Forsake the troops gets destroyed!

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yes violence was the only way for you to brake free.....but that violence errupted because you were left with no other option and you did what you had to do.....and I could hardly say that you had no other option about Iraq......and you took my quote out of the context....I didn't mean violence is never a solution for a democracy, I was referring only to the war in Iraq....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I cant really see Sadam wandering off so everyone can have an election can you?

[11XHooah]

very little, in fact is being driven by iraq.  odd that every anti-war nut wants to make this a war about oil, but even saudi arabia only accounts for 13% of US supplies... go figure.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spreading democracy - - only small minded American conservatives can buy that bullsh*t....you can't install true democracy with violence

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

My God you are ignorant, you know that? What was the Revolutionary War? Violence was the only option to break off from British control, and last time I checked we are still a very democratic nation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes violence was the only way for you to brake free.....but that violence errupted because you were left with no other option and you did what you had to do.....and I could hardly say that you had no other option about Iraq......and you took my quote out of the context....I didn't mean violence is never a solution for a democracy, I was referring only to the war in Iraq....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But how else would you expect Iraqis to gain democracy? Do you think they could just tell Saddam that they don't want to be under a dictatorship anymore? He would have had them slaughtered in an instant. And the people never had capabilities of mounting a rebellion because Saddam had them so tightly watched and controlled. I think that violence was the only way to get democracy in Iraq.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

But how else would you expect Iraqis to gain democracy? Do you think they could just tell Saddam that they don't want to be under a dictatorship anymore? He would have had them slaughtered in an instant. And the people never had capabilities of mounting a rebellion because Saddam had them so tightly watched and controlled. I think that violence was the only way to get democracy in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Following the first gulf war there was a huge popular uprising and then the UN pulled the plug and went home which resulted in them all being tortured and killed and their families too.

[11XHooah]

But how else would you expect Iraqis to gain democracy? Do you think they could just tell Saddam that they don't want to be under a dictatorship anymore? He would have had them slaughtered in an instant. And the people never had capabilities of mounting a rebellion because Saddam had them so tightly watched and controlled. I think that violence was the only way to get democracy in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Following the first gulf war there was a huge popular uprising and then the UN pulled the plug and went home which resulted in them all being tortured and killed and their families too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, which is exactly why we should have finished it right there. If we had, Iraq would have been better off.

[Lucius]

As far as I know, it was Bush senior who pulled that plug and went home, leaving the rebellion to get slaughtered. Anyone know which version is correct?

[SteveThaiBinh]

As far as I know, it was Bush senior who pulled that plug and went home, leaving the rebellion to get slaughtered. Anyone know which version is correct?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I recall, there was never any intention of continuing to liberate/occupy Iraq, because the purpose of the war was to liberate Kuwait, and getting rid of Saddam wasn't necessary for that. This was back in the days when everyone was very optimistic that the UN, so long restrained by cold war rivalry, could actually work as the guardian of international law.

 

The accusation levelled against Bush Sr. and others is that they encouraged the rebels in Iraq by falsely implying that they would receive US support. The rebels probably wouldn't have risen up otherwise, as they knew very well what Saddam was capable of. But they may simply have misinterpreted Bush's intentions, being unable to believe that with such a huge military advantage he wouldn't continue to Baghdad.

[Cantousent]

As far as I know, it was Bush senior who pulled that plug and went home, leaving the rebellion to get slaughtered. Anyone know which version is correct?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The UN and Bush the elder were both responsible for what happened in Iraq at the end of the first gulf war.

[11XHooah]

There were talks about going into Iraq and taking down Saddam, but most of countries in the coalition were against it because they feared it would lead to endless fighting.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

One thing I'm sure of, you didn't go into Iraq mainly because the Iraqi people were under the evil Saddam and they were crying out for democracy, if that was the sake, then how could you turn your backs on the Iraqi people after the first gulf war when they started rebelling against Saddam because they thought you were going to liberate them, instead you turned your tales leaving hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shi't get gased by Saddam.(don't start about the no-fly zones because that was just pathetic...)

