Saddam Hussein Hanged

[Eki]

Try negotiating with a man like that.
They didn't even try properly. Who want's to negotiate if you only have the option of losing. First they didn't care what Saddam was like as long as he was useful to them (1980s). When he wasn't no longer useful, they tried to make Iraq miserable by sanctions and started to make demands. What was there for Saddam? The USA doesn't mind doing business with some other oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan, why can't they try to have friendly and mutually beneficial relationships with countries like Cuba, Iran and Syria?

Besides, I'm positive that if the world tried to make Bush give up his WMDs and power, he'd be just as reluctant and stubborn as Saddam. Bush doesn't seem the easiest guy to negotiate with either.

[agwiii]

Mark, you are fantastic. Finally I can come onto the board and read some sense about politics. Keep posting, because your explanations are like a breath of fresh air, and maybe, if you keep posting, people like Eki, who seem to have no understanding at all of the way the world works, will learn something.

What you say about diplomacy is, sadly, true. It only works when both sides want to reach a compromise.

As far as Saddam is concerned, maybe this little fact, Eki, will open your eyes to what the man was like. At the first meeting of the Baath party after Saddam had declared himself the leader, a few of the senior party members present suggested that it might be a good idea for the party to hold an election for the leadership, rather than simply announcing Saddam's accession to the post. It would give legitimacy to the leader's position, they argued. Saddam listened to the discussion for a short time, long enough to see who thought a leadership election was a good idea, and then ordered those people to be taken out of the room, taken to a room close by, tortured so that the rest of the people could hear their screams, and then killed. They were dead within hours of having suggested the leadership election.

Try negotiating with a man like that.

:up:

[agwiii]

People are dying in hunger in Africa and in North Korea. There are civil wars in Africa, the situation in Darfur is unbearable. Why isn't US there?

Hum. So you want the United States to continue as the policeman of the world, and then you want to play Monday morning quarterback. Get real. BTW, what is the Finland doing to stop dictators and terrorists?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark, you are fantastic. Finally I can come onto the board and read some sense about politics. Keep posting, because your explanations are like a breath of fresh air, and maybe, if you keep posting, people like Eki, who seem to have no understanding at all of the way the world works, will learn something.

What you say about diplomacy is, sadly, true. It only works when both sides want to reach a compromise.

As far as Saddam is concerned, maybe this little fact, Eki, will open your eyes to what the man was like. At the first meeting of the Baath party after Saddam had declared himself the leader, a few of the senior party members present suggested that it might be a good idea for the party to hold an election for the leadership, rather than simply announcing Saddam's accession to the post. It would give legitimacy to the leader's position, they argued. Saddam listened to the discussion for a short time, long enough to see who thought a leadership election was a good idea, and then ordered those people to be taken out of the room, taken to a room close by, tortured so that the rest of the people could hear their screams, and then killed. They were dead within hours of having suggested the leadership election.

Try negotiating with a man like that.

Thank you for the kind words. I have no doubt that something like what you have described happened when Saddam took control, but to a man like Eki, he would say you are lying, your source cant be credible, you were not there, etc.

You see, Eki isn't interested in logic, seeing the other side, or anything like accepting the obvious. I am building a constant and dedicated case here to prove that 1) Saddam was granted the justice he gave everyone else, 2) He had at least 2 opportunities in 12 years to avoid wars, and both times challenged the other side to fight 3)Eki is using this event like many as justification for his anti-American/Anti-George W. Bush diatribe; and 4) other people who believe there never should be a war and diplomacy always is the way have to realize while their point is noble, and indeed, something in a perfect world would work, we live in a world with nation states and their leaders who would use their nations and peoples to attain their own narrow personal ambtions of raw power.

Saddam was condemned by any human right's organization that you can name for many events as vicious as what Gannex described, and many crimes against humanity as documented by Doctors sans Frontieres, the UN and its agencies, Amnesity International and other human rights groups. None of these could be considered propaganda outlets for any nation, much less the US.

Eki has continually been on these boards for as long as I can remember posting endlessly his drivel and hate for Bush. Now, while I am a reasonable man, and I can accept another man's opinion without agreeing with it, I decided I wasn't going to give Eki a free ride. Let him prove his points. So far, he hasn't even come close to it. I see this for what it is, another thread where he could spout his hate for the current occupant of the White House.

The more important point I am trying to make though is this: Those of you who feel diplomacy and reason should hold the day have to realize that at some point, when you are dealing with a man who cares little for the rights of man, the rule of law, and basic human decency, then you cannot negotiate without having a threat he understands. In both 1991, and in 2002, negotiations between the UN and the Regime in Iraq took place. The world community hoped for peace. But it has to be understood that in both cases, the world community saw what happened. Kuwait was an illegal invasion and Iraq was asked to leave. They didn't, and they were ejected. The terms and conditions laid down in the peace that Saddam agreed to were then flouted and ignored by his regime for 11 years. These UN resolutions were to be enforced by the US and the coalition. After 11 years, and endless games, Bush finally gave Saddam the ultimatum. Now not all the world agreed on this. Many feel that diplomacy should be the end in itself I guess, but in the end, this was NOT an unilateral decison. A man like Tony Blair, a man who came from left wing and socially libreal political views joined forces with a right-wing Christian view in a common cause. They knew that diplomacy does not work if there are no consequences for failure. Saddam ignored the wishes of the UN for 11 years, and he was finally called to task.

You can quibble with how effective the war in Iraq has been, I wont dispute the civil unrest and terrorism that has sprung out of it, but the people of Iraq have options now. You can say the death penalty should not be applied to Saddam. I in princple don't approve of the death penalty, but in cases as egregious as this, I think they are appropriate. You can say that George Bush had a hidden agenda and was only out to fill the pockets as his friends. You could say it, but I would love you to try and prove it. Geopolitical motives by nation states, in particular democracies are not that easy to explain. I would argue that France never wanted the invasion purely based on the motivation they were going around the "oil for food" program and Kofi Annan was their profiteer just as easy.

No, Saddam Hussein was a common criminal who became president, and then became much more. He got what he wanted. Power, fame, the subservience of his people, and a role as a leader a man of his humble origins likely wouldn't have seen without the violent use of force. He then used his nation for his own sadistic whims and wants, caused 1 million deaths in his invasion of Iran, god knows how many more thousands of deaths just keeping his culture of fear and oppresion, and how many thousands in an illegal invasion of Kuwait? Does anyone believe if left to his own devices, he would have not attained WMD's? Does anyone believe this would be the last we would have heard from him?

The reason the world did something about him, while Quaddfi, the Theocracy in Iran, and Kim up in North Korea still are playing their game is simple. Saddam pushed too hard, used his power recklessly and he openely challenged the World as a whole to call his bluff. HE BEGGED for the fight, and he got it.

