: Should we have brought war to the country, and "broke" it in the first place?

My answer is an emphatic "no."

I agree...there was no cause to go to war. But now the US has a responsibility to rebuild because it did. It's failing in that.

So we should have just left him in power so he and his sons could rape more women, torture more men, and gas more Kurds? How is removing him a bad idea?

So we should have just left him in power so he and his sons could rape more women, torture more men, and gas more Kurds? How is removing him a bad idea?

It wasn't our place.

So we should have just left him in power so he and his sons could rape more women, torture more men, and gas more Kurds? How is removing him a bad idea?

A) Saddam posed no threat to the United States.

B) Why should we overthrew him, but give dictatorships like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, etc. a free pass?

So we should have just left him in power so he and his sons could rape more women, torture more men, and gas more Kurds? How is removing him a bad idea?

Because the task of rebuilding is not being accomplished. It's lose-lose either way until a more effective plan for reconstruction is implemented.

JEFFERSON: Y'know, we started this war in '75, and currently it's '80.
WASHINGTON: Britain will recognize our independence soon.
JEFFERSON: Do you think life was better with the king, or without the king? At least with the king, we weren't getting shot at. Sure, we were being taxed into the ground, and sure, we had no say in it. And sure, there were a few massacres. And we were being brutally oppressed. But at least there was peace.
WASHINGTON: You're right. And there's no tea, anymore, either. And we don't have any boots. My men had to march through Valley Forge barefoot. At least with Britain, they sent us decent clothing. Sure, we had to kiss the king's arse for everything we got, but life is just so damn HARD now that I'd rather go back to the arse-kissing.
JEFFERSON: I guess this just goes to show that if a war for independence doesn't show obvious, miraculous, orgasmic results after five years, then the country fighting for independence will never achieve liberty or democracy, and will never become a strong, modern nation, much less a world superpower in say... 120 years or so...
WASHINGTON: Very well put.

So we should have just left him in power so he and his sons could rape more women, torture more men, and gas more Kurds? How is removing him a bad idea?

According to a young Iraqi woman I am close freinds with who lived under Saddam's reign, the US invasion was complete and utter BS, and should not have happened.

Although she says the US should have taken out Uday and Qusay in the early 1990s anyway.

Apparently, Saddam was a fairly nice guy as far as corrupt dictators go, but his sons, total A-holes.

A) Saddam posed no threat to the United States.


Correctumundo.

B) Why should we overthrew him, but give dictatorships like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, etc. a free pass?

Well we don't really have the resources to take Iraq on, and that's just ONE country. Gotta start somewhere, right? Might as well start with the nation richest in oil.
Tip: Don't mention other nations that we should (or even CAN) invade. John McCain may be listening.

JEFFERSON: Y'know, we started this war in '75, and currently it's '80.
WASHINGTON: Britain will recognize our independence soon.
JEFFERSON: Do you think life was better with the king, or without the king? At least with the king, we weren't getting shot at. Sure, we were being taxed into the ground, and sure, we had no say in it. And sure, there were a few massacres. And we were being brutally oppressed. But at least there was peace.
WASHINGTON: You're right. And there's no tea, anymore, either. And we don't have any boots. I had to march through Valley Forge barefoot. At least with Britain, they sent us decent clothing. Sure, we had to kiss the king's arse for everything we got, but life is just so damn HARD now that I'd rather go back to the arse-kissing.
JEFFERSON: I guess this just goes to show that if a war for independence doesn't show immediate results after five years, then the country fighting for independence will never achieve liberty or democracy, and will never become a strong, modern nation, much less a world superpower in say... 120 years or so...
WASHINGTON: Very well put.


Just a wee bit of difference between a popular revolution and an invasion. Just a little one.

[QUOTE=Bloodlusty Barbarism;13533227]
JEFFERSON: I guess this just goes to show that if a war for independence doesn't show immediate results after five years, then the country fighting for independence will never achieve liberty or democracy, and will never become a strong, modern nation, much less a world superpower in say... 120 years or so...
QUOTE]

The difference here is that opposition in the American Revolution ( the British ) was not motivated by religious extremism. And the British had to send troops to fight overseas. In reality...America in this situation is more akin to the British. The Islamic extremist resistors are using tactics employeed by the Patriots.

Just a wee bit of difference between a popular revolution and an invasion. Just a little one.

Not really the point. The point was that it's unfair to judge whether a country's better with or without their despot after only five years.
I'm not by any means trying to justify the war in Iraq. I couldn't do that if I tried.

It is if we are now to believe that this was the pretence of invasion, or when it is used as a catch-all counter to any argument about the way the invasion and subsequent occupation have been handled.

noooooo its A point even though we didnt invade for that reason.

or its A point if it ever turns out to be true.

The difference here is that opposition in the American Revolution ( the British ) was not motivated by religious extremism. And the British had to send troops to fight overseas. In reality...America in this situation is more akin to the British. The Islamic extremist resistors are using tactics employeed by the Patriots.

Again... not the point. Just illustrating that countries, immediately following governmental upheaval, tend to suck. And that you can't judge based on the first five years of a struggle how the country's going to be looking in two centuries.

So we should have just left him in power so he and his sons could rape more women, torture more men, and gas more Kurds? How is removing him a bad idea?

I don't think many people consider removing Saddam a "bad" idea. Certainly, he was a brutal murderer, criminal, and a truly evil man who deserved to be removed from power. However, there's a difference between a just action and a good idea; we can neither afford nor can we claim a moral prerogative to do so when we turn a blind eye to similarly evil actions by our "allies".

The Iraq War was not unjust, but it was not a good idea from a realistic perspective.

The Iraq War was not unjust, but it was not a good idea from a realistic perspective.

"All government wars are unjust."

-Murray N. Rothbard

Again... not the point. Just illustrating that countries, immediately following governmental upheaval, tend to suck. And that you can't judge based on the first five years of a struggle how the country's going to be looking in two centuries.

I was just illustrating the differences in the two wars you were comparing. I agree that transitional governments aren't that great, but Iraq isn't another American Revolution. There are too many differences.

I was just illustrating the differences in the two wars you were comparing. I agree that transitional governments aren't that great, but Iraq isn't another American Revolution. There are too many differences.

You don't think it's a valid comparison? I could choose some other country that had its government violently overthrown and then pulled through to become modern and democratic.
Actually, here are a few. You can sort through the list and find an example that you think works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_independence

Not really the point. The point was that it's unfair to judge whether a country's better with or without their despot after only five years.
I'm not by any means trying to justify the war in Iraq. I couldn't do that if I tried.

Easy. When the violent death toll and average quality of life in 5 years of supposed non-war (occupation isn't exactly war) is worse than the violent death toll and average quality of life under the despot in decades of non-war, then you can tell that it's worse off.

You don't think it's a valid comparison? I could choose some other country that had its government violently overthrown and then pulled through to become modern and democratic.

You have to pick a government violently overthrown by an external force, and has a large, angry populace who dislike the invaders and the new, externally installed government.

Easy. When the violent death toll and average quality of life in 5 years of supposed non-war (occupation isn't exactly war) is worse than the violent death toll and average quality of life under the despot in decades of non-war, then you can tell that it's worse off.

Whoa whoa whoa.
So according to you, America is NOT at war right now?
But Britain, during the American War of Independence... they WERE at war?
Maybe it's just my part of the country, but over here we call it the "war" in Iraq.

You don't think it's a valid comparison? I could choose some other country that had its government violently overthrown and then pulled through to become modern and democratic.

My math says it's over 9 generations between the founding of the US and today. Assuming a 25 year generation (Average age of women upon fgiving birth to their first child). That's quite a way off. And the US still is not as free and modern and democratic as it could be, in fact there is a fairly strong movement to change that, and untill the last say 75 years (call it 3 generations), it's been quite bad for all but people with the right skin colour and with a penis.

Granted, Iraq has a long way to go, and the idea that no country is perfect only 5 years after a massive war destroying government and infastructure, is valid. But Iraq will never be "modern and democratic", as the US never will either, nor will any country. All countries keep moving forward.

A better comprasin would be Germany, 1950. And they were doing a whole lot better then then Iraq is now.

You don't think it's a valid comparison? I could choose some other country that had its government violently overthrown and then pulled through to become modern and democratic.
Actually, here are a few. You can sort through the list and find an example that you think works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_independence

This war is based in religious extremism (at least to the Iraqis that are resisting US attempts to implement democracy in the country). I believe they are motivated more fanatically than the Patriots were. It's my opinion that the US should have waited for more foreign support and drafted a better plan for after the war before it sent in troops. Iraq can become a democratic and modern country...any country has that potential because people don't like being oppressed, it's common sense. I'm just of the opinion that the war effort was mismanaged.

You have to pick a government violently overthrown by an external force, and has a large, angry populace who dislike the invaders and the new, externally installed government.

And if I do that, it will better answer the question of whether Iraq is better off without Saddam?
Okay.

"Violently overthrown by an external force"= We came in and many Iraqi people helped us out. Britain was violently forced to relinquish control of the colonies because of aid from France. Without the external force of France, America would probably not have achieved independence.

"large, angry populace who dislike the invaders"= The people who made a deal with us to stay until 2010.

"the new, externally installed government"= The government elected by the people's vote in Iraq in 2005.



Again, I don't see how any of this makes my point more or less relevant. It's too early to judge whether Iraq was better with Saddam or without Saddam.
And I'm interested in knowing your opinion on that subject, by the way.

Granted, Iraq has a long way to go, and the idea that no country is perfect only 5 years after a massive war destroying government and infastructure, is valid. But Iraq will never be "modern and democratic", as the US never will either, nor will any country. All countries keep moving forward.


Never thought of it that way.

EDIT: I gotta get to sleep. I'm gonna check on this in the morning

Again... not the point. Just illustrating that countries, immediately following governmental upheaval, tend to suck. And that you can't judge based on the first five years of a struggle how the country's going to be looking in two centuries.


That's true, you know. Heck, in two centuries they might be paying $3.50 per gallon (adjusted for inflation) at the pump despite the fact that supply far outweighs demand.

Hold it.

Well, they might be paying trillions in hard-earned taxpayer money to support rebuilding efforts in another country while their own country suffers an economic recession.

What I meant to say was

They might be bickering over false issues of religion and race during their free and fair presidential election, and have the media wagging the dog all the way through.

Why did we invade Iraq again? Oh yeah----to spread Western-style democracy.

Whoa whoa whoa.
So according to you, America is NOT at war right now?
But Britain, during the American War of Independence... they WERE at war?
Maybe it's just my part of the country, but over here we call it the "war" in Iraq.

It's currently not fighting any nation is it? It's occupying Iraq. Technically, you call the fighting an insurgency and counter-insurgency operations. Politicians just like to call it war to get the emotions rising.

America's Civil War is called that because both parties were the same culturally and socially.

You could say there is a civil war in Iraq, what with the fighting between all the militant groups. But when fighting against America, you'd call that an insurgency, because they're fighting a group that is an external component, yet they aren't a national army of the sort.

To answer the question directly (which is only fair,) consider the following:

Pre-Saddam: Iraq was a US ally, supported financially and militarily by our government. Right up until they crossed the border into Kuwait. Mind you, everything you pointed out (rapes, torture, etc.) was occuring during the period of our "friendship" with Iraq. That changed very quickly once Iraq moved to protect its oil supply from lateral drilling by Kuwait (*cough* Saudi *cough*) interests. No civil war, no internationally-condemned show trials of governmental leaders, no executions of same, no attacks against US by forces training on Iraqi soil, no incurions by the Turks into the northern sector of Iraq. Millions paid in aid to Iraq prior to Kuwait invasion. Post Kuwait but pre-invasion of Iraq, Saddam largely a hollow threat to US and surrounding countries.

Post-Saddam: International hatred and hostility against the US in the Middle East (save Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.) Civil war and religious warfare in Iraq. Former "terrorist" (Sadr) now leading a "militia" in cooperation with governmental forces to quash opposition to the "duly-elected" government of Iraq. Turkish incursions into northern sector to quash Kurd's efforts toward independence. Shiites getting revenge against the Sunnis for decades-long religious warfare, all with Iran's covert assistance. Iran---an evowed enemy of the US---now making overtures to Iraq, and being well-received by Shiite-led government.

And

Billions paid to US and international corporations for rebuilding efforts which have failed or stalled over the past several years. Fraud and waste rampant, lack of accountability evident.

US economy in a recession.

Al Qaida in Iraq (sorry for the spelling.)

Thousands of US soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen killed in the sands of Iraq.

Dilapidated Iraqi infrastructure and mininal security outside "green zone."


Shall I go on, or is that enough for you?

Call me crazy, but I'd go with things being better WITH Saddam.

And if I do that, it will better answer the question of whether Iraq is better off without Saddam?

No, you'd have to do the quality of life and violent death toll comparison. You're mixing things up.


"Violently overthrown by an external force"= We came in and many Iraqi people helped us out.


How?


Britain was violently forced to relinquish control of the colonies because of aid from France. Without the external force of France, America would probably not have achieved independence.

You have to check who is doing the actual overthrowing. An equal joint effort would count. But if one party is doing very little work, you can't really say it counts then.


"large, angry populace who dislike the invaders"= The people who made a deal with us to stay until 2010.

Did the Iraqi people sign an agreement of that sort? I was unaware of any such document.


"the new, externally installed government"= The government elected by the people's vote in Iraq in 2005.


Maybe so, but before that, the CPA was there, and you can't deny they royally fucked things up.


Again, I don't see how any of this makes my point more or less relevant. It's too early to judge whether Iraq was better with Saddam or without Saddam.
And I'm interested in knowing your opinion on that subject, by the way.

A comparison between quality of life and violent death tolls indicates that Saddam's era was actually better off than post Saddam Iraq, and this is important, to date.

Is life in Iraq better without Saddam?

Of course not those filthy Kurds are not being killed anymore

I saw this way back in 2003 when the war first started.

Yes, Saddam was a monster, but the country was stable, and stability is far more important then democracy or civil rights or such.

I saw this way back in 2003 when the war first started.

Yes, Saddam was a monster, but the country was stable, and stability is far more important then democracy or civil rights or such.

To play the devil's advocate...some people believe otherwise. I'm not sure which camp I fall into...but I do think the US should have waited for more international aid before plunging into the fray.

To play the devil's advocate...some people believe otherwise. I'm not sure which camp I fall into...but I do think the US should have waited for more international aid before plunging into the fray.

Liberty's rather meaningless when it ends up giving you privation and death doesn't it?

Liberty's rather meaningless when it ends up giving you privation and death doesn't it?

Depending on who you are, oppression and tyranny give you the same, don't they?

Liberty's rather meaningless when it ends up giving you privation and death doesn't it?

As opposed to living your life in shackles?

Depending on who you are, oppression and tyranny give you the same, don't they?

Yes the but the needs of many (in this case all of iraq) out weigh the needs of a few (whom ever Saddam was oppressing at the time)

As opposed to living your life in shackles?

Live free or die is bullshit if you're dieing because some other nation decided you where better off free.

The Iraq war wasn't a popular rebellion; that's why it's been so hard for the Americans to gain any ground in the nation the people didn't want this to begin with.

As opposed to living your life in shackles?

My dear DrVenkman, you really have no idea do you? Freedom is a myth. At least freedom in its purest form. We, as a species, as living beings, shackle ourselves everyday. To money, to greed, to power, to stability, to success, to the very reality that shapes our entire lives. Oppression does not have to be merely in the form of what you can or cannot say by the law.

What is freedom but merely the ability to act on a choice? A choice that is already limited before we ever knew it existed?

The Iraq war wasn't a popular rebellion; that's why it's been so hard for the Americans to gain any ground in the nation the people didn't want this to begin with.

This is exactly what I was trying to tell someone previously when they tried to compare this war to the American Revolution...

Personally I wouldn't have chosen to go into Iraq...granted, I think Saddam is one sick SOB...but my main point of concern now that we're there is how mismanaged this war has been.

Let's have a poll with no choice that disagrees with the "opinion" we wish to further.

My dear DrVenkman, you really have no idea do you? Freedom is a myth. At least freedom in its purest form. We, as a species, as living beings, shackle ourselves everyday. To money, to greed, to power, to stability, to success, to the very reality that shapes our entire lives. Oppression does not have to be merely in the form of what you can or cannot say by the law.

What is freedom but merely the ability to act on a choice? A choice that is already limited before we ever knew it existed?

Do not proceed to tell me that I know nothing of the invisible bonds which man finds himself bound to (self-aware or not) everyday. Its existence is certain. However, the pursuit of an ideal typically trumps a saddened and disillusioned reality. That being said, some bonds are better than others.

However, the pursuit of an ideal typically trumps a saddened and disillusioned reality.

Actually, you will find that reality trumps ideals. And usually the harder one pursues an ideal, the harder reality will hit.

The clever ones learn how to mold ideals after reality.


That being said, some bonds are better than others.

So which bonds would you rather have? Oppression of speech and loss of control over one's life, though you can keep the life, or the bonds of hunger, privation and unexpected violent death?

No one should forget that the Provisional Iraqi Government was a US client state in every sense of the word, a neocon was put in charge literally as a dictator, he could write up a law, sign it, and it was law. This is how the US passed through radical neoliberal laws, including a 10% flat tax, no limits on foreign ownership and a basic complete deregulation and privatization of the entire economy, which caused US subsidized agribusiness to effectively destroy what was left of Iraqi grain industry. Most Iraqi infrastructure is owned by foreigners now. The Green Zone apparently is a pretty strange place, the rest of the country is a run-down dump, but the Green Zone is pristine clean, no litter, it has perfect medical facilities with lots of trained staff (which almost never treat people outside the zone), guarded mostly by mercenaries and private contractors, it's basically the corporate 'Utopia' the neocons wanted as an experiment.

This is not to mention the role of the US is breaking the trade unions in Iraq basically the day after they were created after being banned for decades by Saddam, as well as assassinations of left-wing politicians and figures.

But moreover, the invasion of Iraq was an attempt by US bourgeois interests to cut through the wall of protectionism that protects Iraqi oil from such free reign, Iraq more than any other Arab state opted for 100% nationalization. Where diplomacy and trade treaties fail, US bourgeois interests will inevitably use war to force their neoliberal 'paradise' on the world, God help us all...

No one should forget that the Provisional Iraqi Government was a US client state in every sense of the word, a neocon was put in charge literally as a dictator, he could write up a law, sign it, and it was law. This is how the US passed through radical neoliberal laws, including a 10% flat tax, no limits on foreign ownership and a basic complete deregulation and privatization of the entire economy, which caused US subsidized agribusiness to effectively destroy what was left of Iraqi grain industry. Most Iraqi infrastructure is owned by foreigners now. The Green Zone apparently is a pretty strange place, the rest of the country is a run-down dump, but the Green Zone is pristine clean, no litter, it has perfect medical facilities with lots of trained staff (which almost never treat people outside the zone), it's basically the corporate 'Utopia' the neocons wanted as an experiment.

This is not to mention the role of the US is breaking the trade unions in Iraq basically the day after they were created after being banned for decades by Saddam, as well as assassinations of left-wing politicians and figures.

But moreover, the invasion of Iraq was an attempt by US bourgeois interests to cut through the wall of protectionism that protects Iraqi oil from such free reign, Iraq more than any other Arab state opted for 100% nationalization. Where diplomacy and trade treaties fail, US bourgeois interests will inevitably use war to force their neoliberal 'paradise' on the world, God help us all...

Do you have proof, my friend? I've heard many things about the war...but this is new. Interesting if you can get me the sources.

Do you have proof, my friend? I've heard many things about the war...but this is new. Interesting if you can get me the sources.

Most of that comes from sources in a book I read by Naomi Klein, and she does indeed source everything from mostly first hand sources etc. Also, I would suggest a watch of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk-qBY-TiZg

You have to admit though...there were several horrific acts committed under Saddam's rule. The best thing to do is let the Iraqis have a national election on the type of government they want: that will truely be the will of the people. Or divide the nation along ethnic lines, like the plan several military officials have been spouting for months.

Actually, you will find that reality trumps ideals. And usually the harder one pursues an ideal, the harder reality will hit.

The clever ones learn how to mold ideals after reality.



So which bonds would you rather have? Oppression of speech and loss of control over one's life, though you can keep the life, or the bonds of hunger, privation and unexpected violent death?


There are certain bonds that allow the pursuit of ideals much more freely and make them easier to attain. It is the pursuit that is important, not the reality that it confronts. Being able to speak one's own mind falls into such category. Essentially what we are arguing is what type of shit tastes better; from any kind of ethical point of view, Saddam should have been removed. From a realistic perspective, doing so without proper planning and support is a no-no.

There are certain bonds that allow the pursuit of ideals much more freely and make them easier to attain. It is the pursuit that is important, not the reality that it confronts. Being able to speak one's own mind falls into such category. Essentially what we are arguing is what type of shit tastes better; from any kind of ethical point of view, Saddam should have been removed. From a realistic perspective, doing so without proper planning and support is a no-no.

Which is why the issue of going to war shouldn't be the main focus right now...but instead how to resolve it. It's degenerated into arguing semantics, like you said.

There are certain bonds that allow the pursuit of ideals much more freely and make them easier to attain. It is the pursuit that is important, not the reality that it confronts. Being able to speak one's own mind falls into such category. Essentially what we are arguing is what type of shit tastes better; from any kind of ethical point of view, Saddam should have been removed. From a realistic perspective, doing so without proper planning and support is a no-no.
In reality Iraq has gone from being a fascist state ruled essentially by a psychopathic crime family, to have all their wealth sold off to giant foreign corporations, and being run by a bunch of squabbling ethnic gangs in suits who follow up political disputes by sending a death squad to your families' house.

There are certain bonds that allow the pursuit of ideals much more freely and make them easier to attain. It is the pursuit that is important, not the reality that it confronts.


Aye, the pursuit of ideals/dreams is important, I will grant you that. But just as the pursuit is important, so is the environment that they are pursued in.

What sort of dreams can one pursue in Iraq today, compared to the ones that could be pursued 20 years ago?

Ideals can die. Pursuers of ideals can die. And when death is the primary environment, ideals are always the first casualty, only the reality of surviving remains.

Ideals are important. But ideals must always give way to reality. It matters not how strongly one pursues when reality cuts it short.


Being able to speak one's own mind falls into such category.


But if one dies from privation in such a place where one can speak one's mind, to what point is it?


Essentially what we are arguing is what type of shit tastes better; from any kind of ethical point of view, Saddam should have been removed. From a realistic perspective, doing so without proper planning and support is a no-no.

And this is where reality trumps idealism. The reality is that such proper planning and support never materialized, leaving only worse results. The road to hell is paved with good intentions they say, and here I am not even certain they had good intentions.

Clearly at the moment its not. However what if Iraq becomes a stable democracy? What if infrastructure, services and security are established? Then question becomes is life better under a sadistic tyrant or in a relatively modern, relatively democratic society. I think the answer to that question is self-apparent.There's this saying in German: "If it weren't for the word 'if', my father would be a millionaire." Only it's better in German, because it rhymes.So we should have just left him in power so he and his sons could rape more women, torture more men, and gas more Kurds? How is removing him a bad idea?Check out life in Basra today or how the Christian Iraqis are being treated. In Basra, you can find graffiti telling women how they're supposed to dress or face the consequences, along with cases of what happened to the women that didn't do as they were told by the shia militias. Under Saddam, the Christian minority could go to Church on Sundays and worship relatively freely. Not the case anymore.
JEFFERSON: Y'know, we started this war in '75, and currently it's '80.
WASHINGTON: Britain will recognize our independence soon.
JEFFERSON: Do you think life was better with the king, or without the king? At least with the king, we weren't getting shot at. Sure, we were being taxed into the ground, and sure, we had no say in it. And sure, there were a few massacres. And we were being brutally oppressed. But at least there was peace.
WASHINGTON: You're right. And there's no tea, anymore, either. And we don't have any boots. My men had to march through Valley Forge barefoot. At least with Britain, they sent us decent clothing. Sure, we had to kiss the king's arse for everything we got, but life is just so damn HARD now that I'd rather go back to the arse-kissing.
JEFFERSON: I guess this just goes to show that if a war for independence doesn't show obvious, miraculous, orgasmic results after five years, then the country fighting for independence will never achieve liberty or democracy, and will never become a strong, modern nation, much less a world superpower in say... 120 years or so...
WASHINGTON: Very well put.Interesting how this is not relevant at all, as the two cases are not comparable in the least.
Not really the point. The point was that it's unfair to judge whether a country's better with or without their despot after only five years.
I'm not by any means trying to justify the war in Iraq. I couldn't do that if I tried.War's been over for a while now in Iraq. War was still going on in the scenario you described. Also, transportation and communication have sped up quite a lot since then, making achieving things faster a lot more realistic. At least one could have expected for things to have gotten a bit better. But they haven't.
Whoa whoa whoa.
So according to you, America is NOT at war right now?America isn't at war right now. It's an occupation.
But Britain, during the American War of Independence... they WERE at war?Up until they declared it over, yeah.
Maybe it's just my part of the country, but over here we call it the "war" in Iraq.They call it the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as well.
Is life in Iraq better without Saddam?

Of course not those filthy Kurds are not being killed anymoreAll it really took to keep Saddam from killing the Kurds were the no-fly zones. No need to depose him to protect the Kurds.
As opposed to living your life in shackles?As opposed to living your life in shackles with the option of randomly dying for wearing make-up or walking too close to a suicide bomber's target?

Well said, Laerod. Have a cookie. :)

All it really took to keep Saddam from killing the Kurds were the no-fly zones. No need to depose him to protect the Kurds.

Not exactly, but your final point remains the same I guess.
The Kurdish question is quite different then we, in the west, are being told. There were gassings (Some of which are proven Iraqi, some of which are unproven anyone, some of which are highly suspect Iranian), and other such mass killings, in small number. Saddam did not, in any way shape or form, carpet bomb or any other blanket destruction in the Kurdish regions. Nor did the no-fly zones keep him from "pacifying" the region from 93-94, when they were in full effect but still he hit the Kurds quite hard. No, what kept the Kurds alive was the smart Kurds. They have a troubled and spotted history (Who wouldn't in their situation over the last 100 years?), but you need to remember that since the Brits left the area in the 1950s there have been two groups of Kurds. There's the large group who not only run the autonomus region in Iraq, but have had a history of good relations with the central Iraqi government (Including Saddam), and then there's small groups who decide to take it upon themselves to commit acts of terrorisim to get what they want. What kept the Kurds quite safe, and prosperous for that matter, since 1994 has not been any foreign imposed will, it's been the big Kurdish leaders stamping out the radical small ones before they get into crap like bombing schools and offices in other parts of Iraq. It's the same reason Turkey's pretty pissed at the Kurds too, because of "a few bad apples" so to speak. Attacks on the Kurds durring the Iran-Iraq war were spurred on by some of these smaller groups of Kurds not just passivly, but activly supporting the Iranians against Iraq through tactics that today we classify as vile terrorist crap, because the Iranians promised to consider the concept of an independent Kurdistan (Never really a reality either). The approach to how tio deal with these small groups was certianly not always the right one (Downright wrong for gassing of whole villages), but you can't sit here ad yell "Saddam is pure Evil for killing innocent Kurds!" when you have no idea if they're innocent or not.

And the whole problem is compounded by the fact that since 1986 we've had two groups of Kurds in the west who have left either of the three countries. The vast majority are those who left because of their support, or family support, of the small group Kurds, the radicals who've done very bad things on the same level of Hamas. And then we have those few who left for other reasons, like education, and so on. The first group are very vocal about their thoughts here, and don't care to make all the "facts" avalible when they yell, we have a few of them around here. The second group, simply don't care what the first one is saying, or what we (the west) thinks, we also have a few of them around here (One is a visiting Kurdish prof at one of the three universities). The whole issue with the Kurds is nowhere near black and white, it's about as grey as grey can get by now with all the "official" things that go around having been corrupted for political or other reasons to get something else.

