MUST restore the country to at least the same level it was prior to the invasion. .
I think the country is as safe as it ever was in Saddams regime. True there are more terrorist attacks but now they don't have to worry about the government nearly as much.
I do not recall where i saw this tid bit. But apparently the war has saved numerous Iraqi lives. It was estimated more would have died under saddams rule then under the conditions currently existing in the country.
I do not recall where i saw this tid bit. But apparently the war has saved numerous Iraqi lives. It was estimated more would have died under saddams rule then under the conditions currently existing in the country.
Do you think you might be able to recall where you saw it, or tell us who made that estimate?
I think the country is as safe as it ever was in Saddams regime.
The average Iraqi on the street would whole heartedly disagree with you. Under Hussein the Iraqi people had no fears of going to the market and being killed in an act of random violence. A civil war did not exist under Sadam. Like it or not, he held the country together and got the Iraqis all on the same page. Also, under Hussein the Iraqi people had the infrastructure required to live a modern life. Social services were available under the tyrant, but are not available in the "democracy". Iraq is still the most dangerous spot on the planet right now, and ever independent journalist who has come out of there in the past year says as much. The green zone is marginally under control, the rest of the country is at war.
Quote:
True there are more terrorist attacks but now they don't have to worry about the government nearly as much.
Zero terrorist attacks to a dozen a day. Yeah, that's a pretty dramatic change. Also, the Iraqi people still fear the government, because it is ineffective and things are still run by the American military. I'm not sure how much you would think of your government if you had soldiers breaking into your house any time they like, regardless of what you have done. In this regard, very little has changed. When we have had incidents like Abu Ghraib, Falluja and Haditha going on, and no one within the chain of command losing their head, very little has changed for the Iraqi people.
Quote:
I do not recall where i saw this tid bit.
Let me jog your memory.
Quote:
But apparently the war has saved numerous Iraqi lives.
If you actually believe that, I have a bridge in Minneapolis to sell you.
Quote:
It was estimated more would have died under saddams rule then under the conditions currently existing in the country.
Where did that flawed math come from? The Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institute or the Council on Foreign Relations? The numbers do not support that claim what so ever. Consider that the war is 4 years old and, according to iraqbodycount.net, the numbers of Iraqi dead are at minimum 70,000, that is an astounding 17,500 deaths per year. It was estimated, by Human Rights Watch, that Hussein killed 50,000 from 1992-2003, with a range of 2,000 to 4,000 a year. Anything prior to that (Anfal and the Shia massacres) were not included, as the potential for the removal of Hussein in 1991 was there for ther taking, the United States, and its allies, elected not to do so for reasons of regional stability. What is ironic is that the sanctions placed on Iraq after the Gulf War killed more Iraqis than Hussein did in all the time he was in power. But those numbers no one wants to bring to light either, because it casts our support of our political leaders, and their decisions, in a very bad light.
I really struggle to see how anyone can support this military action. It was illegal from an international law perspective, and it was immoral from pretty well every perspective out there. It has gone worse than anyone could have imagined, and the costs have been to the point where identifying numbers on money spent, money lost, people killed, people displaced, and lives destroyed will be impossible to account. Vietnam will be a spec on the map compared to Iraq. America will be paying for this error in judgement for decades to come.
I really struggle to see how anyone can support this military action. It was illegal from an international law perspective, and it was immoral from pretty well every perspective out there. It has gone worse than anyone could have imagined, and the costs have been to the point where identifying numbers on money spent, money lost, people killed, people displaced, and lives destroyed will be impossible to account. Vietnam will be a spec on the map compared to Iraq. America will be paying for this error in judgement for decades to come.
I think there's a difference between support and understanding though. Is it time to haul out? For sure. Is this an area that will always need special supervision? Likely. They needed it before and they will need it after. Will the US be the ones to pay for it? Absolutely. They likely would have paid for it whether they went in or not...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
I think there's a difference between support and understanding though. Is it time to haul out? For sure. Is this an area that will always need special supervision? Likely. They needed it before and they will need it after. Will the US be the ones to pay for it? Absolutely. They likely would have paid for it whether they went in or not...
I completely disagree with that logic. Since when does one nation have the right to supervise another? Who made the United States the teacher, and everyone else the student? How would Canadians feel if the United States took the same action against them as they did against Iraq? Pissed as hell? Wanting to fight back? Wanting their sovereignty? Wanting Americans to butt the frick out? I know that is the way I would feel. I would feel that way if someone tried that on the United States.