No tears for this man....

[agwiii]

They didn't even try properly. Who want's to negotiate if you only have the option of losing. First they didn't care what Saddam was like as long as he was useful to them (1980s). When he wasn't no longer useful, they tried to make Iraq miserable by sanctions and started to make demands. What was there for Saddam? The USA doesn't mind doing business with some other oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan, why can't they try to have friendly and mutually beneficial relationships with countries like Cuba, Iran and Syria?


You have your facts scrambled, as usual. The butcher of Bagdad tried to bluff President Bush and lost. Saddam's bluff was the cause of the war, of his downfall, and led to his being tried for some of his many crimes against humanity.

You are an amusing little one. Cuba. Have you ever heard of Castro (the world's richest man), or read any of his positions on the United States?

[agwiii]

As far as Saddam is concerned, maybe this little fact, Eki, will open your eyes to what the man was like. At the first meeting of the Baath party after Saddam had declared himself the leader, a few of the senior party members present suggested that it might be a good idea for the party to hold an election for the leadership, rather than simply announcing Saddam's accession to the post. It would give legitimacy to the leader's position, they argued. Saddam listened to the discussion for a short time, long enough to see who thought a leadership election was a good idea, and then ordered those people to be taken out of the room, taken to a room close by, tortured so that the rest of the people could hear their screams, and then killed. They were dead within hours of having suggested the leadership election.

Try negotiating with a man like that.

Excellent!

[agwiii]

They didn't even try properly.

Again, you missed Gannex's point in your knee-jerk support of fascism. It seems that you are the leader of what we call the Finnish Fascist League (FFL). It would be hard to "try properly" while you are being tortured, and even harder after you have been executed.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They didn't even try properly. Who want's to negotiate if you only have the option of losing. First they didn't care what Saddam was like as long as he was useful to them (1980s). When he wasn't no longer useful, they tried to make Iraq miserable by sanctions and started to make demands. What was there for Saddam? The USA doesn't mind doing business with some other oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan, why can't they try to have friendly and mutually beneficial relationships with countries like Cuba, Iran and Syria?

Besides, I'm positive that if the world tried to make Bush give up his WMDs and power, he'd be just as reluctant and stubborn as Saddam. Bush doesn't seem the easiest guy to negotiate with either.

Bush isn't using WMD's on people. The US aresnal of WMD's is likely never to be used again. Bush is an elected leader, not some self appointed thug who killed his way to power. Saddam used nerve gas on his own citizens. Why cant you see the difference???

As for negotiating the destruction of US WMD's, the US will eagerly give up their WMD's when the Chinese, Russians and the rest of the world do. You live in a fantasy land my friend though if you really believe any prudent nation with weapons of mass destruction (that includes nukes) who has people sworn to wipe it out will give up their arsenal. With Iran pursing a nuclear program, and nations with intentions often hostile to democratic interests pursuing WMD's, not to mention terrorist organizations, an American President would have to be an idiot and would be impeached for unilateral disarmanent.

Besides, the US can be negotaited with. Canada does it every day. There isn't an issue. Most disputes of trade and policy between the two nations are solved in time, through negotiation. Sometimes the US gets their way, sometimes Canada wins, usually there is a middle ground. America is a really easy nation to deal with. When they are in the wrong, and you can prove it in international tribunals and diplomatic negotiation, things are worked out. Saddam was the guy who wouldn't negotiate. I have stated this over and over, but as your self appointed role as the defender of Saddam Hussein, I guess you missed that Eki.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You have your facts scrambled, as usual. The butcher of Bagdad tried to bluff President Bush and lost. Saddam's bluff was the cause of the war, of his downfall, and led to his being tried for some of his many crimes against humanity.

You are an amusing little one. Cuba. Have you ever heard of Castro (the world's richest man), or read any of his positions on the United States?

Excellent example. If anyone has heard Castro's tirades against the US, you would realize it takes a lot to make the American government mad enough to actually pick up arms and invade.

The point is Castro was not and IS not threatening anyone outside their own borders. IF anyone seriously thinks Saddam could be trusted with a weapon and not use it, they are living in a dream world. Saddam supported terrorism world wide, he openly admitted to that. He invaded Iran, and Kuwait to try to steal their oil fields. At some point, the time for diplomatic solutions was over.....and it was.

[Mark in Oshawa]

One more point. The US did back Saddam after a fact back in the 70's and to an extent in the war against Iran. Why? Nation states play a game of holding their nose and backing other nations with repugnant views at times to prevent a greater conflict breaking out.

The Cold war was a constant battle as the Soviets and the US backed often repugnant regimes in a proxy war. The US may have been in Saddam's corner in the 70's and 80's but that was because they saw him as a lesser evil than communism, and a lesser evil than the Shiite theocracy in Iran, who at that point had just held American citizens as hostages for better than a year. To understand why the Americans or any other nation of a democratic tradtion would back dictatorial regimes is to have a greater understanding of geo-politics than anyone posting here can understand. I do think however that Good men can often overlook thugs and crooks for purposes leading to the greater good of their nation. This is a NOT a balancing act that makes anyone sleep any better at night, but just about every world leader has to make decisions that look on the surface to be backing a country they have no time for. Alas, you can only be as ethical as possible, and you are elected to created the best situation for your nation and to an extent the world community. Often leaders in the past made bad decisions, such as backing Saddam Hussein.

One thing though, if you have a dog that is rough and a bit nasty, and you keep him, you also have an obligation to put him down when he becomes not just nasty but starts attacking people. Saddam was a bad mean dog, but was serving a purpose at the time. When he became rabid and started attacking his neighbours, and a threat to everyone, he was put down.

Wielding power is a responsibility. When you wield it in a manner that threatens the world order, don't be surprised when you are "put down". It explains why North Korea, Iran and Libya all have leaders as reprehensible as Saddam and they are still not the subject of invasion.

[Eki]

Excellent example. If anyone has heard Castro's tirades against the US, you would realize it takes a lot to make the American government mad enough to actually pick up arms and invade.

And do you really believe Castro could actually harm the US even if he really wanted to? The US lives either in constant paranoia or is intoxicated by power. It has this silly "you're either with us or against us" attitude. You CAN be something in between, you know. I think Finland showed this during the Cold War when it had actually friendly relationship with both the "West" and the "East".

