[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
If the war in Iraq had led to a stable, democratic and prosperous nation - a 'beacon' to the middle east  - I would have been prepared to accept it (because Saddams human rights abuse was a key factor in the justification of it, at least over here).   Because my issue with the Iraq war was always that "fighting the peace" would only lead to trouble.  And it has.

Agree with you there again Aldo.

The simple fact is that I had no problem with the invasion of Iraq and the removal of of Saddam as ruler. Neither did I have a problem with the Americans and their followers setting up a government of their choosing to rule in the interim.

My problems were with the ability of Bush and Blair to do that without f**king it up. And I've been proved correct. They couldn't do it. they went in kicked out Saddam and then it was like they turned to each other and said "What now?"

No one seemed to have any idea what to do once Saddam was toppled. As a result the peace was dreadfully mismanaged and resulted in the mess we have now.

Here's a question for you Rictor. Had the invasion of Iraq resulted in a stable democratic Iraq rather than the current mess would you have agreed that it was worth doing?

[Flipside]

You see, I will say this for America on the WMD front, at least they aren't leaping up and blowing raspberry whenever they find some, maybe because they did that a few times during the war and looked a bit silly afterwards

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040702/wl_nm/iraq_poland_weapons_dc

Certainly not enough to warrant warfare, and the 2 sides can't even agree on how many shells contained them, but at least America were honest enough to say they weren't much of a threat, so 1 point to them there

Not exactly a smoking gun though

[vyper]

See this is why al-Queda is winning, as are the right-wing nuts in our own countries who detest freedom for the masses.

We're all busy fighting each other over our opinion of Bush or his policies, rather than opening our eyes and seeing it's deeper than one man.

[Flipside]

It's swings and roundabouts, we spend years doing exactly the same to the various groups in the Middle East

Edit : Besides, if we couldn't debate and express our doubts, concerns or even mistrusts of leaders, then we would probably be oppressed and need UN help

[Rictor]

Originally posted by karajorma
Here's a question for you Rictor. Had the invasion of Iraq resulted in a stable democratic Iraq rather than the current mess would you have agreed that it was worth doing?

I'm sort of torn here, and I will be the first to admit that I don't have a 100% opinion either way.

One one hand, Saddam was trult a tyrant. The Iraqi people are better off with him, no doubt, and also they wnated him gone, again no doubt. Now, assuming that, as you said, it had all worked out great and Iraq was stable and free (not what is now being called sovereignty), then I would feel much  better about thw whole thing,

But...

If you open the door for invasion and regime change, even if only to remove a tyrant, that door is open nevertheless and its staying that way. If you allow one country to invade another country and change its governement, for whatever reason, you bring into question the whole concept of sovereignty.

The first time, its to remove a tyrant. The second time, its to remove an unfriendly governement, even though they've broken to laws. The third time, you can't even produce a reason, beside "their governemtn didn't do as they were told".

The fact is, and I think you will all agree, that the US government, whether its this one or the next, can't be trusted to not abuse the concept of humanitarian intervention. Because of that, I would rather have no intervention at all, than to legitimize regime change for whatever reason.

Its very dangerous if people start thinking that thats the natural way of things, the US doing whatever they want, overthrowing governments left and right to further its intersts. People need to know that its wrong. With that in mind, I'm sort of leaning towards the "no foreign intervention at all, let them work it out themselves" crowd.

But, as I said, I'm far from decided on the matter.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Peace in Iraq is going to take a long time, you know. It's a long-term commitment and Bush saw that when he started it. That is why he said he would keep it up and not back out if he was president again. If someone is commited to finishing the job they started then I think they have balls.

The people who said that "Hitler didnt personally kill Jews." You are just a friggin idiot. Comparing accidents in mis-guided bombings, or civilians getting in the way, is not the same thing. Hitler hated the Jews and so he PURPOUSFULLY commited Genocide. 10,000 civilians dying in the line-of-fire is NOT ANYTHING close to full murder. Hitler had an intent to kill. He KNEW that all those people who would be extinguished and he liked it. 10,000 civilians dying in the line of fire does NOT match up to that scenario.

And at the moment, we have only lost a fraction of our forces in Iraq. Even if half of them were taken out tomorrow, we would send it another half to make up for it. We dont over-excess our troops, we just keep them up to standards.

Just because our military is the strongest in the world DOESNT mean you wont be nervous when sending them off to battle. A marine could only take a maximum of a few machine gun rounds. A gun is worthless in the hands of a dead man. Everyone is still human. One easy gunshot to the right spot will bring him down just as easily as if it was a terrorist.

So, your basic premise is that people who die accidentally are worth less than thos killed on purpose. Thats just stupid. Again, we have the double standard. Whatever your side does in less bad than what the other guys do.

Also, as I said, nopt much effort was put into protecting civilians. Bomb a school becuase there is a 10% chance that soldiers are in it. Fire of a few extra missles into that residential area, just to make sure you got them all. Its trigger happy 20 year old, what do you expect?

And I don't doubt that a number of soldiers, hell, just pop off a few rounds into a crowd, no one will hold them accountable. They came to kill some ragheads, and doing repairs on Humvees all day long, they're itching for some action. So, when those protestors get a little angry, take a few down, after all thats what they came there for. No one will know, or more specifically no one will care.

So what if those people approaching the checkpoint are civilians, we can just as easily say that they didn't stop and we had to take them down to protect ourselves. Those mother****ers crashed two planes into the World Trade Centers, and you want us to take it easy on them?

[.::Tin Can::.]

Rictor, your comparison of a genocide and military line-of-fire deaths are clearly amature and idiotic.