Westerners need to get out of the region and let the Arabs, Persians and Jews find their own way in the region. The only reason we have any interest in that region at all is oil. Without that, we wouldn't be bothered, except to buy really good quality area rugs and dates. If we want their product, pay the going market rate, but leave them to their own devices. That's we demand of them, so we should extend the same courtesy to them as well.
EDIT: Seriously, how can Americans be trusted to "supervise" the region when they do stuff like this.
This would be like the Russins classifying the US Marines, who operate their own air, land, and sea wings, as being a terrorist organization in efforts to exert pressure on Washington and extort support against them.
Last edited by Lanny_MacDonald; 08-15-2007 at 10:38 AM.
I completely disagree with that logic. Since when does one nation have the right to supervise another? Who made the United States the teacher, and everyone else the student? How would Canadians feel if the United States took the same action against them as they did against Iraq? Pissed as hell? Wanting to fight back? Wanting their sovereignty? Wanting Americans to butt the frick out? I know that is the way I would feel. I would feel that way if someone tried that on the United States.
I didn't say the US needed to be the one to supervise them at all. And by supervising, I don't mean micro-managing, I mean just keeping an eye on things. We do it all over the world... do we not pay attention to the goings on in the Koreas?
Quote:
Westerners need to get out of the region and let the Arabs, Persians and Jews find their own way in the region. The only reason we have any interest in that region at all is oil. Without that, we wouldn't be bothered, except to buy really good quality area rugs and dates. If we want their product, pay the going market rate, but leave them to their own devices. That's we demand of them, so we should extend the same courtesy to them as well.
No, that's not the only reason we have an interest in the area, and to be blinded by the money is a foolish error on your part. You're right, without the oil we wouldn't be bothered, but it's not the oil itself that bothers us, it's the money and power that go along with it. You walk out and let the Arabs, Persians and Jews work it out on their own and guess what happens? Someone wins. And when that happens, you have a new superpower, one with a hate on for all things Western. With or without western interferance, they despise our culture, lack of morals, and pretty much everything about us. On top of that you already having spotty human rights records, especially for the rights of females. So you give one nation power, money and hate, and what do you suppose they'll do?
Quote:
EDIT: Seriously, how can Americans be trusted to "supervise" the region when they do stuff like this.
This would be like the Russins classifying the US Marines, who operate their own air, land, and sea wings, as being a terrorist organization in efforts to exert pressure on Washington and extort support against them.
Again, I said nothing about US supervision, just supervision in general, much like the supervision we give to SE Asia.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
With or without western interferance, they despise our culture, lack of morals, and pretty much everything about us.
Who does? The jabbering religious loons, or the hundreds of millions of people that lead normal lives?
As for a "superpower", for the "winner" to become a superpower, a whole whack of them states, Arab or otherwise, are going to have to get it together and co-operate enough to get anywhere near that level. Do you think that's going to happen anytime soon?
Again, I said nothing about US supervision, just supervision in general, much like the supervision we give to SE Asia.
Like two undeclared wars in the last 50 years, where the US still maintains a massive military presense and actively deposed populist heads of state and tribal leaders, while destroying generations of people through unsanctioned murder and biological warfare?
The average Iraqi on the street would whole heartedly disagree with you. Under Hussein the Iraqi people had no fears of going to the market and being killed in an act of random violence. A civil war did not exist under Sadam. Like it or not, he held the country together and got the Iraqis all on the same page. Also, under Hussein the Iraqi people had the infrastructure required to live a modern life. Social services were available under the tyrant, but are not available in the "democracy". Iraq is still the most dangerous spot on the planet right now, and ever independent journalist who has come out of there in the past year says as much. The green zone is marginally under control, the rest of the country is at war.
Zero terrorist attacks to a dozen a day. Yeah, that's a pretty dramatic change. Also, the Iraqi people still fear the government, because it is ineffective and things are still run by the American military. I'm not sure how much you would think of your government if you had soldiers breaking into your house any time they like, regardless of what you have done. In this regard, very little has changed. When we have had incidents like Abu Ghraib, Falluja and Haditha going on, and no one within the chain of command losing their head, very little has changed for the Iraqi people.
Let me jog your memory.
If you actually believe that, I have a bridge in Minneapolis to sell you.