[donKey jote]

Just one donkey comment before I go back to what I was doing...
Mark, I agree with a lot of what you're saying (except your view of Eki :p : ). You bring your points across well and Saddam doesn't deserve any pity whatsoever, but I'm slightly bemused at your constant reference to his warmongering with Iran ...
A lot of the "civilised world" tend to see the Saddam of that era as nothing more than a (yet another) convenient puppet-dictator for the interests of the "west", if you know what I mean :)
sure you do, and you type quicker than I read :p :
The whole situation is a mess and we all know "I told you so" is not a solution, but I do wonder how many of the infamous Iraq war thread "pro" veterans will have seen the light before the next unilateral display of world policing.
Oh sorry I forgot, Trilateral: George, Tony and ... damn what was the name of the little twit with the big moustache in the Azores ? :confused: :p :

[Eki]

Oh, and one more thing I think is wrong with the US. It never settles in anything less than an unconditional surrender. Even the Soviet Union made a negotiated peace with Finland when it saw fighting wasn't worth it. I think the US should sometime try the same.

[airshifter]

The whole situation is a mess and we all know "I told you so" is not a solution, but I do wonder how many of the infamous Iraq war thread "pro" veterans will have seen the light before the next unilateral display of world policing.
Oh sorry I forgot, Trilateral: George, Tony and ... damn what was the name of the little twit with the big moustache in the Azores ? :confused: :p :


I would hope that more than three nations are involved in helping the situation in Darfur. You know, the one that the UN and most of the world refuses to admit is genocide?

I don't think Mark has ever stated that the US has not made mistakes, he has simply stated facts supporting that the discussion and debate in general is biased against them. ;)

[donKey jote]

I couldn't agree more :up:

:confused:

[airshifter]

Oh, and one more thing I think is wrong with the US. It never settles in anything less than an unconditional surrender. Even the Soviet Union made a negotiated peace with Finland when it saw fighting wasn't worth it. I think the US should sometime try the same.


Ah yes, I remember well the unconditional surrender of the Soviets after the Cold War. Rather than engage in diplomacy, provide generous humanitarian and financial relief, and agree to mutal arms reductions, we fought them hand to hand in the trenches, at range with artillery, in the air and seas, and finally the nuclear exhanges that some of us were lucky enough to live through.

It was only through an act of an obliously higher power that the Soviet saw the light and suddenly agreed to unconditional surrender. :laugh:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Donkey, I will take your comments gladly. Since Iam not Spanish, I am not sure who the twit was, but you do, and I believe his electorate disagreed and he is no longer in power. That is how the real world changes their leaders. By the ballot box, not by shooting one's opponents.


Eki, Saddam and Castro are not the same, good for you, you figured out that much. Saddam has and was backing terroists with anti-US sentiments. Castro despite all his long speeches, and oppression to his own people, has never put troops out to invade its neighbour. It would be suicide, but if the US is the cruel heartless thugs you would try to sell us on, then Cuba would have been the 51st state years ago. Kennedy tried to topple Castro but the effort was half-hearted and poorly organized. He regretted that decision for the rest of his life.

You speak of the "US vs Them" thing. You also speak of how Finland was able to straddle the interests of the Soviets and the interests of the West. It is very simple Eki, and I will say this slowly so you can understand. Finland is a democracy. A functioning modern nation with a government that respects the democratic freedoms of its citizens. If the Soviets in 1978 or any other year when they were looking for a nation to unstablize and convert to Communism, they would have found it a)hard to find anyone in Finland to be their lackies and puppets and b) hard to deal with west. Finland would have been fought for by the west by NATO. Even though Finland and Sweden are neutral, and have done much to build up military forces adequate to defend themselves against an attacker, they wouldn't fend off a Soviet attack on their own. No, Finland was able to be the voice of diplomacy and peace and everyone getting along much for the same reason Canada can. The total might of the US military complex would be pushed into the defense of your nation and mine. Democratic modern nations may not always agree with the US, but history has shown America in the last 60 years has been willing to go to war to defend democratically elected allies. Finland may not have been an "ally" in a formal sense, but make no mistake. Americans would be up in arms if Finland was ever invaded by the Soviets. During WW2, it was invaded, and I am sure the main reason much more was not made of it because the Germans were the ally of the Finn's then and with Germany taking over half of Europe, the Finnish invasion was a incident that was over long before anyone had a chance to figure out what to do about it.

Eki, your democratic rights and freedoms were not something that is absolute. At some point, the USSR might have tried to take over control of Finland if they knew no one would have stopped or said anything but platitudes to stop them. That argument about diplomacy breaking down, that would hold true if your nation was either under direct attack or threat by your Eastern neighbour. If the USSR thought they would only face diplomatic platitudes, you might have had grown up in a communist nation.

Don't hide the reality Eki. You think your nations role of being neutral between the East and West was purely because of diplomacy? No, it was because as a functioning liberal democracy, its values and sovereignity would have been fought for. By nations such as your favourite target, the US.

[donKey jote]

It was only through an act of an obliously higher power that the Soviet saw the light and suddenly agreed to unconditional surrender. :laugh:


spell check: Ronald Reagan was an oblivious higher power :p :


ok ok I'll go straight back to my stables :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh, and one more thing I think is wrong with the US. It never settles in anything less than an unconditional surrender. Even the Soviet Union made a negotiated peace with Finland when it saw fighting wasn't worth it. I think the US should sometime try the same.

Eki, they got a bloody nose, but only a fool would dictate that the Finnish invasion by the USSR took place in a vacuum. No, Hitler was building up the troops to invade Russia. Stalin may have had a non-aggression pact with Germany but the writing was on the wall. He knew that a small war for Finland, a nation with little gain for the USSR in terms of strategic importance was not a good thing to continue in the face of determined opposition. Just the same, I am sure your Finnish nation would be defended if around 1977 or so the USSR decided to finish the job.


OH yes, the US didn't ask for an unconditional surrender in 1991. Saddam was allowed to get out of Kuwait, keep his army, and while he had his air force grounded, the resolutions were passed by the UN, and Saddam was allowed his nation back. IN time, if he had complied, he would have been free to run his nation as he pleased, no matter how repugnant that may be to us who love freedom and the right of the individual. Instead, he flouted the international community's efforts to make him comply. If the US gotten an unconditional surrender and taken Iraq in 1991, then your argument that they always ask for unconditional take it or leave it terms would hold water. No, the US did it your way, they gave diplomacy 8 months plus after a sovereign nation was invaded, and then even after they had the means to whip his army and remove him from power, they let the international community impose the terms of surrender and negotiated a more than fair settlement. Look how well THAT worked. No, nice try, once again you completely have made an assertion that is not true.

