How odd to recomend a ruler who champions genocide as a path to social harmony. I dont know about the rest of you but I broke out a bottle of the good stuff upon hearing of his hanging.
No matter what happens tyrants are better of dead. Iraq is a mess but the pacifists arguments seem to lake substance. Im not saying I have the answers but something had to be done, surely.
There are 64 despotic regimes on the CIA database, was 65 before Saddam was deposed.
If what you say holds true why isn't America getting rid of the remaining 64? In fact far from getting rid of them, just as they did with Saddam for many decades, they are fully supporting many of them like Obiang, who in many ways makes Saddam look like a kindergarten teacher. Not only has America supported autocrats, they have in the past gotten rid of legitimate democracies and replaced them with dictatorships.
So why Saddam, why then and why not through normal democratic processes that have always worked, instead of violence and invasion which has nearly always failed?
And do you say its perfectly OK to kill far more innocents in attempting to free a country than the despot killed whilst he ruled? At what point does the forceful democratisation of a country, which is destroying the country, become no longer viable, or do you keep allowing innocents to die until ˝ a million are dead, a million or more?
There is never a justification for invading a country on lies and deceit to get rid of any ruler, no matter how bad they are unless that ruler has attacked you. As I have stated no forced democratisation or invasion for other than self defence has ever worked apart from Japan after WWII. Japan was complex and there were many interwoven factors in play there, but no other has ever succeeded. There are other diplomatic and outside influences that can be used to foster democracies and popular uprisings against tyrants that have always worked. In fact nearly every democracy that has formed out of autocracy has been started in this way.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
[quote=boomslanger] There are 64 despotic regimes on the CIA database, was 65 before Saddam was deposed.
So many to pick from. Tell you what, me and you will go get them.
I didnt say I had the answer Im just sure things couldnt stay the same. Im sure if I was a shia or a kurd 5 years ago I would have let out loud yelps of happiness in hearing of his death. Are you implying that Saddam was good for Iraq.
I have to believe that we are better without them.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill
I have to believe that we are better without them.
Your applying a very simplistic viewpoint to a very complex situation. Yes Saddam was evil and he had to go. However, the approach America took was completely wrong, more people are dying daily now than under Saddam and when this is all done it is a real possibility that the death toll would be higher than that during Saddam's 20 year reign.
Your applying a very simplistic viewpoint to a very complex situation. Yes Saddam was evil and he had to go. However, the approach America took was completely wrong, more people are dying daily now than under Saddam and when this is all done it is a real possibility that the death toll would be higher than that during Saddam's 20 year reign.
What approach then do you recommend. Do you imply then that we should have assassinated him? A movie like Munich should remind us of the dangers of this. We already tried arming the Kurds to overthrow him and that ended in bloody death,so what then. Get the U.N to write another letter telling him what a naughty boy he has been reminiscant of a monty python sketch. I at no stage profess to have the answer but Im not sure exactly what you expected of America.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill
Read my posts. Every democracy that has come out of an autocracy, bar Japan after WWII because of special circumstances, have come out of people power. Iran is heading towards democracy at this moment if America leaves it alone (which it isn't planning to). Indonesia's democracy came out of people power and so has every other. China cracked down hard on Tiananmen Square because the rulers could see that if let go then democracy would flower in China.
Every democracy, bar Japan because of many complex reasons, that has been forced upon any nation has failed, just as Iraq is proving yet again.
Iraq would have become a democracy given the right outside influences (not America supporting Saddam and covering up his atrocities for decades), just as is happening with Iran. Problem is that takes decades and America wanted oil now. Make no mistake about it if Iraq was the second biggest producer of broccoli in the world then America would have allowed Saddam to do anything he liked to his people, no matter how horrific.
America is supporting one of the world's most evil and tyrannical dictators at the moment in Obiang of Equatorial Guinea (the dictator Margaret Thatcher's son tried to remove from power in a coup) because he allows an American oil company to take all the oil it wants from his country, even though this is causing widespread environmental damage and death.
The same was the case when America supported Saddam and he gave them his oil. It was only the day he said no more, I'll do what I want with my oil and not what America tells me to that he became America's enemy.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Read my posts. Every democracy that has come out of an autocracy, bar Japan after WWII because of special circumstances, have come out of people power. Iran is heading towards democracy at this moment if America leaves it alone (which it isn't planning to). Indonesia's democracy came out of people power and so has every other. China cracked down hard on Tiananmen Square because the rulers could see that if let go then democracy would flower in China.
Every democracy, bar Japan because of many complex reasons, that has been forced upon any nation has failed, just as Iraq is proving yet again.
Iraq would have become a democracy given the right outside influences (not America supporting Saddam and covering up his atrocities for decades), just as is happening with Iran. Problem is that takes decades and America wanted oil now. Make no mistake about it if Iraq was the second biggest producer of broccoli in the world then America would have allowed Saddam to do anything he liked to his people, no matter how horrific.