Where did that flawed math come from? The Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institute or the Council on Foreign Relations? The numbers do not support that claim what so ever. Consider that the war is 4 years old and, according to iraqbodycount.net, the numbers of Iraqi dead are at minimum 70,000, that is an astounding 17,500 deaths per year. It was estimated, by Human Rights Watch, that Hussein killed 50,000 from 1992-2003, with a range of 2,000 to 4,000 a year. Anything prior to that (Anfal and the Shia massacres) were not included, as the potential for the removal of Hussein in 1991 was there for ther taking, the United States, and its allies, elected not to do so for reasons of regional stability. What is ironic is that the sanctions placed on Iraq after the Gulf War killed more Iraqis than Hussein did in all the time he was in power. But those numbers no one wants to bring to light either, because it casts our support of our political leaders, and their decisions, in a very bad light.
I really struggle to see how anyone can support this military action. It was illegal from an international law perspective, and it was immoral from pretty well every perspective out there. It has gone worse than anyone could have imagined, and the costs have been to the point where identifying numbers on money spent, money lost, people killed, people displaced, and lives destroyed will be impossible to account. Vietnam will be a spec on the map compared to Iraq. America will be paying for this error in judgement for decades to come.
This statement is a complete lie. The only reason there were so few kurdish death in the period between 1992 and 2003 is because there was a no fly zone in place. The majority of hte Kurdish deaths took place during the Iran/Iraq war where it is estimated that as many as 500k died. Furthermore, in the rebellion in 1991 after the gulf war another 100k died.
I'm always amazed at how people are willing to ignore genocide if it means furthering there own political views. Also please provide links to where you said that sanctions were responsible for more deaths than Saddam Hussein. No sanctions? No war? please suggest an alternative.
Edit: I forgot to talk about the Shias who died in even greater numbers.
This statement is a complete lie. The only reason there were so few kurdish death in the period between 1992 and 2003 is because there was a no fly zone in place. The majority of hte Kurdish deaths took place during the Iran/Iraq war where it is estimated that as many as 500k died. Furthermore, in the rebellion in 1991 after the gulf war another 100k died.
I'm always amazed at how people are willing to ignore genocide if it means furthering there own political views. Also please provide links to where you said that sanctions were responsible for more deaths than Saddam Hussein. No sanctions? No war? please suggest an alternative.
Edit: I forgot to talk about the Shias who died in even greater numbers.
So Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have a political agenda that is helped by not including the Kurds and such? You're going to have to explan what that agenda is, because it appears to be contrary to what their cause is all about.
I agree with your point about the no-fly zone being effective, but why didn't the killing continue in other areas where Hussein had enemies and wanted to cleanse the flock? Whether you wish to agree with them or not, the numbers appear to be accurate, and the organizations providing them indicate what fell out of scope. You brought up agenda, but what about your own? Why not speak of the deaths caused by the embargo of goods entering Iraq over the years, and what of the displacement of people caused by the wars in question?
Who does? The jabbering religious loons, or the hundreds of millions of people that lead normal lives?
As for a "superpower", for the "winner" to become a superpower, a whole whack of them states, Arab or otherwise, are going to have to get it together and co-operate enough to get anywhere near that level. Do you think that's going to happen anytime soon?
I'm not sure if you noticed this, but in a lot of cases the jabbering religious loons are the ones in power. In addition, just like there are Canadians and Americans who would suggest that all middle-easterners are terrorists, the same can be about some middle easterners thinking that all white people are immoral and corrupt. What is a normal life in a country that endorses stoning people to death for holding hands in public?
Soon? Certainly not, and that's the point. When did all this trouble in the middle east start erupting? When money started flowing into the region. Arab nationalists would like to create Pan-Arab state and there are a lot of countries that would do anything to stop that. So they are, and they have been.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
Like two undeclared wars in the last 50 years, where the US still maintains a massive military presense and actively deposed populist heads of state and tribal leaders, while destroying generations of people through unsanctioned murder and biological warfare?
some supervision.
Are you talking about Vietnam and Korea?
A couple points there... first, it takes two to tango. The US wasn't the only country participating in those wars. Second, those proxy wars, while ridiculous in the amount of pain and suffering they placed on the people of those nations, were important in maintaining global stability. One could claim that without them, it's likely we'd still be living in a Cold War. However, that's pure speculation, and cannot be proven one way or the other. In addition, this isn't about those wars, this is about a different one.
But here's a question... why don't you bring up the supervision of the rebuilding of Japan? Or of West Germany? Why do you only bring up the bad things? Not only that, war is not supervision, supervision is how the world is dealing with Kim Il Jong.
And again, I'll reiterate that I did NOT specify US supervision. As a matter of fact, I pointed against such a thing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
So Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have a political agenda that is helped by not including the Kurds and such? You're going to have to explan what that agenda is, because it appears to be contrary to what their cause is all about.
