[Kosh]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4718999.stm


Only this time it isn't the occupiers. It's the police. Didn't the US invade to keep that sort of thing from happening?

[Rictor]

I see the "Salvador Option" is working out quite nicely. I keep saying, they should put Saddam back in power - he was a no-bullshit dictator and knew how to keep the various factions in check. Might as well have the genuine article, instead of these wannabes.

[Bobboau]

now why is it that this is all of the suden interesting and news worthy, when two years ago, no one would have dared even hinting that Sadam was doing this ****^2?

we're on our way out. it's them doing it, not us. whatever...

[achtung]

This is all they know to do to people you know, sadly enough it's there "way of life"

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
now why is it that this is all of the suden interesting and news worthy, when two years ago, no one would have dared even hinting that Sadam was doing this ****^2?

we're on our way out. it's them doing it, not us. whatever...

When you invade under the pretence of liberating a country from tyranny* (and in particular torture of suspects), it's usually a good idea to make sure the people who take over aren't doing exactly the same thing as the last lot.

And the other thing is that mentioning it would highlight that a lot of key allies (to both the US and UK) aren't exactly unwilling to torture people (Saudi Arabia, for example - the shoving of a chili pepper smeared stick up the arse is one of their favourites).  In fact, that's why we send suspects there (although while oddly they can't be deported to a country where they face torture under law, the governments of the US and UK have no objection to sending suspects for 'interrogation' to them).

* The terrorism and WMD pretences having, of course, been completely disproven

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Bobboau
we're on our way out. it's them doing it, not us. whatever...

If we went in to stop Saddam doing it and the people we've put in place are also doing it don't we logically have to remove them too?

Otherwise all we've done is replace one dictator with another and wasted a lot of British and American lives for no net gain.

[Kosh]

Not to mention a lot of taxpayer money.

[aldo_14]

Yeah, but otherwise that'd only be wasted on stuff like social equality, healthcare or international aid to save millions of lives in poor but very far away countries.

[Bobboau]

well then, who would we replace these people with, haven't we just proven that it's imposable to fix the problem, isn't it logical to just get out before you double your losses?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
well then, who would we replace these people with, haven't we just proven that it's imposable to fix the problem, isn't it logical to just get out before you double your losses?

Surely you're not suggesting the best course of action when dealing with dictators is to go in, destroy the country (infrastructure, institutions, people), let some new bunch of nutcases take over (or just leave it to anarchy), and then run away from your responsibility for it?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Bobboau
well then, who would we replace these people with, haven't we just proven that it's imposable to fix the problem, isn't it logical to just get out before you double your losses?

Thing is that everyone said it was impossible before you went in and yet you did it anyway. Now it's your responsibility to clean it up. Saddam might have been an evil f**k but now you've replaced him with a different bunch of evil f**ks and screwed up the countries infastructure too.

At the very least you have to stay in the country until the power, water and other infastructure works the way it did under Saddam again.

[Bobboau]

rebuild what we blew up sure, we broke it we buy it.

and were in this thread have I implied that what we have done is the best course of action? it's quite clear that we should not have gone in there in the first place. as far as I'm concerned we need to fix as much as we can, and get out. we should try to at least leave it in no worse a shape than it was three years ago.

[aldo_14]

You can't rebuild peoples lives as easily, though.

[karajorma]

That's fair enough then but it does prove that the final reason we went into Iraq has been proved to be a load of crap.

1) WMD : Saddam didn't have any and Hans Blix repeatedly said so.

2) Terrorism : There wasn't any in Iraq (let alone any linked to 9/11) because Saddam didn't want fundementalists messing with his power base. Now there is lots and Iraq has become a training ground for fundementalists.

3) Freedom and Liberty : The final excuse. Now proved to be a load of crap cause the current government are doing the same thing as Saddam used to (and they've only just started. Repressive governments tend to get worse the longer they are in power not better).

So basically the war in Iraq has achieved nothing good at all. It's achieved none of its stated goals (Although the unstated one of making Bush's friends even richer seems to be right on track). On the other hand it's resulted in the death of at least 25,000 Iraqis, and hundreds of British and American soldiers. It has diverted attention from Afghanistan and left Al-Qaeda almost completely free to rebuild after the invasion.

The only good thing the invasion of Iraq has done is conclusively prove that when it comes to the war on terror the Republican party couldn't find its arse with both hands.

Please remember that when the republicans start claiming that they've done a good job fighting terrorism in 2008 cause your country was stupid enough to fall for it last year.

[Mefustae]

[Maudlin]Personally, i think Iraq is better off now than it ever was, i mean, who needs a Repressive yet Stable government & country, when you can have a Repressive and Unstable government & country, and a hostile occupation at the same time! It's win/win![/Maudlin]

Originally posted by karajorma
Please remember that when the republicans start claiming that they've done a good job fighting terrorism in 2008 cause your country was stupid enough to fall for it last year.

$20 says that the American Public will be told by said Republican Party that they did indeed "win" (and i use the term very loosely) the War on Terror, the American populous will believe it like the cattle they've proven to be in the past few years, and before you can say 'rigged', the Republican Party will be back in office for another Four great years...

[Kosh]

2) Terrorism : There wasn't any in Iraq (let alone any linked to 9/11) because Saddam didn't want fundementalists messing with his power base. Now there is lots and Iraq has become a training ground for fundementalists.

I recall hearing something somewhere that Osama Bin Laden was thanking the Bush Administration for invading Iraq.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kosh


I recall hearing something somewhere that Osama Bin Laden was thanking the Bush Administration for invading Iraq.

I remember a story by a kidnapped journalist (later released) in Iraq; during the elections his kidnappers supported Bush - because he'd bring more conflict, and more support for the terrorists & Iraqi insurgency.

[karajorma]

Just goes to show that terrorists are misguided rather than stupid if they could see it but the American electorate couldn't.

[Kosh]

The american electorate is misguided AND stupid.