The US does NOT unilaterally impose anything on anyone. They have been careful to enlist allies, and enlist the help of the UN, despite the fact the UN seems to be made up of nations that would kick the US at every opportunity. The point is, and always has been though, as long as you are a functioning democratic, free nation, your security and well being are not being threatened by the United States. Your interests are more than likely to be defended. By arms if necessary. You cant seem to grasp this Eki and it should be obvious by now. If diplomatic negotiations fail, then a last resort has to be an option on the table. IF your theory held true, no nation would ever have a military. We would just talk ourselves to death, accomplishing nothing. The fact every nation of note pretty much has some form of defense unit, no matter how small says to me that every leader at some point knows it has to have a military option.

No you just object to the US Eki, and as I have stated, the US makes a lot of errors in judgement. They are often inept and not always refined in how they deal with certain situations. Their invasion of Iraq has not worked as well as anyone would want because they have no idea of how to keep the lid on a nation that is bound and determined to have a religious civil war. They had no plan for this, and I always thought taking Iraq would not be hard, keeping it under control long enough for a replacement government to form would be.

Two nations the US had a hand in the total surrender of had a great turn around. West Germany/Germany and Japan. Both nations were wrecked ruins, both nations had all or a significant portion of territory under the control of the US. Unlike Iraq, the Germans and Japanese put up with the occupation, learned about how to rebuild their nations, took the millions and billions of dollars of aid through the Marshall plan. They rebuilt their government on democratic models and they accepted the fact their nations had to change their way of governing. The people in those two nations today have a greater freedom than they enjoyed before the US occupation. Dissent and debate are freedoms not given before the "invasion". Their economic futures were bright within 10 years of the war's end, and by 20 years, both nations were economic super powers. Now, Iraq may not be ever an economic superpower, but if Iraq is a mess right now, it isn't all the fault of the US. The people of Iraq have a lot of people who would stomp your life out as quick as a wink running around fighting a religious war settling scores and attempting to hold the whole nation in a grip much like Saddam's. The US didn't import those people, they were there. They learned that lesson of violence by being subjects of a regime that showed them how to steal power. You should condemn them with the same vigour you waste on George Bush. He didn't create these terrorists, they just use him as a pretense.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ah yes, I remember well the unconditional surrender of the Soviets after the Cold War. Rather than engage in diplomacy, provide generous humanitarian and financial relief, and agree to mutal arms reductions, we fought them hand to hand in the trenches, at range with artillery, in the air and seas, and finally the nuclear exhanges that some of us were lucky enough to live through.

It was only through an act of an obliously higher power that the Soviet saw the light and suddenly agreed to unconditional surrender. :laugh:

yes, The US NEVER uses diplomacy. Why they are at war every second of every day of every year in the conquest of some poor oppressed nation.

Ronald Reagan was the greatest president for using diplomacy and non-violent means coupled with some limited military deployments to affect change that only an idiot would argue against.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

My tongue was so far in my cheek there I think I hurt myself!!

[Eki]

Saddam has and was backing terroists with anti-US sentiments.
It has never been proved. Even if he hypothetically speaking was, he started probably only after the US turned against him. What would you do if your friend turns into your enemy?

BTW, have you ever considered what causes those "anti-US sentiments" that seem to be so common these days and if there were something the US leaders could try to do about it?

[Eki]

Just the same, I am sure your Finnish nation would be defended if around 1977 or so the USSR decided to finish the job.

By whom? Sorry if we are a bit sceptic. Here's some personal experiences from someone who as a little kid had to leave his home in Karelia after we were promised help the last time:

http://peacecountry0.tripod.com/aitiperh.htm#oz

"Post-war Finland was under a huge burden of repaying the Soviet Union the immoral indemnity imposed by the Allies. As if the loss of 10% of Finland was not enough. Trying to rebuild lives, and paying Russia - meant hungry children and a long period of suffering before things would get much better. We have asked ourselves many times why Stalin's allies, America and Britain, allowed this to happen to the Karelian people. What had we done wrong? Why was Churchill and Roosevelt angry at us, we were only defending ourselves? Why didn't they threaten Russia when they attacked this neutral and free country in 1939? Hitler and Stalin were both at war with all of Europe. Choosing sides was not a matter of being fascist, it was a necessity to avoid being overrun by Stalin. The British said they were coming, but the war was short and they never made it. Finland had to make peace on Stalin's terms: give up Karelia. That didn't seem to bother these two allies, at least not enough to declare war on Russia. Oh well, tough luck for those Finns. The British even turned their backs on Poland which was relying on them, and they promised to help. Uncle Stalin could do as he wished in the last months of the war. It's no use, nobody will listen anyway, nor do they care. Their boys are back home, that's all that matters. But we could not go back home, and that didn't seem to matter to them. Britain is whole, France is whole, but many countries are left in pieces."

[SOD]

Hum. So you want the United States to continue as the policeman of the world, and then you want to play Monday morning quarterback. Get real. BTW, what is the Finland doing to stop dictators and terrorists?

It would help if the CIA didn't back the same dictators and terrorists that you claim to rile against.

Saddam was recruited by the CIA to kill the King of Iraq in the 1950s.

and besides, no one in the world wants the USA to be the world's policeman. we do a good job of it by ourselves.

[Mark in Oshawa]

SOD, the CIA has made a lot of errors in its years. Most of what the CIA does is to back ugly regimes to stop uglier threats to the world. At least, that is how they see it. The problem is, if the US isn't the policeman of the world, and I can buy that no one really wants that, including Americans, then what happens when someone is doing B and E's in the neighbourhood? How about those being held hostage in Home invasions? THEN who is the policeman? See the beauty of your attitude SOD is that as a citizen of the world who thinks the US is a lousy policeman is not going to be able to give me a good answer. The UN? They don't have the guts nor the political will to do anything 90% of the time. Pol Pot killed a million, no one did anything, while the US was singled out for all sorts of atrocities that often were incidents of war in Vietnam. No one on this board opposing the US has ever explained to me what the world does when diplomacy fails.

What happens when diplomacy dies is often people die, in the thousands. Now thousands did die in Iraq, but at least the future has a shot of changing. Is the US a good policeman? Nope, not really, and they will admit it. They suck at the job at times, but the thing is, no one else in the world on a consistant basis will say something is wrong and then be prepared to actually do something about it. Most nations with the werewithal to fight a large war have either no interest, are actively creating trouble (China and Russia) or couldn't do it more than once a century. Those who stand with the US are accused of being lackeys and fools. You guys who think the world is being policed by yourselfs better get your head into the idea that the world is a dangerous place, and if you don't want the US to be the cops, then damn it, have your nation stand up for democratic rights and freedoms.