US goverment never cared for the Iraqi people, the whole thing "we want to liberate Iraq and bring democracy" was a good tool to cover up the fact there were no WMD's in Iraq......you are only staying in Iraq because you can't afford to loose your military and political credibility in the eyes of the world....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You just want to blame Americans dont you ? The UN mandate ended with the liberation of Kuwait I just looked it up. You can blame Bush Sr. for actually taking notice of the UN. But then you would have to acknowlege Bush Jr. big brass ones for totally ignoring them.

 

I expect they would be more than happy to come home if a bunch of nutters were not blowing themselves up every day and killing Iraqi people most of the time.

To leave now without an iraqi security force to take up the duties would be incrdibly irresponsible.

[11XHooah]

Then if all of a sudden you had to attack Iraq because the American people couldn't just sit back anymore and watch how poor Iraqis can't vote and don't enjoy democracy like you do, then why didn't you attack some other countries that are under oppression and "liberated" them, by that philosophy you have a right to attack, lets say: North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Chad, parts of Colombia, even Saudi Arabia - have you even seen how they treat people who brake the law, and that "moral police" - how they treat women? But then again they are your precious allies, and no matter how undemocratic they are you can't say a word against them because of your economic interests....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If we could help all those countries, we would. We can't help everyone. The reason we didn't get involved in the Sudan was because we were afraid it would turn into another Somalia. Iraq was a threat, so we took it down. Now we are helping them rebuild into a democratic and peaceful nation. And I don't see many other countries willing to even give a rats ass about other countries, do you? It's funny, isn't it? When horrible things happen, everyone turns to the U.S. to take the initiative. But then afterwards we are criticized for it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Bush Sr. took notice to the UN mandate just because it was in his interest, if it hadn't been he would have done otherwise just like his son did....

 

I feel sorry seeing american boys getting killed all the time just because some rich fat political and military oligarchy saw it going to Iraq as a good move.....but then again what your commander and chief says must be done without question....and your re-election of Bush was a big mistake....the only bigger mistake was ellecting him in a first place (if that was that case - Florida anyone... " )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'd have to see some proof of that.

 

It's what soldiers do. Soldiers dont choose who to fight they fight who they are told and when it's over they stop fighting. Since no one is getting drafted they are doing what they signed upto do I certainly dont pity them because that denegrates them. But then my family does have a millitary history dating back to before the Civil War.

 

Personally I would be as suspiscious of Frances attempts to block the war and their motivations for doing so as you are for America instigating it.

 

 

 

And just for the record I'm not American.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

everyone turns to the U.S. to take the initiative. But then afterwards we are criticized for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sucks to be you. Your like the worlds parents. Everyone wants to borrow money off you but they all want you out of the house when they are upto mischief.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If we could help all those countries, we would. We can't help everyone. The reason we didn't get involved in the Sudan was because we were afraid it would turn into another Somalia. Iraq was a threat, so we took it down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it wasn't a threat. It didn't have weapons of mass destruction, as a few more months of weapons inspections by Hans Blix would have revealed. It wasn't co-operating with Al-Qaeda - there had been tentative contacts years before, but nothing came of them, and the US knew this.

Now we are helping them rebuild into a democratic and peaceful nation.  And I don't see many other countries willing to even give a rats ass about other countries, do you? It's funny, isn't it? When horrible things happen, everyone turns to the U.S. to take the initiative. But then afterwards we are criticized for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many other countries give a higher proportion of their GDP in development aid. If the US (and Europe) really want to help poor countries, why don't they get rid of their agricultural subsidies? (that's a rhetorical question, I'm not trying to take us too far from the topic ). I don't think it's fair to say that other countries don't care, though most could certainly do more. And I don't think many people are looking to the US to take the initiative now. Relax, you're not the leader of the free world any more.