Iraqis are relying on militias and other armed groups to fill the services void. Stories abound of neighborhood militiamen commandeering power plants and forcing terrified engineers to flip the switches even during government blackouts, turning militants into heroes and further undermining the unpopular Maliki administration.


This is how Hamas got elected and Hezbollah got such support in Lebanon.


Well done US.

This is how Hamas got elected and Hezbollah got such support in Lebanon.


Well done US.

And also how the paramillitaries in N.Ireland and the drug gangs in brazil gained power in the estates and favelas (sp?) they worked in. So long as the gangs, whatever form they take, provide vital services that the goverment can't, the people in the area can't afford to lose them.

JEFFERSON: Do you think life was better with the king, or without the king? At least with the king, we weren't getting shot at. Sure, we were being taxed into the ground, and sure, we had no say in it. And sure, there were a few massacres. And we were being brutally oppressed. But at least there was peace.



Thomas Jefferson was too smart to say such blatantly untrue things. The tax was the smallest tax increase in the history of the US, there was no repression (still had Habeus Corpus and such), and if by massacares you mean one incident where a mob picked a fight with the British garrison and 5 men ended up being dead, then sure.

Hey, I resent the second option. Even on three hits of acid I'm not that delusional. :P

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43468

I'm not sure the Revolutionary War was very popular while it was going on. Some colonists were probably quite pissed that the founding fathers threw them into it in the first place.
"We miss the king! We hated the bastard and we were his lapdogs, but dammit, life was EASIER back then!"
Do I think we should've invaded? No.
Do I think we should withdraw as soon as possible? Definitely.
Do I think that it's completely unfair to ask whether Iraq is better without Saddam? Yep. I think it's a completely stupid question.

I'm not sure the Revolutionary War was very popular while it was going on. Some colonists were probably quite pissed that the founding fathers threw them into it in the first place.

Only 1/3 of Americans supported revolution. 1/3 were against it. 1/3 didnt give a shit.

Don't mind the lack of stable electricity, clean water (let alone actual water), stable fuel supplies, stable food supplies, the shoddy (if any) education, the lack of doctors, the barely existent garbage collection, phone bills for lines that haven't worked in years, the rampaging militias, bombings, shootings, death squads, etc. At least you can speak out against things. Oh wait, you can't. You'll be shot to death by a death squad.
"The Iraqis are wrong because it doesn't fit my own personal view of the invasion".

Yeah, nice one.

Hey, if they think things are better, then we should probably take their word for it. I like the surge, it's getting back to running things like Saddam did. But hey, that seems to put me somewhat alone within the left-ish kind of area.

There's this saying in German: "If it weren't for the word 'if', my father would be a millionaire." Only it's better in German, because it rhymes.
Is it a wär' / millionär rhyme?

Only 1/3 of Americans supported revolution. 1/3 were against it. 1/3 didnt give a shit.

Sounds like my country, all right. For some reason I feel a sense of pride at that too.

"You can take our land, but not our freedom. But we'd still like our land. And our lives. So fuck off!"

"Fuck you, Washington! Now we've got a war! Great. Fucking. Job!"

"Yeah, I dunno. You know what? They'll sort it out. Now where did I put my Halo 3 game?"

Doesn't sound much different than what it was like before the war. Saddam allowed the country's infrastructure to decay to a point where it was barely functional anyways, preferring to spend money on palaces and other corrupt patronage at the expense of a functioning country. The war and subsequent violence was merely the straw that pushed it in to total breakdown.
That's bull. They had sufficient infrastructure before the war. There were blackouts every now and then, but what can you expect from a second world country.

I don't believe Saddam was a competent ruler who cared about his people. That's also my opinion of Bush. I think life could be better for the Iraqis than it was under Saddam if more responsible management is put into place...and the religious extremists calm down.
Not gonna happen. They've had centuries to "calm down". Saddam at least kept them in line.

So we should have just left him in power so he and his sons could rape more women, torture more men, and gas more Kurds? How is removing him a bad idea?
His sons could have been dealt with and are not a reflection on his reign. Only a reflection on his apathy. The killings were in the late 80s. They weren't happening all the time and were in response to terrorist acts.

JEFFERSON: Y'know, we started this war in '75, and currently it's '80.
WASHINGTON: Britain will recognize our independence soon.
JEFFERSON: Do you think life was better with the king, or without the king? At least with the king, we weren't getting shot at. Sure, we were being taxed into the ground, and sure, we had no say in it. And sure, there were a few massacres. And we were being brutally oppressed. But at least there was peace.
WASHINGTON: You're right. And there's no tea, anymore, either. And we don't have any boots. My men had to march through Valley Forge barefoot. At least with Britain, they sent us decent clothing. Sure, we had to kiss the king's arse for everything we got, but life is just so damn HARD now that I'd rather go back to the arse-kissing.
JEFFERSON: I guess this just goes to show that if a war for independence doesn't show obvious, miraculous, orgasmic results after five years, then the country fighting for independence will never achieve liberty or democracy, and will never become a strong, modern nation, much less a world superpower in say... 120 years or so...
WASHINGTON: Very well put.
There's one BIG difference: One situation had the people voluntarily fighting for their own independence. The other was just happily sitting there when someone came along and "helped" them.

According to a young Iraqi woman I am close freinds with who lived under Saddam's reign, the US invasion was complete and utter BS, and should not have happened.

Although she says the US should have taken out Uday and Qusay in the early 1990s anyway.

Apparently, Saddam was a fairly nice guy as far as corrupt dictators go, but his sons, total A-holes.
Saddam was the man. He was an excellent leader I have respect for.

You don't think it's a valid comparison? I could choose some other country that had its government violently overthrown and then pulled through to become modern and democratic.
Actually, here are a few. You can sort through the list and find an example that you think works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_independence
The Iraq war is not a war of independence.

"Violently overthrown by an external force"= We came in and many Iraqi people helped us out.
It wasn't everyone. It was Shiites happy that Sunni rule was over and they could take over. Or it was just some people. Also, it was the beginning when it actually was somewhat good. But it has since spiraled to hell.

Britain was violently forced to relinquish control of the colonies because of aid from France. Without the external force of France, America would probably not have achieved independence.
We'd've fought to the end. The French didn't come until Saratoga when we forced a significant British force and general to surrender 3000 or 5000 troops I forget exactly. We would've fought on until the Brits at home started complaining about their lost brothers, sons, fathers and the misery.

"large, angry populace who dislike the invaders"= The people who made a deal with us to stay until 2010.
That was a corrupt government. Even without corruption, it's still not the people.

"the new, externally installed government"= The government elected by the people's vote in Iraq in 2005.
idk the exact turnout, but I know the vote was heavily fractured by tribe and religious sect.


Again, I don't see how any of this makes my point more or less relevant. It's too early to judge whether Iraq was better with Saddam or without Saddam.
And I'm interested in knowing your opinion on that subject, by the way.
Nothing is gonna change unless there is a new dictator or Iraq is split in three.

I saw this way back in 2003 when the war first started.

Yes, Saddam was a monster, but the country was stable, and stability is far more important then democracy or civil rights or such.
Saddam was an excellent and respectable leader. I lament his murder.

Let's have a poll with no choice that disagrees with the "opinion" we wish to further.
The poll is fair. Anyone who thinks Iraq is better of now is delusional.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43468

I'm not sure the Revolutionary War was very popular while it was going on. Some colonists were probably quite pissed that the founding fathers threw them into it in the first place.
"We miss the king! We hated the bastard and we were his lapdogs, but dammit, life was EASIER back then!"
Do I think we should've invaded? No.
Do I think we should withdraw as soon as possible? Definitely.
Do I think that it's completely unfair to ask whether Iraq is better without Saddam? Yep. I think it's a completely stupid question.
At first, it was unpopular. But after they started winning and Tommy Paine started writing, the war became popular-er.

Only 1/3 of Americans supported revolution. 1/3 were against it. 1/3 didnt give a shit.
AFAIK, that is fact.

Whew I'm done.

Clearly Sel Appa is a terrorist sympathizer who hates freedom to tout such Islamofascist propaganda...everyone knows that Iraq is like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.

Only 1/3 of Americans supported revolution. 1/3 were against it. 1/3 didnt give a shit.

In other words, just like almost every other revolution.

"The Iraqis are wrong because it doesn't fit my own personal view of the invasion".

Yeah, nice one.

Hey, if they think things are better, then we should probably take their word for it. I like the surge, it's getting back to running things like Saddam did. But hey, that seems to put me somewhat alone within the left-ish kind of area.
The Iraqis wish Saddam was back. And there's no proof the surge actually worked. Several ceasefires were also enacted at the same time. The surge may bring down violence, but it doesn't fix infrastructure.

Saddam was the man. He was an excellent leader I have respect for.

Saddam was an excellent and respectable leader. I lament his murder.

Are you a fascist, or merely a troll? Or both?

The Iraqis wish Saddam was back. And there's no proof the surge actually worked. Several ceasefires were also enacted at the same time. The surge may bring down violence, but it doesn't fix infrastructure.
Recent proof of this love for Saddam at all?

I know in like 2004 people wanted him back. Not right now, though.

Are you a fascist, or merely a troll? Or both?
No, I am a sincere supporter of Saddam Hussein. I'm not a teenage rebel or anything like that. I seriously do think he was a great, admirable leader.

Recent proof of this love for Saddam at all?

I know in like 2004 people wanted him back. Not right now, though.
On the other hand, prove that they feel better without him. I will look for proof though.

On the other hand, prove that they feel better without him. I will look for proof though.
Link (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107F.shtml)
At least, that is the view of the Iraqi weightlifter made famous through a video of him taking a sledgehammer to Saddam Hussein's statue. "I really regret bringing down the statue," Kadhim al-Jubouri said on British television this week. "The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day."

That's the judgment of a man who spent nine years in Hussein's jails, and, unfortunately, it is one shared by a majority of his countrymen, according to an authoritative poll sponsored jointly by ABC, BBC and USA Today: Only 38 percent of Iraqis believe that the country is better off today than under Hussein, while nearly four out of five oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq.

Even more disturbing is that 51 percent of Iraqis think it is OK to attack coalition troops - triple the number that thought that

Recent proof of this love for Saddam at all?

I know in like 2004 people wanted him back. Not right now, though.

http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL1688351220080318

What about that?

I'm inclined to agree with Sel Appa, sort of. I don't support his mistakes (And REALLY bad mistakes at that), but I've done enough research at this point to split fact from fiction in common anti-Saddam arguments. And talking with Iraqis who lived under him, Kurds and Arabs, and at least two enthusiastic Ba'athists (One of which believes Saddam corrupted that ideology), I'm inclined to agree. Saddam wasn't "great", but he did a hard ass job, and it's ab absolute shame on the US system for letting the mock trial go through like they did.

Now, and I will only say this once so anyone who ignores it simply isn't worth the time, hell I'll bold it for you all.
Saddam's sons were pure evil bastards who deserved worse then the fate they got.

That's bull. They had sufficient infrastructure before the war. There were blackouts every now and then, but what can you expect from a second world country.

Oh really?


Following the war with Iran in 1988, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the 1990 UNDP Human Development Index (HDI). This index measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP. Iraq was close to the top of the “medium human development” category, a reflection of the Government’s continued investment in basic social services. By 1995, Iraq had declined to 106th out of 174 countries and by 2000 it had plummeted to 126th, falling behind Bolivia, Egypt, Mongolia and Gabon and close to the bottom of the “medium human development” category


It has been rotting for a long time, just like the Saddam regime. By the time we got there, it was already in shambles.

Are you a fascist, or merely a troll? Or both?

Compared to the CPA, the current Iraqi government, and every noodnik who rules a chunk of Iraq, Saddam was practically a paragon of a leader. Say what you want about him, at least he kept the peace a hell lot better than the administration in Washington did.

It has been rotting for a long time, just like the Saddam regime. By the time we got there, it was already in shambles.

How conveniently you forget the sanctions and air raids between 1991 and 1995.

Oh really?



It has been rotting for a long time, just like the Saddam regime. By the time we got there, it was already in shambles.

According to every Iraqi I have ever talked to who lived in country durring that time, foreign aircraft, including American, bombed infastructure there every week for usually bogus reasons, in what they could only assume was an attempt to pressure Saddam to "give in" from popular pressure.

One girl told me an especially interesting story of how one week I think in 1997 a water purification pland and power station were bombed in the same night, and a good chunk of Baghdad was without water or power for almost a month as every attempt to repair them was bombed.

I hate to break it to you, but relying entirely on news reports by the winner is a bad way to cover war research.

No, I am a sincere supporter of Saddam Hussein. I'm not a teenage rebel or anything like that. I seriously do think he was a great, admirable leader.

Genocide is an admirable action.

I am not on acid...

(tells the singing watermellon ferris weel to shut up):D

I had to vote yes, just cause' I liked the option. I really feel no. Hey, how come there is no option for no, and on acid?:mad:

Great thread dude. Way to give a shitty poll.

its always the same:

every nation that either gives up its own political stance, or has their original stance forcibly removed by foreigner powers, and takes on Democracy, ends up as a squalid hell with no real leadership, and the chaos that comes from that make-believe leadership

case examples:
Germany - we had efficiency and discipline, now under democracy, we're just another chaotic lie,

Russia - they had order and distributed resources through all soviet countries - now all those former soviet nations are poor as hell, and russia has only really began recovering during the Vladimir Putin rule, so at least russia still has a good leader in the government

Saddam's sons were pure evil bastards who deserved worse then the fate they got.
Yes, but they deserve what is just: life in prison. Or the whole purpose of getting them is defeated.

http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL1688351220080318

What about that?
I want one.

Genocide is an admirable action.
Do you really feel that way?

I am not on acid...

(tells the singing watermellon ferris weel to shut up):D

I had to vote yes, just cause' I liked the option. I really feel no. Hey, how come there is no option for no, and on acid?:mad:

Great thread dude. Way to give a shitty poll.

The poll is reality. Anyone who thinks Iraq is better is delusional.

Ah, but the Iraqis now possess a democracy. After all, this is a panacea for all possible woes; especially the trivial concerns in the OP.

Yay for democracy.

JEFFERSON: Y'know, we started this war in '75, and currently it's '80.
WASHINGTON: Britain will recognize our independence soon.
JEFFERSON: Do you think life was better with the king, or without the king? At least with the king, we weren't getting shot at. Sure, we were being taxed into the ground, and sure, we had no say in it. And sure, there were a few massacres. And we were being brutally oppressed. But at least there was peace.
WASHINGTON: You're right. And there's no tea, anymore, either. And we don't have any boots. My men had to march through Valley Forge barefoot. At least with Britain, they sent us decent clothing. Sure, we had to kiss the king's arse for everything we got, but life is just so damn HARD now that I'd rather go back to the arse-kissing.
JEFFERSON: I guess this just goes to show that if a war for independence doesn't show obvious, miraculous, orgasmic results after five years, then the country fighting for independence will never achieve liberty or democracy, and will never become a strong, modern nation, much less a world superpower in say... 120 years or so...
WASHINGTON: Very well put.


sorry if this post was addressed.


How the FUCK is the American Revolution anything like invading another country? Seriously I am sick of this bullshit "but this war which actually had a cause took a long time so you should you should ignore the length of this other war and anything that fails within."

The American Revolution and the Iraqi Clusterfuck are not similar. stop treating it as such

Only 1/3 of Americans supported revolution. 1/3 were against it. 1/3 didnt give a shit.

Um... yeah. You must've read my link. :confused:

sorry if this post was addressed.

God forbid you should read the posts preceding yours.

How the FUCK is the American Revolution anything like invading another country? Seriously I am sick of this bullshit "but this war which actually had a cause took a long time so you should you should ignore the length of this other war and anything that fails within."

Again, the fact that you were unwilling to read the previous posts is made very evident.
The War in Iraq is completely stupid... as is this thread. That's all I'm saying.

The American Revolution and the Iraqi Clusterfuck are not similar. stop treating it as such

They're similar in the aspect that they both took time, they were both controversial, and in both wars there were people saying that they were happier under the control of a despot than fending for themselves.
However, you're right, they're not completely the same. Here are some differences:

1) Saddam was a genocidal maniac... King George laid some heavy taxes down. Iraq actually had BETTER reason to go to war.
2) The War for Independence lasted from '74 to '83... and there was no Constitution in the current sense of the word until the 1790's, after Shays' Rebellion had proven that the divided, weak states would have to unite together.
3) The colonists also didn't have running water or electricity. In fact, the only water they got was festering with disease and almost unbearable to drink, thus the American dependence on tea to make water tolerable. They had to make their own clothing, and often there wasn't enough for everyone, so there's that famous instance of men walking barefoot through Valley Forge in bitter winter, leaving bloody footprints in the snow. Meanwhile, our troops in Iraq are well-armed, well-armored, fed, and supplied... mostly by the Democrats that we put into Congress because we hoped they would end the war.
4) The colonists had damn good reason to complain, but they kept going because they knew the survival of their freedoms depended on it. Iraq is deprived of water and electricity, and there are violent gangs roaming around (although the Surge and some well-placed bribes have made things much less violent there), and we're expected to take this as a sign that they were much better off when they were ruled by a megalomaniacal butcher.

The poll is reality. Anyone who thinks Iraq is better is delusional.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

its always the same:

every nation that either gives up its own political stance, or has their original stance forcibly removed by foreigner powers, and takes on Democracy, ends up as a squalid hell with no real leadership, and the chaos that comes from that make-believe leadership

While the countries under the thumb of ruthless dictators live in eternal prosperity, I imagine. :rolleyes:

case examples:
Germany - we had efficiency and discipline, now under democracy, we're just another chaotic lie,

... with electricity, running water, heating n' air conditioning, lots of jobs, a low crime rate, cars, law, order... and other assorted things that prove democracy is inferior to fascism.
Well played, son.

Compared to the CPA, the current Iraqi government, and every noodnik who rules a chunk of Iraq, Saddam was practically a paragon of a leader. Say what you want about him, at least he kept the peace a hell lot better than the administration in Washington did.

People keep on saying this, and they keep on ignoring one simple fact:
THINGS ARE ALWAYS QUIETER WHEN THERE'S A GUN TO YOUR HEAD.
Of course things were more peaceful under Saddam! He shot anyone who disturbed the peace... hell, he gassed you if you were the wrong ethnicity, whether you disturbed the peace or not.
It's only natural that a country where you get your hands chopped off for theft will have a lower crime rate... that doesn't mean I support mutilation as a punishment for theft.
Countries tend to be very efficient under the rule of hard-ass, murder-you-if-you-so-much-as-look-at-me-the-wrong-way dictators. Iraq, however, couldn't even say THAT much. Someone pointed out that it was falling apart already.
One thing I'd like is for people to stop citing the fact that citizens are better-behaved when under pain of death. We know. We've all seen Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia and other countries dominated by fear. We get the point.

Interesting how this is not relevant at all, as the two cases are not comparable in the least.

Well, I think if you actually read my posts, you'll find that... yes, they are comparable. The only difference being that Iraq needed to shed its dictator even more than America did.

War's been over for a while now in Iraq. War was still going on in the scenario you described. Also, transportation and communication have sped up quite a lot since then, making achieving things faster a lot more realistic. At least one could have expected for things to have gotten a bit better. But they haven't.
America isn't at war right now. It's an occupation.

Should I rephrase it "armed struggle"? Considering that many governments in the world today are little better than armed gangs themselves, I hardly see how fighting insurgents should be considered less daunting than fighting a government.
The speeding up of transportation and communication has made the insurgents better at evading us, harder to track, and much more adept at surprising us.
The large drops in violence and the fact that Kurds aren't being gassed to death in droves anymore seems to be a sign of things getting "a bit better." To me, anyway. I don't expect anyone to share my opinion.

They call it the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as well.

They call my iPod a music player. It plays music.
Sometimes, things are what they're called.

Thomas Jefferson was too smart to say such blatantly untrue things. The tax was the smallest tax increase in the history of the US, there was no repression (still had Habeus Corpus and such), and if by massacares you mean one incident where a mob picked a fight with the British garrison and 5 men ended up being dead, then sure.

I just picked two founding fathers at random.
And you make a valid point... Iraq probably had far better reason to depose Saddam than we did to depose George. Your response couldn't have been better if I had planned it myself.

My dear DrVenkman, you really have no idea do you? Freedom is a myth. At least freedom in its purest form. We, as a species, as living beings, shackle ourselves everyday. To money, to greed, to power, to stability, to success, to the very reality that shapes our entire lives. Oppression does not have to be merely in the form of what you can or cannot say by the law.

What is freedom but merely the ability to act on a choice? A choice that is already limited before we ever knew it existed?

That was deep. Time for Acid Trip #4.
I'm gonna get some shuteye. Looking forward to whatever responses may be waiting for me when I get back.

*KA-SNIP*Damned libruhls and their poll bias (well-known to have a slant in reality)
Even if i wanted the first one, i just *had* to go with the second one.

THINGS ARE ALWAYS QUIETER WHEN THERE'S A GUN TO YOUR HEAD.


With the US, Sunni and Shia extremists, various Islamist groups, there are more guns to people's heads now than there were during Saddam's time.


Of course things were more peaceful under Saddam! He shot anyone who disturbed the peace... hell, he gassed you if you were the wrong ethnicity, whether you disturbed the peace or not.


Just to let you know, the Kurds were not exactly just minding their own business when Saddam went on the offensive against them. They were doing, what's that thing called again? Ah yes, open revolt. CIA sponsored of course.

Yes, not all of them did so. Yes, the mass punishments were bad (like Israels, but at least they don't gas them, just blow them up). But it's not like Saddam decided one day "let's go kill us some Kurds".


It's only natural that a country where you get your hands chopped off for theft will have a lower crime rate...


Victorian era Britain, where criminals were publicly hanged, proves you wrong.


Countries tend to be very efficient under the rule of hard-ass, murder-you-if-you-so-much-as-look-at-me-the-wrong-way dictators. Iraq, however, couldn't even say THAT much.

It could normally. It just couldn't when it was being starved to death and bombed every now and again.

And even then he still managed to keep the peace.


Someone pointed out that it was falling apart already.


Before the sanctions and constant air raids, Iraq was considered a highly advanced nation. One of the few Arabic first world countries. Did you know that?

When did it begin to fall apart? Oh, I don't know, maybe around the time they went to war for many years with Iran, and their economy went bust. And then after the foray into Kuwait, when the US administration thought it fun to bomb Iraq every now and again while they starved it of resources.

Let's see how well the US would hold itself together if it was cut off from all external resources and had its key infrastructure bombed every so often.

The large drops in violence and the fact that Kurds aren't being gassed to death in droves anymore seems to be a sign of things getting "a bit better." To me, anyway. I don't expect anyone to share my opinion.


The Al-Anfal campaign ended in 1989 boyo. They weren't being gassed in droves for 14 years when the US decided to bring up that bit to help beat their war drums.

The large drops in violence and the fact that Kurds aren't being gassed to death in droves anymore seems to be a sign of things getting "a bit better."

You're 19 years too late. The last gas attack on a Kurdish anything was in 1989. Not to mention some of those attacks are disputed Iraqi, with many eye witnesses and even a few UN reports on the incident claiming Iranian gas attacks on Kurds too.

And of course you obviously didn't know that Iran and Iraq were fighting eachoher in a bloody war that extended into the northern region, and that Iran was using sympathetic Kurds to infiltrate Iraq, and Iraq was doing much the same in Iranian Kurdistan, and both punished those who would not help. Because, you know, that's war.

1) Saddam was a genocidal maniac...


I want you to prove this statement. And I want you to do it without refering to the 2005 Hague convention. History is written by the winners, and I've spoken to at least a few Kurds who can voice against the concept of "genocide" as what happened, they still hate Saddam, but they don't believe it was genocide.

Of course things were more peaceful under Saddam! He shot anyone who disturbed the peace... hell, he gassed you if you were the wrong ethnicity, whether you disturbed the peace or not.

Again, 1989, you're 19 years too late. Nevermind the fact that Kurds lived throughout Iraq, and that a good number of those villages had Arab populations at the time, and were occupied often by Iranians as well.

Of course, I suppose you're going to tell me Saddam gassed the Kurdish neighborhoods of Baghdad and Basrah now.


It's only natural that a country where you get your hands chopped off for theft will have a lower crime rate... that doesn't mean I support mutilation as a punishment for theft.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Yemen, Oman, not Iraq.
The Iraqi legal system was virtually identical to the British one, with the exception of Sharia-based small claims courts which were rarely used for more then "He owes me a month's rent!" and punishments rarely more then a small fine.

Countries tend to be very efficient under the rule of hard-ass, murder-you-if-you-so-much-as-look-at-me-the-wrong-way dictators. Iraq, however, couldn't even say THAT much. Someone pointed out that it was falling apart already.
Falling apart because it had gone through almost 12 years of straight war, two viloent uprisings spurred on by foreign powers, and was being bombed almost every week for another decade?

I'd call that a miracle that it stayed together so long.


Sorry guy, but you really need to do some reading on Iraq, and talk to as many Iraqis as you can find, especially ones who don't all congregate together. You'll get some interesting different views, and you might start seeing the reality of the situation which has been the Iraqi clusterfuck since 1982. Saddam is hardly a noble god-like man, but he's hardly a genocidal tyrant either. The victor picks the face of the enemy afterwards, and in our case, the west, we find it much easier to justify going to war with a genocidal dictator then someone who struggled to keep their country together after we invaded them, destroyed their infastructure, and then bombed them repeatedly for a decade while trying to incite rebellions, only one of which happened (And more were encouraged).

Invading Iraq in 2003 was like kicking a blind cripled 80 year old man while he was down. And he was down because we beat him with a baseball bat for an hour prior to that after shooting him in the legs.

God forbid you should read the posts preceding yours.

6 pages that would continue to grow as I read. Hence why I apologized if someone else already torn your little "the American revolution took a long time so we should ignore time in Iraq" post.



Again, the fact that you were unwilling to read the previous posts is made very evident.
way to assume. what exactly makes you think I am "unwilling"? reading 6+ pages takes a bit of time and posts like yours piss me off.

The War in Iraq is completely stupid... as is this thread. That's all I'm saying.

Did not seem like it in the post I responded to.



They're similar in the aspect that they both took time, they were both controversial, and in both wars there were people saying that they were happier under the control of a despot than fending for themselves.
However, you're right, they're not completely the same. Here are some differences:
All wars take time, all wars are controversial, and all wars have people on both sides.

does not mean all are justified or should be carried on.

1) Saddam was a genocidal maniac... King George laid some heavy taxes down. Iraq actually had BETTER reason to go to war.

But they did not go to war. We (the USA) did. Even during the revolution we had to go get allies, they did not join in or start things on their own.

2) The War for Independence lasted from '74 to '83... and there was no Constitution in the current sense of the word until the 1790's, after Shays' Rebellion had proven that the divided, weak states would have to unite together. But our people were the ones who started the war. It was not an outside force that did not like us being ruled under a king that came to "liberate" us.
3) The colonists also didn't have running water or electricity. In fact, the only water they got was festering with disease and almost unbearable to drink, thus the American dependence on tea to make water tolerable.

I never thought electricity and running water existed then, and if it did it sure as hell wasn't wide spread.
They had to make their own clothing, and often there wasn't enough for everyone, so there's that famous instance of men walking barefoot through Valley Forge in bitter winter, leaving bloody footprints in the snow. Meanwhile, our troops in Iraq are well-armed, well-armored, fed, and supplied... mostly by the Democrats that we put into Congress because we hoped they would end the war. technological availability has increased and yet Iraq is a clusterfuck. It is just a good thing bush stopped his saber rattling trying to get Iran to pull something.

4) The colonists had damn good reason to complain, but they kept going because they knew the survival of their freedoms depended on it. Iraq is deprived of water and electricity, and there are violent gangs roaming around (although the Surge and some well-placed bribes have made things much less violent there), and we're expected to take this as a sign that they were much better off when they were ruled by a megalomaniacal butcher.

They have people getting disappeared, tortured, murdered, raped, ruled by dictators or wanna be dictators all over Latin America......why haven't we "liberated" them?
With the technology we have, why can't we get the Iraqis stable water and electricity? oh right...."violent gangs roaming around" but the surge was supposed to decrease that big time. So where is the water? We are failing.plain and simple.