America is supporting one of the world's most evil and tyrannical dictators at the moment in Obiang of Equatorial Guinea (the dictator Margaret Thatcher's son tried to remove from power in a coup) because he allows an American oil company to take all the oil it wants from his country, even though this is causing widespread environmental damage and death.
The same was the case when America supported Saddam and he gave them his oil. It was only the day he said no more, I'll do what I want with my oil and not what America tells me to that he became America's enemy.
We all hope obiangs cancer hurrys up and does the job but youre argument has a slight flaw. He only poses a threat to his own country. I havent seen any scuds sailing out of Equatorial Guinea and into another country. No nuclear aspirations or chemical weapons. no tanks rolling into a neighbours backyard. Just another blight on society which will one day be eradicated. I know what you are trying to say but he poses less threat to mankind, just a horrible threat to his own people.Yes he does have oil and im sure you will let me know again.
but so what.
I accept oil had a part to play in Saddams demise! Why should Saddam hold the world to ransom with his oil. I think its one of the reasons but not the sole reason. It would be improper to not do the best thing by youre country and oil is quite necessary to any countrys economy. May I take this opportunity again to stress that It is not the only reason just one of them. Let me break it down IRAQ+CHEMICAL WEAPONS+NUCLEAR ASPIRATIONS + INVADING OTHER COUNTRYS+ GENOCIDE+OIL= INVASION BY COALITION OF THE WILLING and I can understand that.
It wouldnt bother me if we left Iraq but im sure the mother of all civil wars will happen.
A democratic (capitolist) Iraq would be best for its people and the safety of the world. Everybodys economy would be thankful too.
Give it time. I recall Germany having to wait a while for peace when all hope was lost. Turkey has proven that a muslim society can function as a democracy.
Any way America played a key role in peace in N. Korea and they dont have any oil. Nobody seems to be backslapping America for this achievement.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill
Let me break it down IRAQ+CHEMICAL WEAPONS+NUCLEAR ASPIRATIONS + INVADING OTHER COUNTRYS+ GENOCIDE+OIL= INVASION BY COALITION OF THE WILLING and I can understand that.
Iraq had no nuclear weapons nor nuclear aspirations, America knew this going in. They hadn't invaded another country since Gulf War I. It sounds like you and Howard are the only people that believe the BS rhetoric America used to invade Iraq. I don't think even aquamonkey believes that s**t anymore.
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
Why should Saddam hold the world to ransom with his oil.
Umm, because it's his country's oil.
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
It would be improper to not do the best thing by youre country and oil is quite necessary to any countrys economy.
That's no reason to forcefully take what's not yours. Weren't you taught the difference between right and wrong? You sound like one of those neo-con fascists.
How would you feel if we were the only country that had wheat and China decided to invade us to 'liberate our wheat'?
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
A democratic (capitolist) Iraq would be best for its people and the safety of the world. Everybodys economy would be thankful too.
Yes but as my serpentine fellow-poster has said again and again, democracies aren't born overnight and forced once don't work.
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
Give it time. I recall Germany having to wait a while for peace when all hope was lost. Turkey has proven that a muslim society can function as a democracy.
Germany was a joint effort by many countries which was sanctioned by the world community with some of it's neighbours playing crucial roles in it's success. Iraq is not. Iraq's neighbours are not involved and the countries trying to democratise it are not trusted by the people or it's neighbours.
I don't know much about Turkey but I don't believe it became a democracy as a result of western military intervention.
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
What approach then do you recommend. Do you imply then that we should have assassinated him?
There was never going to be a simple answer for Iraq as an assassination of Saddam would also have resulted in a struggle for power between the different ethnic groups which would also have resulted in a civil war. I don't know the answer. Every scenario would result in chaos. However, I do know that the worst option was for a foreign western army to invade Iraq.
The world political landscape is so convoluted and corrupt that it's hard to even suggest an answer. Obviously a fair representative Government that would treat all ethnic group equally and instil democracy in Iraq would be the best outcome. But everyone is corrupt, they are controlled by the ultimate corruptor America, so what chance does Iraq have!
There is a huge flaw to your argument. Saddam no longer had any WMD at all, had a completely devastated military of extremely poor morale and as Hans Blix's own report stated he could not have gotten together a credible fighting force or any WMD program for at least a decade and no nuclear program for many decades. Saddam didn't have anything to be invaded for, except oil.
The invasion was all done on lies and deceit, which have now been proven as almost monthly more revelations of the Bush's administration deliberate fabrication of intelligence and obfuscation of the UN so they could invade. Howard was also complicit in this and history will show he lied in parliament on behalf of Bush.