[random evil guy]

solution to what? is it our(western world/nato/whatever) job to remove all those we don't like from power?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So your another let him die of old age.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i'm another "it's not our problem" guy. i'm not evil just for the h*ll of it. :cool:

 

change has to come from within. if the iraqis really want democracy, then fight for it like everyone else have.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

i'm another "it's not our problem" guy.  i'm not evil just for the h*ll of it.  :cool:

 

change has to come from within. if the iraqis really want democracy, then fight for it like everyone else have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats very Sith of you

 

actually you have a point because rather than solve problems or stand upto to their dictators people flee the country and seek asylum. Of course your method would result in 100,000's if not millions of deaths since the dictators are the ones with the tanks and in Sadams case the chemical weapons.

[metadigital]

"as Pope Innocent III is cited as saying 'Kill them all. God will know His own.'"

 

Fixed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many thanks, I was recalling from a couple of decades ago.

[metadigital]

The UN mandate ended with the liberation of Kuwait I just looked it up. You can blame Bush Sr. for actually taking notice of the UN. But then you would have to acknowlege Bush Jr. big brass ones for totally ignoring them.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[1]Bush Sr. took notice to the UN mandate just because it was in his interest, if it hadn't been he would have done otherwise just like his son did....

 

[2]I feel sorry seeing american boys getting killed all the time just because some rich fat political and military oligarchy saw it going to Iraq as a good move.....but then again what your commander and chief says must be done without question....and your re-election of Bush was a big mistake....the only bigger mistake was ellecting him in a first place (if that was that case - Florida anyone... " )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Bush Sr was the leader of a huge coalition of countries, all of whom had banded together to act as one in the name of international law. This coalition included just about every Arab nation, most of whom would not have been complicit in the invasion of a sovereign country (after all, there was only Isreal as a democracy in the region at the time: who's next?). In fact General Stormin' Norman Swartzkopf was ready, willing and able to completely neutralize Saddam's forces: in fact he insisted, because it is correct military procedure to remove a threat completely and not leave it to fester and become a threat once more (Sun-Tzu).

 

2. The neo-cons may very well have made a political decision to invade Iraq; that is, after all what their job is -- protect and help their country prosper. To say that George Dubya Bush was unelected is rediculous: his mandate has just been re-afirmed with the largest population of people voting for him than has voted for anyone else in the country's history. If you want to start putting the US democracy on trial, then let's check a few others, like the corrupt Indian process, for example. And at least the US is a democracy, not like the "one party democracies" of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Russia. Russia is still trying to prevent Chechnya from succeeding, after all: a little too much oil revenue there? (Because Latvia and Lithuania, in contrast, didn't bat a Russian eyelid.)

[Commissar]

Russia is still trying to prevent Chechnya from succeeding, after all: a little too much oil revenue there? (Because Latvia and Lithuania, in contrast, didn't bat a Russian eyelid.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Russia's holding onto Chechnya for more than the oil. In fact, Russia has, in one form or another, been trying to hold onto Chechnya since at least the 19th century. Chechnya is also not nearly as oil-rich as, say, Azerbaijan, which was allowed out without armed conflict. They don't need Chechnya; it's a point of pride thing.

 

And there's this much to be said about democracy, by the way: it's the system that put Socrates to death, left Athens prostrate, allowed slavery as long as it was needed for a good economy, and elected George W. Bush twice.

[Commissar]

i'm another "it's not our problem" guy.  i'm not evil just for the h*ll of it.  :cool:

 

change has to come from within. if the iraqis really want democracy, then fight for it like everyone else have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats very Sith of you

 

actually you have a point because rather than solve problems or stand upto to their dictators people flee the country and seek asylum. Of course your method would result in 100,000's if not millions of deaths since the dictators are the ones with the tanks and in Sadams case the chemical weapons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eastern Europe might disagree with you.