No, I am a sincere supporter of Saddam Hussein. I'm not a teenage rebel or anything like that. I seriously do think he was a great, admirable leader.
Hey was excellent at keeping down violence, the rest of his regime was pretty terrible.
On the other hand, prove that they feel better without him. I will look for proof though.
... aye, becuase there were a whole ton of independant surveys on his popularity done while he was in charge, right?



Oh and as to your TruthOut thing -

1) It's a year old, and a lot has changed, as was shown by the survey you blithely shunned because you didn't like the results.

2) The writers are the worst kind of extremely smug champagne socialists.

3) The Guardian article at the bottom totally scuppers your argument - "49% say they are better off now than under Saddam, and 26% say life was better under Saddam". Nice work.
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL1688351220080318

What about that?
Yeah, fine.

"City full of those trusted by the Baathist Regime, most of whom were actually related to Saddam, if distantly, really nostalgic for the good ol' days when they were at the top of the tree."

About as much of a shocker as if it the US blew up Kim Jong Il and the papers ran with "residents of Pyongyang a bit gutted".

6 pages that would continue to grow as I read. Hence why I apologized if someone else already torn your little "the American revolution took a long time so we should ignore time in Iraq" post.

Apology accepted.


way to assume. what exactly makes you think I am "unwilling"? reading 6+ pages takes a bit of time and posts like yours piss me off.

So you ARE unwilling.

Did not seem like it in the post I responded to.

"way to assume".


All wars take time, all wars are controversial, and all wars have people on both sides.

does not mean all are justified or should be carried on.

Not to sound like a broken record, but READ MY FUCKING POSTS.
I don't think the war's justified and I don't think it should be carried on. I just think that the British colonists were dealing with worse conditions, leaving a more merciful ruler, received less foreign aid, and went through a long struggle. If they had made all their decisions based on the progress made in five years' time, there would be no United States now (which might've been a good thing, I dunno) because we were getting our asses beat.

But they did not go to war. We (the USA) did. Even during the revolution we had to go get allies, they did not join in or start things on their own.

But our people were the ones who started the war. It was not an outside force that did not like us being ruled under a king that came to "liberate" us.

And this relates to Iraq being better with or without a dictator... how?

I never thought electricity and running water existed then, and if it did it sure as hell wasn't wide spread.

Then they DEFINITELY didn't have running water and electricity, did they?

technological availability has increased and yet Iraq is a clusterfuck. It is just a good thing bush stopped his saber rattling trying to get Iran to pull something.

Agreed and agreed. Although you can't put all the saber-rattling charges on our idiotic president.


They have people getting disappeared, tortured, murdered, raped, ruled by dictators or wanna be dictators all over Latin America......why haven't we "liberated" them?

Cuz they don't have oil. Like I said... Iraq is not a justified war. Our staying there is not justified. But asking whether Iraq is better off without Saddam is even stupider than asking if the colonies were better off without Georgie.

With the technology we have, why can't we get the Iraqis stable water and electricity? oh right...."violent gangs roaming around" but the surge was supposed to decrease that big time. So where is the water? We are failing.plain and simple.

The surge did decrease that big time. In what world does a nation's entire infrastructure repair itself overnight?

You're 19 years too late. The last gas attack on a Kurdish anything was in 1989. Not to mention some of those attacks are disputed Iraqi, with many eye witnesses and even a few UN reports on the incident claiming Iranian gas attacks on Kurds too.

So genocide stops being genocide after 19 years? What?

And of course you obviously didn't know that Iran and Iraq were fighting eachoher in a bloody war that extended into the northern region, and that Iran was using sympathetic Kurds to infiltrate Iraq, and Iraq was doing much the same in Iranian Kurdistan, and both punished those who would not help. Because, you know, that's war.

And... that makes it okay?

[QUOTE]I want you to prove this statement. And I want you to do it without refering to the 2005 Hague convention. History is written by the winners, and I've spoken to at least a few Kurds who can voice against the concept of "genocide" as what happened, they still hate Saddam, but they don't believe it was genocide.

Don't know any Kurds. And if history is written "by the winners" then exactly what sources can I cite that you won't immediately discredit by accusing them of bias?

Again, 1989, you're 19 years too late.

And again, 19 years doesn't erase a crime. Nor does it eliminate the possibility of the perpetrator to commit the crime again.

Nevermind the fact that Kurds lived throughout Iraq, and that a good number of those villages had Arab populations at the time, and were occupied often by Iranians as well.

So he killed his own people AND Iranians along with the Kurds? I didn't know that. Doesn't that sort of make him... I dunno... worse?

Of course, I suppose you're going to tell me Saddam gassed the Kurdish neighborhoods of Baghdad and Basrah now.

Uh... no. I wasn't going to say that.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Yemen, Oman, not Iraq.
The Iraqi legal system was virtually identical to the British one, with the exception of Sharia-based small claims courts which were rarely used for more then "He owes me a month's rent!" and punishments rarely more then a small fine.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E0DF1F3CF934A15753C1A9649C8B63
This took me ten seconds to find. You could've found it before posting your false statement.

Falling apart because it had gone through almost 12 years of straight war, two viloent uprisings spurred on by foreign powers, and was being bombed almost every week for another decade?

I'd call that a miracle that it stayed together so long.

Interesting viewpoint, since the bombings were done to protect the no-fly zones that keep being cited in this thread as the salvation of the Kurds. Of course, winners write the history books, so you can base your opinion on whatever the hell you want to base it on.

Sorry guy, but you really need to do some reading on Iraq, and talk to as many Iraqis as you can find, especially ones who don't all congregate together. You'll get some interesting different views, and you might start seeing the reality of the situation which has been the Iraqi clusterfuck since 1982.

Good idea, I should do some more reading, as should you. You can start by reading my posts and trying to see that I in no way endorse the war, and the only thing I'm attacking here is this stupid, stupid thread. That said, yes, it's clear I'll have to review Iraqi history.

Saddam is hardly a noble god-like man, but he's hardly a genocidal tyrant either.

WAS. He WAS hardly a nobe god-like man. He's dead now.
Anyhow, considering he committed genocide and he was a ruthless dictator heading a fascist regime, I would call him a genocidal tyrant.

The victor picks the face of the enemy afterwards, and in our case, the west, we find it much easier to justify going to war with a genocidal dictator then someone who struggled to keep their country together after we invaded them, destroyed their infastructure, and then bombed them repeatedly for a decade while trying to incite rebellions, only one of which happened (And more were encouraged).

Sounds conspiracy-ish. But it's worth looking into and I'll try to find some news sites that will back up your claim.
You should try to find some, too.

Invading Iraq in 2003 was like kicking a blind cripled 80 year old man while he was down. And he was down because we beat him with a baseball bat for an hour prior to that after shooting him in the legs.

I like the analogy ;)

They're similar in the aspect that they both took time, they were both controversial, and in both wars there were people saying that they were happier under the control of a despot than fending for themselves.
Mate, you need to stop comparing apples and oranges. There is a HUGE difference between a group fighting for their own independence and some random foreign nation coming in and deposing their leader.

People keep on saying this, and they keep on ignoring one simple fact:
THINGS ARE ALWAYS QUIETER WHEN THERE'S A GUN TO YOUR HEAD.
There was no gun to anyone's head. You are buying into wikiality and BS. There is more restrictions on speech now in Iraq.

Of course things were more peaceful under Saddam! He shot anyone who disturbed the peace... hell, he gassed you if you were the wrong ethnicity, whether you disturbed the peace or not.
The gassings were an isolated incident in 1989 in response to terrorism.

It's only natural that a country where you get your hands chopped off for theft will have a lower crime rate... that doesn't mean I support mutilation as a punishment for theft.
I'd like to see proof of this punishment. I don't even think this is done in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

One thing I'd like is for people to stop citing the fact that citizens are better-behaved when under pain of death. We know. We've all seen Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia and other countries dominated by fear. We get the point.
You're the one saying this. None of us did.

Well, I think if you actually read my posts, you'll find that... yes, they are comparable. The only difference being that Iraq needed to shed its dictator even more than America did.
It did not. Iraq was perfectly fine under Saddam. Neither Saddam Hussein nor George III were dictators.

Should I rephrase it "armed struggle"? Considering that many governments in the world today are little better than armed gangs themselves, I hardly see how fighting insurgents should be considered less daunting than fighting a government.
You're still comparing apples and oranges.

The large drops in violence and the fact that Kurds aren't being gassed to death in droves anymore seems to be a sign of things getting "a bit better." To me, anyway. I don't expect anyone to share my opinion.
The Kurds were never gassed in droves. Check your facts.

And you make a valid point... Iraq probably had far better reason to depose Saddam than we did to depose George. Your response couldn't have been better if I had planned it myself.
No, it didn't.

Hey was excellent at keeping down violence, the rest of his regime was pretty terrible.
He modernized Iraq.

... aye, becuase there were a whole ton of independant surveys on his popularity done while he was in charge, right?
The sheer lack of uprisings would indicate that and were talking about after the fact.

3) The Guardian article at the bottom totally scuppers your argument - "49% say they are better off now than under Saddam, and 26% say life was better under Saddam". Nice work.
I must've missed this...please link.

I just think that the British colonists were dealing with worse conditions
You contradict yourself.

If they had made all their decisions based on the progress made in five years' time, there would be no United States now (which might've been a good thing, I dunno) because we were getting our asses beat.
What is with you and facts. The war started in 1775/1776. We won it in 1781. The battle of Saratoga (a great AMERICAN-ONLY victory) happened in Fall 1777. The battles of Trenton and Princeton happened in winter 1776/1777. In only two years, we were winning. Great comparison, even between apples and oranges. The only thing we needed was a navy, which the French provided and quickly ended the war.

Then they DEFINITELY didn't have running water and electricity, did they?
I'm quite sure they did, even despite the NATO bombings.

The surge did decrease that big time. In what world does a nation's entire infrastructure repair itself overnight?
As I said, there were several ceasefires that started at the same time. There is minimal proof the surge worked. It amy have, but we don't know.

So genocide stops being genocide after 19 years? What?
It wasn't genocide. It was a response to terrorist acts and support for the enemy.

And... that makes it okay?
So any leader who commit an act of war should be deposed?

And again, 19 years doesn't erase a crime. Nor does it eliminate the possibility of the perpetrator to commit the crime again.
It's highly unlikely he would. And it wasn't a crime. It was a legitimate response.

So he killed his own people AND Iranians along with the Kurds? I didn't know that. Doesn't that sort of make him... I dunno... worse?
1. No, the Iranians also did it.
2. It's called war. You kill people on the opposite side.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E0DF1F3CF934A15753C1A9649C8B63
This took me ten seconds to find. You could've found it before posting your false statement.
I think we want actual cases of this being used. It's illegal to tie a pig to a signpost in Badwater, Kansas. Doesn't mean it's enforced. (That's not actually a fact, just an example of an absurd and unenforced law.

Interesting viewpoint, since the bombings were done to protect the no-fly zones that keep being cited in this thread as the salvation of the Kurds. Of course, winners write the history books, so you can base your opinion on whatever the hell you want to base it on.
The bombings were done indiscriminately to keep Iraq from ever rising again.

Good idea, I should do some more reading, as should you. You can start by reading my posts and trying to see that I in no way endorse the war, and the only thing I'm attacking here is this stupid, stupid thread. That said, yes, it's clear I'll have to review Iraqi history.
Then, why are you defending his deposing?

WAS. He WAS hardly a nobe god-like man. He's dead now.
Anyhow, considering he committed genocide and he was a ruthless dictator heading a fascist regime, I would call him a genocidal tyrant.
He didn't commit genocide. He responded to terrorism and aiding the enemy.

So genocide stops being genocide after 19 years? What?

Way to shift the goalposts. Nobody cared about the genocide then, except the victims, and nobody cared about it 12 years later.

They only cared when they were convenient victims to bring up to whip up the public. And they still don't care.

You claimed that they were still being gassed until Saddam's regime was toppled, a patently false claim.


And... that makes it okay?


About as okay as Israel's mass punishments for rocket attacks. Or the US imprisoning everyone they can who they say could be a terrorist without trial, leading to their deaths.


And again, 19 years doesn't erase a crime. Nor does it eliminate the possibility of the perpetrator to commit the crime again.

Then clearly we can arrest Bush for possible future dealings in cocaine!


Interesting viewpoint, since the bombings were done to protect the no-fly zones that keep being cited in this thread as the salvation of the Kurds. Of course, winners write the history books, so you can base your opinion on whatever the hell you want to base it on.

Tell me what does multiple bombings of power plants and civilian water treatment facilities in Baghdad have to do with protecting a no-fly zone. Go on. I dare you.

For the love of...Honestly the anit-war mongers and scare mongers will bitch about everything that is still wrong with Iraq. Hypocrites all of them. Europe wasn't rebuilt in a day.

When will people finally go back to the old saying Rome Wasn't Built in a Day

For the love of...Honestly the anit-war mongers and scare mongers will bitch about everything that is still wrong with Iraq. Hypocrites all of them. Europe wasn't rebuilt in a day.

When will people finally go back to the old saying Rome Wasn't Built in a Day

Except for two things you overlooked.

One. The Roman Empire never pretended to "liberate" countries they conquered with doctored up reports of dangerous weapons in the hands of a hostile enemy.

Two. When the Romans conquered a country, they stuck to it and for the most part made sure things didn't turn into a sectarian shitfest where anyone can be indiscriminately killed for any reason. They wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and then half-ass it to go invading Iraq immediately afterwards.

For the love of...Honestly the anit-war mongers and scare mongers will bitch about everything that is still wrong with Iraq. Hypocrites all of them. Europe wasn't rebuilt in a day.


How about we send you to Iraq for a year, outside of the Green zone. And you can tell us how wonderful it is there. Many of us have opposed the war from the day it was proposed, and you think to call us hypocrites?

Ah, but you love war. I forgot that. That's why you hate those who dislike war. Let's put you in the war zone then. See how much you like it. And if you do, don't come back. Ever.

So genocide stops being genocide after 19 years? What?


And... that makes it okay?
Apparently it does in the context you like to do it, got Germany.
Time does not make it "ok" or "correct", but when you want to drag it up 20 years after the fact as if it was still happening, then you are clearly not paying attention to reality.

Likewise, you must define it as genocide, which you have yet failed to do.


Don't know any Kurds. And if history is written "by the winners" then exactly what sources can I cite that you won't immediately discredit by accusing them of bias?[/quote]

Quite a few, firt hand accounts for one. With the mass refugee influx into the west of Iraqis (Arabs and Kurds alike) in the last two decades, you should easily be able to find one. Or better yet, try some of the third-party things written at the time? Soviet documents may not be the most reliable, but in 1991 as they were falling to pieces they did work to negotiate peace in ODS. Likewise try Israeli or Egyptian sources, or even better, try Japanese.

And again, 19 years doesn't erase a crime. Nor does it eliminate the possibility of the perpetrator to commit the crime again.

By that logic we must resime bombing Germany, can't let them go back to killing Jews. Or perhaps let China invade Japan?

So he killed his own people AND Iranians along with the Kurds? I didn't know that. Doesn't that sort of make him... I dunno... worse?

In theory, it could, and I see where you're going. Except those were hardly civillians. The Kurds were, at least half I'm sure wern't even terrorists, but Iranians in a city in northern Iraq in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war? Yea, try Iranian soldiers. If that makes it worse, then I would assume you wish to hang Bush now for all the Iraqi soldiers killed under his command? That's ignoring the civillians who have been killed by the US, or by foreign fighters who can now do so because of the US.

And tecyhnicly speaking, the Kurds were his own people at the time, in fact as long as he ruled Iraq, Iraqi Kurds were his own people.

Which, in a funny way, means anything he did falls under martial law of the time, due to the whole war going on, and lables those Kurds as traitors. A crime for which, even in many western countries, is still punishable by death, including in the US.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E0DF1F3CF934A15753C1A9649C8B63
This took me ten seconds to find. You could've found it before posting your false statement.

http://confinder.richmond.edu/admin/docs/local_iraq1990.pdf
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/hussein/docs/IraqiPenalCodeof1969.pdf
Took me all of ten seconds to find the 1990 Iraqi constitution, another ten to find the penal code, maybe another ten seconds to read through the quoted parts, and then another ten to stop laughing because the NYT apparently got it wrong.

I hate to break it to you, but go through and read the sections your news article quotes. The penalty listed is either death, or inprisonment. No mention of the removal of limbs. I provided you above with both documents, it shouldn't be hard. It starts on page 153 for the Criminal Code, so you don't have to spend too much time looking.

Interesting viewpoint, since the bombings were done to protect the no-fly zones that keep being cited in this thread as the salvation of the Kurds. Of course, winners write the history books, so you can base your opinion on whatever the hell you want to base it on.

Yea... you protect no-fly zones by bombing water purification plants far outside of them how? I don't follow whatever logic you want to use to twist that there.

Good idea, I should do some more reading, as should you. You can start by reading my posts and trying to see that I in no way endorse the war, and the only thing I'm attacking here is this stupid, stupid thread. That said, yes, it's clear I'll have to review Iraqi history.

Endorse the war or not, you still apply an argument of fallacy to a subject you clearly know little about. I understand your intent, and it is certianly commendable, but really, you can't debate something as big in Iraqi history as the period Saddam ruled, without knowing Iraqi history.

WAS. He WAS hardly a nobe god-like man. He's dead now.
Anyhow, considering he committed genocide and he was a ruthless dictator heading a fascist regime, I would call him a genocidal tyrant.

You have yet to prove it was genocide.
And I will continue to put work on your shoulders here to prove that he was fascist now. As I have read a lot of Ba'athist literature, both from before the split and after, and if that's fascisim, then my cat shits candy canes.

Sounds conspiracy-ish. But it's worth looking into and I'll try to find some news sites that will back up your claim.
You should try to find some, too.
Sorry but, eyewitness accounts are all I need. I could give a crap less about news accounts after that, especially from all the wacky stuff I've seen come out of news accounts.
I'll tell you what though, I'll take a look for the actual military reports, or documents of such nature, that would provide that information. Globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/swa-ops.htm) already provides a few, but I'll look around and see what I can find in my spare time.


I like the analogy ;)

I wish it were fully mine too. The words are mine, the basic outline of it came from an Iraqi girl I know who lived through the 2003 invasion. The effect still works though.

For the love of...Honestly the anit-war mongers and scare mongers will bitch about everything that is still wrong with Iraq. Hypocrites all of them. Europe wasn't rebuilt in a day.

When will people finally go back to the old saying Rome Wasn't Built in a Day
Iraq will never be rebuilt unles:
-a new strongman comes to power
-it is split in three

Except for two things you overlooked.

One. The Roman Empire never pretended to "liberate" countries they conquered with doctored up reports of dangerous weapons in the hands of a hostile enemy.

Two. When the Romans conquered a country, they stuck to it and for the most part made sure things didn't turn into a sectarian shitfest where anyone can be indiscriminately killed for any reason. They wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and then half-ass it to go invading Iraq immediately afterwards.
Not to mention that their predecessors didn't slap groups that hate each other into arbitrarily divided countries.

Clearly, life is better without Tito.

Shitty poll aside:

More than 50% of Iraqis think their lives are good, more than at any time in the last three years, a survey says.

The poll for the BBC, ABC, ARD and NHK of more than 2,000 people also suggests that a majority believe that security in their area has improved since 2007.

And while most Iraqis still believe US troops are making things worse, the number who want the Americans to pull out immediately has fallen.

But the poll also shows Iraq's main ethnic groups are deeply divided.

BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson says the continuing divisions make it "pretty meaningless to talk about 'Iraqi' opinion."

"What counts is how the individual groupings, Sunni, Shia and Kurdish, feel - and especially the Sunnis, since much of the violence is from that quarter," he says.

While 55% of all Iraqis believe that their lives are good, only 33% of Sunnis are happy with their lives, compared with 62% of Shias and 73% of Kurds.

"In spite of all the improvements, the Sunni population of Iraq clearly remains deeply alienated, and deeply hostile," our correspondent says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7299569.stm

Healthcare in Iraq was "now in worse shape than ever" and the services that are available are too expensive for many people, the report said.

Iraqi hospitals lack qualified staff and basic drugs, facilities are not properly maintained and public hospitals provide only 30,000 beds, less than half of the 80,000 needed, the Red Cross reports.

The agency said the current situation had been exacerbated for the 27m population by decades of previous conflict and economic sanctions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7299914.stm

That's some statistics, yet Bush calls it a "Victory" as he tries to change the goalposts and forgets all about the WMD debacle and the terrorist links.

Der Spiegel offer another perspective:

Five years after the US invasion, no one misses Saddam, but some Baghdadis are nostalgic for the relative freedom and stability they had before the Americans came.
Article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,541977,00.html)

Mate, you need to stop comparing apples and oranges. There is a HUGE difference between a group fighting for their own independence and some random foreign nation coming in and deposing their leader.

Not in the sense we're talking about, no. It's just "Was the nation better without their leader, or with their leader?" The question of who overthrew said leader is not relevant in this case.

There was no gun to anyone's head. You are buying into wikiality and BS. There is more restrictions on speech now in Iraq.

Some of my opinions (or some aspects of them at least) are probably based in information that is not entirely accurate. However, since you are basing your claim on no source at all, I don't see exactly how you think you have an edge over me.

The gassings were an isolated incident in 1989 in response to terrorism.

Hahahaha. Some people say that the occupation of Iraq was a "response to terrorism." People like our President.
Y'know what I've found out? Politicians. LIE.

I'd like to see proof of this punishment. I don't even think this is done in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Your wish is granted, see the link I posted in one of my previous posts.

You're the one saying this. None of us did.

Actually more than one person has said that even though Iraq was horribly subjugated under Saddam, at least it was stable.
As I said to someone else before, please read the thread before sharing your opinion on it.

It did not.

When you phrase your argument so logically, who am I to disagree?

Iraq was perfectly fine under Saddam.

*tries not to laugh*

Neither Saddam Hussein nor George III were dictators.

*finally DOES laugh*

You're still comparing apples and oranges.

Armed struggle... war. Armed struggle... war.
Apples... oranges. Apples... oranges.

The Kurds were never gassed in droves. Check your facts.

"Droves" refers to no specific number. I just use it as a more eloquent synonym for "shitload." I view 5,000 or more instant deaths to be a shitload. So it's not a fact. It's an opinion. You might think 5,000 dead people to be insignificant and hardly a crime, I don't.

No, it didn't.

Again, your clever articulation is leaving me speechless.

He modernized Iraq.

These guys modernized their countries, too. And after they did their part, they had to be removed. Forcibly.
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/23513.html


You contradict yourself.

No, I don't. The colonists had it easier under King George than Iraq had it under Saddam, and the colonists were worse-off without their leader than the Iraqis are.

What is with you and facts. The war started in 1775/1776. We won it in 1781. The battle of Saratoga (a great AMERICAN-ONLY victory) happened in Fall 1777. The battles of Trenton and Princeton happened in winter 1776/1777. In only two years, we were winning. Great comparison, even between apples and oranges. The only thing we needed was a navy, which the French provided and quickly ended the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/index.html
http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/tline.asp

The war wasn't over until 1783, and the country was still in bad shape long after that. Hell, we didn't even get a decent constitution until the 1790's.

I'm quite sure they did, even despite the NATO bombings.

NATO bombed the 13 colonies? I didn't even know there was a NATO back then. In fact, I didn't know running water and electricity even existed.

As I said, there were several ceasefires that started at the same time. There is minimal proof the surge worked. It amy have, but we don't know.

So we might as well just assume that the surge had nothing to do with this sudden drop in violence, eh?
Besides, whether it was the surge or the ceasefires, the fact is that things are less violent now, and that's a plus for my argument.
AND even if things weren't less violent now, you can't say that they were "better" under Saddam until you've given Iraq many more years to rebuild.
Hell, look at half of Africa. More than half, really. All those countries just got done being colonies, and it's certainly taking them awhile to find their feet as independent nations.
Unfortunately, this has led to their being dominated by other brutal dictators, some of whom are even worse than Saddam... nevermind. I'm getting sidetracked.
Point is: This thread is completely ludicrous, as is the question it poses. IT'S TOO SOON TO JUDGE IRAQ. Give it time, for Christ's sake.

ATM things are worse. Unless you were his target. It's like Post War Germany.

It did not. Iraq was perfectly fine under Saddam. Neither Saddam Hussein nor George III were dictators.
Bullshit. It was perfectly fine if you were Sunni and stupid, without opinions on absolutely anything or his mate in person. Not good for anyone else.
The sheer lack of uprisings would indicate that and were talking about after the fact.
...

No, the sheer lack of uprisings was due to the vast amount of soldiers on the streets stopping such things from happening, as well as the utterly brutal crackdowns which came when they did happen.
I must've missed this...please link.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107F.shtml --> then links to ---> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/19/iraq.topstories3

Which says :

"According to an opinion poll of 5,000 Iraqis carried out over the past month, 49% say they are better off now than under Saddam, and 26% say life was better under Saddam. More than one in four said they had had a close relative murdered in the past three years."

GJ there, Sel ;)

Your wish is granted, see the link I posted in one of my previous posts.


And I provided the actual source material proving you and your opnion piece wrong.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107F.shtml --> then links to ---> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/19/iraq.topstories3

Which says :

"According to an opinion poll of 5,000 Iraqis carried out over the past month, 49% say they are better off now than under Saddam, and 26% say life was better under Saddam. More than one in four said they had had a close relative murdered in the past three years."

GJ there, Sel ;)

I hate to break it to you, but the Iraqi population is greater then 5000.
In fact, the 2007 estimate of Iraq's population is something like 27,500,000. A little high school math tells me that is 0.018% of the Iraqi population, less then half a percent. Half a percent does not a population make. For all we know that's 5000 Iraqis living in Syria, or in Detriot.

Neither Saddam Hussein nor George III were dictators.

Saddam Hussein wasn't a dictator? Now I know you're a troll.

And I provided the actual source material proving you and your opnion piece wrong.


I apologize, I missed it. Can you post that link again, please?

I apologize, I missed it. Can you post that link again, please?

The 1990 Iraq Constitution, which was in use untill 2003.
http://confinder.richmond.edu/admin/docs/local_iraq1990.pdf

And the 1969 Iraq Criminal Code No.111, which is cited in the NYT link you provided. All paragraphs that article cites begin on page 153 of the PDF (It's long).
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/hussein/docs/IraqiPenalCodeof1969.pdf

There is clearly no mention of removal of hands or limbs, anywhere. Plenty of death, plenty more imprisonment, no removal of limbs.

And the Military Law of the 1940s which your NYT article cites as well, were superceeded by the 1974 one, and it applies only to military personnel, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve removal of limbs either.

my life is hunky dory saddam or not.

Kurds I'm sure are glad he's gone. So are Iranians, Saudis and Kuwatis.

Shiits in Iraq are pretty much better off. Sunni's not so much.

The best part is that the war against islamic extremism is in territories that were hostile to America - instead of in America or any of our allies. THAT is the genius of the war.

It wasn't genocide. It was a response to terrorist acts and support for the enemy.

Haha. Supposedly, this was the reason for our invasion of Iraq. They were terrorists supporting the enemy.
I don't trust Bush's reasons for invading Iraq, but I trust Saddam's reasons for gassing the Kurds even less.

So any leader who commit an act of war should be deposed?

No. Iraq's better of with him deposed, though.

It's highly unlikely he would. And it wasn't a crime. It was a legitimate response.

Actually, what he did was illegal under international law- whether it's Kurds, Iranians, or anyone.

1. No, the Iranians also did it.
2. It's called war. You kill people on the opposite side.

Ahem. The Kurds were merely aiding Iraq's enemies, just as many Middle Eastern countries aid our enemies. By your logic, it would be okay for us to nuke masses of civilians, even those unaffiliated with terrorists, in the Middle East- because they're on the other side. Or might be on the other side. Or may have known about someone on the other side and not told us because they were being threatened with death.