There will never be a true democratic Iraq because of the way it was invaded and the way it was forced upon the people, who actually want it but not on America's terms. If Iraq is what it takes to bring democracy and freedom to a country then thank god America doesn't invade that often as the price is way too high, and it will fail so nothing has been achieved except the death and suffering of many more Iraqis than would have been the case if Saddam had remained in power.
Everyone's economy benefits but Iraq's. It is being well and truly screwed by American companies who are not only stealing their oil (the only major oil supply in the world which is not metered and is wholly controlled by a large American company, Haliburton) but American companies have stolen US$23 billion of Iraqi's money. Not US money given in aid but money that belonged to Iraq. By every measure Iraqis are now far worse off than they were in the worse days of Saddam when the harshest sanctions ever imposed were at their peak.
Turkey's quasi democracy (make no mistake the military there still have extraordinary influence over the government) came out of people power, not invasion. It proves my point not yours.
Germany was a democracy before Hitler which is why it naturally went back to it. East Germany freed itself through people power, the US had nothing to do with no matter what their propaganda states. Read the real story behind the fall of the wall and not the crap that Reagon through massive defence spending beat down the Soviets and freed East Germany.
North Korea has not been an American triumph at all, it has come so far because of others, mainly China, having influence. It is America that has caused all the troubles, and still is as the neocons are saying that NK should get nothing and be starved into submission (which is what they tried to do to Saddam).
Be enlightened on America and read Steve Kinzer's 100 Years of Regime Change. America has caused far more problems in the world, always for its own monetary gain, than it is has helped. For stuff sake the US even militarily deposed the legitimate king of Hawaii and turned the country into a US State, because the king kicked out a US sugar baron who was treating his people like slaves and was causing wide spread environmental damage.
South America is turning to the Left in droves and there is even talk of forming a united South American organisation to combat the US because of the decades of the US meddling in their affairs and screwing up the place. US meddling in South America (which they still do to this day deposing legitimate democratic governments and replacing them with pro-US dictators) has cost an untold number of lives and enormous hardship so America can be rich.
Try opening your mind to what is really going on here instead of swallowing the US and Howard's propaganda hook line and sinker. Very few others now believe it and most of it has proven to be deceit so its no use continuing the bullshit.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Iraq could manage without Australian troops if it was given advance warning of any withdrawal, a senior Iraqi government figure says.
Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abbawi was asked about the consequences of Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's plan to withdraw troops if Labor won the next election.
"As far as the combat forces, if they decide to withdraw ... if this can be done through an agreed program with the Iraqis with the timing, I think then we can manage," Mr Abbawi told ABC television.
"But by the time they decide to withdraw, we hope that Australia (would have given) help in training our forces to take up the place of the withdrawn Australian forces."
He said if Australia withdrew abruptly and unilaterally, without prior arrangement, it would have negative consequences.
"But if this is done through an agreed timetable, and as they withdraw we can replace them with Iraqi forces, well trained Iraqi forces, then I think we can minimise the effect," he said.
Asked if the withdrawal would send a negative signal to the US and Britain, Mr Abbawi said: "No ... if it is done with an agreement and consultation, I don't think it will create much problem."
Mr Abbawi's position appears to place him at odds with Prime Minister John Howard, who has said the withdrawal of Australian troops would send a negative signal to Australia's allies.
But Mr Abbawi said the US was still needed in Iraq and he cautioned against a premature withdrawal of all forces.
"Yes, definitely that will be interpreted as victory for these forces, these terrorists," he said. "I hope any decision to be taken by the United States would take into consideration how they should keep the commitments to help the Iraqis and not to leave the job half done."
Australia has about 1,300 troops around Iraq, while the US has about 100 times that number.
Mr Abbawi welcomed Prime Minister John Howard's decision to send an additional 70 non-combat troops to Iraq to train the country's police and military.
"I think it's a very good decision," Mr Abbawi said. "We do need now a lot of efforts to help train our forces and to make them ready to take up the security responsibility themselves."
Mr Abbawi believed sending non-combat troops was a non-controversial decision that would be supported by all political forces in the west.
He said a decision to commit even more troops was up to Australia and what the country was able to offer.
Wow, this is a touchy subject. Who's aquamonkey? Anyhow you all make valid points but im sticking to my guns on this one. I dont think I am alone in my sentiments though, as you have so kindly stated.
X452 brought up an interesting point though when he stated he originally supported our involvement in Iraq. If that is the case wouldn't it be proper to stay and help them if you are implying that we put them in this position. I would hate to be told as an Iraqi that we had made a mistake and now we are leaving without helping them rebuild.
No matter what anyone says or does I will always support democracy. I dont know if its the best way but in my book its the fairest.
By the way my mind is open and Im glad to say it has an opinion but just a different one. I don't know what concentric circle of friends you share but a lot of the people I know share some of the same sentiments I do. Any one could be mistaken for thinking this though, as the mainstream media supports you're way of thinking. I know its mainstream media because it is the one that babbles he most.