I don't see it, and when the member nations of NATO were asked by Canada last month for more help rebuilding Afghanistan in the Kandahar region, the Germans were admant about wanting nothing to do with it. The US, the UK and the Netherlands have all been there, Canada is there, but when it is time for some nations to actually get their hands dirty, they are NOT interested. You want to police the world SOD, better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

[Woodeye]

Hum. So you want the United States to continue as the policeman of the world, and then you want to play Monday morning quarterback. Get real. BTW, what is the Finland doing to stop dictators and terrorists?


Yes, that is probably what I would like too see happening. Do we need one nation to look after all the others? Nope.

There are no terrorists in Finland. We haven't created ones.

[Mark in Oshawa]

By whom? Sorry if we are a bit sceptic. Here's some personal experiences from someone who as a little kid had to leave his home in Karelia after we were promised help the last time:

http://peacecountry0.tripod.com/aitiperh.htm#oz

"Post-war Finland was under a huge burden of repaying the Soviet Union the immoral indemnity imposed by the Allies. As if the loss of 10% of Finland was not enough. Trying to rebuild lives, and paying Russia - meant hungry children and a long period of suffering before things would get much better. We have asked ourselves many times why Stalin's allies, America and Britain, allowed this to happen to the Karelian people. What had we done wrong? Why was Churchill and Roosevelt angry at us, we were only defending ourselves? Why didn't they threaten Russia when they attacked this neutral and free country in 1939? Hitler and Stalin were both at war with all of Europe. Choosing sides was not a matter of being fascist, it was a necessity to avoid being overrun by Stalin. The British said they were coming, but the war was short and they never made it. Finland had to make peace on Stalin's terms: give up Karelia. That didn't seem to bother these two allies, at least not enough to declare war on Russia. Oh well, tough luck for those Finns. The British even turned their backs on Poland which was relying on them, and they promised to help. Uncle Stalin could do as he wished in the last months of the war. It's no use, nobody will listen anyway, nor do they care. Their boys are back home, that's all that matters. But we could not go back home, and that didn't seem to matter to them. Britain is whole, France is whole, but many countries are left in pieces."

Eki, nice story but it is the story told from the point of view of a victim of a terrible diservice. Not that I doubt he should have been upset, I would have seen things the same way, but the bigger political picture of the time probably is a mitigating factor. Finland I think though was friendly with the Nazis. Playing both sides of the fence perhaps? I don't doubt Finland was not a fascist nation, and I do not think that anyone in Finland would seriously have wanted their nation to throw in with the Germans, but like a lot of the redrawing of maps in 1945, Finnish interests were tossed aside. Lets face it, the US and the UK needed the help of the USSR to take down Germany. The second the war was over, the USSR was not a helpful ally, they almost immediately became an adversary. The Yalta conference in 44 was where a lot of the decisions of the post war were decided. The problem with what happened to Finland was to get compensation and justice, they would have to get it from the USSR. The USSR was not willing to compromise on their "sphere of influence" and I think Roosevelt and Churchill had to respect that. To enforce justice for Finland was virtually going to a cause of war with the USSR. Diplomacy failing Eki, you know, that topic you feel is the solution to everything?

When a nation state wont give up on a stance, you are forced with a choice, war, or to drop the subject. The UK and US of A just spent billions of dollars and hundred's of thousands of lives to go to war to defeat the Axis powers. You really think they wanted to fight the USSR at that point?

No Eki, there are not always nice endings to sad stories. Finland got screwed by the war. I get that, but considering they didn't have the country become FSSR they got off luckier than all the nations trapped behind the Iron Curtain. You just have to get it into your head that the world is a nasty place at times. Nation states do not always do the right thing. Decisions are made that leave no one happy but are often made on the pretense that it is for the greater good. It sucks, but I put a lot more stock in a democracy led free world making decisions than some regime led by an apparchartik of the Communist party, or a dictator who would gas his own people in the names of keeping control.

I guess Eki, while I have great sympathy to what happened to Finland in WW2, I still don't believe the decision was made with the idea that it was to screw the Finn's. You might, and it would explain your anti-American diatribes, but it I wont excuse them. Finland is a free nation, with a strong social conscience and free expression. It exists for the most part in 90% of its former territory does it not? I guess that is a world run by diplomatic negotiations, you don't always get what you want.

[Woodeye]

During WW2, it was invaded, and I am sure the main reason much more was not made of it because the Germans were the ally of the Finn's then and with Germany taking over half of Europe, the Finnish invasion was a incident that was over long before anyone had a chance to figure out what to do about it.

Do you mean that Finland was taken over by Russians in WW2? If you mean that, then you're wrong. Finland won a defensive battle against the mighty USSR.

If you mean that Finland was under attack, that is true. But we still didn't lose that fight.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, that is probably what I would like too see happening. Do we need one nation to look after all the others? Nope.

There are no terrorists in Finland. We haven't created ones.

Woodeye, The US didn't create terrorists. Before 9/11 the US was not in Iraq. They were not in Afghanistan. They helped the Mujahideen against the Soviets with weapons, and yet when 9/11 happened, what did the Taliban do? Hide Bin Laden, and refused when the world body of the UN backed the US in their desire to have Bin Laden removed. Terrorism against the US is a radical desire to cause pain, suffering and death against innocent civilians. You want to say that is the fault of the victim for the rape? Come off it Woodeye, I thought you were smarter than that.

There are no terrorists in Finland? Are you sure? Likely there isn't, just like there was none in Canada apparently according to my previous Prime Minister. He thought because we were nice and friendly and didn't agree with the US in Iraq, we wouldn't have any terrorists. Slight problem there, a cell was operating last summer in Toronto. The RCMP made the arrests when they started to make a buy of 3 tons of fertilzer. They had a camp north of the city where automatic weapons were heard for days. The police monitored these fellows. They were TERRORISTS. They may stand trial but there is so much circumstancial evidence, not to mention witnesses to their camp, not to mention other evidence, that I doubt any lawyer will get them out. Now, us Friendly Canadians who openly criticized the US for their role in Iraq were next on the target list. Terrorists don't use logic, and they don't care who they attack. What is more they have little time for self aggrandizing fools who think if you negotiate with them, they will find true happiness. Any time you have people willing to die and take 3000 plus people with them, you have to deal with it. The US didn't create them, they chose to violate the laws of civilized society. You want to condone that? IF Finland ever stated anything that agreed with anything against the Islamic terrorists and their goals, you think they will give you a pass?

Islamic facists are a corruption of Islam. Anyone that doens't believe in their narrow view of Islam is a non-believer of their cause and are ripe for killing. You think the US created them? No evil created them, the same sort of evil that creates people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam, the Shah and so on. Sometimes it would be wise of intelligent people to look at terrorism for what it is. Just because they target the US now, doens't mean it is justified. Terror is never justified. You dont' believe that it is, but by saying the US is the problem, you are ignoring the fact that the US may have their faults, but they don't go around creating terrorists bound on their destruction. Backing Israel shouldn't be the reason 3000 plus people died on 9/11. Helping the Saudi's protect their country by pushing Saddam out of Kuwait shouldn't be a reason to attack the US either, yet both are the two reasons terrorists have attacked the US. Whether they stayed out of Iraq or not, wouldn't have made a difference. People hate the US for reasons I have yet to figure out.