I agree with your point about the no-fly zone being effective, but why didn't the killing continue in other areas where Hussein had enemies and wanted to cleanse the flock? Whether you wish to agree with them or not, the numbers appear to be accurate, and the organizations providing them indicate what fell out of scope. You brought up agenda, but what about your own? Why not speak of the deaths caused by the embargo of goods entering Iraq over the years, and what of the displacement of people caused by the wars in question?
The no fly zones in the south and north stopped the chemical attacks responsible for the large part fo the civilian deaths. I never said the numbers weren't accurate, I said the time periods they chose to take samples from were misleading. For the record, YES those organizations do have an agenda. ITs more the people who selectively take information from those organizations who are the bigger worry howerver.
Why didnt it continue in other areas? how do you know it didnt? There was no freedom of media in those areas whatsoever.
As for displacement. Its not a novel concept in Iraq.
I'm not sure if you noticed this, but in a lot of cases the jabbering religious loons are the ones in power. In addition, just like there are Canadians and Americans who would suggest that all middle-easterners are terrorists, the same can be about some middle easterners thinking that all white people are immoral and corrupt. What is a normal life in a country that endorses stoning people to death for holding hands in public?
Geez, I hadn't noticed. Thanks for clarifying.
And I'm sure you noticed that when you are talking about religious loons, you are talking about, err, religioius loons. The loons in one country hate the loons in the other country and will kill all the other people who don't follow their loony religion.
There are loons in every country in the region, willing to kill and be killed for whatever old religious differences they have. If the Americans cease "supervising" (which they've done such a hell of a job of) they aren't going to cooperate. If they do "work it out on their own" without supervision, the 50 or 60 people left over will have a hell of a long way to go to achieve superpower status.
It's an imaginative excuse though. Better than some of the others I've heard for advocating this kind of "supervision".
And I'm sure you noticed that when you are talking about religious loons, you are talking about, err, religioius loons. The loons in one country hate the loons in the other country and will kill all the other people who don't follow their loony religion.
There are loons in every country in the region, willing to kill and be killed for whatever old religious differences they have. If the Americans cease "supervising" (which they've done such a hell of a job of) they aren't going to cooperate. If they do "work it out on their own" without supervision, the 50 or 60 people left over will have a hell of a long way to go to achieve superpower status.
It's an imaginative excuse though. Better than some of the others I've heard for advocating this kind of "supervision".
I'm not sure if you knew this, but the Europeans worked it out on their own too. As a matter of fact, the rise of every great power in history was done as a result of a lot of blood. They'd work it out on their own, all right. That's where it was heading when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Who in the area has the resources to sustain the status of a power if left alone? Which states in the area have would have the ability to fund a large military?
and AGAIN, I'm not suggesting that it be the US that supervises necessarily. DO YOU READ ME THIS TIME?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
I'm not sure if you knew this, but the Europeans worked it out on their own too. As a matter of fact, the rise of every great power in history was done as a result of a lot of blood. They'd work it out on their own, all right. That's where it was heading when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Who in the area has the resources to sustain the status of a power if left alone? Which states in the area have would have the ability to fund a large military?
Iraq invaded Kuwait because of kuwaiti slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and only after Iraq was told that the united states would not interfere in the internal conflicts of the middle east. Saddam was hardly out to form some pan-arabic/islamic empire.
Iraq invaded Kuwait because of kuwaiti slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and only after Iraq was told that the united states would not interfere in the internal conflicts of the middle east. Saddam was hardly out to form some pan-arabic/islamic empire.
Nope, he was protecting his assets. Can't really blame him for that. IIRC, there were also previous issues between the two countries that may have also played a factor.
If it was just the drilling then, why not stop the invasion when kuwait stops drilling? Why continue on?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
I'm not sure if you knew this, but the Europeans worked it out on their own too. As a matter of fact, the rise of every great power in history was done as a result of a lot of blood. They'd work it out on their own, all right. That's where it was heading when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Who in the area has the resources to sustain the status of a power if left alone? Which states in the area have would have the ability to fund a large military?
and AGAIN, I'm not suggesting that it be the US that supervises necessarily. DO YOU READ ME THIS TIME?
Oh I see. Sorry for being so dim. The current policies are in place so we can avoid a Middle Eastern superpower emerging in the year 2500. Fair enough.
If my numbers are off, do please give me a history lesson. How long exactly did it take for the Europeans to settle their religious differences? And did they have to do it after Europe was wiped out by a nuclear confrontation? The Pan-Arab superstate you are afraid of will have to start there, so it'll take a while.