This issue really divides people doesn't it.
What does everyone think of the 70 non combatant soldiers we are sending to train Iraqi forces?
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill
No matter what anyone says or does I will always support democracy. I dont know if its the best way but in my book its the fairest.
There's democracy and there's the American way of doing things (which they claim is democracy) that seems to hit the fan every time.
You are right that now that we've invaded Iraq, we are somewhat obligated to help them rebuild - afterall, we were the ones who demolished all their towns and homes and levelled their cities.
I still believe that we should never have invaded in the first place, but what's done is done. You would think that the world (moreso the U.S.) would learn from this experience, but no... they don't seem to be capable of learning from anything in history as they are making the same mistakes.
I wonder which country will be next.
HIDE YOUR OIL EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!
In heaven, there are no interesting people - Nietzsche
X452 brought up an interesting point though when he stated he originally supported our involvement in Iraq.
No no no. I never supported the Iraq war. I used to somewhat support America pre 9/11, before I took an interest in politics.
I used to think the "greater good" philosophy like you do. So what if America pillages a few countries and causes a little bit of collateral damage, in the end what they're doing is for the greater good. But I didn't have to dig far to find that America does nothing good for the world that doesn't benefit it first and foremost. Ever since Bush and the neo-cons took over, everything they've done has been negative. At least Clinton was trying to broker peace between Israel and Palestine, Bush has thrown this aside and outright supports Israel.
It's very difficult for Aussies to see these things because we see Americans as like us, we have similar cultures and interests and they look like us. So our natural instinct is to align ourselves with them as the "good guys". Unfortunately, they are not the good guys, what they're doing is resulting in a less stable and less peaceful world. It's like someone wound the clock back to a time when it was acceptable for one country to invade and conquer another to pillage it's resources. Are we living in the 21st century or what?
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
Wow, this is a touchy subject. Anyhow you all make valid points but im sticking to my guns on this one. I dont think I am alone in my sentiments though, as you have so kindly stated. ... This issue really divides people doesn't it.
That's right, just a difference of opinion. That's what makes democracy great.
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
No matter what anyone says or does I will always support democracy. I dont know if its the best way but in my book its the fairest.
Iraq is not a matter of "we must stay the course so democracy prevails". Democracy will never prevail while foreign Western forces occupy Iraq. There is an unending queue of young Muslim men in the middle east willing to die to cleanse Iraq of western infidels. And lets be honest, we did't go to Iraq for just reasons so they have a point.
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
By the way my mind is open and Im glad to say it has an opinion but just a different one. I don't know what concentric circle of friends you share but a lot of the people I know share some of the same sentiments I do.
Well perhaps it's time you and your circle of friends did a bit of thinking outside the square. Watch some of the doco's on SBS or BBC and stop only reading the Australian or the Telepgraph, or listening to people like Piers Akerman (Sydney) or Andrew Bolt (Melbourne).
The most intelligent people in the world (a lot smarter than you or me) believe Iraq is a mess and staying the course will only make things worse.
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
What does everyone think of the 70 non combatant soldiers we are sending to train Iraqi forces?
This might surprise you but I don't disagree with this deployment. We need to pave our exit strategy from Iraq and the key to this is to leave their defence forces with the capability to take over.
I have a feeling that Bush is going to want to put our soldiers in the front line. He's probably thinking it's only fair if we lost a few, since the U.S. and Britain has lost so many.
I know Johnny says he will never do this, put our soldiers on the front line. And I tend to believe that he won't (the sad fact behind this deicison is not that he cares about our soldiers, it's that he knows aussie casualties would be an election loser for him). But what worries me is how much he bends over for America.
Our little PM has so much egg on his face he could make a thousand omelettes.
Talk about being left holding the baby. Brilliant opportunity for a clever cartoonist to draw a cartoon of the British and American armies evacuating Iraq, and there's little Johnny standing in their dust wearing a helmet and combat fatigues holding an angry Jihadist Muslim baby who's got a bomb strapped around his waist about to detonate it.
The way Johnny has dug his heels in, we'll be the only ones left in Iraq!
Quoted Text
Blair to announce Iraq troop withdrawal Wednesday Feb 21 09:35 AEDT
AP - British Prime Minister Tony Blair is set to withdraw 1,500 British troops from Iraq within weeks, the BBC reports.
Blair will also say during his weekly appearance at the House of Commons that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if security there is sufficient.
That figure would represent nearly half of Britain's total troop contingent in Iraq, possibly signalling the start of a phased withdrawal.
The move is designed to hand back the south of the country, which has enjoyed relative calm, to local authorities.
Britain has lost more than 130 lives since the start of the US led invasion in 2003.
The news comes as America prepares to bolster it troop contingent by 20,000, with US president George Bush making one final push for peace.
Logged