I think we want actual cases of this being used. It's illegal to tie a pig to a signpost in Badwater, Kansas. Doesn't mean it's enforced. (That's not actually a fact, just an example of an absurd and unenforced law.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120597,00.html
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/309/6957/760
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110005081 (cites the same story as the first link... I just thought it would be easier to trust something that didn't come from Fox News)
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/life/article206623.ece (again... thought I'd back up what I had)
http://espn.go.com/oly/s/2002/1220/1480103.html
These are cases that received publicity... I only checked the first three pages of Google. You can do more research on your own, but if you really think that no one had their hands cut off (or that only these few people did), you are kidding yourself.

The bombings were done indiscriminately to keep Iraq from ever rising again.

NOW WE KNOW THE TRUTH OMG!!!!!!!!!!!11111
Ha.

Then, why are you defending his deposing?

I'm not really defending his deposition, but I am saying that Iraq was certainly in a shithole before we showed up, it's not doing very well, and it could very well improve. You can't judge the country as being "better" or "worse" at this point, unless you're a big Bush supporter, a big Saddam supporter, or Judge Judy. Judge Judy can judge whatever she wants, and you can bet she'll be biased- because it's HER courtroom. Booyah.
Sorry, not relevant. Anyway, I think the U.S. invasion of Iraq was unnecessary, that Iraq posed no more threat to us than any other country in the region (in fact, less than many countries in the world), and it's cost lots of lives and lots of money. That said, I'm all for Saddam hanging by the neck until dead. If the guy who did it was here now, I'd high-five him. Unless he was an amputee ;)

The 1990 Iraq Constitution, which was in use untill 2003.
http://confinder.richmond.edu/admin/docs/local_iraq1990.pdf

And the 1969 Iraq Criminal Code No.111, which is cited in the NYT link you provided. All paragraphs that article cites begin on page 153 of the PDF (It's long).
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/hussein/docs/IraqiPenalCodeof1969.pdf

There is clearly no mention of removal of hands or limbs, anywhere. Plenty of death, plenty more imprisonment, no removal of limbs.

And the Military Law of the 1940s which your NYT article cites as well, were superceeded by the 1974 one, and it applies only to military personnel, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve removal of limbs either.

Oh... that was your argument?
You're going to use the publicized, government-approved rules that Saddam was supposed to follow as proof that he never amputated limbs?
"No, Saddam would never do it- it was against the rules."
It seems that few people in this thread have taken history classes referring to violent dictators. And that you've never read a very famous book by George Orwell entitled Animal Farm. So I'll take it upon myself to give you some common traits of the brutal dictator:
1) They like to put "Democracy" and "Republic" in the titles of their fascist nations
2) They make rules that everyone can agree on... and then break them
3) They like to control the media
4) They kill you if you voice disagreement
5) They might kill your family, too
6) They can do pretty much whatever they want
7) They begin either as aspiring politicians who secretly seize power, or as violent warlords who seize power in a coup
8) If you ask their closest worshippers, you'll hear positive things about them
9) They hoard resources for themselves and allow their population to go without
10) They love distinctive mustaches

Mmmm the oil is good, no?

It's all how you look at it. This situation isn't really any different than the Rhodesia to Zimbabwe transition if you were black.

You could either:

A) Be oppressed under white regime and be denied all of your civil rights but still be able to put food on your table and lead an all and all decent life.

B) Be free (Well, kind of) to say what you want, do what you wanted, and get jobs that only white people were able to get, but be in an all around shitty condition with some corrupt dickhead in charge of things that has left your country in a different but equally bad state.

You can have food and be oppressed, or have no food but be free. It sucks either way, but both situations suck equally yet seperately, kind of like Jim Crow Laws.

I blame Bush for doing this shit, but I blame the Iraqis for failing to get their shit together and slap together some shitty government with shitty US aid.

I mean look at Kurdistan proper, IT'S DOING JUST FINE! Although it's not a recognized country, the people have their own army, fine security, a university, and are constructing their own international airport. If I had to live in Iraq, I sure as hell would live there.

The rest of the country can't get their heads out of their asses and unify. The lid has been taken off the boiling pot, and they want to have at it no differently then the Irish and the Brits in Northern Ireland.

Blame America all you want, but don't forget that Iraq belongs to the people, and they are the ones directly responsible for what is happening, no different than America's people are responsible for the dumbfucks they have put into office.

Not in the sense we're talking about, no. It's just "Was the nation better without their leader, or with their leader?" The question of who overthrew said leader is not relevant in this case.
But the cause of the deposing is relevant. If the people themselves depose their leader, they will be more satisfied because THEY did it. If some other country comes in an does it, they will be more WTF.

Some of my opinions (or some aspects of them at least) are probably based in information that is not entirely accurate. However, since you are basing your claim on no source at all, I don't see exactly how you think you have an edge over me.
I started with a source and then gave a poll.

Hahahaha. Some people say that the occupation of Iraq was a "response to terrorism." People like our President.
Y'know what I've found out? Politicians. LIE.
Once again, there's a difference between domestic and international acts.

Your wish is granted, see the link I posted in one of my previous posts.
Noted. However, you failed to provide an actual incident where it occurred.

Actually more than one person has said that even though Iraq was horribly subjugated under Saddam, at least it was stable.
As I said to someone else before, please read the thread before sharing your opinion on it.
I do read the thread. It's my thread.

When you phrase your argument so logically, who am I to disagree?
One country wanted to get rid of its leader, the other did not.

*tries not to laugh*
It was.

*finally DOES laugh*
Ok, Mr. Hussein was marginally a dictator. But George III did not control everything. Even then, Parliament did most work.

Armed struggle... war. Armed struggle... war.
Apples... oranges. Apples... oranges.
War for independence...War against a foreign government.

"Droves" refers to no specific number. I just use it as a more eloquent synonym for "shitload." I view 5,000 or more instant deaths to be a shitload. So it's not a fact. It's an opinion. You might think 5,000 dead people to be insignificant and hardly a crime, I don't.
Droves implies constantly throughout time. Which is simply not the case.

Again, your clever articulation is leaving me speechless.
Deposing a foreign leader is never better than a war for independence.

These guys modernized their countries, too. And after they did their part, they had to be removed. Forcibly.
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/23513.html
None of them were forcibly removed except Mussolini who was an idiot.

No, I don't. The colonists had it easier under King George than Iraq had it under Saddam, and the colonists were worse-off without their leader than the Iraqis are.
No they didn't. They were horribly oppressed and lost all their rights in the colonies. America did not have a lack of infrastructure, shootings, bombings, etc after the Revolution.

The war wasn't over until 1783, and the country was still in bad shape long after that. Hell, we didn't even get a decent constitution until the 1790's.
Officially, yes. But the war was basically over after Yorktown.

NATO bombed the 13 colonies? I didn't even know there was a NATO back then. In fact, I didn't know running water and electricity even existed.
Apologies. I thought you were referring to Iraq. That's what happens when everyone quotes snippets. >_<

So we might as well just assume that the surge had nothing to do with this sudden drop in violence, eh?
Besides, whether it was the surge or the ceasefires, the fact is that things are less violent now, and that's a plus for my argument.
For now, there's plenty of time for it to change.

AND even if things weren't less violent now, you can't say that they were "better" under Saddam until you've given Iraq many more years to rebuild.
Hell, look at half of Africa. More than half, really. All those countries just got done being colonies, and it's certainly taking them awhile to find their feet as independent nations.
Apples and oranges.

Point is: This thread is completely ludicrous, as is the question it poses. IT'S TOO SOON TO JUDGE IRAQ. Give it time, for Christ's sake.
Fourteen centuries of hatred is not going to change.

Bullshit. It was perfectly fine if you were Sunni and stupid, without opinions on absolutely anything or his mate in person. Not good for anyone else.
Baseless propaganda.

No, the sheer lack of uprisings was due to the vast amount of soldiers on the streets stopping such things from happening, as well as the utterly brutal crackdowns which came when they did happen.
If the people really wanted to get rid of him, they would have found a way.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107F.shtml --> then links to ---> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/19/iraq.topstories3

Which says :

"According to an opinion poll of 5,000 Iraqis carried out over the past month, 49% say they are better off now than under Saddam, and 26% say life was better under Saddam. More than one in four said they had had a close relative murdered in the past three years."
Ok, I'll take that. It's still a poll, and a limited poll at that. You can't really expect an accurate poll in a place where people don't trust their own neighbors.

GJ there, Sel ;)
Thanks ;)

Saddam Hussein wasn't a dictator? Now I know you're a troll.
He was marginally a dictator.

Haha. Supposedly, this was the reason for our invasion of Iraq. They were terrorists supporting the enemy.
I don't trust Bush's reasons for invading Iraq, but I trust Saddam's reasons for gassing the Kurds even less.

Except you know, the Kurds both admitted to it, and still do it. At least still to it in Turkey. No Iraqi ever admitted to links with groups like al-Qaeda, and even the CIA before pointed out that the only "links" between al-Qaeda and Saddam were the times al-Qaeda tried to kill him.

No. Iraq's better of with him deposed, though.

Under what measure? Clearly if something is 'better' it needs a qualification regarding what it is 'better' in? And it has been shown quite clearly that in terms of security, personal freedoms, stability, infastructure, general quality of life, and gender equality, Iraq is far far from better.

Actually, what he did was illegal under international law- whether it's Kurds, Iranians, or anyone.

International law (in the form of treaties, which are all that exist on CW) only applies to those who sign it, especially in this case.
the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 applied only after 1993, and can not be retroactive to the 1980s. Likewise Iraq was not a signatory of the Geneva Protocol, nor either of the Hague conventions.

Ahem. The Kurds were merely aiding Iraq's enemies, just as many Middle Eastern countries aid our enemies. By your logic, it would be okay for us to nuke masses of civilians, even those unaffiliated with terrorists, in the Middle East- because they're on the other side. Or might be on the other side. Or may have known about someone on the other side and not told us because they were being threatened with death.

Yea... so it's illogical to punish people for treason in a time of war?

If I can avoid that illogical outcome of your statement, you should be able to remember that the towns and villages gased were all those known to be activly supporting Iranian combatants, and were gassed at times where Iranian combatants were in them.

Now I don't know what you expect of law, but if you're aiding say a North Korean soldier trying to be an insurgent in the US, you're going to be punished quite severely for treason. If your entire county is doing it, your entire county is going to be punished quite severely. Not through CW use, that's for sure, but then again the US isn't fighting a larger opponant, with direct access to their land, and in a desperate fight to keep themselves stable either.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120597,00.html
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/309/6957/760
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110005081 (cites the same story as the first link... I just thought it would be easier to trust something that didn't come from Fox News)
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/life/article206623.ece (again... thought I'd back up what I had)
http://espn.go.com/oly/s/2002/1220/1480103.html
These are cases that received publicity... I only checked the first three pages of Google. You can do more research on your own, but if you really think that no one had their hands cut off (or that only these few people did), you are kidding yourself.

Quoting Fox News is the first thing you did wrong here. By using a known source of biased and discredited information to qualify your argument, you discredit your argument.
Not to mention Iraqi law goes against what you said it says.


Oh... that was your argument?
You're going to use the publicized, government-approved rules that Saddam was supposed to follow as proof that he never amputated limbs?
"No, Saddam would never do it- it was against the rules."
It seems that few people in this thread have taken history classes referring to violent dictators. And that you've never read a very famous book by George Orwell entitled Animal Farm. So I'll take it upon myself to give you some common traits of the brutal dictator:
1) They like to put "Democracy" and "Republic" in the titles of their fascist nations
2) They make rules that everyone can agree on... and then break them
3) They like to control the media
4) They kill you if you voice disagreement
5) They might kill your family, too
6) They can do pretty much whatever they want
7) They begin either as aspiring politicians who secretly seize power, or as violent warlords who seize power in a coup
8) If you ask their closest worshippers, you'll hear positive things about them
9) They hoard resources for themselves and allow their population to go without
10) They love distinctive mustaches

Ah-huh.

So let me get this straight, in timeline format.

You argue: NYT article states that, according to the Iraqi constitution and a specified set of sections to the Iraqi criminal code, that people's hands can be amputated for theft.

I Argue: Providing both documents at the source, proving your and the NYT claim wrong, that neither document provides the legal opening for amputation for theft.

You counter-argue: Saddam was a dictator and did not have to follow his own laws.

Do you see where you went wrong yet? Whether or not Saddam was a dictator and did it anyway means nothing to the argument that Iraqi law did not provide for amputations for theft, which was your claim backed by the NYT article. Your claim was proven false as it was based on the Iraqi constitution and criminal code, which have both shown you wrong about them.

If you don't want to debate this intelligently, then why debate at all? You undermine your own argument at almost every turn, and then switch what it was you were trying to argue when proven wrong.

Haha. Supposedly, this was the reason for our invasion of Iraq. They were terrorists supporting the enemy.
I don't trust Bush's reasons for invading Iraq, but I trust Saddam's reasons for gassing the Kurds even less.
BIg difference between domestic and international acts.

No. Iraq's better of with him deposed, though.
No. Iraq was better with him in power.

Actually, what he did was illegal under international law- whether it's Kurds, Iranians, or anyone.
Was he a party to that law?

Ahem. The Kurds were merely aiding Iraq's enemies, just as many Middle Eastern countries aid our enemies. By your logic, it would be okay for us to nuke masses of civilians, even those unaffiliated with terrorists, in the Middle East- because they're on the other side. Or might be on the other side. Or may have known about someone on the other side and not told us because they were being threatened with death.
Because we obviously rule the middle East.

I'm not really defending his deposition, but I am saying that Iraq was certainly in a shithole before we showed up
Because of the war with Iran and the NATO bombings.

, it's not doing very well, and it could very well improve. You can't judge the country as being "better" or "worse" at this point, unless you're a big Bush supporter, a big Saddam supporter, or Judge Judy. Judge Judy can judge whatever she wants, and you can bet she'll be biased- because it's HER courtroom. Booyah.
The fact that you continue to bring up irrelevant things shows you have no base to place your case.

That said, I'm all for Saddam hanging by the neck until dead. If the guy who did it was here now, I'd high-five him. Unless he was an amputee ;)
I thought killing people was bad...

Oh... that was your argument?
You're going to use the publicized, government-approved rules that Saddam was supposed to follow as proof that he never amputated limbs?
"No, Saddam would never do it- it was against the rules."
It seems that few people in this thread have taken history classes referring to violent dictators. And that you've never read a very famous book by George Orwell entitled Animal Farm. So I'll take it upon myself to give you some common traits of the brutal dictator:
1) They like to put "Democracy" and "Republic" in the titles of their fascist nations
2) They make rules that everyone can agree on... and then break them
3) They like to control the media
4) They kill you if you voice disagreement
5) They might kill your family, too
6) They can do pretty much whatever they want
7) They begin either as aspiring politicians who secretly seize power, or as violent warlords who seize power in a coup
8) If you ask their closest worshippers, you'll hear positive things about them
9) They hoard resources for themselves and allow their population to go without
10) They love distinctive mustaches
Where do you get this random American propaganda from?

The rest of the country can't get their heads out of their asses and unify. The lid has been taken off the boiling pot, and they want to have at it no differently then the Irish and the Brits in Northern Ireland.
I don't see how fourteen centuries of hatred is going to change.

Quite a few, firt hand accounts for one.

Done. Posted a link about it. Now you're happy.

With the mass refugee influx into the west of Iraqis (Arabs and Kurds alike) in the last two decades, you should easily be able to find one.

There might be one Middle Eastern family within twenty miles of me, and I'm pretty sure they're Pakistani, but I don't know for certain.
I don't live on the East Coast, I live in the Midwest (you're shocked, I know) and truth be told, people from anywhere near Iraq are very, very rare.

By that logic we must resime bombing Germany, can't let them go back to killing Jews.

Actually, with the people who were most directly responsible for killing the Jews dead, their power gone, and a new German government, we don't have to do that.
It's about the criminals who performed the murders getting punished- I couldn't care less what flag they were flying at the time.

Or perhaps let China invade Japan?

See above.

In theory, it could, and I see where you're going. Except those were hardly civillians.

I addressed that after you posted this.

The Kurds were, at least half I'm sure wern't even terrorists, but Iranians in a city in northern Iraq in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war? Yea, try Iranian soldiers.

... and it was illegal for Saddam to do what he did to them, too.
I know, Reagan gave him the weapons. I'm not a big Reagan fan, either.

If that makes it worse, then I would assume you wish to hang Bush now for all the Iraqi soldiers killed under his command? That's ignoring the civillians who have been killed by the US, or by foreign fighters who can now do so because of the US.

I kind of do want to hang him, actually. Clearly, life will be better without George Bush.
Still, without sarcasm, I can say that you just made a very fair point.

And tecyhnicly speaking, the Kurds were his own people at the time, in fact as long as he ruled Iraq, Iraqi Kurds were his own people.

I was referring to ethnicity, not nationality. An understandable mistake.

Which, in a funny way, means anything he did falls under martial law of the time, due to the whole war going on, and lables those Kurds as traitors. A crime for which, even in many western countries, is still punishable by death, including in the US.

Legal= good?
Bwahahahaha. Who do you think makes the laws in a dictatorship? Besides, by your own admission, it's probable that not even half those Kurds were terrorists. So you still have to address that.

http://confinder.richmond.edu/admin/docs/local_iraq1990.pdf
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/hussein/docs/IraqiPenalCodeof1969.pdf
Took me all of ten seconds to find the 1990 Iraqi constitution, another ten to find the penal code, maybe another ten seconds to read through the quoted parts, and then another ten to stop laughing because the NYT apparently got it wrong.

Like I said... being in the Constitution doesn't amount to a hill of beans when someone like Saddam is in power. People like him bend the rules whenever possible, or they downright break them.

I hate to break it to you, but go through and read the sections your news article quotes. The penalty listed is either death, or inprisonment. No mention of the removal of limbs. I provided you above with both documents, it shouldn't be hard. It starts on page 153 for the Criminal Code, so you don't have to spend too much time looking.

No time at all. Cuz I'm not going to look at each specific law that Saddam obviously broke.
Know why? Because I provided sources on seven people whose limbs were removed under Saddam's regime.
And because of this part of the NYT article that you clearly didn't expect me to even read:

"Date: June 4, 1994

To cut off the right hand of thieves, and cut off the foot if repeated a second time . . .

(1) According to Section 1, Article 42 of the Iraqi Constitution, the Revolutionary Command Council is permitted to punish the criminal by cutting off the right hand from the wrist. The categories of theft are defined in Chapter 440/441/442/443/444/445 of the Crime Law Number 111 (1969), and amendment number 117 of the Iraqi Crimes Military Law number 13 (1940). First-time offenders of auto theft will have their hand cut off; if the crime is committed a second time -- the left foot will be severed. . . .

(2) The death penalty will be administered to those who hold either concealed or unconcealed weapons in committing a theft, which results in a murder. . . .

Signed by Saddam Hussein, President of the Revolutionary Command Council


Later, the penalty for repeat offenders was either stiffened or modified, according to this decree in the official daily Thawra:


Date: Aug. 18. 1994

(1) According to Section l, Article 42 of the Iraqi Constitution, the Revolutionary Command Council is permitted to Brand an ''X'' on the forehead of those individuals who repeat the crime for which their hand was cut off. The mark will be one centimeter in length and one millimeter in width.

(2) The branding will take place at the same hospital where the initial right hand was cut.

(3) The general hospitals will provide the local hospitals with the medical needs and assistance to carry out these orders. . . .

Saddam Hussein"

I know, I know. That document cited obsolete parts of a constitution that had been modified. Trouble is, the document itself was written in 94. And signed by the man leading the country at the time.
See how people who have absolute control over a country don't usually try to follow the rules... and yet kind of make it look like they do?

Yea... you protect no-fly zones by bombing water purification plants far outside of them how? I don't follow whatever logic you want to use to twist that there.

I was just citing what the news told me. I'm going to have to examine your claims more closely, because you could be right.

Endorse the war or not, you still apply an argument of fallacy to a subject you clearly know little about. I understand your intent, and it is certianly commendable, but really, you can't debate something as big in Iraqi history as the period Saddam ruled, without knowing Iraqi history.

And I appreciate that you're being respectful about it, especially considering the tone I've been taking. That said, what makes it clear that I don't understand Iraqi history? The fact that I think it's too early to judge Iraq as being better or worse at this early point? The fact that I don't agree with you?

And I will continue to put work on your shoulders here to prove that he was fascist now. As I have read a lot of Ba'athist literature, both from before the split and after, and if that's fascisim, then my cat shits candy canes.

Definition of fascism, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary:
"2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"
Sounds like our mustachio'd friend.
Dictators often twist noble-seeming ideology (not that Ba'athist ideology seems noble... to be honest, I wouldn't know if it does or not) to hoard more power for themselves.

Sorry but, eyewitness accounts are all I need.

Unless you talk to the Kurds who were actually gassed, what are you proving?
And there you reach an impasse... those Kurds are dead now. I don't give a crap about anyone who:
1) Wasn't in the village when Saddam opened up the toxic gas. What the hell would anyone who was a hundred miles away know about what happened to Saddam's victims?
2) Doesn't have some serious journalism credentials

I could give a crap less about news accounts after that, especially from all the wacky stuff I've seen come out of news accounts.

Well, I can understand that, I guess.

I'll tell you what though, I'll take a look for the actual military reports, or documents of such nature, that would provide that information. Globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/swa-ops.htm) already provides a few, but I'll look around and see what I can find in my spare time.

Thanks.

I wish it were fully mine too. The words are mine, the basic outline of it came from an Iraqi girl I know who lived through the 2003 invasion. The effect still works though.

Aw, well I liked it.

There might be one Middle Eastern family within twenty miles of me, and I'm pretty sure they're Pakistani, but I don't know for certain.
I don't live on the East Coast, I live in the Midwest (you're shocked, I know) and truth be told, people from anywhere near Iraq are very, very rare.
Because we all know Pakistan is in the Middle East. I've refrained from flaming as much as possible, but you really are ignorant.

And of course, no one gives a rat's ass about my thoughtful analysis.

Dostanuot Loj, not exactly criticizing, but you might want to avoid GlobalSecurity for other things, it tends to have a distinct pro-Western tinge.

But the cause of the deposing is relevant. If the people themselves depose their leader, they will be more satisfied because THEY did it. If some other country comes in an does it, they will be more WTF.

Understandable... so because they're bummed that the U.S. came in and did the work for them, they won't be able to organize?


Noted. However, you failed to provide an actual incident where it occurred.

Yeah, but now I've done that. So we're cool, right?
We are talking about limb amputation aren't we? I can't remember what this snippet was about... sorry.

I do read the thread. It's my thread.

I assumed you didn't read my posts because you seemed to think I was supporting the Iraq war. Or occupation, or whatever.

Ok, Mr. Hussein was marginally a dictator. But George III did not control everything. Even then, Parliament did most work.

Right, as I said... Iraq needed to shed its chains far more, because their leader was even more oppressive.

War for independence...War against a foreign government.

... for independence.

Droves implies constantly throughout time. Which is simply not the case.

We're using different dictionaries, m'friend.

None of them were forcibly removed except Mussolini who was an idiot.

Well, the Allies beating the shit out of the Axis powers certainly pushed Hitler into taking that cyanide.

No they didn't. They were horribly oppressed and lost all their rights in the colonies. America did not have a lack of infrastructure, shootings, bombings, etc after the Revolution.

They didn't have running water or electricity, two of the major grievances cited in your original post. And there was an incident known as Shays' Rebellion that happened almost immediately after we gained independence. And lots of racial hatred.
We're getting through our problems.

Officially, yes. But the war was basically over after Yorktown.

Well, someone pointed out that the war in Iraq was "officially" over, and any fighting going on now didn't count as war anymore, it was merely an occupation.
If we're going by what's "official," you have to give Iraq more time. If we're not going by "official," then you still have to give Iraq more time, because the war's not over.


Apologies. I thought you were referring to Iraq. That's what happens when everyone quotes snippets. >_<

Honest mistake. I get confused, too. Obviously.
Just giving you a hard time, sorry.

Apples and oranges.

How? I'm not comparing every country in Africa to Iraq. I'm just saying something that seems to be almost universally true: it takes awhile for countries to find their feet after losing leadership. Give them time.

Fourteen centuries of hatred is not going to change.

*pouts, puts hands on hips* Not with that attitude, Negative Nancy.
We'll have to wait and see. And you might end up being right.

Because we all know Pakistan is in the Middle East. I've refrained from flaming as much as possible, but you really are ignorant.

So it's right on the border of the Middle East. Sue me. I was being inclusive :p

I hate to break it to you, but the Iraqi population is greater then 5000.
In fact, the 2007 estimate of Iraq's population is something like 27,500,000. A little high school math tells me that is 0.018% of the Iraqi population, less then half a percent. Half a percent does not a population make. For all we know that's 5000 Iraqis living in Syria, or in Detriot.
Aye, but keep in mind that this is the Guardian, and they really don't like the war in Iraq, but like to have a modicum of balance - they're not going to ask Iraqis in Detroit when they the whole Iraqi population in Iraq to talk to.

As to the whole 5000 thing - that's a valid sample size for such a population.
Ok, Mr. Hussein was marginally a dictator.
Marginally? Oh please, he was way more than marginally a dictator.
None of them were forcibly removed except Mussolini who was an idiot.
Mussolini was no idiot, he just lost all interest as a dictator, basically. I think he knew that when he was deposed and put under house arrest, ostensibly for his own security, that was for the best.

The Sàlo Republic was really him trying to save as much of Italy as he could from the Germans. Which was fair enough, really, because he was no lover of the Nazis by any means.
If the people really wanted to get rid of him, they would have found a way.
You could say that about Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Mao. Once the utter brutality of a regime gets to a certain point, the leaders become basically untouchable.
Ok, I'll take that. It's still a poll, and a limited poll at that. You can't really expect an accurate poll in a place where people don't trust their own neighbors.
Well there we go.

International law (in the form of treaties, which are all that exist on CW) only applies to those who sign it, especially in this case.
the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 applied only after 1993, and can not be retroactive to the 1980s. Likewise Iraq was not a signatory of the Geneva Protocol, nor either of the Hague conventions.

I didn't look at that one closely enough before I said it.
The fact that I really don't know enough about this to debate it is showing.

If I can avoid that illogical outcome of your statement, you should be able to remember that the towns and villages gased were all those known to be activly supporting Iranian combatants, and were gassed at times where Iranian combatants were in them.

"Known" by whom?

Quoting Fox News is the first thing you did wrong here. By using a known source of biased and discredited information to qualify your argument, you discredit your argument.

And two other sources, which I explained to you I was using for the sole purpose of backing up Fox News.

Do you see where you went wrong yet? Whether or not Saddam was a dictator and did it anyway means nothing to the argument that Iraqi law did not provide for amputations for theft, which was your claim backed by the NYT article. Your claim was proven false as it was based on the Iraqi constitution and criminal code, which have both shown you wrong about them.

The documents... signed by Saddam Hussein... in 95. That's what I'm using.




All right. Everything aside, it's starting to seem that I have been wrong about many things I used to believe about Iraq, and that you know more on the subject than I do.
I concede. I've been on thin ice since I started this thing anyway. Thanks for all the info, though.

It's all how you look at it. This situation isn't really any different than the Rhodesia to Zimbabwe transition if you were black.

You could either:

A) Be oppressed under white regime and be denied all of your civil rights but still be able to put food on your table and lead an all and all decent life.

B) Be free (Well, kind of) to say what you want, do what you wanted, and get jobs that only white people were able to get, but be in an all around shitty condition with some corrupt dickhead in charge of things that has left your country in a different but equally bad state.

You can have food and be oppressed, or have no food but be free. It sucks either way, but both situations suck equally yet seperately, kind of like Jim Crow Laws.

I blame Bush for doing this shit, but I blame the Iraqis for failing to get their shit together and slap together some shitty government with shitty US aid.