Woodeye, you have to think a little bit here. You are not going to defend Terrorists, and you may not like the US as the world's policeman, but don't give me this crap there are no terrorists that will attack you if you mind your own business. Nice theory, but it wont hold water with me.....the evidence is in the headlines. Terrorists strike for their own motives and reasons, and they don't attempt diplomacy for anything. So why give them any credit for logical thought?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Do you mean that Finland was taken over by Russians in WW2? If you mean that, then you're wrong. Finland won a defensive battle against the mighty USSR.

If you mean that Finland was under attack, that is true. But we still didn't lose that fight.

You won a great victory just by surviving. The one reason you didn't get beat is because the USSR didn't figure it was worth the fight you were giving them to continue. I can't explain their motives but I do know if they wanted Finland bad enough, they would have taken it. The Red Army rolled up the German army in 4 years right through the gates of Berlin. It was a matter of polictical will and I have always thought Stalin thought Finland too nasty a fight when he suspected the Germans were about to invade.

Make no mistake, Finland is the only nation to take on the USSR and not lose their freedom, but I suspect that has a lot to do with the will and whim's of Stalin, one of the worlds most heinous and conivving leaders. Finland did what they could, and managed to have world events work in their favour. If Germany really was friendly with the USSR as their pact dictated, then Finns would be very well knowledgable about Russia from the inside....

[Woodeye]

Woodeye, The US didn't create terrorists.

That we'll have to disagree on. I think with all the acts with Palestinians vs. Israel conflict, acts in Libya and with Iran are a great resource for breeding terrorists. I'm not saying US is creating them, I try to say that the agressive way that US has chosen agains muslims will give religious leaders in muslim countries great opportunities to direct young men and women to the path of hatred against US and it's allies.

Treat the other the way you would like to be treated. If US constatly attacks agains some Arab -nation it will surely rise some acts against itself in some another country. Muslims are "brothers". If a brother is under attack in somewhere the others will try to help agains the attacker.

A question for you: If someone blows a Humvee in Iraq does that make him/her a terrorist? Or someone who fights against occupier? Were the French underground army during WW2 terrorists when they blew up German trains and stuff like that?



Islamic facists are a corruption of Islam. Anyone that doens't believe in their narrow view of Islam is a non-believer of their cause and are ripe for killing. You think the US created them?

First sentence is totally true, I completely agree with that. Most Islamists are good and peace locing people. Unfortunately there are facists also. And the recent acts of US surely don't help to reduce the quantity of these.

The thing that seems to be missing from US is that they think that they act like liberator. That maybe true from their point of view, but when seen from another point of view, they act like a occupier.

And I still haven't heard a people who likes someone to occupy his land.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Woodeye, you are right, most people don't want a conquering force in their country on the pretense of it being for their "own good". That said, if you want the US to leave, just let the burgeoning Iraqi government get a handle on things. The US started down this road in Iraq as part of the so-called war on Terrorism. Remember one thing. The terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. It was NOT something anyone in North America will ever forget. It shook the US to the core. One thing though about Americans, they don't take being attacked lying down. They don't like people who make excuses for terrorists and they tend to look at the world as either being with them or against them. It is pretty simple to see who was against them. So they went to Afghanistan and then they for reasons known to many and not agreed with, went to Iraq. They didn't invade Kuwait, they didn't attack Saudi Arabia, Syria or Egypt. IT isn't a war on Islam. It is a war against a dictator who was very willing to invade two of his neighbours in 11 years. Now you can say that it is a stupid war, hell all wars are stupid. They went there because the feeling was Saddam was part of the problem in the mideast. I would say he wasn't the problem for terrorist cells but I am of the opinion before long, he would have been. He was an active backer of Hamas, and while Bin Laden had no connection in Iraq, tell me he wouldn't love a state sponsor.

Listen, I have no doubt that the Americans dont' make great policeman in the world. I don't think however that your stance that the US is creating more terrorists and I don't think you defend terrorist actions against a soverign nation. Now, you say the Maquis in France in WW2 and those fighting the Americans in the streets of Iraq are the same thing? An argument could be that in the sense they are. Here though is the difference. Woodeye, the people who were fighting the Germans were fighting for a free and democratic France. That was what was there before the Germans invaded. In Iraq, well when you have civilians being beheaded, Sunni car bombs in Shiite neighbourhoods, Shiite car bombs in Sunni neighbourhoods, and all out attacks on Iraqi citizens who joined the police and army, then you have chaos. Make no mistake, the US would love to get the hell out of Iraq. This isn't an occupation for the sake of keeping Iraq. Both Bush and his foes politically in the US (who are as vocal as you) would love the US to be out of Iraq. If the shooting, looting and actions of "Al Quaida in Iraq" came to a stop tomorrow, the US would be leaving the country so fast it would make your head spin. Yet the attacks continue, as if it will prove something. Iraq will get their country back. The US didn't keep Japan any longer than it took to rebuild their infrastructure, and they didn't keep any other possessions they attained through war for any longer than they had to establish order. Order by democratic principles I might add, surely something that is not sinister.

So is the people who are attacking the US Army in Iraq terrorists? I say yes only because of the manner they attack anyone who gets in their way, and by their methods. If you think being a terrorist is just being a freedom fighter, then you have to also accept that the goal of the terrorist must also be considered. If the ultimate goal of your actions is to just kill and maim to drive out your enemy, and you are happy to kill those ostensibly on your side, you are a terrorist. The Maquis didn't kill Frenchmen for a hobby, they fought the Germans. You cannot say the same for the perpetrators of the the terror being inflicted in the Sunni Triangle. Note also, Shiite districts in the south, and the Kurds in the North were quite happy to see the "liberators" It seems not everyone in Iraq sees the US as you do.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Before I go to sleep (it is late here) I add this. This isn't a war for oil. I know that is the favourite shibboleth of the left wing pacifists who would bend over and grab their ankles for the likes of Saddam. I know that is hard to believe but consider this. The Iraqi government that has been elected by the free elections that were held there (the UN monitored them, and they had a 80% pluraity, so much for the middle east not being able to understand democracy) will be the ones selling the oil. Oil that goes to Western Europe. Not the US . The US gets most of their imported oil from Canada and Venezuela. IF the US wanted the oil, they wouldn't be playing nice and trying to be voice of reason in Iraq, they would round up half the country and imprison them. IF they were bent on conquering a nation for its resources like Saddam Hussein, they would surely do what he did. They are not, and will not. US soldiers wouldn't carry out such orders on a mass scale. A few idiots get in any military of any nation who take the law into their own hands, but the fact remains the US isnt' shy about trying them and punishing them. No, this war isnt about oil, but it is the wealth of Iraq's oil fields that will pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.
If the US really wanted to invade an nation for oil, who truly pissed them off, and a nation to conquer outright, wouldn't Venezuela be a better bet? Of course the US wouldn't, and THAT is my point. They are not colonizers. They may have a culture that pervades the world, but they are not bent on conquest. Americans tradtionally tend to ignore the world. Except when their government does, often the world drags them back in......

