Finally the reason for the war on Iraq

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


-Welcome to the world of irrational people. Besides the Americans won't suppress a revolt as well as Saddam's regime.

We reamed their county in barely a month, and we've destroyed their heavy weapons. We own the ****ing place. What's to rebel with, for or against?

Really depends on how things go. Right now, things are worse than under Saddam. Hopefully the situation will improve quickly, but if this lasts...

Some infrastructure issues are worse, some employment issues are worse, but there's a whole legion of things (arbitrary arrest, extortion, systematic human rights violations, plundering of the economy to build palaces, withholding of available humanitarian supplies, etc.) that are better.

[Kramerman]

God what is it about America and attractive female politicians???

denmark is where its at.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
God! When will you people let that go! If Gore had been competent enough to win his home state Florida wouldn't have mattered in the least.

Amen to that...

Bush is definately not my favorite president, but is much better than Gore, IMHO. And I even consider myself more of a democrat than a republican too

Ill say it again, The USA was between a rock and a hard place with that election. We had to pick our poison, and i believe we made the better choice.

[Victor Galis]

Socialists are Socialists, no matter the adjectives attached.

-And people wonder why the rest of the world views America as ignorant.

We reamed their county in barely a month, and we've destroyed their heavy weapons. We own the ****ing place. What's to rebel with, for or against?

-You've crushed the Iraqi army more or less, but there is still the populace. It could get really ugly if they decided to rise up.

Some infrastructure issues are worse, some employment issues are worse, but there's a whole legion of things (arbitrary arrest, extortion, systematic human rights violations, plundering of the economy to build palaces, withholding of available humanitarian supplies, etc.) that are better.

-Not yet. Anarchy still reigns. It's not as bad as in the first few days, but it's quite obvious from news reports that Iraq still lacks a functional government. If you think that's better than having a repressive government, you haven't considered the implications thereof.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Menlas




Then, US army should already have invaded half of African countries...

Not being able to counter 50 dictators at once is not an excuse for failing to attempt to remove one of them.

[Victor Galis]

Not being able to counter 50 dictators at once is not an excuse for failing to attempt to remove one of them.

-Doesn't it strike you as slightly odd, that the one that they chose to counter was the leader of a country with large oil reserves? Now a former Shell executive is running the Iraqi oil industry

[Victor Galis]

Another article on the causes of the Iraq war:

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/10158_wolfowitz.html

The headline and picture to go with it are classic The article itself is a lot more tame than those.

[Q Classic]

isn't shell danish in origin?

thoes damned danes, i don't think they supported our war. they're against us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111

[Imran Siddiqui]

Doesn't it strike you as slightly odd, that the one that they chose to counter was the leader of a country with large oil reserves?

It isn't like those ones in Africa can be considered Middle East... and the one that can (Egypt) is fairly moderate and on good terms with Israel. And like Syria would have been an easier choice?

[Q Classic]

syria would've been much harder, and probably even more difficult to organize a coalition against.

even with all of this, i do think bush could have handled this situation a helluva lot better than he did.

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Socialists are Socialists, no matter the adjectives attached.

It's this kind of black and white thinking that is causing us problems in America.

[Whaleboy]

" Which is the most ridiculous statement you've made so far. 30 years of rape, torture, and murder is tolerable. A short term American occupation is not"

Try telling that to an Iraqi. As irrational as it may seem to you and me, it is a different culture, but an equally valid subjective to ours.

"Before the war, a majority of Iraqis probably did not have weapons. They got them after the fall, from former military bases/ weapons caches"

On the contrary, Iraqi civilians have had ready access to heavy guns for years! My friends father and uncle had assault rifles, handguns, revolvers, shotgun, WW2 rifle etc, long before the war (my friends Tariq and Muhammed came to Britain in 2001).

" That depends on our performance in rebuilding the country"

Not really, they hate you . They will not be grateful, Iraqi history, as undoubtably Western history, will judge this war to be a mistake, most Arabs have that sentiment, its as good as done. Even if the Americans successfully rebuild purely Iraq in the image that Iraqis want, with a fully autonomous independent-of-the-US government (an eventuality I doubt will occur), it will take decades to build some degree of trust. If the above situation, plus a fully viable Palestinian state at peace with Israel, and no unequal Israeli funding by USA doesnt occur, a prospect I fear is more likely, then dont expect the Arabs to stop burning the US flag anytime soon.

"Besides the Americans won't suppress a revolt as well as Saddam's regime"

I was not saying that, I was saying that Saddams forces couldnt effectively suppress a civilian revolt. The Iraqi people were and are armed, they know it, they must have surely had an incline to the state of the Iraqi armed forces, plus had an idea of the American build up to an invasion. If the Iraqi people truly wanted rid of Saddam, they would have done so in February/March this year.

"Compared to regular administrations? It isn't much more than Clinton's, I can tell you that. It would only figure that people in an administration would have corporate links. You aren't exactly pulling homeless people off the streets to work as your Cabinet members"

So strong corporate links then? Stronger (albeit slightly, the dems and reps are so similiar it hardly makes a difference, the USA is practically a one party state, almost in a state of corporate communism), than the previous regime?

"Socialists are Socialists, no matter the adjectives attached"

On the contrary it is a sliding scale. Policalcompass.org (or is it .net?) is a good indication of this. I am a libertarian socialist, which is a completely different kettle of fish to an authoritarian socialist, or a Stalinist.

There are more similarities between the current USA system and Stalinist socialism/communism, than my point of view as Stalinism.

That is why one shuold avoid using the fallacy of "left and right", and the further fallacy of assuming that people that are on the "left" are the same. One does not assume that conservativism (centre right) is the same as nazism (far right)!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think it is 'white and black' to say that Social Democrats are basically socialist. Social Democracy was created as a strand of socialism. To say otherwise is ignoring fact.

[Whaleboy]

"Not being able to counter 50 dictators at once is not an excuse for failing to attempt to remove one of them."

Is forcibly removing dictators wise or justifiable, with simply the justification we use for having better systems? Our justification, our system, is entirely subjective in this context, we have no right to go around forcing it on others, who have equally valid subjectives. God how many times have I used that phrase!!!

[Sava]

I don't think it is 'white and black' to say that Social Democrats are basically socialist. Social Democracy was created as a strand of socialism. To say otherwise is ignoring fact.

But to equate Social Democrats to hardline Soviet Stalinists is just plain stupid.