I mean look at Kurdistan proper, IT'S DOING JUST FINE! Although it's not a recognized country, the people have their own army, fine security, a university, and are constructing their own international airport. If I had to live in Iraq, I sure as hell would live there.

The rest of the country can't get their heads out of their asses and unify. The lid has been taken off the boiling pot, and they want to have at it no differently then the Irish and the Brits in Northern Ireland.

Blame America all you want, but don't forget that Iraq belongs to the people, and they are the ones directly responsible for what is happening, no different than America's people are responsible for the dumbfucks they have put into office.

Done. Posted a link about it. Now you're happy.

No, if you're refering to previous links which have yet to support your story through credit, then you have yet to do so. Unless it was edited into a previous post and I have not seen it.

There might be one Middle Eastern family within twenty miles of me, and I'm pretty sure they're Pakistani, but I don't know for certain.
I don't live on the East Coast, I live in the Midwest (you're shocked, I know) and truth be told, people from anywhere near Iraq are very, very rare.

The internet is quite an easy way to meet people too.

Actually, with the people who were most directly responsible for killing the Jews dead, their power gone, and a new German government, we don't have to do that.
It's about the criminals who performed the murders getting punished- I couldn't care less what flag they were flying at the time.
See above.

Hirohito died in 1989, and was directly responsable for the actions of the IJA in China. Yet we did not let China invade Japan, or have the option to, untill that time?

I addressed that after you posted this.
With?

... and it was illegal for Saddam to do what he did to them, too.
I know, Reagan gave him the weapons. I'm not a big Reagan fan, either.
By what law?
The only things banning chemical weapons are treaties, which bind only those who sign them. Untill 1993 when you come accross UN resolutions (Which still technicly only bind those who sign them, and Iraq is a member). You don't even have legal basis here.


I was referring to ethnicity, not nationality. An understandable mistake.

Untill it becomes a question of legality, which is what this issue (Of gassing those Kurdish villages for treason) is. In which case all that matters is nationality. Unless of course American laws only apply to white people, not black or hispanic.

Legal= good?
Bwahahahaha. Who do you think makes the laws in a dictatorship? Besides, by your own admission, it's probable that not even half those Kurds were terrorists. So you still have to address that.

You don't have to be a terrorist to support enemy combatants against your own country. Which is treason. They may not have been terrorists, but they were still criminals.

And of course, if he truely exercised absolute power (As in was authoritarian, the real term I believe you wish to be using), then yes he could do has he wished. But then again, that form of government system actually makes him the law, in which case he can do as he pleases legally.

Like I said... being in the Constitution doesn't amount to a hill of beans when someone like Saddam is in power. People like him bend the rules whenever possible, or they downright break them.

No, you opened your argument citing a source that said it was in the constitution and criminal code that he could do it. Whether or not he did it means nothing, I have no doubt he did. But contrary to your initial argument and the source you choose to cite, it was not in the constitution nor the criminal code, meaning you and your source were wrong there. Get it yet?

No time at all. Cuz I'm not going to look at each specific law that Saddam obviously broke.
Know why? Because I provided sources on seven people whose limbs were removed under Saddam's regime.
And because of this part of the NYT article that you clearly didn't expect me to even read:

"Date: June 4, 1994

To cut off the right hand of thieves, and cut off the foot if repeated a second time . . .

(1) According to Section 1, Article 42 of the Iraqi Constitution, the Revolutionary Command Council is permitted to punish the criminal by cutting off the right hand from the wrist. The categories of theft are defined in Chapter 440/441/442/443/444/445 of the Crime Law Number 111 (1969), and amendment number 117 of the Iraqi Crimes Military Law number 13 (1940). First-time offenders of auto theft will have their hand cut off; if the crime is committed a second time -- the left foot will be severed. . . .

(2) The death penalty will be administered to those who hold either concealed or unconcealed weapons in committing a theft, which results in a murder. . . .

Signed by Saddam Hussein, President of the Revolutionary Command Council


Later, the penalty for repeat offenders was either stiffened or modified, according to this decree in the official daily Thawra:


Date: Aug. 18. 1994

(1) According to Section l, Article 42 of the Iraqi Constitution, the Revolutionary Command Council is permitted to Brand an ''X'' on the forehead of those individuals who repeat the crime for which their hand was cut off. The mark will be one centimeter in length and one millimeter in width.

(2) The branding will take place at the same hospital where the initial right hand was cut.

(3) The general hospitals will provide the local hospitals with the medical needs and assistance to carry out these orders. . . .

Saddam Hussein"

I know, I know. That document cited obsolete parts of a constitution that had been modified. Trouble is, the document itself was written in 94. And signed by the man leading the country at the time.
See how people who have absolute control over a country don't usually try to follow the rules... and yet kind of make it look like they do?

I bolded the portions claimed as in the constitution, and their supposed locations. I already provided you with said constitution and criminal code, which clearly do not include such features. Thus your source is, as we say around here, full of shit. And like I said before, whether or not he did it means nothing, because the argument is against the claim that it was in the wording of the law itself, which it clearly is not.

And while I'm at it, you do understand the criminal code I gave you was as it was in 2002, right? Find those apparent legal proclimations within it, because that's where they would be if they were in fact true. I'll give you a hint, they're not there.

I was just citing what the news told me. I'm going to have to examine your claims more closely, because you could be right.

News is never the be-all-end-all of information.

And I appreciate that you're being respectful about it, especially considering the tone I've been taking. That said, what makes it clear that I don't understand Iraqi history? The fact that I think it's too early to judge Iraq as being better or worse at this early point? The fact that I don't agree with you?

I agree it's too early to judge how Iraq will end up. But the argument is not how it will end up, it's how it is right now. And it's not possible to be too early to judge how Iraq is right now.

As for respect, I could say the same to some of your arguments. Including your little "traits of a Dictator" speil, which I'm unsure whether to take as pure ignorance, or a joke.

Definition of fascism, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary:
"2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"
Sounds like our mustachio'd friend.
Dictators often twist noble-seeming ideology (not that Ba'athist ideology seems noble... to be honest, I wouldn't know if it does or not) to hoard more power for themselves.

Unfortunately this may be a mixup in our using of technical terminology. When I speak (Or write in this case) of fascisim, I mean the political ideology. If you wish merely to apply the laymans definition of it, that of a despotic system, then we can speak like that. But it would be much better for us to refer to it as a despotic system.

In no way do I deny Saddam to have been a dictator, or a despotic one at that, but neither him not Ba'athist thought is fascist in terms of political theory (Nor is Ba'athist thought despotic, but that would be an issue for the great Syria-Iraq split, another topic if you wish).

Unless you talk to the Kurds who were actually gassed, what are you proving?
And there you reach an impasse... those Kurds are dead now. I don't give a crap about anyone who:
1) Wasn't in the village when Saddam opened up the toxic gas. What the hell would anyone who was a hundred miles away know about what happened to Saddam's victims?
2) Doesn't have some serious journalism credentials

Journalisim does not a fact make.

Likewise, a graduate program "student" at DAL here last year was an Iraqi Kurd, and his brother in law helped clear the bodies from Halabja after the incident. I'd hardly call him a poor source of information.

And again, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but more then half of the victims of the Halabja attack survived, and it's roughly equal in most of the other bombings. There are plenty of Kurds still around who were gassed, many of them testifying at Saddam's trial.

And what exactly would you think would have happened when Saddam died? Someone else will just step up to the position and everyone would be ok with it? You think the clashes would not have erupted then, multifold worse, causing perhaps one of the largest humanitarian crises to have ever happen, allowing Iran to freely fuel Shiites and eventually achieve a government that is an indirect puppet of Iran - killing thousands of Sunnis. Plus you would then have two Irans. And then you would have a nice little connection between Hizballah, Syria, Iran 2 (i.e. Iraq), and Iran, all nations/organization that the US does not carry out diplomacy with and are considered terrorists/terrorist supporters. Since Hizballah has been shown to have trained in Iraq prior to US invasion, that would mean increasingly bad news for Israel and eventually the US as well.

So the way I see it, there were two options:

1. Let Saddam stay until he dies. Face a humanitarian crisis several times worse than the situation currently in Iraq, without US soldiers around to help protect civillians.
(P.S. until he dies be threatened with more invasions of other countires, potential usage of chemical/biological unconventional weapons against the Kurds in the North and other dissenters, using torture against dissidents, threatening Israel with a missile strike at any moment, and allowing (or turning a blind eye) at terrorist organizations training in Iraq, with commanders+$+supplies from Iran meeting with trainees from Lebanon for a terrorist party.)

OR

2. The current situation where US troops do their best to stabilize the situation and make it a safe Middle East.

And what exactly would you think would have happened when Saddam died? Someone else will just step up to the position and everyone would be ok with it? You think the clashes would not have erupted then, multifold worse, causing perhaps one of the largest humanitarian crises to have ever happen, allowing Iran to freely fuel Shiites and eventually achieve a government that is an indirect puppet of Iran - killing thousands of Sunnis. Plus you would then have two Irans. And then you would have a nice little connection between Hizballah, Syria, Iran 2 (i.e. Iraq), and Iran, all nations/organization that the US does not carry out diplomacy with and are considered terrorists/terrorist supporters. Since Hizballah has been shown to have trained in Iraq prior to US invasion, that would mean increasingly bad news for Israel and eventually the US as well.



Prove any of this.

The principle of his post is fairly correct, in that when Saddam died it would have fallen into chaos. More specificly due to a power struggle between his two sons and maybe some top ranking Ba'athist officials. If no clear strong power asserted itself, it would be very likely that Iran would exert strong influence on the radical Shi'a in Iraq, as they are doing now (And funding, training, and providing them with Iranian volunteers), and attempt to crush Iraq as a nation into a puppet state or worse.

Although the sectarian viloence going on now, and its reality, has been largely overblown. From what I understand the vast majority of the viloence comes from foreign fighters from Iran, or from Saudi/Saudi backed places, fighting eachother, killing the locals, and attacking US forces. Most Iraqi viloence (With the exception of peopl like Sadr's lot) died off quite a while ago now, and they're much more intent on working this out peacefully (Although Malaki is not making this easy, he's a bigger detriment to Iraq right now then anyone not quoting scripture for suicide bombers).

Not in the sense we're talking about, no. It's just "Was the nation better without their leader, or with their leader?" The question of who overthrew said leader is not relevant in this case.


Right now, it's worse off without it's former leader.


Point is: This thread is completely ludicrous, as is the question it poses. IT'S TOO SOON TO JUDGE IRAQ. Give it time, for Christ's sake.

And when will it be soon enough? 5 years? 10 years? Maybe 500 years down the line when people invent mind control devices? Or ooh, I know! 50,000 years down the line when there aren't anymore humans around. Then there'll be peace.

You're just postponing the inevitable by saying "it's too soon." Would you be saying that it'd be too soon to leave the house when it's burning down on you?


No. Iraq's better of with him deposed, though.


Aha! Now we have you! You don't really mean "it's too early to judge" after all. You just mean "It's too early to say it's worse off, but it's not too early to say it's better off"

Hypocrite.

His death doesn´t make a difference. The world is still the same.

Aha! Now we have you! You don't really mean "it's too early to judge" after all. You just mean "It's too early to say it's worse off, but it's not too early to say it's better off"

Hypocrite.

Yeah, I slipped up. You got me.
And I conceded that I've been wrong about a lot of stuff and am going to leave the thread.
People are still posting arguments against mine. I think a time warp has prevented my last post from being noticed.
Anyway. Don't say "we" and lump yourself in with Dostanuot Loj, who is the only one here that actually posted good arguments against mine, unravelled my logic, and told me things I hadn't already heard about Iraq. You did, however, annoy me. Sooooooo congrats on that one.
Now that I've cleared the air on that, you should know that jumping all over a mistake I made after I've already stopped fighting is kind of... cock-ish.

Don't say "we" and lump yourself in with Dostanuot Loj, who is the only one here that actually posted good arguments against mine, unravelled my logic, and told me things I hadn't already heard about Iraq.

I believe you're the first person on the internet every to say something like that. Admit defeat (Or in this case, simple ignorance) and do it with honor. My hat's off to you on that.

Don't mind the lack of stable electricity, clean water (let alone actual water), stable fuel supplies, stable food supplies, the shoddy (if any) education, the lack of doctors, the barely existent garbage collection, phone bills for lines that haven't worked in years, the rampaging militias, bombings, shootings, death squads, etc. At least you can speak out against things. Oh wait, you can't. You'll be shot to death by a death squad.

Seriously, I dare you to argue that life is better without Saddam.
It depends how you are determing the badness of life. For the political enemies of Saddam that were exiles, life is better. For the people whom Saddam would have killed between 2003 and now, life is better. For George W. Bush, life is much better, because he got re-elected.

For Saddam Hussein, life is not better, because he's dead. For other members of the Baath Party, life is not better. For the people whom Saddam would have not killed but crazy militias would and did, life is not better.

What seems to have happenend is that all of Iraq's bad luck just got spread out ("democratized," one might say.) No particular group is being targeted by the powers that be right now, but everyone is targeted by several smaller powers. My hope is that eventually the situation will improve to a state that would not be possible were Saddam still in power, but right now things seem about the same.

And what exactly would you think would have happened when Saddam died? Someone else will just step up to the position and everyone would be ok with it? You think the clashes would not have erupted then, multifold worse, causing perhaps one of the largest humanitarian crises to have ever happen, allowing Iran to freely fuel Shiites and eventually achieve a government that is an indirect puppet of Iran - killing thousands of Sunnis. Plus you would then have two Irans. And then you would have a nice little connection between Hizballah, Syria, Iran 2 (i.e. Iraq), and Iran, all nations/organization that the US does not carry out diplomacy with and are considered terrorists/terrorist supporters. Since Hizballah has been shown to have trained in Iraq prior to US invasion, that would mean increasingly bad news for Israel and eventually the US as well.

So the way I see it, there were two options:

1. Let Saddam stay until he dies. Face a humanitarian crisis several times worse than the situation currently in Iraq, without US soldiers around to help protect civillians.
(P.S. until he dies be threatened with more invasions of other countires, potential usage of chemical/biological unconventional weapons against the Kurds in the North and other dissenters, using torture against dissidents, threatening Israel with a missile strike at any moment, and allowing (or turning a blind eye) at terrorist organizations training in Iraq, with commanders+$+supplies from Iran meeting with trainees from Lebanon for a terrorist party.)

OR

2. The current situation where US troops do their best to stabilize the situation and make it a safe Middle East.
Nice hypothesis, but I believe you're completely wrong.

And what exactly would you think would have happened when Saddam died? Someone else will just step up to the position and everyone would be ok with it? You think the clashes would not have erupted then, multifold worse, causing perhaps one of the largest humanitarian crises to have ever happen, allowing Iran to freely fuel Shiites and eventually achieve a government that is an indirect puppet of Iran - killing thousands of Sunnis. Plus you would then have two Irans. And then you would have a nice little connection between Hizballah, Syria, Iran 2 (i.e. Iraq), and Iran, all nations/organization that the US does not carry out diplomacy with and are considered terrorists/terrorist supporters. Since Hizballah has been shown to have trained in Iraq prior to US invasion, that would mean increasingly bad news for Israel and eventually the US as well.

So the way I see it, there were two options:

1. Let Saddam stay until he dies. Face a humanitarian crisis several times worse than the situation currently in Iraq, without US soldiers around to help protect civillians.
(P.S. until he dies be threatened with more invasions of other countires, potential usage of chemical/biological unconventional weapons against the Kurds in the North and other dissenters, using torture against dissidents, threatening Israel with a missile strike at any moment, and allowing (or turning a blind eye) at terrorist organizations training in Iraq, with commanders+$+supplies from Iran meeting with trainees from Lebanon for a terrorist party.)

OR

2. The current situation where US troops do their best to stabilize the situation and make it a safe Middle East.
It would be a lot better than what we have. The early bombings were against Americans. Eventually, Al Qaeda and Company realized this couldn't keep up forever and had to inflame the two groups. Saddam was more than a decade from death. Anything could have happened. He might have stepped down. He could have been naturally deposed. Even with a power struggle, I doubt there would be that much violence since anti-American groups brought in training, expertise, and materials that were not in Iraq before.

Yeah, I slipped up. You got me.
And I conceded that I've been wrong about a lot of stuff and am going to leave the thread.
I hereby declare victory.
/thread

http://www.ourwardfamily.com/winston_churchill/Winston_Churchill_1943_The_famous_Victory_Salute.JPG

I hereby declare victory.
/thread
Oh nice one. Bloodlusty Barbarianism is a heavyweight in terms of debate like Belgium is a heavyweight in military matters.

NSG shocks and appalls me.

Life is so dear, and peace must be so sweet. :rolleyes:

Oh nice one. Bloodlusty Barbarianism is a heavyweight in terms of debate like Belgium is a heavyweight in military matters.

Are you insulting my intelligence, or my experience? Or just me, since you can't even spell my name right?

I hereby declare victory.
/thread


Nah, you didn't really do anything, either.
EDIT: 'Cept the Pakistan thing. I felt like an idiot after that. Thanks for that.

I believe you're the first person on the internet every to say something like that. Admit defeat (Or in this case, simple ignorance) and do it with honor. My hat's off to you on that.

Well, I guess thanks are in order. Partly for your being respectful, and partly for the way you proved me wrong.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E0DF1F3CF934A15753C1A9649C8B63
This took me ten seconds to find. You could've found it before posting your false statement.

I -- Laws Mandating the Death Penalty and Limb Amputation. . . .

Date: June 4, 1994

To cut off the right hand of thieves, and cut off the foot if repeated a second time . . .

(1) According to Section 1, Article 42 of the Iraqi Constitution, the Revolutionary Command Council is permitted to punish the criminal by cutting off the right hand from the wrist. The categories of theft are defined in Chapter 440/441/442/443/444/445 of the Crime Law Number 111 (1969), and amendment number 117 of the Iraqi Crimes Military Law number 13 (1940). First-time offenders of auto theft will have their hand cut off; if the crime is committed a second time -- the left foot will be severed. . . .

(2) The death penalty will be administered to those who hold either concealed or unconcealed weapons in committing a theft, which results in a murder. . . .

Signed by Saddam Hussein, President of the Revolutionary Command Council

Mhhh... Looks to me that point 2 is pretty standard practice in the US

Just after the allied coalition launched its air war to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait in January 1991, an apparently desperate Mr. Hussein issued an order to lure back army deserters with an amnesty, but also kill those who didn't return. A cover note to top commanders warned, ''Don't broadcast nor publish [this decree], nor leak its content to hostile parties, except the first paragraph dealing with the amnesty''

Notice that under martial law desertion is a capital crime under the law of MOST countryes since the times of Rome.

In the end, apart the limbs cutting part, the rest looks to me as pretty much standard under the US law.

You do:

Sentence to death murderers;
Sentence to death traitors;
Sentence to death deserters.


You could have done better, you know?

Anyway. Don't say "we" and lump yourself in with Dostanuot Loj, who is the only one here that actually posted good arguments against mine, unravelled my logic, and told me things I hadn't already heard about Iraq. You did, however, annoy me.

Well, you completely failed to address my argument back in page 3, continued with illogical statements, although ignorance is a justifiable excuse, and never really pinned down how long "soon enough" actually was despite being questioned on it.

If being caught on points that one either cannot or refuses to refute annoys you, well, you are in for a lot of annoyance then here on NSG.

Are you insulting my intelligence, or my experience? Or just me, since you can't even spell my name right?
Lack of experience and confidence in your own viewpoint. And sorry about the name, I'm terrible about that kind of thing.

So we should have just left him in power so he and his sons could rape more women, torture more men, and gas more Kurds? How is removing him a bad idea?

Do you really think that the women who are raped now care about who rapes them?
Or that those men who are tortured now care who does that to them?
Or that the several thousand dead care who killed them, Saddam or the US army?

Channel 4 news went over some numbers yesterday, and came to the conclusion that the invasion has so far killed more than twice as many people per year than Saddam ever did. And that is without taking into account the homelessness, lack of simple sanitation, education, services the number of refugees that fled the country and the general poverty that are the direct cause of the invasion.

Lack of experience and confidence in your own viewpoint. And sorry about the name, I'm terrible about that kind of thing.

Nah, it's fine. Sorry.

Easy. When the violent death toll and average quality of life in 5 years of supposed non-war (occupation isn't exactly war) is worse than the violent death toll and average quality of life under the despot in decades of non-war, then you can tell that it's worse off.

I don't know which argument you were talking about, so I'm going to address them all.

I defined a war as being a conflict in which two or more forces engage in violent armed conflict. But apparently, this is not an actual war since you're not fighting a government. But a gang can take over a small region, put a flag over it, and call themselves a country, and then fighting them is a "war," although fighting them before that is just an armed conflict. I apologize for not defining war as I saw it, especially since my definition is less conventional than most.
Unless you're using these sources:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
http://www.yourdictionary.com/war
http://www.answers.com/topic/war
... in which case it doesn't have to be two "legitimate" nations, it can just be different factions. Under that definition, we're still at war.

It's currently not fighting any nation is it? It's occupying Iraq. Technically, you call the fighting an insurgency and counter-insurgency operations. Politicians just like to call it war to get the emotions rising.

America's Civil War is called that because both parties were the same culturally and socially.

You could say there is a civil war in Iraq, what with the fighting between all the militant groups. But when fighting against America, you'd call that an insurgency, because they're fighting a group that is an external component, yet they aren't a national army of the sort.

View my last post... and so what if you don't call it a war, anyway (although I would)?
People are still being shot at and blown up. We're still sending troops and supplies. Maybe it's not a war by your definition, but the effects of war are still being felt.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

No, you'd have to do the quality of life and violent death toll comparison. You're mixing things up.

Um, no, you are. You just completely changed what you were talking about.

How?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/middleeast/19military.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/P/Petraeus,%20David%20H.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-02/2005-02-14-voa57.cfm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=3324
(Note: I had to discard some articles from Fox News... articles that these articles concur with... however, as was pointed out before, it doesn't matter how many sources you cite. If even ONE of those sources was Fox News, your entire argument is "discredited.")
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/102407/wor_102407075.shtml
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/03/mil-070309-afps03.htm

So there you have it. You can go ahead and look back at what we were talking about when that happened.

You have to check who is doing the actual overthrowing. An equal joint effort would count. But if one party is doing very little work, you can't really say it counts then.

"Counts"? What the hell does that mean? The government is gone one way or another. Explain to me why it matters who did it. What, because we stepped in and took on a dictator that the Iraqi people could never have overthrown by themselves, the country is worse off?


Maybe so, but before that, the CPA was there, and you can't deny they royally fucked things up.

How?

A comparison between quality of life and violent death tolls indicates that Saddam's era was actually better off than post Saddam Iraq, and this is important, to date.

I think we just stumbled upon a major point of confusion. I have a feeling life is probably more difficult in Iraq right now than it was under Saddam, but that in the long run it may end up being a good thing he was deposed. You seemed to think that Saddam should've been kept in power, no questions asked, and if that's not how you felt, then I'm sorry for mistaking your intent.
I'm talking about the long haul, but it seems like you're talking about the here and now, and both need to be addressed, so maybe we're finally getting somewhere.

I don't know which argument you were talking about, so I'm going to address them all.

I defined a war as being a conflict in which two or more forces engage in violent armed conflict. But apparently, this is not an actual war since you're not fighting a government. But a gang can take over a small region, put a flag over it, and call themselves a country, and then fighting them is a "war," although fighting them before that is just an armed conflict. I apologize for not defining war as I saw it, especially since my definition is less conventional than most.
Unless you're using these sources:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
http://www.yourdictionary.com/war
http://www.answers.com/topic/war
... in which case it doesn't have to be two "legitimate" nations, it can just be different factions. Under that definition, we're still at war.

View my last post... and so what if you don't call it a war, anyway (although I would)?
People are still being shot at and blown up. We're still sending troops and supplies. Maybe it's not a war by your definition, but the effects of war are still being felt.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

In this case, it'd be an abattoir, and those stink. So even if we put aside the semantics of what constitutes a war or not, you have still avoided the fact that conditions between the toppling of the Hussein government and today are actually worse off than that in the pre-invasion period.

This disparity is even more marked if you consider the pre-sanction much less pre-Iranian conflict period, all of which happened under Saddam's rule.


Um, no, you are. You just completely changed what you were talking about.


I wasn't being clear, and we were talking about two totally different people's assertions. In your case, I was responding to your response to CodyCoyle. It muddled things up.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/middleeast/19military.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/P/Petraeus,%20David%20H.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-02/2005-02-14-voa57.cfm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=3324
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/102407/wor_102407075.shtml
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/03/mil-070309-afps03.htm


Your links indicate events 4 years after the invasion, with people suffering long insurgency tactics. However, your assertion:


"Violently overthrown by an external force"= We came in and many Iraqi people helped us out.

Sounds a lot more like some sort of groundswell support came up and fought against Saddam's reign when the Coalition invaded. This may or may not be your intention, but that is what it sounds like.


(Note: I had to discard some articles from Fox News... articles that these articles concur with... however, as was pointed out before, it doesn't matter how many sources you cite. If even ONE of those sources was Fox News, your entire argument is "discredited.")

Fox news has had a long and in some cases, very public, history of distorting views, deliberately reporting only partial facts, sensationalism and outright lies that make its credibility worth less than the effort it took to type this sentence.

The use of Fox news in any sort of politically, religious and economically connected event is akin to using Stormfront as a source regarding inherent racial superiority.


"Counts"? What the hell does that mean? The government is gone one way or another. Explain to me why it matters who did it. What, because we stepped in and took on a dictator that the Iraqi people could never have overthrown by themselves, the country is worse off?

Let me put it this way. Iraq's government could have been deposed if every square mile had been carpet bombed with strategic nuclear devices and enhanced radiation fission weapons, turning the entire region into an irradiated death zone for centuries to come, slaughtering millions of people and rendering the entire population into ash.

By your sole standard of deposing the government, as well as the implicit "ends justify the means" stance, that would have made Iraq better off than it had been before.

The ends do not justify the means. They never do.


I think we just stumbled upon a major point of confusion. I have a feeling life is probably more difficult in Iraq right now than it was under Saddam, but that in the long run it may end up being a good thing he was deposed.


This sort of thinking is highly suspect. Let me apply this sort of thinking to another example.

Without the horrors of Auschwitz and Treblinka, there might never have been enough support for the chartering of Israel as we know it today.

Does that mean the mass killings was a good thing then?


You seemed to think that Saddam should've been kept in power, no questions asked, and if that's not how you felt, then I'm sorry for mistaking your intent.


Unless Saddam had found the fountain of youth somewhere, he would have died eventually. This is not debatable.

What is debatable however, is whether things would have taken a turn had there been a less hardline approach to him. Do not forget. Saddam Hussein's reign for decades was one that was well received by the US administration. It was only after Kuwait and the first Gulf War that the situation reversed itself. This was only exacerbated by crippling sanctions and constant air raids.

The only logical conclusion at this point was that the situation would continue to implode. A cornered mouse will fight, and this is what the US was doing to Iraq.

Rambling yes, but let me get to the point.

If history is any marker, then sanctions, belligerence and other assorted means of hard containment will only make the contained more dominant over their local populace.

I suppose the crux of my argument is that with a less harsh handed approach to Iraq, and a government more likely to seriously address corruption in deal making, Saddam Hussein's grip on his people might have loosened and the future they might have had need not be this crumbling, anarchy ridden battleground they have now.

Also, as I understand it, Saddam was willing to abdicate prior to the invasion. The offer was rejected.


I'm talking about the long haul, but it seems like you're talking about the here and now, and both need to be addressed, so maybe we're finally getting somewhere

Yes, both the future and the present must be dealt with. But if the future is blindly followed on a path paved with corpses, for a fraction of those who survive, is it worth it?

Oh nice one. Bloodlusty Barbarianism is a heavyweight in terms of debate like Belgium is a heavyweight in military matters.
He was relentless and has since come back now.
Nah, you didn't really do anything, either.
EDIT: 'Cept the Pakistan thing. I felt like an idiot after that. Thanks for that.
I shot down at least 2/3 of your points.
Do you really think that the women who are raped now care about who rapes them?
Or that those men who are tortured now care who does that to them?
Or that the several thousand dead care who killed them, Saddam or the US army?