This runs up at about the same scenario as a cop accidently shooting his partner when he ran out in front of him, and comparing that death to a criminal capping a civilian right in front of him. Again, lets look at this:

Accident... Intentional Murder... neither life was more worthless than the other, but the reason for which they were killed are complete different. Bush doesnt want the people hes trying to liberate dead. Hitler wanted the Jews dead. Neither death was more important or less than each other, but the reason they died cannot be compared. This goes to show weak thinking on your part. I expected more of an argument out of you.

Another thing: Unless you ARE one of those people, then you have no idea if they have a thirst for blood. Have you been up to every soldier, watched him just randomly fire at civilians? I get the feeling you might have seen this happen once or twice, but generalizing an entire military and saying all of them just need to go out and kill something is a worthless argument not even worth discussing.

[Lonestar]

Iraq was a Sovereign Nation under U.N. Rule not U.S. and bound by International Laws, not U.S. laws, meaning U.S. doesnt make the choices unilaterally.

the U.S. did choose unilaterally to attack iraq, how different is that then iraq unilaterally attacking Kuwait? It isnt different at all, not one bit!

So U.S. is as bad as Saddam was, the only difference is the U.S. has the military power to go through with its threats and Iraq obviously didnt.

Who is worse? The U.S. is worse cause they invade soveriegn nations who dont have any real weapons that are worth worrying over. It turns out this war for iraq was a war for oil, and again its the U.S. that instagated it. Therefore U.S. is the AXIS OF EVIL IMO.

Its so in your face obvious. U.S. reminds me of what the Germans did in WW2 days. U.S. is pulling the same ****, and getting away with it, before we know it all Arabs will be wearing a yellow star on their sleaves.......(sound familiar)

We are doomed to repeat our history again, and thanks to the U.S. we are making the same mistake made 60 years ago, heck the Patriot act is active isnt it? Stupid peoples and their stupid governments. Its my wish one day people will actually question their governments for a change and look for truth rather then defend a bunch of idealist you dont know.

[.::Tin Can::.]

I think it's time for you to take your medicine sony!

[Flipside]

The sad fact is that, in a way, he is right.

When a government is elected, it is immediately elevated to a level of non-accountability, they suddenly have the right to keep information from the very people that not only elected them, but often paid for them to do whatever they are hiding.

It's our money that pays for everything a Government does, our labour, our sweat, and for that, we get told what we want. If Bush had given the option of spending hundreds of millions on Eductaion on Hundreds of millions of 'freeing' people in a country you had hardly ever heard of, I think I know what the American public would choose, and quite rightly too!

But no, Governments would rather lie and manipulate than guide and inform, it gets things done faster, and although individuals cannot seem to be blamed for their actions, when that individual loses popularity, the party suddenly seems to think it's ok to do so and claim 'the rest of us aren't like that!'.

We need to open our eyes, seriously, and realise that the divide between 'Leaders and Peasants' is returning and escalating, Britain is practically a two-class nation now And the Leaders seems to think the only reason for Peasants to exist is to service them.

[jdjtcagle]

He is right, but real patroitism... ish...  is having the balls to say your country is wrong.  Which, sadly enough... is.

[aldo_14]

The worst thing is, that governments win elections not on the strength of their record, but by criticising the opposition - and vice versa.  It's become a slagging match, where neither side is willing to form a policy thta the other would support, regardless of how beneficial.  There more interested in knocking the other side than actually seeking a solution.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Remember back when getting elected was to see what you could do for the people, and not just a competition?

[Flipside]

I'd dearly love to see those days return myself TC but the wound is getting deeper, not healing

Remember, to be American is to believe in America NOT neccessarily it's government. Governments are not their countries, they should represent the wishes of it's constituents, the words Public Servant have a meaning. Patriotism does not need to be faith in what your country is, but faith in what it can become. America, more than any nation in the world before it, has the power to create what mankind has dreamed of, and I can think of many countries that I would be far more uncomfortable with wielding that much power, my own included.

When the constitution was laid out, there were several 'safety valves' put in by some very wise forefathers of yours, those valves must be used, before the current establishment removes them all. Your country is being run by people who don't even believe in their own peoples' freedom at the moment, how can they make statements on anyone elses?

[Mr. Vega]

Remember back when getting elected was to see what you could do for the people, and not just a competition?

Was it ever really like that?

[Flipside]

About 50-60 years ago, yes. In the UK many people from lowly station rose to prominence in the Labour Party, and Britain prospered for the diversity of opinion. Back in the 15th Century it was pretty much as it is now, with 2 classes, constant religious and conquest wars etc draining money from the working class etc. Says a lot if you think about it

Edit : I'm not saying some of those politicians weren't as corrupt as hell, but then, there were other politicians who had no qualms about saying so, and providing evidence. It's not perfect, because people see the government as something to help them avoid responsibility, but it was better than many other options.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Maybe you guys should go into American politics and become the prez.

[Flipside]

LOL Tempting But it's not just the person, it's not just even the cabinet, it's the whole establishment, it all needs rebuilding and reprioritising. It needs a way for people to force the Government to take actions other than the threat of non re-election, because the people who actually make those policies never leave the office regardless of who is president.
I'm not talking Men in Black here, I'm talking about the lawmakers, the industrialists, the religions, the generals and the diplomats. They are the wheels that America travels on.

Basically, great principle, great idea, but it's too easy to get comfy in power

[karajorma]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Maybe you guys should go into American politics and become the prez.

Can't. You have to be American born to become president.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


Can't. You have to be American born to become president.

Not to mention needing a spare $50m to campaign......