Bush Takes Responsibility

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
So what does that response have to do with my post?

It doesn't. I am just skillfully evading a pointless post.

[Kropotkin]

Maybe you shouldn't quote another post then. That usually implies that your post has something to do with the text that is being quoted.

[Berzerker]

If you are against the war, which liberated the Iraqi people, you are against democracy and human rights.

Hey Fez, do you want to launch invasions of China, Cuba and N Korea? If not, then are you against "democracy" and human rights?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Hey Fez, do you want to launch invasions of China, Cuba and N Korea? If not, then are you against "democracy" and human rights?

I never said anything about being against invasions of the Chinese, the Cubans and N Korea. But since the North Koreans seem to be coming to diplomacy instead, and the Chinese are too damn large to invade.. I would not advocate invading them. The Cubans.. who wants to waste their time on Fidel? He will die soon enough.

[Spiffor]

Don't worry everyone, Bush hasn't lied. There are WMDs in Iraq. At least, there will be during the presidential campaign. Some WMDs will be miraculously found at the right time for the conservatives hating Bush to change their mind (it seems quite a few conservatives didn't enjoy being lied to by their oh-so-honest prez).

My scenario is that the admin will find real weapons of Saddam (they are probably already found), which aren't a threat to the world stability in any way. And the admin will spin that these insignificant weapons could have destroyed NY in a matter of seconds if they were in the hands of terrorists

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Fez


I never said anything about being against invasions of the Chinese, the Cubans and N Korea. But since the North Koreans seem to be coming to diplomacy instead

But those diplomatic Talks don´t make North Korea a Democracy and don´t prevent the North Korean people from being oppressed bey their leader,
so, according to your reasoning, by arguing against invading Noth Korea you seem to be de facto against Democracy and Human Rights

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


But those diplomatic Talks don´t make North Korea a Democracy and don´t prevent the North Korean people from being oppressed bey their leader,
so, according to your reasoning, you seem to be de facto against Democracy and Human Rights

Nope. But what I propose is dealing with these regimes and make it impossible to strike when their collapse comes out of an act of desperation. Face it, North Korea is facing internal collapse. I think what is happening to the North Korean people is a tragedy.. and I am angered at the treatment the North Korean Government gives its people. I don't want a war in this region, as millions could die...

I am the one for democracy and human rights. A leftist like you is not.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Fez


Nope. But what I propose is dealing with these regimes and make it impossible to strike when their collapse comes out of an act of desperation. Face it, North Korea is facing internal collapse. I think what is happening to the North Korean people is a tragedy.. and I am angered at the treatment the North Korean Government gives its people. I don't want a war in this region, as millions could die...

I am the one for democracy and human rights. A leftist like you is not.

So why you couldn´t wait till the Iraq Regime collapsed.
There was Resistance against Saddam especially from the Shiites and the Kurds, which are a majority of the iraqi Population.
By continuing the Weapon Controls and at the same time secretly Supporting the Resistance you could have made the Regime collapse from inside, instead of invading Iraq

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


So why you couldn´t wait till the Iraq Regime collapsed.

Because Saddam was weak.

There was Resistance against Saddam especially from the Shiites and the Kurds, which are a majority of the iraqi Population.

They only ran a coup about six times. Guess what happened? 50,000 ended up dead last time. Saddam won. He is a survivalist and knew what kind of measures to scare people.

By continuing the Weapon Controls and at the same time secretly Supporting the Resistance you could have made the Regime collapse from inside, instead of invading Iraq

Weapon controls are a big joke like the UN. And since Saddam is a survivalist, and knows how to survive in dealing with internal elements, your ideas will fail. The only thing that could be done was taking him out by force.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Fez


Because Saddam was weak.

Now, that´s another argument, why you just have to wait some time till the Regime collapses from within.

Originally posted by Fez
They only ran a coup about six times. Guess what happened? 50,000 ended up dead last time. Saddam won. He is a survivalist and knew what kind of measures to scare people.

If you think of the Uprising where the USA promised to support the Resistance but then not only did nothing, but allowed Saddams Divisions to quell the Resistance and murder thousands of people than you are right, it was a failure for them to trust the USA this time.

Originally posted by Fez
Weapon controls are a big joke like the UN. And since Saddam is a survivalist, and knows how to survive in dealing with internal elements, your ideas will fail. The only thing that could be done was taking him out by force.