Channel 4 news went over some numbers yesterday, and came to the conclusion that the invasion has so far killed more than twice as many people per year than Saddam ever did. And that is without taking into account the homelessness, lack of simple sanitation, education, services the number of refugees that fled the country and the general poverty that are the direct cause of the invasion.
But they can vote!
O precious Democracy
What would we do
Without You.
"Counts"? What the hell does that mean? The government is gone one way or another. Explain to me why it matters who did it. What, because we stepped in and took on a dictator that the Iraqi people could never have overthrown by themselves, the country is worse off?
What part of the fact that people don't like being invaded just to get rid of their leader, however popular or unpopular, don't you understand?
I think we just stumbled upon a major point of confusion. I have a feeling life is probably more difficult in Iraq right now than it was under Saddam, but that in the long run it may end up being a good thing he was deposed.
14 Centuries of hatred is NOT EVER going to change.
I'm talking about the long haul, but it seems like you're talking about the here and now, and both need to be addressed, so maybe we're finally getting somewhere.
The long haul is the same as the short haul. Almost SIX DECADES later, NOTHING has changed in Korea.
Also, as I understand it, Saddam was willing to abdicate prior to the invasion. The offer was rejected.
I, personally, am curious about this. At the least to show how he was an admirable and respectable leader like Fidel Castro. Although Mr. Castro was not under any pressure really.

He was relentless and has since come back now.

Yeah, I don't know how I got dragged back into this...

I shot down at least 2/3 of your points.

You have a very, very inflated opinion of yourself. You accomplished nothing but making yourself look crazy. Generally, you talked out of your ass in response to one of my posts, then Dostanuot Loj would say something that actually made sense immediately afterward... only then did I begin to change my mind about this situation.

What part of the fact that people don't like being invaded just to get rid of their leader, however popular or unpopular, don't you understand?

Just tell me how it matters who took down the government. Stop leading this debate in circles.

14 Centuries of hatred is NOT EVER going to change.

Again, you're coming down with broken record syndrome. Spouting the same argument (if you can even call it an argument) over and over again is not going to achieve a different result the sixth time you do it than it did the first time.

The long haul is the same as the short haul.

Are you high or something?

Almost SIX DECADES later, NOTHING has changed in Korea.

Apples to oranges.
Notice how I don't even have to post an argument... I can just say apples to oranges. Doesn't that piss you off? Despite the fact that I cite no sources, have nothing logical to counter you with, and cannot for the life of me think of any reason to oppose you other than that your statement goes against my worldview.
That was sarcasm, of course... Korea is very different now than it was sixty years ago.
To be continued...

Yeah, I don't know how I got dragged back into this...
I usually click unsubscribe when I want to get out of a debate and stop reading the thread. It is hard though sometimes.

You have a very, very inflated opinion of yourself. You accomplished nothing but making yourself look crazy. Generally, you talked out of your ass in response to one of my posts, then Dostanuot Loj would say something that actually made sense immediately afterward... only then did I begin to change my mind about this situation.
No, you are the one with the inflated opinion, dismissing my dubenking of your statements.

Just tell me how it matters who took down the government. Stop leading this debate in circles.
I've explained it numerous times. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE OTHER NATIONS COMING IN AND MESSING WITH STUFF. When it's a LOCAL uprising, people are more inclined to support their countrymen than some foreigners.

Again, you're coming down with broken record syndrome. Spouting the same argument (if you can even call it an argument) over and over again is not going to achieve a different result the sixth time you do it than it did the first time.
Because you don't seem to get it. Shi'ites and Sunnis have hated each other to death for 14 centuries. It's not gonna change now, no matter how you twist it. They cannot live together in the same country unless there is prosperity (that makes them forget and not look for a scapegoat) like under Saddam. Splitting the country up in a federation (which would devolve anyway within 25 years) or separate countries would alleviate some problems, but they'd still hate each other. It would just be harder to kill each other.

Are you high or something?
Are you? Nothing is going to change.

Apples to oranges.
Not at all. A foreign force invaded and removed a government (from half the country).

Notice how I don't even have to post an argument... I can just say apples to oranges. Doesn't that piss you off? Despite the fact that I cite no sources, have nothing logical to counter you with, and cannot for the life of me think of any reason to oppose you other than that your statement goes against my worldview.
No it doesn't piss me off at all because I know you are wrong and ignorant.

That was sarcasm, of course... Korea is very different now than it was sixty years ago.
Really now? I still see a totalitarian government, a stalemate, and US troops. How is anything different?

I usually click unsubscribe when I want to get out of a debate and stop reading the thread. It is hard though sometimes.

It's hard to leave when people keep arguing with me.

No, you are the one with the inflated opinion, dismissing my dubenking of your statements.

Yes, my refusal to bow down to your repetitive statements, none of which prove or disprove anything, shows my egocentricity.

I've explained it numerous times. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE OTHER NATIONS COMING IN AND MESSING WITH STUFF. When it's a LOCAL uprising, people are more inclined to support their countrymen than some foreigners.

Show me how this is going to affect Iraq's chances of becoming a prosperous nation in the next few decades. Studies have been posted in this thread indicating that Iraqis do not, for the most part, miss their old dictator- and this is while they're still in a state of low stability, with a deteriorated infrastructure. As violence decreases, so will the number of Saddam sympathizers. As the infrastructure is rebuilt, more people will begin to prefer their lives now to their lives under the thumb of Hussein.
We know then, that freedom in terrible conditions is preferred to tyrannical rule under "better" conditions. With this in mind, it seems clear that the Iraqi people would have overthrown your idol long ago if they had the means, or if they had known what the alternative to fascist rule was.

Because you don't seem to get it. Shi'ites and Sunnis have hated each other to death for 14 centuries. It's not gonna change now, no matter how you twist it. They cannot live together in the same country unless there is prosperity (that makes them forget and not look for a scapegoat) like under Saddam. Splitting the country up in a federation (which would devolve anyway within 25 years) or separate countries would alleviate some problems, but they'd still hate each other. It would just be harder to kill each other.

So in your mind, prosperity and peace is only possible under the rule of a dictator? How can the same prosperity not be achieved in a democracy, which is what we're building there right now?

Are you? Nothing is going to change.

Things already are changing. Violence is decreasing. And could very well continue to decrease.
Just because you miss your fearless leader doesn't mean everyone else does. A more secular Iraq, where people don't get killed for going to the wrong mosque, is possible.

Not at all. A foreign force invaded and removed a government (from half the country).

Yes. From half the country. There's a difference right there. South Korea is one of the strongest nations on Earth industrially, economically, scientifically, technologically, and in terms of military. Their standard of living is very high, the country is very modern (in some ways more modern than the U.S.), and they are a representative democracy.
Things seem pretty swell over there. You don't think we helped out with that? You don't want that to happen in Iraq?

No it doesn't piss me off at all because I know you are wrong and ignorant.

Way to send my argument crumbling to the ground :rolleyes:
"You're wrong!"
"No, YOU'RE wrong!"

Really now? I still see a totalitarian government, a stalemate, and US troops. How is anything different?

See my above statement about how well South Korea is doing... if even half of Iraq could have what South Korea has now, then that would be better than what Saddam gave them.
So we still have to stick around the 38th parallel, that's true... but you don't hear about thousands of troops dying over there every year, do you? It doesn't seem like there's a war still going on, without any clear victory in sight, does there?
If you want to use Korea as the standard by which we judge Iraq, I think that yes, certainly Iraq is going to be better off without Saddam.

It's hard to leave when people keep arguing with me.
Isn't debating fun?

Show me how this is going to affect Iraq's chances of becoming a prosperous nation in the next few decades. Studies have been posted in this thread indicating that Iraqis do not, for the most part, miss their old dictator- and this is while they're still in a state of low stability, with a deteriorated infrastructure. As violence decreases, so will the number of Saddam sympathizers. As the infrastructure is rebuilt, more people will begin to prefer their lives now to their lives under the thumb of Hussein.
We know then, that freedom in terrible conditions is preferred to tyrannical rule under "better" conditions. With this in mind, it seems clear that the Iraqi people would have overthrown your idol long ago if they had the means, or if they had known what the alternative to fascist rule was.
I was responding to your assumption that it doesn't matter how the government was taken down when it does. If the people did it themselves, they're more ready for it and more supportive than of a foreign power.

So in your mind, prosperity and peace is only possible under the rule of a dictator? How can the same prosperity not be achieved in a democracy, which is what we're building there right now?
It just cannot work there. Especially when democracy is forced down their throats. We're building a joke, not a democracy.

Things already are changing. Violence is decreasing. And could very well continue to decrease.
It's a lull in violence. It will go back to normal before you know it.

Just because you miss your fearless leader doesn't mean everyone else does. A more secular Iraq, where people don't get killed for going to the wrong mosque, is possible.
Not in this universe or in my lifetime. Yugoslavia did a wonderful job staying together prosperously.

Yes. From half the country. There's a difference right there. South Korea is one of the strongest nations on Earth industrially, economically, scientifically, technologically, and in terms of military. Their standard of living is very high, the country is very modern (in some ways more modern than the U.S.), and they are a representative democracy.
Same with Kurdistan to a degree. But the rest is not even remotely in good condition.

Things seem pretty swell over there. You don't think we helped out with that? You don't want that to happen in Iraq?
It's not swell in North Korea.

Way to send my argument crumbling to the ground :rolleyes:
"You're wrong!"
"No, YOU'RE wrong!"
What argument? I just asid that you fail at trolling me.

See my above statement about how well South Korea is doing... if even half of Iraq could have what South Korea has now, then that would be better than what Saddam gave them.
Kurdistan is the equivalent and they were doing well BEFORE we came in.

So we still have to stick around the 38th parallel, that's true... but you don't hear about thousands of troops dying over there every year, do you? It doesn't seem like there's a war still going on, without any clear victory in sight, does there?
We're currently in the 1950-3 part of the Iraq thing. Technically, the war is still ongoing. Also, we aren't occupying North Korea so how can they attack us. It also would be obvious who attacked us. We're also on military bases.

If you want to use Korea as the standard by which we judge Iraq, I think that yes, certainly Iraq is going to be better off without Saddam.
Not at all. It's going to be the same shit. Even McCain agrees saying we'll be there 100 years.

Isn't debating fun?

*laughs* Yeah, you know it.

I was responding to your assumption that it doesn't matter how the government was taken down when it does. If the people did it themselves, they're more ready for it and more supportive than of a foreign power.

They couldn't have done it themselves, and they seem to prefer life without Saddam to life with him. I'm sure if the Iraqi people had the means to overthrow Saddam, they would have done so and maybe they would have been happier that way, but the end result is still the same.

It just cannot work there. Especially when democracy is forced down their throats. We're building a joke, not a democracy.

So you have a pessimistic view. But you don't have anything to back it up with.

It's a lull in violence. It will go back to normal before you know it.

We'll see. You could be right.

Not in this universe or in my lifetime. Yugoslavia did a wonderful job staying together prosperously.

Again, you say it's impossible, I say it's possible... I don't know of a way to conclusively prove one way or the other.

Same with Kurdistan to a degree. But the rest is not even remotely in good condition.

Kurdistan is not doing well.

It's not swell in North Korea.

We weren't trying to help North Korea. North Korea was our enemy.

Kurdistan is the equivalent and they were doing well BEFORE we came in.

How is having no homeland, an extremely violent guerilla war in Turkey, gassings in Iraq, and resistance against the government of every nation they inhabit qualify as doing well? The Kurds were hanging on by a thread, and still are.

We're currently in the 1950-3 part of the Iraq thing.

Elaborate on that.

Technically, the war is still ongoing.

Finally, someone else calls it a war.

Also, we aren't occupying North Korea so how can they attack us. It also would be obvious who attacked us. We're also on military bases.

Yet you said that you see no difference between the situation in Korea and the situation in Iraq. Clearly, we haven't had to occupy Korea for 100 years to ensure the safety of the South.

Not at all. It's going to be the same shit.

Same shit as what? As Korea, where we managed to get a new ally in a part of the world where we truly needed one, an ally who is strong in its economy and military? That sounds like a pretty nice way for the war in Iraq to end up.

Even McCain agrees saying we'll be there 100 years.

You're basing your opinion on what John McCain tells you? And people get after me for citing Fox News (along with other sources that back Fox News up)?
Look, I'm as rabid about expanding the American empire as the next man, but McCain is a little extreme for my taste.

*laughs* Yeah, you know it.


Except that you continue to not answer to my points...

They couldn't have done it themselves, and they seem to prefer life without Saddam to life with him. I'm sure if the Iraqi people had the means to overthrow Saddam, they would have done so and maybe they would have been happier that way, but the end result is still the same.
Most people could care less who governs them as long as they can feed their families. The ends does not justify the means. That has already been pointed out to you. One silly little opinion poll in a country without basic necessities and security is hardly valid. Honestly, look at the millions of MIDDLE CLASS teachers, doctors, lawyers, who have fled or are trying to flee. They obviously love life there and are happy Saddam is gone.

So you have a pessimistic view. But you don't have anything to back it up with.
As you said I've said multiple times, I have 1400 years of animosity to back it up.

Again, you say it's impossible, I say it's possible... I don't know of a way to conclusively prove one way or the other.
The precedents clearly show that they wouldn't stay together even as a federation. As a pointed out, Yugoslavia was set up as a federation and is still breaking apart nearly two decades later. And even the broken off parts have parts that want to break off.

Kurdistan is not doing well.
I don't know what news you're reading, but Kurdistan is doing quite well as one of the safest and most stable parts of the Middle East. You should look up that new INTERNATIONAL airport they're building. International airports are clearly a sign that a place isn't doing well.

We weren't trying to help North Korea. North Korea was our enemy.
We were trying to help Korea. The evil Communists were our enemy. They were organized by China and the Soviet Union and began moving south to try and takeover all of Korea. We halted them at Pusan and pushed them back to the 38th parallel. We realized we couldn't really press on all the way and setup an armistice--stalemate--to at least keep half in order. Remember that Korea was one country for all of its history and only recently was split by ideology.

How is having no homeland, an extremely violent guerilla war in Turkey, gassings in Iraq, and resistance against the government of every nation they inhabit qualify as doing well? The Kurds were hanging on by a thread, and still are.
They have a homeland. It's just not independent. I have no idea what extreme violence you are referring to. There are some bombings in Turkey and a few incursion and skirmishes at the border. Other than that, the rest of the country is fine. Again you bring up the gassings even though it was pointed out to you they were isolated incidents and not happening all the time. The no-fly zone allowed them to setup up a de facto independent state with its own government and military. It prospered while Iraq moved along stagnantly due to sanctions and constant bombing of everything by NATO. The Kurds have not been hanging on by a thread at all ever. I don't know what you're smoking or what fiction you're reading.

Elaborate on that.
The war itself. Eventually there was an armistice. But in those years, there was fighting and deaths. So, we are in the 1950-3 part with fighting and deaths.

Finally, someone else calls it a war.
Technically, it's an occupation-war hybrid. It's just easier to say war than occupation or hybrid. Could you really imagine the news media saying "The Iraq Occupation continues with another 50 marines killed when a roadside bomb struck their convoy."

Yet you said that you see no difference between the situation in Korea and the situation in Iraq. Clearly, we haven't had to occupy Korea for 100 years to ensure the safety of the South.
We've occupied Korea for 50 years and North Korea still exists. We're halfway there. This isn't about South Korea. It's about Korea. It's one country with two governments.

Same shit as what? As Korea, where we managed to get a new ally in a part of the world where we truly needed one, an ally who is strong in its economy and military? That sounds like a pretty nice way for the war in Iraq to end up.
The fact that after 50 years it still hasn't been resolved. Why do you keep ignoring the existence of North Korea?

You're basing your opinion on what John McCain tells you? And people get after me for citing Fox News (along with other sources that back Fox News up)?
He's a military man and knows that we're stuck there for a long time. Little will change.

Look, I'm as rabid about expanding the American empire as the next man, but McCain is a little extreme for my taste.
I see him as a moderate and I'm a socialist...
I think he'd run the war responsibly. He wouldn't continue to bungle it like Bush is/has.

Why do we still delude ourselves that forcing Iraq upon a track it did not choose for itself is of benefit to all concerned? It may warm the cockles of the evangelical proponents of democracy and western "values", however, both in an abstract, and more practical, physical sense, the invasion of Iraq has been little short of disastrous.

Saddam may have been something of a despot, however, order, stability, and a reasonable standard of life were assured under him for the majority. As with any autocrat, dissentient voices suffered and abhorrent acts occurred, but for most, life was rather better, and will remain so for a decade or so, under Saddam. Another victory for the perversion of classical Athens we claim to be democracy then. Woopeedoo.

Except that you continue to not answer to my points...

I'm sorry. I do try to, but I guess I just keep missing them. I've answered a lot, but when you're arguing against everyone in the thread all by yourself, everyone seems to kind of run together.
I'll keep up better.

Most people could care less who governs them as long as they can feed their families.

I do not know these people.

The ends does not justify the means. That has already been pointed out to you.

What ends? What means? Please be clearer. What are you linking this statement to?

One silly little opinion poll in a country without basic necessities and security is hardly valid.

Of course not, it pokes a big honkin' hole in your worldview.

Honestly, look at the millions of MIDDLE CLASS teachers, doctors, lawyers, who have fled or are trying to flee. They obviously love life there and are happy Saddam is gone.

They're happy that they're able to flee now. If my country just lost its brutal dictator, was engaged in a violent conflict between foreigners and insurgents, and there was no telling how long our aid would last... yeah, I'd leave quickly. There are safer places in the area.

As you said I've said multiple times, I have 1400 years of animosity to back it up.

Shi'ites and Sunnis get along in other parts of the world, they can get along in Iraq.
The animosity you refer to is not primarily rooted in religion. Sunnis and Shi'ites disagree on details about Islam's early history and have some dogmatic differences, but the most important facets of the faith are still there. They agree on most of the main tenets of the faith, they honor Mohammad as their prophet, and they follow the Koran.
It's a secular struggle, and the aim of both sects is to gain political power. Religion is a convenient way of telling friends apart from enemies, but it's mostly just a suit to wear.
Before Saddam, Sunnis and Shi'ites coexisted in relative equality, but in the same year that Saddam rose to power in Baghdad, there was an Islamic revolution up north in Iran. To make sure it didn't happen in Iraq, Saddam hit the Shi'ites hard. After that, he killed a lot of their major clerics, and ordered mass murders on them. In '91, they rose up against him after his army was defeated in the Gulf War (there's that stability you were talking about), and were put down because they did not have foreign aid.
Despite this inequality, Shi'ite and Sunni neighborhoods were mixed. They intermarried, they made friends, and it was considered politically incorrect to even ask what sect you were.
The problem is political. The Shi'ites and Sunnis are certainly capable of getting along, and with a secular, democratic government where no one sect is being oppressed, they will get along.

The precedents clearly show that they wouldn't stay together even as a federation. As a pointed out, Yugoslavia was set up as a federation and is still breaking apart nearly two decades later. And even the broken off parts have parts that want to break off.

What precedents?

I don't know what news you're reading, but Kurdistan is doing quite well as one of the safest and most stable parts of the Middle East.

Sort of like being the coolest guy at a Star Trek convention.

You should look up that new INTERNATIONAL airport they're building. International airports are clearly a sign that a place isn't doing well.

... like Uganda.

We were trying to help Korea. The evil Communists were our enemy. They were organized by China and the Soviet Union and began moving south to try and takeover all of Korea. We halted them at Pusan and pushed them back to the 38th parallel. We realized we couldn't really press on all the way and setup an armistice--stalemate--to at least keep half in order. Remember that Korea was one country for all of its history and only recently was split by ideology.


They have a homeland. It's just not independent.

I declare everything within a five-thousand square mile radius to be Bloodlusty Barbaria.
... ah, nuts, it didn't work.

I have no idea what extreme violence you are referring to. There are some bombings in Turkey and a few incursion and skirmishes at the border.

Really? What happened between 1983 and 1993?

Again you bring up the gassings even though it was pointed out to you they were isolated incidents and not happening all the time.

So what? It's one of the things that hurt the Kurds.
If I were to list things that hurt the Jews in the 30s and 40s, I'd put the Holocaust in there. Wouldn't you?

Technically, it's an occupation-war hybrid. It's just easier to say war than occupation or hybrid. Could you really imagine the news media saying "The Iraq Occupation continues with another 50 marines killed when a roadside bomb struck their convoy."

Yeah, not that it matters much to me what we call it.

We've occupied Korea for 50 years and North Korea still exists. We're halfway there. This isn't about South Korea. It's about Korea. It's one country with two governments.

Hey, if we had to split Iraq into North and South, or Shi'ite and Sunni, and one country was an economic/military powerhouse that supported us in a part of the world where we had very little support at all... yeah, that'd be pretty good. Better than when Saddam was there.

The fact that after 50 years it still hasn't been resolved. Why do you keep ignoring the existence of North Korea?

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just saying the situation's not the same. We're not occupying North Korea, getting killed by hard-to-track insurgents, and there's not a lot of bloodshed between the two regimes who hate each other. No civil war, just a division between North and South. Sure, we have troops stationed there, but we have troops stationed in Japan and Germany, too... it's not like we're at war with them.

I see him as a moderate and I'm a socialist...
I think he'd run the war responsibly. He wouldn't continue to bungle it like Bush is/has.

I agree with you there. But I also think he believes war is a natural state for a country to be in, and that's dangerous thinking.
I put most of the blame on Rumsfeld for the mishandling of the war, though I'm also against Bush for defending Rumsfeld.

I do not know these people.
Well they're names are Jen and Eric--generic. Seriously, as long as you can survive and are safe, the majority of people don't give a shit. Look at the US for voter apathy and why nothing changes really.

What ends? What means? Please be clearer. What are you linking this statement to?
You claim that it doesn't matter how something happened, but it's good that it happened.

Of course not, it pokes a big honkin' hole in your worldview.
No, it's illegitimate.

They're happy that they're able to flee now. If my country just lost its brutal dictator, was engaged in a violent conflict between foreigners and insurgents, and there was no telling how long our aid would last... yeah, I'd leave quickly. There are safer places in the area.
But if things are getting better, wouldn't you stay? And I don't think it was that hard to leave.

Shi'ites and Sunnis get along in other parts of the world, they can get along in Iraq.
Either because one is heavily dominant like 90-10% or there is enough prosperity and the culture is different.

The animosity you refer to is not primarily rooted in religion. Sunnis and Shi'ites disagree on details about Islam's early history and have some dogmatic differences, but the most important facets of the faith are still there. They agree on most of the main tenets of the faith, they honor Mohammad as their prophet, and they follow the Koran.
Good for you. They still hate each other to death.

It's a secular struggle, and the aim of both sects is to gain political power. Religion is a convenient way of telling friends apart from enemies, but it's mostly just a suit to wear.
How is it secular when both sects want power and dominance...

Before Saddam, Sunnis and Shi'ites coexisted in relative equality,
Under another strongman.

but in the same year that Saddam rose to power in Baghdad, there was an Islamic revolution up north in Iran. To make sure it didn't happen in Iraq, Saddam hit the Shi'ites hard.
It happened in the same year he rose to power. How could he do that?

After that, he killed a lot of their major clerics, and ordered mass murders on them. In '91, they rose up against him after his army was defeated in the Gulf War (there's that stability you were talking about),
Wow one actual uprising.

and were put down because they did not have foreign aid.
1. Iraq was an ally.
2. Foreign Aid to rebel groups has worked wonders in the world. Look at all the countries that love us because we funded rebel groups.

Despite this inequality, Shi'ite and Sunni neighborhoods were mixed. They intermarried, they made friends, and it was considered politically incorrect to even ask what sect you were.
Excellent job on proving my point that Saddam kept them friendly.

The problem is political. The Shi'ites and Sunnis are certainly capable of getting along,
When they are prospering and don't need a scapegoat as under Mr. Hussein's government.

and with a secular, democratic government where no one sect is being oppressed, they will get along.
That will happen when?

What precedents?
Yugoslavia in 1991/2 and Serbia in 2006/7/8

Sort of like being the coolest guy at a Star Trek convention.
Uh...

... like Uganda.
Uh...

I declare everything within a five-thousand square mile radius to be Bloodlusty Barbaria.
... ah, nuts, it didn't work.
Clearly, you're on some drug...

Really? What happened between 1983 and 1993?
That's 15-25 years ago.

So what? It's one of the things that hurt the Kurds.
If I were to list things that hurt the Jews in the 30s and 40s, I'd put the Holocaust in there. Wouldn't you?
The Jews have since recovered and now have a wonderful, prosperous country. Excellent example.

Hey, if we had to split Iraq into North and South, or Shi'ite and Sunni, and one country was an economic/military powerhouse that supported us in a part of the world where we had very little support at all... yeah, that'd be pretty good. Better than when Saddam was there.
Saddam supported us and vice versa until he invaded Kuwait. What good is an ally if the people hate it. Setting up a friendly government is rarely the best idea. We have 9/11 as the response to our good will.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just saying the situation's not the same. We're not occupying North Korea, getting killed by hard-to-track insurgents, and there's not a lot of bloodshed between the two regimes who hate each other.
Because that part is over.

No civil war, just a division between North and South. Sure, we have troops stationed there, but we have troops stationed in Japan and Germany, too... it's not like we're at war with them.
I do wonder why we have troops in Japan and Germany. The Japanese ones are probably part of the Korea thing and Germany might be part of NATO. I still think both are a waste and Japanese people don't like us there due to some rapes and whatnot.

I agree with you there. But I also think he believes war is a natural state for a country to be in, and that's dangerous thinking.
Eh... I doubt he'd send us off on any more adventures unless we were attacked personally here at home. But who wouldn't.

I put most of the blame on Rumsfeld for the mishandling of the war, though I'm also against Bush for defending Rumsfeld.
Bush was the idiot who hired incompetent bums.

Saddam was a glorious leader who thankfully tortured and killed the reactionary scum.

Well they're names are Jen and Eric--generic.

*crickets chirping*

You claim that it doesn't matter how something happened, but it's good that it happened.

Usually people say: "The ends don't justify the means," when someone is defending an immoral or ineffective action to achieve a good result. Since our invasion of Iraq was no more immoral or ineffective than Saddam being overthrown by his own people, I don't see why you use this phrase.

No, it's illegitimate.

Right... because it pokes a big honkin' hole in your worldview. Like I said.

But if things are getting better, wouldn't you stay?

Not if the only people keeping my country together are thinking about withdrawing.

Either because one is heavily dominant like 90-10% or there is enough prosperity and the culture is different.

Prosperity and culture can change in Iraq given the right amount of time. It happens in other countries; it happened here in the U.S.

How is it secular when both sects want power and dominance...

The prize they're going for is a secular one- political power.

It happened in the same year he rose to power. How could he do that?

Help yourself to a history book and find out.

Wow one actual uprising.

... that wasn't violently put down before it became noticed. You forgot that part.
And you also forgot how they waited until they actually had a chance to make a difference, since Saddam had just lost a chunk of his army in Desert Storm.

1. Iraq was an ally.
2. Foreign Aid to rebel groups has worked wonders in the world. Look at all the countries that love us because we funded rebel groups.

Hey, I'm not saying we should've helped them. It wasn't our problem, just as Iraq isn't our problem now.

Excellent job on proving my point that Saddam kept them friendly.

Excellent job admitting that they don't really hate each other to death.
With the Shi'ites being killed in such great numbers (some estimates over 300,000) they had great reason to become violent towards all Sunnis, but instead they directed their violence at the government in at least one major uprising.
If a dictator who singles out and kills your people doesn't bring out the prejudice in you, then a democratically-elected president who treats everyone equally won't awaken any prejudice, either.

That will happen when?

Maybe in the next few decades. Possibly never. It's too close to call.


Uh...
Uh...

The two most intelligent things you've said all day.

Clearly, you're on some drug...