[metadigital]

Russia's holding onto Chechnya for more than the oil.  In fact, Russia has, in one form or another, been trying to hold onto Chechnya since at least the 19th century.  Chechnya is also not nearly as oil-rich as, say, Azerbaijan, which was allowed out without armed conflict.  They don't need Chechnya; it's a point of pride thing.

 

And there's this much to be said about democracy, by the way: it's the system that put Socrates to death, left Athens prostrate, allowed slavery as long as it was needed for a good economy, and elected George W. Bush twice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's more a political control over the enormous and increasing Islamic population within the Russian Federation, isn't it?

 

What did Churchil say? The best argument against democracy is to talk to one of the electors ...

[Lucius]

What did Churchil say? The best argument against democracy is to talk to one of the electors ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He said that it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. ^_^

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"What did Churchil say? The best argument against democracy is to talk to one of the electors ..."

 

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," to be exact.

 

"He said that it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

 

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

 

You, sirs, have been googl'd.

[Lucius]

If you take out my clumsy 'thats', then I actually did nail it. :D

[Walsingham]

There's been a lot of posting since I last wrote. i'm beginning to think I am going to have to take notes. For the time being, apologies for missing anyone's points to me.

 

HUGE POST OF DOOM

 

1. I think that anyone who argues the Iraqis should have done the job themselves is ignorant of both the Iraqi state apparatus, and probably any similar regime. I have lived and worked in several and can say confidently that Iraq had about the worst possible chance of internal revolution of any state in the world. After his fashion Saddam Hussein was an absolute genius of terror, on a par with Stalin, but with the advantage of being able to pick up where Stalin left off in refining the techniques. I mean Stalin wasn't able to line up TWO heirs with comparable savagery.

 

2. Democracy is not a state of nature. We are a brutal species, and will always revert to tyranny without the coercion. Coercion that is necessarily the use of physical pain and death.

 

3. I don't want you to think I believe the good old British Empire was the way Kipling painted it. It was mercantile, and there are some signal instances of us being worse savages than the people we were civilising. I just think it serves no purpose besides Mel Gibson's to say we were always like that. I also think we owe a certain debt to the men of principle in the Empire who did stand up for decency to record that stand. Just as we rightly remember the bastards who did not.

 

4. I'm a wee bit old fashioned when it comes to freedom. I agree with JFK when he implied in several speeches the notion that so long as one man is subject to the law of Tyranny none of us are free. I look first to my own country, of course. But after that I do not rest easy with the notion that other men are in chains, and that I am separated from them by only a few miles, or a dash of skin colour.

 

5a. I recognised already that we are not addressing many tyrannical states around the world. We are even aiding and abetting some. My only response to that is to plead the limited capacity of any nation - even the US - to intervene in world affairs. We cannot afford to tackle everything at once. Sometimes we must content oursleves with 'engagement' which is the application of peaceful pressure and cultural conforntation, to affect a slow change of principle. The germs of this approach can be seen in the younger citizens of many Gulf States, even while their governments persist in squashing democracy. While such an approach is moving forward I say let it do so.

 

5b. However, if we made a point of moving against only one tyrannical regime in each generation we would not have forever to wait before we had risen to a point our ancestors could be proud of.

 

 

6. We already covered the issue of what we were told earlier in the thread. Some of us feel it was a mistake to lie, but the cause was obvious. Some of us feel the cause was obvious but it was wrong to lie. My analogy would be being told that the house down the road was full of explosives and we had to put out the fire there or we'd get hit in the explosion. Then it turns out later that you were lied to because they needed your help to stop their house burning down. I guess we are allowed to complain about the fact that there have been kickbacks. But for feth's sake we should have done it anyway. (Apologies to those like Lucius who don't see it that way, but I think new people are dropping in at this late stage and needed a reminder)

[213374U]

Since the degree of demagogy in the previous post clearly proves that the poster above does not care much for the finer points of international politics or diplomacy and places terrorist acts in the same scale of warranted military actions, I will simply point out the obvious:

 

Their might gives them the right. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.