[Woodeye]

[quote="Mark in Oshawa"]The terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. So they went to Afghanistan and then they for reasons known to many and not agreed with, went to Iraq. They didn't invade Kuwait, they didn't attack Saudi Arabia, Syria or Egypt. IT isn't a war on Islam. [quote]

But my point is that is turning to be a war on islam. At least that is the way the Islamic world sees it at the moment.

And I think the US went to Afganistan because that was the most obvious way to go. They bombed the country back from iron age to stone age. And it still is a mess.

And after that Us went to Iraq because they wanted to get rid of Saddam. Ok, they did it maybe because of the reasons that you've written but maybe because of they needed to shown to US citizens that their president is a man of action. maybe the president needed to finish something his father left to be undone. Bush just didn't know, or anyone else for that matter, what mess would that cause. In know that US would like to come out of there. But they need to finish what they've started? How? I have no idea, but I know that neither has Bush or his regime.

Us should try to deal with situation in Iraq asap. After that start to negotiate with islamic contries and try to make the relationships to these countries and islamic church better.

Entering Iran would be their last mistake. And with current president I have doubt that they will do it before his season (last one, luckily) ends.

[Eki]

No Eki, there are not always nice endings to sad stories.
I'm well aware of that. On the contrary, I sometimes feel Americans believe the world is a Hollywood movie with a nice ending where they solve all the problems of the world.





I guess Eki, while I have great sympathy to what happened to Finland in WW2, I still don't believe the decision was made with the idea that it was to screw the Finn's. You might, and it would explain your anti-American diatribes, but it I wont excuse them. Finland is a free nation, with a strong social conscience and free expression. It exists for the most part in 90% of its former territory does it not? I guess that is a world run by diplomatic negotiations, you don't always get what you want.
90% is better than nothing. Without compromising we would have got nothing. Finland is a free nation, because the Finns wanted it to be and fought for it. Germany didn't help without our acceptance. To accept help was a democratic decision. Germany didn't invade Finland in order to help the Finns, like the Soviet Union claimed to have done in 1939 and the US claimed in Iraq in 2003.

My grandparents went through our Civil War in 1918, two wars against the Soviet Union in 1939-1944 and one against Germany in 1944-1945. I'm grateful that unlike them, I have had a priviledge to live in peaceful times. More talking, less fighting.

[agwiii]

I'm well aware of that. On the contrary, I sometimes feel Americans believe the world is a Hollywood movie with a nice ending where they solve all the problems of the world. 90% is better than nothing. Without compromising we would have got nothing. Finland is a free nation, because the Finns wanted it to be and fought for it. Germany didn't help without our acceptance. To accept help was a democratic decision. Germany didn't invade Finland in order to help the Finns, like the Soviet Union claimed to have done in 1939 and the US claimed in Iraq in 2003. My grandparents went through our Civil War in 1918, two wars against the Soviet Union in 1939-1944 and one against Germany in 1944-1945. I'm grateful that unlike them, I have had a priviledge to live in peaceful times. More talking, less fighting.

Shakespeare said it best concerning you supporters of Saddam and other fascist dictators. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[Roamy]

FYI people



The Pope says that jihad violence is against God's nature, and officials fear that in response, Muslims enraged by this insult will commit... jihad violence.

This is what the world has to deal with:

• Muslims murder 3,000 innocents in New York and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 202 tourists in Bali and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 333 schoolchildren and their teachers in Beslan and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 292 innocents, mainly Kenyans and Tanzanians at two US Embassies and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 241 US and 58 French peace keepers in Beirut and expect no criticism.
• Muslims fire 4,000 Katyusha rockets into Northern Israel killing over
• 50 innocent civilians and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 52 in London and 191 in Madrid and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 200 in Mumbai and expect no criticism.
• Muslims behead Western hostages in Iraq, Buddhist monks in Thailand and Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 500,000 in Darfur and expect no criticism.
• Muslims regard Jews as 'sons of pigs and monkeys', and vow to nuke Israel and expect no criticism.
• Muslims force women to wear hideous sacks, stone to death women for getting raped and for leaving the home unescorted, engage in honor killings of sisters and daughters for unapproved dating, and expect no criticism.
• Muslims danced in the streets and handed out sweets to their kids to celebrate the 9/11 atrocity, and still expected no criticism.
• Since 9/11 Muslims have killed over 26,000 and wounded over 50,000 in terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11 and expect no criticism.


Since 9/11 Muslims have committed terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Chad, Chechnya, Dagestan, Denmark, East Timor, Egypt, England, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ingushetia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Jordan-Iraq, Kabardino-Balkans, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Gaza-Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Arab Republic, United States, Uzbekistan and Yemen, and still expect no criticism.

Muslims have carried out over 5,800 fatal terrorist atrocities since 9/11, and countless thousands since Islamic conquest began in 623 AD and expect no criticism.

But if a Pope dares to tell the truth about Islam or Danes publish cartoons about Mohammad, then let the outpourings of Islamic hate and outrage begin.

And, by some twisted reach of logic, the arrogant *******s demand the Pope issue an apology!

[schmenke]

...I mean, if there were blues and reds in Canada who would start a civil war, would you be needing US troops to solve that situation?...

They would not be welcome, but I think that they would invade our country anyways because of our vast natural petroleum reserves.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They would not be welcome, but I think that they would invade our country anyways because of our vast natural petroleum reserves.

Schmenke, first off no one here would have a civil war, because we would talk each other to death here first.

Second of all, we would willingly sell the oil to em as we always have. You myfriend have to quit hanging out with Jack Layton, he too has anti - American fantatsies.

[Eki]

You myfriend have to quit hanging out with Jack Layton, he too has anti - American fantatsies.
I have said this before, and I say it again: I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-idiot.

[Mark in Oshawa]

FYI people



The Pope says that jihad violence is against God's nature, and officials fear that in response, Muslims enraged by this insult will commit... jihad violence.