Saying I have a homeland doesn't make it mine. If I declare this region Bloodlusty Barbaria, who the hell cares? Just like if the Kurds say: "Okay, this is Kurdistan," then Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and the other countries the Kurds inhabit could give a shit.

That's 15-25 years ago.

You said the Kurds were doing well before we showed up. They weren't. They were only a few years out of a guerilla war with Turkey.

The Jews have since recovered and now have a wonderful, prosperous country. Excellent example.

And they did this... how? By themselves? Or did someone else step in, remove the violent Muslims occupying the area, and make room for the Jews?

Saddam supported us and vice versa until he invaded Kuwait. What good is an ally if the people hate it. Setting up a friendly government is rarely the best idea. We have 9/11 as the response to our good will.

Setting up friendly governments is bad?

Because that part is over.

Yet you said you saw no difference between Korea and Iraq, just a "US occupation" and "stalemate," implying that we're still fighting Korea as hard as we're fighting Iraq.
As I've said before, a violence-free, North-and-South divided Iraq, with one country sucking and the other friendly to us, would be fine by me. I'd view that as a possible victory in the long run.

Eh... I doubt he'd send us off on any more adventures unless we were attacked personally here at home. But who wouldn't.

I dunno... he's talked about "getting tough" on other countries, in places like South America. I'll work on finding a link, if it matters.

Bush was the idiot who hired incompetent bums.

Yep.

Bloodlusty Barbarism, I don't have time to read through all the new arguments here. As far as I'm concerned, most people who post here are wrong, they have no idea what they're talking about, including to a large extent you. So I'll say this, to work for both you and Sel Appa here, in your debate, if you want to go into pre-Saddam stuff.

Both Sunni and shi'a worked together several times from 1900 to very recently. They did it well, and peacefully. The path between freindship of the Iraqi sects was laid out a fair bit of time ago, and very recently destroyed by this invasion. In 1917 they grouped up to oust the Ottomans. In 1923 again they grouped up to bring self-rule. Again in 1941 to oust the British puppet. Again in 1958 to oust the returned British puppet. And then again, when the country was very unstable, when the Ba'ath party took over in 1963. All went quite well between the two, even into the later end of the Iran-Iraq war. The serious problems between the two, and their intense hatred, have arisin since the fall of Saddam in 2003. And it's not inherent to eachother. Since Saddam's government fell and the US was unwilling to fully take on the responsability of the occupation and rebuilding, foreign insurgents from radical Sunni areas like Saudi Arabia are commin in and pissing off the Shi'a, and likewise radical Shi'a from Iran commin in and pissing off the Sunni. You basicly have a situation where two normally opposed groups are getting along as best they can, and then the freind of one side, and a freind of the other, come in and piss the two parties off. The removal of Saddam incited the viloence between the two.

Don't mind the lack of stable electricity, clean water (let alone actual water), stable fuel supplies, stable food supplies, the shoddy (if any) education, the lack of doctors, the barely existent garbage collection, phone bills for lines that haven't worked in years, the rampaging militias, bombings, shootings, death squads, etc. At least you can speak out against things. Oh wait, you can't. You'll be shot to death by a death squad.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/juvanya/freebomb.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/juvanya/democracy.gif

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080316/wl_mcclatchy/2878538)



Seriously, I dare you to argue that life is better without Saddam.

Seriously, I dare anyone to argue that unilaterally pulling out of Iraq is the best option.

What is, quite clearly now, the best option, is to rebuild...and that can only be effectively done when the insurgency is, for all intents and purposes, put down, so that sabotage and opposition to reconstruction (whose purpose is specifically to keep the IIraqis in poverty so as to ensure a supply of disgruntled suicide bombers and public opposition to the "failed" American occupation) are curtailed.

A multilateral force designed with this goal in mind should be considered, and contractors from multiple nations should be approached for the task of multinational reconstruction, ready to move in at some future point, hopefully in the near future.

[McCain] is a military man and knows that we're stuck there for a long time. Little will change.
I think you're confusing "we'll be stuck there a long time" and "little will change". The UK was stuck in Northern Ireland for bloody ages, but after all of that time and money, it's now on the right track entirely, and violence between protestants and catholics has calmed down significantly.

Were we right to mess with Ireland in the first place? No.

Were we right to stick around and stop people getting killed due to sectarian violence? Yes.

Iraq is exactly the same. We were wrong to go in there and it was militarily a mess. On the other hand, we owe it to the Iraqi people to put our troops out there and our resources out there to patch things up. Not for 'freedom' or 'this young democracy', just because that's the way things should be. We need to clean our own mess up and save as many lives as we can.

Public opinion in Iraq is changing - fitfully and in complex and sometimes contradictory ways.

Our poll suggests a flicker of optimism among some Iraqis and, perhaps, signs of a new political pragmatism.

But sectarian division and mistrust of authority remain widespread.

Overall, 55% of respondents say their lives are good, compared with 39% in our last poll, taken in August 2007 - a sizeable increase.

Sunni discontent

Unpick that figure a little and you find a theme that runs through many of the poll's results: Sunni, Shia and Kurd hold very different views.


Even though many indicators show Iraqis opposed to the US, there seems to be a growing awareness of what might happen if the US pulls out

When asked how "things are going in your life these days", 67% of Sunni Iraqis replied overwhelmingly in the negative.

That figure has dropped by a fifth since August last year - but it is still strikingly high.

Shia Iraqis, however, answered very positively, with 62% saying quite good or very good.

That figure is also on the rise.

Kurds were the happiest, with 73% saying quite good or very good.

When asked how they expect things to be one year from now, respondents showed increased optimism: 45% said things would be somewhat better or much better.

That is up from 29% six months ago.

One third thought things would stay the same, and 19% thought things would be worse.

But that optimism is more pronounced among Shia and Kurds than among Sunnis - 70% of Sunnis replied that things would be the same or worse in a year's time.

So the responses suggest that a good number of Iraqis are feeling better about their lives and where they are going.

This may reflect the decrease in violence in key areas of the country that has followed the "surge" in US forces and the ceasefires announced by militias.

But it seems to be a fragile optimism and one not shared equally among different ethnic and sectarian groups.

Troops out?

The responses on security are striking. Half of those questioned said that security was the most important issue facing Iraq.

But 62% said that security in their neighborhood was quite good or very good - an increase of 19 percentage points in just six months, and compelling evidence that Iraqis, overall, feel safer.

Look again at the sectarian divide - 65% of Sunnis said security in their neighborhood was bad or very bad, while only 30% of Shia said so.

US soldier in Iraq
Over a third of Iraqis believe US troops should pull out immediately
Such a big difference suggests that Sunni and Shia are experiencing the security situation in profoundly different ways - something that could make reconciliation harder to achieve.

Attitudes to the United States military presence, the poll suggests, remain strongly negative.

But some trends might give American commanders cause to hope.

The presence of US troops is opposed by 72% - but that is down by seven points from six months ago.

And 61% feel the US presence makes the security situation worse - down nine points from the earlier poll.

The number of respondents who believe attacks on US forces are justified has dropped 15 points in the last six months to 42%.

While more than a third of Iraqis believe the United States should pull out immediately, 63% believe the Americans should leave only after a period during which security and government get stronger.

And a full 80% believe the US should continue to fight Al Qaeda and foreign jihadis in Iraq.

Some of these findings appear contradictory. But Professor Toby Dodge of Queen Mary College, London, says they suggest an increased pragmatism.

"The big counterintuitive finding is that even though many indicators show Iraqis opposed to the United States, there seems to be a growing awareness of what might happen if the US pulls out," he says.

One way to read these numbers, he says, is that Iraqis have "looked into the abyss" of all-out civil war, and taken a step back.

Iraq united

But if American commanders can feel a shade more sanguine on the question of security, responses on the economy and governance may ring alarm bells.

When asked about conditions in their neighbourhood, the responses were very negative - 70% said the availability of jobs was bad; 88% said the electricity supply was bad; 68% said the availability of clean water was bad.

And here the sectarian divide was much less pronounced - Sunni and Shia respondents appeared equally unhappy at the provision of services.

One economic bright spot: the availability of household goods is now quite good or very good for 65% of those questioned, up 26 percentage points from a year ago.

Overall, our poll found Iraqis still want to be Iraqi.


The thoughtful, anonymous respondents to our poll tell us that they remain utterly divided on the question of whether the US-led coalition was right to invade.

When asked if they support a "united Iraq", 66% responded positively.

Confidence in the national government is sluggishly improving.

From a high of 53% in 2004, it slumped to 39% a year ago.

It is now back up to 49%.

And 58% of those polled believe the Iraqi armed forces are strong.

But nearly the same number believe their local militia is strong.

Taken altogether the poll's findings suggest:

* that Iraq is fractured and disillusioned - but tentatively hoping for better;
* that the ghastly experiences of 2006 and 2007 have abated somewhat;
* that Iraqis still want to live in a unified country but confidence in their leaders is shaky;
* that they feel the US-led coalition has done a pretty poor job of occupying their country;
* that militias are a big part of life;
* that they respect their teachers greatly;
* that they want more for their kids; that they want the Americans to leave, but perhaps not yet;
* that they are desperate for a reliable electricity supply;
* that Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds have very different stories to tell about what's happening to them.

And, five years on, the thoughtful, anonymous respondents to our poll tell us that they remain utterly divided on the question of whether the US-led coalition was right to invade.

And, once again, they are divided along sectarian and ethnic lines - 95% of Sunnis say the invasion was wrong. 65% of Shia say it was right, as do 87% of Kurds.

The poll was the fifth conducted for BBC News, ABC News and other broadcasters. 2,228 Iraqi adults from all over the country were questioned in mid February. The margin of error is +/- 2.5%.

Usually people say: "The ends don't justify the means," when someone is defending an immoral or ineffective action to achieve a good result.
I did say that, as did at least one other person.

Since our invasion of Iraq was no more immoral or ineffective than Saddam being overthrown by his own people, I don't see why you use this phrase.
HOHOHO! But it absolutely was immoral. How would you like it if someone came in and toppled your government because it "had WMDs", "was a threat to security", or plain just didn't like it.

Right... because it pokes a big honkin' hole in your worldview. Like I said.
No. There are too many factors in that sampling that can bias the results. They can't even figure out how man Iraqis have died in this crap. Even in stable and predictable America, no one predicted Hillary Clinton would win New Hampshire.

Not if the only people keeping my country together are thinking about withdrawing.
Who's withdrawing? I don't see any withdrawal plans for Iraq. I don't see any plans at all, quite honestly.

Prosperity and culture can change in Iraq given the right amount of time.
In about 500 years?

It happens in other countries; it happened here in the U.S.
Since when were we vicious, violent groups that hated each other to death?

The prize they're going for is a secular one- political power.
Politics is not secular. They're going to use it for religious reasons.

Help yourself to a history book and find out.


And you also forgot how they waited until they actually had a chance to make a difference, since Saddam had just lost a chunk of his army in Desert Storm.
So? Honestly, if people really didn't like him, they could have setup a stronghold in a city and slowly expanded their control until they hit Baghdad and forced him out.

Hey, I'm not saying we should've helped them. It wasn't our problem, just as Iraq isn't our problem now.
But you continue to defend it as right and just.

Excellent job admitting that they don't really hate each other to death.
With the Shi'ites being killed in such great numbers (some estimates over 300,000) they had great reason to become violent towards all Sunnis, but instead they directed their violence at the government in at least one major uprising.
No. Mr. Hussein kept the country in order and they had no reason to hate each other when the country was doing well.

Maybe in the next few decades. Possibly never. It's too close to call.
It's not going to happen. I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale if it ever does.

The two most intelligent things you've said all day.
At least I can say intelligent things.

Saying I have a homeland doesn't make it mine. If I declare this region Bloodlusty Barbaria, who the hell cares? Just like if the Kurds say: "Okay, this is Kurdistan," then Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and the other countries the Kurds inhabit could give a shit.
There's a big difference between a person living in an area for a few years and a group of people with common traditions, language, and culture different from the surrounding areas for centuries.

You said the Kurds were doing well before we showed up. They weren't. They were only a few years out of a guerilla war with Turkey.
What guerrilla war? Regardless, that was in Turkish Kurdistan, not Iraqi.

And they did this... how? By themselves? Or did someone else step in, remove the violent Muslims occupying the area, and make room for the Jews?
Yes, since the 1850s, Jews began moving to Israel and claiming and reclaiming(draining) the swampland and buying land from the few that actually live there. The Ottomans let this happen and then the British took over and let it continue somewhat and after World War II, they decided that they should formally work out an independence plan that could be multilaterally supported and it was. The Arabs weren't happy though and invaded. However, under-equipped and ragtag Israelis rallied and defeated the vast Arab armies.

Setting up friendly governments is bad?
When it inflames the people and destroys their democratically-elected regime, it is very bad. We now have the Islamic Revolution in Iran and 9/11 as our thank yous. What good is a friendly government if the people hate us?

Yet you said you saw no difference between Korea and Iraq, just a "US occupation" and "stalemate," implying that we're still fighting Korea as hard as we're fighting Iraq.
No, we're at the beginning still when there is fighting.

As I've said before, a violence-free, North-and-South divided Iraq, with one country sucking and the other friendly to us, would be fine by me. I'd view that as a possible victory in the long run.
So one should suffer an one should prosper? Who are we to decide such a thing.

I dunno... he's talked about "getting tough" on other countries, in places like South America. I'll work on finding a link, if it matters.
I highly doubt he will do anything except bomb maybe. No one can risk another invasion unless we're attacked. It would need a draft and no one wants a draft.

Seriously, I dare anyone to argue that unilaterally pulling out of Iraq is the best option.
How about the fact that it's draining and stagnating our economy?

What is, quite clearly now, the best option, is to rebuild...and that can only be effectively done when the insurgency is, for all intents and purposes, put down
Which is not going to happen. Only one insurgency has ever been put down in the history of mankind. I forget where though. I think the British in Myanmar or Malaysia.

A multilateral force designed with this goal in mind should be considered, and contractors from multiple nations should be approached for the task of multinational reconstruction
They would, but they don't want to get beheaded, shot, or blown up.

Iraq is exactly the same. We were wrong to go in there and it was militarily a mess. On the other hand, we owe it to the Iraqi people to put our troops out there and our resources out there to patch things up. Not for 'freedom' or 'this young democracy', just because that's the way things should be. We need to clean our own mess up and save as many lives as we can.
But, at what expense? Should we funnel $5 trillion there to fix them up when our own nation is decaying? Should we make them pay us back in oil so we continue our addiction and/or keep them in debt for decades?

snip
Just for clerical purposes, do you have a link for that?

Of course, of course.
There ya go! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7300115.stm)

Which is not going to happen. Only one insurgency has ever been put down in the history of mankind. I forget where though. I think the British in Myanmar or Malaysia.
Malaysia, also Northern Ireland and Sierra Leone.
But, at what expense? Should we funnel $5 trillion there to fix them up when our own nation is decaying?
... the 5 trillion is not all in one job lot, so yes, if that's what it takes.
Should we make them pay us back in oil so we continue our addiction and/or keep them in debt for decades?
No, that's a bit uncouth. Have them opened to trading in oil, hell yes. They're not exporting much of anything else, and the nation needs to get back on its feet. Have their oil essentially given to us, no.

As to debts - impoverishing their country with reparations will not end well, see Germany after the first World War.

At least I can say intelligent things.
Don't get into petty name-calling, it's doing you no good.

Jews began moving to Israel and claiming and reclaiming(draining) the swampland and buying land from the few that actually live there

What percentage of the land was bought by 1947/8?

[QUOTE]HOHOHO! But it absolutely was immoral. How would you like it if someone came in and toppled your government because it "had WMDs", "was a threat to security", or plain just didn't like it.

A little more than I'd like remaining under the government that killed people for going to the wrong mosque.

No. There are too many factors in that sampling that can bias the results.

Welcome to the world of polls, surveys, and statistics.

Even in stable and predictable America, no one predicted Hillary Clinton would win New Hampshire.

When you used the phrase "apples to oranges" earlier, how the hell did you do it with a straight face?
This is so completely, completely different from the subject at hand that I almost cried when I saw it, out of shame for you.

Who's withdrawing? I don't see any withdrawal plans for Iraq. I don't see any plans at all, quite honestly.

You don't see the enormous opposition to the war back here at home? You don't think it's possible that we'll pull out before 2010?

In about 500 years?

Where do you get this number? Where do you get the idea that Sunnis and Shi'ites cannot live together without killing each other?

Since when were we vicious, violent groups that hated each other to death?

Since the Civil War, compadre.

Politics is not secular. They're going to use it for religious reasons.

... and you think this because...?


So? Honestly, if people really didn't like him, they could have setup a stronghold in a city and slowly expanded their control until they hit Baghdad and forced him out.

The same could be said of almost any country that suffered under a brutal dictator. "If they didn't like him, why didn't they just overthrow him?"

But you continue to defend it as right and just.

You're funny.
Stop putting words into my mouth.

No. Mr. Hussein kept the country in order and they had no reason to hate each other when the country was doing well.

So you admit that the hatred between Sunnis and Shi'ites is more a symptom of their circumstances than a deep, ingrained, inevitable part of their identities? Then you concede, of course, that the formation of a stable democracy could keep them together and getting along.
Iraq is in a transitional period right now. Don't expect miracles.

It's not going to happen. I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale if it ever does.

Someone will have to remember that at a future juncture... :rolleyes:

What guerrilla war?

The largest civil war in the Middle East. I wouldn't expect you to remember something small like that. In some ways, it's still going on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Turkish-Kurdish_conflict

Regardless, that was in Turkish Kurdistan, not Iraqi.

You didn't say the Iraqi Kurds, you said the Kurds. As in, all of them. Don't get mad at me for your inability to clearly phrase your points.

When it inflames the people and destroys their democratically-elected regime, it is very bad. We now have the Islamic Revolution in Iran and 9/11 as our thank yous. What good is a friendly government if the people hate us?

You define the countries responsible for these acts as "friendly governments"? You would actually lump them in the same category as South Korea? I wouldn't.

So one should suffer an one should prosper? Who are we to decide such a thing.

You seem to have no trouble deciding that all of Iraq (not just half) was better off suffering under a dictator. Who are you?

I highly doubt he will do anything except bomb maybe.

Right, no problem with bombing other countries to shit. Unless, of course, you "respect" their murderous dictators.

No one can risk another invasion unless we're attacked.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

How about the fact that it's draining and stagnating our economy?

So now the issue is no longer Iraq's well-being, but America's? Way to switch goalposts.

Which is not going to happen. Only one insurgency has ever been put down in the history of mankind. I forget where though. I think the British in Myanmar or Malaysia.

Someone already addressed this. I just think it needs to be quoted at least one more time so that you see that a red flag appeared in my mind, too, when I saw this obviously false statement.

But, at what expense? Should we funnel $5 trillion there to fix them up when our own nation is decaying? Should we make them pay us back in oil so we continue our addiction and/or keep them in debt for decades?

Again, I guess it's not about Iraq, but America now. Interesting. Why'd you abandon your old cause?

Malaysia, also Northern Ireland and Sierra Leone.
Thanks and I'm curious about the Sierra Leone thing.

... the 5 trillion is not all in one job lot, so yes, if that's what it takes.
Except it'll be much more than that. That money is desperately needed HERE in the US. We made a mistake, now it's time to cut our losses.

No, that's a bit uncouth.
But, what are we supposed to do?

Have them opened to trading in oil, hell yes. They're not exporting much of anything else, and the nation needs to get back on its feet. Have their oil essentially given to us, no.

As to debts - impoverishing their country with reparations will not end well, see Germany after the first World War.
But it's not fair to us that we should funnel trillions of taxpayer dollars into some other country that will hate us either way.

What percentage of the land was bought by 1947/8?
Offtopic. :p The best answer I can provide is thus:
Palestine's land surface was approximately 26,320,505 dunums (26,320 km²), of which about one third was cultivable. By comparison, the size of modern day Israel (as of 2006) is 20,770,000 dunums (20,770 km²) (Geography of Israel). The land in Jewish possession had risen from 456,000 dunums (456 km²) in 1920 to 1,393,000 dunums (1,393 km²) in 1945[7] and 1,850,000 dunums (1,850 km²) by 1947 (Avneri p. 224).[8] No figures of land ownership by Arabs were available, due to difficulties that were due to the incomplete transition from the unreliable Ottoman Land Code to a modern land registration system.
Specifically, it says that Arab land was unrecorded. This would suggest that there was a lot of unused swampland there.

[QUOTE=Sel Appa;13550199]A little more than I'd like remaining under the government that killed people for going to the wrong mosque.We're talking about Iraq under Hussein, not now.

Welcome to the world of polls, surveys, and statistics.
Yes, however this is an exceptional case where bias cannot be accounted for as well.

When you used the phrase "apples to oranges" earlier, how the hell did you do it with a straight face?
Because you were comparing irrelevant things.

This is so completely, completely different from the subject at hand that I almost cried when I saw it, out of shame for you.
It's two polls that were wrong, but I see where you're coming from or am trying to at least.

You don't see the enormous opposition to the war back here at home? You don't think it's possible that we'll pull out before 2010?
I don't think any candidate of the three with 98% chance of winning has a plan to get us fully out by 2010. Nonetheless, there is no plan right this moment to get us out now. Some troops are being pulled out though I read earlier...

Where do you get this number? Where do you get the idea that Sunnis and Shi'ites cannot live together without killing each other?
Iraq 2003-present

Since the Civil War, compadre.
Excellent example. However, we were just trying to get the Union back together. Few actually wished death upon the other side.

... and you think this because...?
Why wouldn't they.

The same could be said of almost any country that suffered under a brutal dictator. "If they didn't like him, why didn't they just overthrow him?"
Hussein wasn't brutal. And yes, if people really didn't like them, they would do something. We would have seen huge crackdowns on protests and whatnot.

You're funny.
Stop putting words into my mouth.
You have not ceased defending this war you claim to oppose. You can't have it both ways.

So you admit that the hatred between Sunnis and Shi'ites is more a symptom of their circumstances than a deep, ingrained, inevitable part of their identities?
I said nothing of the sort. I said that he kept the nation in good order so they had no reason to mistrust and hate each other.

Then you concede, of course, that the formation of a stable democracy could keep them together and getting along.
It's not going to happen

Iraq is in a transitional period right now. Don't expect miracles.
Then you shouldn't either. It would take a miracle for a united, stable, Iraqi republic. A federation would work somewhat for awhile until it splits up a decade or two down the road.

The largest civil war in the Middle East. I wouldn't expect you to remember something small like that. In some ways, it's still going on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Turkish-Kurdish_conflict
At the border.

You didn't say the Iraqi Kurds, you said the Kurds. As in, all of them. Don't get mad at me for your inability to clearly phrase your points.
I'll give you that one.

You define the countries responsible for these acts as "friendly governments"? You would actually lump them in the same category as South Korea? I wouldn't.
South Koreans like us. Arabs do not. Any friendly government would not have been fairly elected.

You seem to have no trouble deciding that all of Iraq (not just half) was better off suffering under a dictator. Who are you?
It was suffering from NATO bombings, not any dictator.

Right, no problem with bombing other countries to shit.
You support this? Turning more people against us?

Unless, of course, you "respect" their murderous dictators.
I don't respect Mugabe or Kim if you are referring to them.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?
The odds are against another invasion. McCain is a military man. He knows we'd need in excess of a million troops to invade Iran. That means a draft, which no one wants.

So now the issue is no longer Iraq's well-being, but America's? Way to switch goalposts.
I was responding to another person.

Someone already addressed this. I just think it needs to be quoted at least one more time so that you see that a red flag appeared in my mind, too, when I saw this obviously false statement.
No, it was a correct statement. One of the only insurgencies ever put down was in Malaysia. I ust didn't know there were two others. Compared to the hundreds of insurgencies that were never put down. We can type here now because an insurgency wasn't put down.

Again, I guess it's not about Iraq, but America now. Interesting. Why'd you abandon your old cause?
Again, I was responding to someone else.

Offtopic. :p The best answer I can provide is thus:
Palestine's land surface was approximately 26,320,505 dunums (26,320 km²), of which about one third was cultivable. By comparison, the size of modern day Israel (as of 2006) is 20,770,000 dunums (20,770 km²) (Geography of Israel). The land in Jewish possession had risen from 456,000 dunums (456 km²) in 1920 to 1,393,000 dunums (1,393 km²) in 1945[7] and 1,850,000 dunums (1,850 km²) by 1947 (Avneri p. 224).[8] No figures of land ownership by Arabs were available, due to difficulties that were due to the incomplete transition from the unreliable Ottoman Land Code to a modern land registration system.
Specifically, it says that Arab land was unrecorded. This would suggest that there was a lot of unused swampland there.

.

I'm afraid thats incorrect as Arab land ownership was recorded by the UN/US survey that composed the plan for partition.

Not only that, its noted elsewhere in Wiki, in some detail.

Land ownership of Palestine (in dunums) as of April 1st, 1943
Category of land Arab and other non-Jewish ownership Jewish ownership Total Land

Uncultivable Land.

Arab owned - 16,925,805 Jewish owned 298,523 Total 17,224,328
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_%28mandate%29#Land_ownership_of_the_British_Mandate_of_Palestine)

A copy of one of the original UN maps.
http://www.thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Palestine/stolen-land.htm

The fact is that - by 1947 - the vast majority of land was in private Arab ownserhip. Not only that but the majority of agricultural land was in private Arab ownership. Thus the idea that Arabs were sitting around on their arses doing nothing until settlers arrived is the usual post colonial self-justification, used in every nation thats been so treated, be it South Africa or Ireland.

Yes, since the 1850s, Jews began moving to Israel and claiming and reclaiming(draining) the swampland and buying land from the few that actually live there. The Ottomans let this happen and then the British took over and let it continue somewhat and after World War II, they decided that they should formally work out an independence plan that could be multilaterally supported and it was. The Arabs weren't happy though and invaded. However, under-equipped and ragtag Israelis rallied and defeated the vast Arab armies.


Um, you've got a lot of reading to do.
Jewish terrorist groups in the Palestine area between 1924 and 1947 did things that made Hezbollah and Hamas look good. Including the massacres of whole villages, rape, pillage, the whole nine yards. They were terrorists in every sense of the word, and some groups (Notably some who later became the IDF) were downright genocidal. This, and this alone, was the reason for the 1948 invasion for the Arab armies, this group of viloent illegal punks comming in, murdering people and stealing land, and then declaring a nation and having the world not complain, that pissed the Arabs off. It's been all skewed to hell since then, but that's still what happened. Only now, decades later, is Israel even trying to be a freindly neighbor, to act civilized.

And before anyone wants to say I'm "anti-semetic". No. I'm anti-zionist in the sense of viloent religious-reasoned zionisim, but I could care less who you are about it. zionist jews, christians, atheists, muslims, whatever, I think they're all stupid. As far as I'm concerned Israel has earned the right to exist as a state, not through war, not through claiming independence, but through the people of Israel activly fighting, despite their government and fringe groups within them, in the last two decades, for equality, for liberty, and for human rights. Israel has a long way to go to be worthy of any praise in my opnion, but they have laid the groundwork through the grass roots ideals for what could be in the near future a respectable country.

[QUOTE]Offtopic. :p

... you brought it up...

We're talking about Iraq under Hussein, not now.

Yes, I was talking about Iraq under Hussein, when 300,000+ Shi'ites were killed (by some estimates).

Yes, however this is an exceptional case where bias cannot be accounted for as well.

How so?

Because you were comparing irrelevant things.

Again, I wasn't comparing every aspect, I was simply pointing out that no country has ever suddenly lifted itself out of years and years of oppression and instantly been fine. Fair statement.

It's two polls that were wrong, but I see where you're coming from or am trying to at least.

Okay, I guess under that argument, it makes more sense.

I don't think any candidate of the three with 98% chance of winning has a plan to get us fully out by 2010. Nonetheless, there is no plan right this moment to get us out now. Some troops are being pulled out though I read earlier...

If I was an Iraqi, and I heard that people in America were protesting the war and were vehemently against it, I'd get the hell outta Dodge.