I think there we differ a lot.
After all I don´t think the Weapon Controls failed, but found nothing because there was nothing to find.
As for the internal Resistance, maybe if at least half of the the 80 Billion Dollars which funded the war had been given to the Iraqi Resistance during the last 10 years, Saddam would have been History long ago

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Now, that´s another argument, why you just have to wait some time till the Regime collapses from within.

NO! That is not acceptable.

If you think of the Uprising where the USA promised to support the Resistance but then not only did nothing, but allowed Saddams Divisions to quell the Resistance and murder thousands of people than you are right, it was a failure for them to trust the USA this time.

The uprising failed because of logistics. People didn't know what happened to Saddam, they thought the resistence could topple him. It was unfortunate.

I think there we differ a lot.
After all I don´t think the Weapon Controls failed, but found nothing because there was nothing to find.

Wrongo. There were lots of things that Saddam was hiding. That is so wrong to say there were nothing to find.

As for the internal Resistance, maybe if at least half of the the 80 Billion Dollars which funded the war had been given to the Iraqi Resistance during the last 10 years, Saddam would have been History long ago

Saddam is a survivalist. He will kill anybody to succeed.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Fez

Saddam is a survivalist. He will kill anybody to succeed.

He will try to kill anybody he suspects of betraying him, of course, one thing which has let him survive many attempts to take his life

But the queston is if he is able to kill those. With maybe 40 - 50 Billions Dollars worth of modern american weapons you can wreak a lot of havoc upon an army which is equipped with outdated Russina Tanks which btw. for large parts weren´t operable because of Lack of Spare Parts

[Victor Galis]

Yes they have. If a Islamist wins, we will just have to go the Tunisian route. A secular state, but where rights are respected of everybody except islamist fundamentalists. At least the country is developed.

Do you honestly believe that? I think Bush just wants a puppet government that can keep the oil pumping. If the Iraqi people are willing to elect such a government, good, otherwise...

I think Saddam didn't want the whole world to turn against him. And liberals like you to turn against him.

What a fat load of good that's doing him, eh?

So why are you against the war? Hey you are right. Saddam did have an election. Everybody had to vote yes or their families would die. Some democracy... based on your own ideas.

You are replacing "democracy" with "democracy." I don't see the benefit.

The Cubans.. who wants to waste their time on Fidel? He will die soon enough.

Reminds me of this political cartoon I once saw. It had one panel per president showing:

JFK: Fidel...
LBJ: ...Castro...
Nixon: ...will...
Ford: ...fall...
Carter: ...any...
Reagan: ...day...
Bush sr.: ... now.

Because Saddam was weak.

They only ran a coup about six times. Guess what happened? 50,000 ended up dead last time. Saddam won. He is a survivalist and knew what kind of measures to scare people.

I guess you answered yourself on that one.

He will try to kill anybody he suspects of betraying him, of course, one thing which has let him survive many attempts to take his life

Well, he didn't kill the traitor this time around and the Americans bought Baghdad. Ever wonder why the final push into the "Red Zone" that the media was talking about like it would be hard took less than the fighting in the south and middle of the country?

[Spiffor]

Victor Galis:
As much as I oppose the war in Iraq, and as much as I oppose Fez in general, I think he's less wrong than you on this one.

The Americans will try to have a tame government in Iraq, that is favourable to their interests as well as not hated by the population. Depending on whether the Iraqis accept an American puppet or not, the Iraq will be more or less democratic, in the meaning that its population will be more or less involved with its leadership.

However, The Yanks will not prop up a government that is nearly as bloody and megalomaniacal as Saddam's. Saddam wasn't a mere authoritarian leader à la Ben Ali, Bashar el Assad or others. He was a murderer who didn't hesitate to kill hundreds or thousands to make sure he'll stay personally on the throne. He was one of the most despotic current leaders.
The Yanks will most likely prop up a regime where individual politicians aren't too strong, and where individual rights are guaranteed to some extent; if only to avoid armed resistance from other groups than Saddam loyalists.

Edit : besides, I don't think a few well-placed bucks could have turned the whole Baghdad army to drop its weapons. I suppose Baghdad fell easily because many Iraqi troops were actually killed on the way there, and because the remaining Iraqi troops were discouraged and massively left in hiding rather than fight.