Iraq 2003-present

Too small a time-frame to make such a judgment.

Excellent example. However, we were just trying to get the Union back together. Few actually wished death upon the other side.

Yet there they were, shooting at each other.

Why wouldn't they.

Why would they?
What does it mean, by the way, to use a political struggle for religious reasons? Usually, people use religious reasons to justify a political struggle, not the other way around. Please explain.

Hussein wasn't brutal.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/07/iraq-030707-rfel-165402.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/international/middleeast/15graves.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/index.html
Wha-?

And yes, if people really didn't like them, they would do something. We would have seen huge crackdowns on protests and whatnot.

Well, the guy was cracking down on SOMETHING.

You have not ceased defending this war you claim to oppose. You can't have it both ways.

Hey, I disagree with you, but I'm still of the opinion that it wasn't really our problem. Who knows, we might come out of it with a few more advantages than we had before... but it's hard to tell. Considering that most people want to pull out, I doubt we'll have accomplished anything.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that he kept the nation in good order so they had no reason to mistrust and hate each other.

One side was being brutally oppressed by the other. They had MORE reason to hate each other.

It's not going to happen

Saying that over and over again doesn't make it true, or even probable.

Then you shouldn't either. It would take a miracle for a united, stable, Iraqi republic. A federation would work somewhat for awhile until it splits up a decade or two down the road.

As I said, "transitional period."

At the border.

Point being?

I'll give you that one.

Thanks.

South Koreans like us. Arabs do not. Any friendly government would not have been fairly elected.

Now it's an issue of race? Arabs are genetically predisposed to hating the white man?

It was suffering from NATO bombings, not any dictator.

Tell that to Saddam's murder victims.

You support this? Turning more people against us?

I was being sarcastic.

The odds are against another invasion. McCain is a military man. He knows we'd need in excess of a million troops to invade Iran. That means a draft, which no one wants.

What if he thinks it's for the good of the country?
And just how informed do you think the man is?

No, it was a correct statement. One of the only insurgencies ever put down was in Malaysia. I ust didn't know there were two others.

You said that only one insurgency had been put down in the history of mankind. Then you said you were correct. Then you admitted, in the same post, that there were two more.
EXPLAIN. Sweet baby Jesus, please explain.

Jewish terrorist groups in the Palestine area between 1924 and 1947
Source? Nodinia claimed once that Jewish terror organizations started in the 1920's, but could only come up with sources that contradicted that. Certainly Lehi/Irgun from 1938 on committed a lot of acts that are "terrorist" by any objective definition of the word. But Palestinians started their "exterminate the Jew" campaign in 1920, and had been wiping out Jewish villages who were not even recent Zionist immigrants (rather, had been there for centuries) since 1929. Also, most of the Irgun actions were "reprisals" for previous Palestinian atrocities: not that this is a moral excuse, to my mind, but bringing up something like Deir Yassin without mentioning Gush Etzion is disingenuous.

Source? Nodinia claimed once that Jewish terror organizations started in the 1920's, but could only come up with sources that contradicted that. Certainly Lehi/Irgun from 1938 on committed a lot of acts that are "terrorist" by any objective definition of the word. But Palestinians started their "exterminate the Jew" campaign in 1920, and had been wiping out Jewish villages who were not even recent Zionist immigrants (rather, had been there for centuries) since 1929. Also, most of the Irgun actions were "reprisals" for previous Palestinian atrocities: not that this is a moral excuse, to my mind, but bringing up something like Deir Yassin without mentioning Gush Etzion is disingenuous.

I don't even care enough about the subject to go digging for sources beyond a google search, and even if I do you're not going to change your mind (As I will neither). We both know neither side was peaceful, and we both know both sides committed atrocities. The Palmach, Irgun, Lehi, the three major ones in the late 1930s on. Earlier then that I'm happy to believe that it wasn't severely organised, as if it were I would have no respect for the concept of a state in the Israel-Palestine area. But neither of us can deny that, as I like to say, shit happened. Comming from the colapse of the Ottoman empire, the Arab Revolt of 1917 (In which Jewish Arabs participated quite heavily), and stupid administration by the British, all sides were pissed and in a fighting mood.

My point, as far as I care to explain it over the internet, is that far too often Israel, and the Jews in the region before Israel are portrayed as innocent. They were not, not by a long shot. The Arabs wern't either. But crap about that time is heavily slanted towards the increasingly European Jews in the area, comming from a time of colonialisim still in effect. Anyone who wants to blindly buy into that crap is stupid, just like anyone who wants to blindly buy into the crap the Palestinians are fed about Jews are stupid.

Bloodlusty Barbarism, while much of what Sel Appa says is downright dumb. I'm just going to sit here and shake my head at the both of you. I have no energy or time to continue pointing out the fallacies in both your logic. Saddam was far and away better then what they have now, and nowhere near as bad as he is portrayed, but likewise he is not a saint. I just hope you look more criticaly at your own articles of proof then Sel Appa has so far and find that for yourself in this debate.

I don't even care enough about the subject to go digging for sources beyond a google search, and even if I do you're not going to change your mind (As I will neither).
I am perfectly capable of changing my mind, if shown to be mistaken about facts.
We both know neither side was peaceful, and we both know both sides committed atrocities.
At the beginning, however, and for decades, one side and one side only was committing the atrocities. I agree that "who started it?" is not the best way of moving forward, but I get sick and tired of pro-Palestinian propagandists claiming that the Jews were the side who started the violence, or that there was moral equivalence between the acts of the two sides, when that is a blatant lie.

Thanks and I'm curious about the Sierra Leone thing.
UK moves in, solves brutal civil war in a couple of years. Not much more to say on that one. Open and shut case.
Except it'll be much more than that.
Don't launch wars on the cheap if you're a superpower. You look like fools. Even Bismarck knew this.
That money is desperately needed HERE in the US.
Get a grip, and take back some of those rebates on the rich under Bush.
We made a mistake, now it's time to cut our losses.
No, no it isn't. This resolves nothing, and leaves nobody but cowards happy. You cannot just attack somewhere, and then run off when it's not the cakewalk one would have assumed it was to be. This is a great injustice to all involved.
But, what are we supposed to do?
Not rob them blind after destroying most of their infrastructure and system of government, leaving a power vacuum that the even worse elements of Iraqi society have filled.
But it's not fair to us that we should funnel trillions of taxpayer dollars into some other country that will hate us either way.
Yes, yes it is. You've destroyed their country, and unless you want karma to completely bite you in the arse à la 9/11, you will help the poor bastards out regardless of the cost.

I am perfectly capable of changing my mind, if shown to be mistaken about facts.

At the beginning, however, and for decades, one side and one side only was committing the atrocities. I agree that "who started it?" is not the best way of moving forward, but I get sick and tired of pro-Palestinian propagandists claiming that the Jews were the side who started the violence, or that there was moral equivalence between the acts of the two sides, when that is a blatant lie.

Then we're both in the same boat of sick-and-tired. Just seeing different groups to be sick and tired of. I see far more pro-Jewish crap then I see pro-Palestinian crap, and you the oposite. Either way it's all bloody crap.

I am officially resigning from this thread. It has gone nowhere but in circles as me and BB spew the same statements repeatedly and will never see the other's point of view.

I am officially resigning from this thread. It has gone nowhere but in circles as me and BB spew the same statements repeatedly and will never see the other's point of view.
Bye, then.

Bloodlusty Barbarism, while much of what Sel Appa says is downright dumb. I'm just going to sit here and shake my head at the both of you. I have no energy or time to continue pointing out the fallacies in both your logic. Saddam was far and away better then what they have now, and nowhere near as bad as he is portrayed, but likewise he is not a saint. I just hope you look more criticaly at your own articles of proof then Sel Appa has so far and find that for yourself in this debate.

Consider it done. Maybe I'll return afterwards. I don't know.
I see that Sel Appa is leaving, so I wonder if there'd be a point to coming back. Unless there's someone else here I missed...

II get sick and tired of pro-Palestinian propagandists claiming that the Jews were the side who started the violence, or that there was moral equivalence between the acts of the two sides, when that is a blatant lie.

While I've never stated that one side started it, yes there is a "moral equivalence", particularily if you look at the market bombings of the Irgun. They themselves described what they did as "political violence and terrorism" so its a bit much to try to paint it otherwise now. If you're looking for a "good guy" I'm afraid you're 'shit out of luck' as they say.

Saddam. The warning for Zimbabwe.

While I've never stated that one side started it
No, but you've been guilty of pretending that there was violence in both directions during the period when it was in fact one-sided. The "exterminate the Jews" campaign began in 1920. The extension of this, not just to Zionist immigrants, but to all Jews including those who had been there since before the Arabs, was in 1929. The alliance with Nazi Germany and arms-smuggling to escalate the violence was in 1935. The radical Zionists of the Irgun/Lehi faction started "reprisal" attacks (i.e. against targets of opportunity, as opposed to self-defense against actual perpetrators) in 1938.

I think it is important to be correct about the choronology. It would be one thing to say that Dresden was morally indefensible (I would agree), but it would be an absurd distortion to claim that Germany only went to war in response to Dresden. It would be one thing to say that Hiroshima was morally indefensible (I disagree, but when arguing about it do not dispute that the other side has a point), but an absurd distortion to claim that Japan only went to war in response to Hiroshima. Germany started the war, a long time before Dresden; Japan started the war, a long time before Hiroshima; the Palestinians started the war, a very very long time before the Irgun.
yes there is a "moral equivalence", particularily if you look at the market bombings of the Irgun.
Sorry I was not clear. I do not defend "reprisal" actions or dispute that they were "terrorism" by any objective usage of the word; I was not meaning to refer to Irgun at all when I denied moral equivalence, rather I was meaning to refer to the beginning of the conflict, from 1880-1930. Aside from people who claim that "both sides were murdering each other", there are people like Beleriand who take the position that "the Jews may not have been murdering Arabs, but they were immigrating, and that is just as bad: they deserve to have been murdered for that." This I find despicable: I think something ought to be done about, say, the problem of illegal Mexican immigration into the US, but murdering any "wetbacks" you can find is not remotely acceptable.
If you're looking for a "good guy" I'm afraid you're 'shit out of luck' as they say.
That's sort of like saying that nobody was "pure" in World War II: true, but irrelevant. Destroying the Nazis was the right thing to do, even if it meant that a lot of innocent Germans suffered along the way. Innocent Palestinians will continue to suffer until they destroy the terrorists among them.

Life is not better now under Saddam, but thats a rediculous argument. Thats like saying we shouldn't have invaded France or Germany during WW2 because lots of people would have died and others will have their quality of life go down dramatically. Its logically flawed. It is bad NOW but it is getting better.

No, but you've been guilty of pretending that there was violence in both directions during the period when it was in fact one-sided. The "exterminate the Jews" campaign began in 1920. The extension of this, not just to Zionist immigrants, but to all Jews including those who had been there since before the Arabs, was in 1929. .

A gross exaggeration and a use of language that would suggest a far more organised state of affairs than was the case.


The alliance with Nazi Germany.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend". The Lehi made contact with the Nazis as well.


there are people like Beleriand who take the position that "the Jews may not have been murdering Arabs, but they were immigrating, and that is just as bad: they deserve to have been murdered for that."
.

...which is irrelevant to any discussion not involving him or his ilk.


That's sort of like saying that nobody was "pure" in World War II: true, but irrelevant. Destroying the Nazis was the right thing to do, even if it meant that a lot of innocent Germans suffered along the way. Innocent Palestinians will continue to suffer until they destroy the terrorists among them.

A double whammy, in which you skip ahead to the current conflict and - by the implication of your example - lump current palestinian resistance to occupation in with the nazis. As Israel is the aggressor, that doesn't fly on either level.

I'm not answering until you change the poll to be not so one-sided.

I'm not answering until you change the poll to be not so one-sided.
Sel has buggered off from the thread because his arguments got crushed like Margaret Clitherow.

Clearly at the moment its not. However what if Iraq becomes a stable democracy? What if infrastructure, services and security are established? Then question becomes is life better under a sadistic tyrant or in a relatively modern, relatively democratic society. I think the answer to that question is self-apparent.

Yup. And what if Saddam farted greenhouse-reducing gas, his mustache was the most efficient water-filtration system known to man, and his plays were good enough to have filled the entertainment-hole left by the writers' strike?

Then the question is, is life better with a non-existent farce of a hypothetical, or the nightmarish fallout from a homicidally arrogant and incompetent administration's hubris?

I'm not answering until you change the poll to be not so one-sided.

Yes. Options that should be added.

Yes, I'm an oil tycoon and I've just seen my net worth quadruple at the paltry cost of a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives and a few thousand American.

Yes, I'm an executioner, and I got an extra days pay out of this whole deal.

Yes, I like to see people suffer.

Yes. Options that should be added.

Yes, I'm an oil tycoon and I've just seen my net worth quadruple at the paltry cost of a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives and a few thousand American.

Yes, I'm an executioner, and I got an extra days pay out of this whole deal.

Yes, I like to see people suffer.
...

Or maybe :

"Yes, surveys have shown that twice as many people prefer life after Saddam than those that think things have got worse"

Thought I'd add this how the main ceasefire just broke down.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080325/wl_mcclatchy/2889217

Let's see if violence stays down because of the surge....:rolleyes:

Thought I'd add this how the main ceasefire just broke down.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080325/wl_mcclatchy/2889217

Let's see if violence stays down because of the surge....:rolleyes:
Aye, you care to actually answer some of my arguments at the moment, instead of simply buggering off when you realise that you're beaten, squire?

As to the main ceasefire breaking down, this is nothing really to do with the surge, this is due to the pointless sabre-ratting against Iran in the last few days, and their fairly swift response using their proxy forces in Iraq loyal to Al-Sadr.

Bit of a shame, but it'll be resolved quickly.

A gross exaggeration and a use of language that would suggest a far more organised state of affairs than was the case.
Bullshit. I exaggerated nothing, nor did I imply anything other than the chaotic pointless violence that has been characteristic of the Palestinian side from the beginning.
...which is irrelevant to any discussion not involving him or his ilk.
I did not, and still do not, know whether Dosty is or is not of that "ilk". He was saying he would hold onto his opinion that the Jews had been, from the beginning of the conflict, just as bad as the Palestinians, regardless of any facts.
A double whammy, in which you skip ahead to the current conflict and - by the implication of your example - lump current palestinian resistance to occupation in with the nazis. As Israel is the aggressor, that doesn't fly on either level.
This is the kind of crap that I get so sick of. Where to begin?

1. No no no, what the Palestinians are doing is not "resistance". Launching an aimless rocket to kill a housewife in her garden or blow the legs off an 8-year-old boy does not impair the occupation in any way, neither diminishes the capability of the Israelis to maintain the occupation nor lessens their willingness to do so (quite the reverse!). If there was even some insane delusion on the Palestinians' part that they were striking at the military forces, I could feel a little sorry for them; but there is not even any INTENTION to "resist the occupation", only to kill, for the sake of killing. It is foul and pointless murder, and God damn to the deepest pit of hell anyone who calls it anything else. (And before you start shifting to a "so's your old man" argument, yes indeed that applies equally to what Irgun did.)

2. The word "aggressor" refers to the side which initiated the violence. That would be the Palestinians. You appear to be using it to mean the side which is currently prevailing: the word for that is "victor". The Israelis have succeeded in sitting down hard on the Palestinians: that is the job of the Israeli military, to minimize Israeli casualties (minimizing Palestinian casualties ought to be the concern of the Palestinian forces, but it isn't). You seem to be finding it morally culpable that they are successful.

3. I don't have to "lump in" the Palestinians with the Nazis: they ARE what is left of the Nazis. Hamas is the institutional continuation of the 1930's Ikhwan, which proudly called itself the local branch of the world National Socialist movement. This is the only place where the Axis side is still fighting. The ideology has not changed; all that has changed is that their capacity to kill has been greatly diminished. Palestine is occupied for the same reason that Germany and Japan were occupied-- except that the Germans and Japanese had the wit to grasp that the war went badly for them, and to STOP IT. Nations which start wars and lose them typically lose a lot of territory as a result, and the areas where they continue to reside are often occupied, until they come to terms with those who have beaten them. Is this "collective punishment"? Sure it is, and while that may be unfortunate from a moral-idealist standpoint, it is unavoidable in reality. If the Palestinians are in prison, it is because of their crimes, and until they change their ways, it is right and proper that this continue to be so.
When the Palestinians kill all the rocket-launchers, I will support an independent Palestinian state. Otherwise, instead the Israelis will have to continue killing the rocket-launchers, and if innocents are killed or injured or suffer losses in the process, I blame the rocket-launchers for that.

Bullshit. I exaggerated nothing, nor did I imply anything other than the chaotic pointless violence that has been characteristic of the Palestinian side from the beginning..

It was chaotic, did have some form of point and was inevitable, given the situation. And yes, you did exaggerate it and no, your language was not such that it gave an impression of "chaotic" violence.


1. No no no, what the Palestinians are doing is not "resistance". .

Yes it is, and can be claimed as such as long as they are occupied, either in full or in part. I might point out that throwing out examples of children killed and maimed is not a good idea, considering the massive (greater) number of Palestinian children who have suffered similarily.


2. The word "aggressor" refers to the side which initiated the violence. .

No, its the one doing the occupying, building its colonies etc. Thats the problem with that kind of thing - you lose the 'moral high ground'. Had Israel stayed about a year or two and then withdrawn, it could have had it still. But having hung around , its now the aggressor.


The Israelis have succeeded in sitting down hard on the Palestinians: that is the job of the Israeli military, to minimize Israeli casualties (minimizing Palestinian casualties ought to be the concern of the Palestinian forces, but it isn't). .

Unfortunately thats but one of their jobs. The other is securing illegal colonies, aiding colonists, and enforcing a semi-apartheid regime in both the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. You'll also find that miminimising losses of an aggessive force isn't exactly laudable in many peoples eyes.


3. I don't have to "lump in" the Palestinians with the Nazis: they ARE what is left of the Nazis..

Dear o dear. We seem to have reached some form of Godwindammerung.


If the Palestinians are in prison, it is because of their crimes, and until they change their ways, it is right and proper that this continue to be so...

I wasn't aware being colonised and not liking it was a crime.


When the Palestinians kill all the rocket-launchers, I will support an independent Palestinian state. Otherwise, instead the Israelis will have to continue killing the rocket-launchers, and if innocents are killed or injured or suffer losses in the process, I blame the rocket-launchers for that.

..and not the settlers, settlements, land seizures, pass revocations, beatings, torture, killings and general humiliation....no, that would be madness now, wouldn't it?

Aye, you care to actually answer some of my arguments at the moment, instead of simply buggering off when you realise that you're beaten, squire?


I'd look for 4 distinctive horsemen around about the same time that occurs....

There are a million or so people that might say "HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! .... But They Are DEAD!

The Sumerians? Considerably more than a million, though?

There are a million or so people that might say "HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! .... But They Are DEAD!
Aye, well I'd weigh the half of the surveyed population's "WOO, THINGS ARE BETTER NOW!" against those chaps. And IIRC, Iraq has a population of well over two or three million, right?

It was chaotic, did have some form of point
What was that "point", then? The expressed point was to "exterminate the Jews"; are you claiming that there was some other "point"?
... and was inevitable, given the situation.
Culture-clashes and some violent outbursts are fairly common responses to immigration, but I would not say "inevitable".
[Tmut]: what the Palestinians are doing is not "resistance".
Yes it is
In what sense? You are emptying the word of any meaning. In order for something to be called "resistance", it ought to "resist", shouldn't it?
But having hung around , its now the aggressor.
Again you are emptying the word of any meaning. Germany was the "aggressor" against Russia, because Germany started the fight; Russia occupied Germany for 40 years because Russia was the "victor" in the fight.
You'll also find that miminimising losses of an aggessive force isn't exactly laudable in many peoples eyes.
And now you are using "aggressive force" for the civilian population: like Beleriand, you assert that Israelis deserve to die just for living there. I find this despicable.
Dear o dear. We seem to have reached some form of Godwindammerung.
Naziism is in fact the subject here.
..and not the settlers, settlements, land seizures, pass revocations, beatings, torture, killings and general humiliation....no, that would be madness now, wouldn't it?
I would agree with you that the settlers ought to be removed. I applauded the removal of the settlers from Gaza. The experiment showed however that the culture of murder among the Palestinians remained unaffected.

What was that "point", then? The expressed point was to "exterminate the Jews"; are you claiming that there was some other "point"?.

To expel the British and end immigration being amongst them. But again you go back to throwing in some all-encompassing ideology.


Culture-clashes and some violent outbursts are fairly common responses to immigration, but I would not say "inevitable"."?.

Two groups, each promised a state of their own?


In what sense? You are emptying the word of any meaning. In order for something to be called "resistance", it ought to "resist", shouldn't it?"."?.

They do occassionally target the IDF. Not that the IDF makes much distinction when carrying out its reprisals.....


Again you are emptying the word of any meaning. Germany was the "aggressor" against Russia, because Germany started the fight; Russia occupied Germany for 40 years because Russia was the "victor" in the fight..

The act of building civillian colonies and deploying the IDF to protect them renders Israel the aggressor. As the IDF enforces a two-tier system on the population, it is party to the creation of a semi-apartheid province by Israel.


And now you are using "aggressive force" for the civilian population: like Beleriand, you assert that Israelis deserve to die just for living there. I find this despicable...

Just for living within Israel? No, I never said that. They are entitled to go about their lives as much as their neighbours are.


I would agree with you that the settlers ought to be removed. I applauded the removal of the settlers from Gaza. The experiment showed however that the culture of murder among the Palestinians remained unaffected.

More 'shock horror' rhetoric. If Palestinians had a culture of "murder" I'd imagine they'd be far better at it. Many Israelis feel that a culture of "murder" is being created though, and not just amongst the Arabs.

Slightly off topic maybe but it's often the American government that puts in place the dictators that become thorns in their side because it helps them for the moment. Also, the lethal chemicals Saddam Hussein once had were sold to him by the Americans.

Slightly off topic maybe but it's often the American government that puts in place the dictators that become thorns in their side because it helps them for the moment. Also, the lethal chemicals Saddam Hussein once had were sold to him by the Americans.
I don't think anyone is arguing against this. We're arguing over whether life is better without Saddam (although this is a completely moot point, seeing as the Iraqis themselves say 'yes' twice as much as 'no').

Oh also, we're arguing about other stuff like Israel, because political debates on NSG must contain a Godwin within 20 pages, or they get shut down by the mods.

O we don't have just a Godwin,this is an UberGodwin that strives to crush all 'neath its jackbooted feet.

The question isn't "IS life better without Saddam". Rather, the question is "COULD life be better without Saddam".

I believe that it could be, as Saddam was a brutal tyrant. However, it better isn't right now because of the horrible military actions of the head of the US Military (POTUS George W. Bush) and his Commanding General of Iraq (Gen. David Petraeus).

What is needed is a strong military leadership in Iraq that is brutal against the enemy yet smart enough to know who is who. In this way, change will come quickly and life WILL be better without Saddam, insurgents, and foreign occupation without a doubt.

This war has proven one thing. And that is that you can have the greatest military in the world, but if you have weak leaders, you will bow down to the lowest of the low.

The question isn't "IS life better without Saddam". Rather, the question is "COULD life be better without Saddam".
It's both.
However, it better isn't right now because of the horrible military actions of the head of the US Military (POTUS George W. Bush) and his Commanding General of Iraq (Gen. David Petraeus).
...

The Iraqi citizenry disagree with you. It's quite clear, even in the staggeringly biased OP, that this is the case.

I believe that it could be, as Saddam was a brutal tyrant. However, it better isn't right now because of the horrible military actions of the head of the US Military (POTUS George W. Bush) and his Commanding General of Iraq (Gen. David Petraeus).

I hate to break it to you, but you're far off. The Iraqi people don't like Bush, at all, nor did they like the last guy he put there. But they just love Petraeus, he's actually getting things done. I've heard some pretty funny comments from some Iraqis about replacing al Makili with Patraeus as PM of Iraq and such. But they just love him.

They also love Chuck Norris.

The only place in Iraq were life has become much better is in the Kurdish areas.

The only place in Iraq were life has become much better is in the Kurdish areas.

True.

The only place in Iraq were life has become much better is in the Kurdish areas.

Turkey might want to disagree though.

Turkey might want to disagree though.

And somewhat vociferoiusly too. However if they and the rest of the States in that region had treated their Kurdish minorities better, they wouldn't have the problems they do.

We should've finished it off in 1991, then the marsh Arabs wouldn't have been slaughtered, and we'd actually have some popular support in Iraq.

The only place in Iraq were life has become much better is in the Kurdish areas.
Simply not true.

In the poll that came out only a couple of weeks ago, 62% of Shias were happier with their lives than under Saddam.

The only people feeling worse off are, surprising as this may sound, the previous top dogs, the Sunnis. Yes, after nigh on 30 years at the top, being in about the same state as everyone else feels like it sucks, eh?

We should've finished it off in 1991, then the marsh Arabs wouldn't have been slaughtered, and we'd actually have some popular support in Iraq.
Nope. Less troops were involved last time, and they weren't as well equipped, whereas the Iraqis were in pretty much the same condition, militarily, as they were in 2001.

The power vacuum after Saddam's death would have been even more of a mess, and the fact that the UK and US leadership both wanted a short, relatively short war to bouy up public support, if little else, meant that there was no real support in their respective governments to carry on.

...does anyone here seriously believe the opinion polls that seem to say Iraqis love having America save them from Saddham...? I mean, come on, they're so obviously biased it isn't even funny.

...does anyone here seriously believe the opinion polls that seem to say Iraqis love having America save them from Saddham...? I mean, come on, they're so obviously biased it isn't even funny.
... does anyone here seriously believe the completely unsubstantiated opinions of the increasingly smug left wing? I mean, come on, they're so obviously biased it isn't even funny.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7299569.stm - There's the poll. It has both the good (Shia Muslims and Kurds are pretty cheery and Iraqis are feeling increasingly secure and confident in their army and police) and the bad (the infrastructure is still a clusterfuck and a half, the Sunnis are a bit sad).

Now do you have anything to answer that with?

If George W. Bush is hung like Saddam was, life would surely be even better.:rolleyes: But alas, that retard is still alive and presiding a nation. Life´s unfair.

... does anyone here seriously believe the completely unsubstantiated opinions of the increasingly smug left wing? I mean, come on, they're so obviously biased it isn't even funny.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7299569.stm - There's the poll. It has both the good (Shia Muslims and Kurds are pretty cheery and Iraqis are feeling increasingly secure and confident in their army and police) and the bad (the infrastructure is still a clusterfuck and a half, the Sunnis are a bit sad).

Now do you have anything to answer that with?

Easy. That poll is on how security has improved in the past three years... Suddham was not in power three years ago, so that has zero bearing on this discussion.

If George W. Bush is hung like Saddam was, life would surely be even better.:rolleyes: But alas, that retard is still alive and presiding a nation. Life´s unfair.

That it is, that it is.

That it is, that it is.

Exactly. *nod* :)

Easy. That poll is on how security has improved in the past three years... Suddham was not in power three years ago, so that has zero bearing on this discussion.
Simply incorrect, actually. It's not just about security, it's about a whole range of issues, from job provision to basic household goods availability, to questions about sectarian intermarriage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf

I live in a delusional wackoworld and just had my third acid trip of the hour.

Ha. Ya ok. Just because Im against women being raped and men being brutually tortured?

Curse biased polls! Curse you!

I live in a delusional wackoworld and just had my third acid trip of the hour.

Ha. Ya ok. Just because Im against women being raped and men being brutually tortured?

Curse biased polls! Curse you!

You mean women aren't being raped and men aren't being tortured in Iraq today? Funny, I could swear that sort of stuff skyrocketed with the sectarian violence.

Has anyone seen the hanging?

You mean women aren't being raped and men aren't being tortured in Iraq today? Funny, I could swear that sort of stuff skyrocketed with the sectarian violence.

The ebil liberal media has been lying to you.