This is what the world has to deal with:

• Muslims murder 3,000 innocents in New York and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 202 tourists in Bali and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 333 schoolchildren and their teachers in Beslan and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 292 innocents, mainly Kenyans and Tanzanians at two US Embassies and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 241 US and 58 French peace keepers in Beirut and expect no criticism.
• Muslims fire 4,000 Katyusha rockets into Northern Israel killing over
• 50 innocent civilians and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 52 in London and 191 in Madrid and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 200 in Mumbai and expect no criticism.
• Muslims behead Western hostages in Iraq, Buddhist monks in Thailand and Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia and expect no criticism.
• Muslims murder 500,000 in Darfur and expect no criticism.
• Muslims regard Jews as 'sons of pigs and monkeys', and vow to nuke Israel and expect no criticism.
• Muslims force women to wear hideous sacks, stone to death women for getting raped and for leaving the home unescorted, engage in honor killings of sisters and daughters for unapproved dating, and expect no criticism.
• Muslims danced in the streets and handed out sweets to their kids to celebrate the 9/11 atrocity, and still expected no criticism.
• Since 9/11 Muslims have killed over 26,000 and wounded over 50,000 in terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11 and expect no criticism.


Since 9/11 Muslims have committed terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Chad, Chechnya, Dagestan, Denmark, East Timor, Egypt, England, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ingushetia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Jordan-Iraq, Kabardino-Balkans, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Gaza-Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Arab Republic, United States, Uzbekistan and Yemen, and still expect no criticism.

Muslims have carried out over 5,800 fatal terrorist atrocities since 9/11, and countless thousands since Islamic conquest began in 623 AD and expect no criticism.

But if a Pope dares to tell the truth about Islam or Danes publish cartoons about Mohammad, then let the outpourings of Islamic hate and outrage begin.

And, by some twisted reach of logic, the arrogant *******s demand the Pope issue an apology!


Fousto, let me just say that you should refine your statement slightly. Radical Islam are the terrorists. There are a hell of a lot of Muslims who disapprove of terrorist activity. The Radicals WANT this to be a war against Islam, because it will allow them to wrest total control of the agenda away from the moderates. That said, the Islamic faith seems to be populated with a ton of people who will get upset if you criticize any facet of what goes on. The talk shows in Toronto stray into the subject on occasion, in the most bland way, and when something like what happened with the cartoons in Denmark, you heard the bile and hate. I do not think any Christian really reacts in the same way. A few radicals perhaps, but radical Islam has so permeated the faith that they will not stand for any slight it seems.

If this was a war on Islam, and you wanted to really tick off a whole religion, hell just bomb Mecca, that would show em. No, the US military went OUT of their way to avoid damaging mosques during the combat phase. Iraqi Army units set up in the Shiite shrine in Najaf and the US Marines were told to not even send a stray round into there. You have the US Military bending over backwards to respect Muslim laws and culture when they are the middle east, that is no alcohol on leave, no Porn, cultural lectures on what not to do while speaking to the Iraqi's.

IF there is a war on Islam, it is a civil war. In many of the instances up above Fousto has cited, Muslims were among the dead. Saddam Hussein was killing up to 20000 people a year. I have cited this OVER and OVER and no one seems to be getting the message. Amnesty will tell you the most vicious regimes on earth may not all be in the Middle East, but almost the all of them will go in the bottom of the rights and freedoms list. Dictators and Autocratic regimes populate the Islamic world and enforce a vicious level of oppression on their peoples. Very few of these nations have a standard of living for the average man on the street that approaches anything close to that of the Western Democracies. No, The US Army is very ineffiecient at killing Muslims, they kill each other at a far greater rate, I guess the Americans are not good at the heartless slaughter business??

I am sick and TIRED of hearing about how this is a war on Islam. You print a cartoon of Mohammed and you have riots in the streets of Islamic cities. Yet the Americans are the unreasonable ones? Give your heads a shake. Notice that if the riots were FOR democractic rights and freedoms, the watercannons, secret police and army would be there kicking the heads in of anyone demanding democratic rights.

For all you bleeding heart lovers of Diplomatic negotiation being the ends to the means, what has all the diplomacy solved vis a vis the Islamic terrorists? It hasn't solved things yet. I am a firm believer in diplomatic negotiations. In 99% of the negotitations between nations, things are worked out. Going to WAR is never an option for all but the most extreme cases. My Finnish friends here would tell me that the US didn't negotiate enough and it isnt their role to go to war. They would tell me they have ulterior motives. My Canadian friend Schmenke tells me the same. What a load of bunk.

The US has paid through the nose in the deaths of its sons and daughters, the monetary cost, the cost to its reputation. They have gained NOTHING in this war, not a damn thing. Some of you tinfoil hat conspiracy crowd might say Halliburton is making money on this, but they were making about the same profit margins before this ever started. No, the dirty little truth is America maybe well intentioned but not always well thought out. They may take actions that enrage people, but when they do nothing, people are enraged (Rwanda, Sudan/Darfur). Yet you see them as the bad guys.

Meanwhile, look long and hard at the list Fousto has put up there. It is RADICAL Islam or political regimes who hide behind the religion when attacked but it is the people of Islam who are killing each other and innocents. You heap no scorn on them. You try to JUSTIFY this slaughter in so many silly ways. You are fools for thinking that the Americans are the problem. IF the last soldier was on a plane out of Baghdad tomorrow, the attacks would continue. Innnocent Muslims would be caught up in it; the Assad's in Syria, the Military theocracy in Pakistan, the Mubarek regime in Egypt, Quaddfi in Libya, the Wahabi justice system in Saudi Arabia, the Hamas government of Palestine would ALL be killing, imprisoning and torturing their own people. In some parts of the Middle East where moderates have set up nation states, such as Qutar, Dubai, Kuwait, while there is not a true democracy, at least the people are sharing in the wealth of oil, and the nation is being built to some sort of civilized standard. The US is not invading those nations. Instead they took down the one shining example of everything that is wrong in that part of the world, and while they have screwed up the peace, it seems compared to some of these nations, they still treat Islam with more respect than some radicals.

Don't waste everyone's time trying to justify your hatred of the US based on this. Come out and admit it, you hate the US for reasons you cant even explain. Eki I think hates them because he feels Finland was abandoned. I have no idea what drives some of you guys but the point is, if the Americans are the problem to all the worlds problems, then getting rid of them will be a rude shock. The Chinese, Russians and French do their share of meddling in this part fo the world and get none of your scorn. All three at various times including NOW have been putting money into Iran. Western Europe is scared to death of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Diplomatic talks are ongoing, but guess what, Iran doesn't want to give up on a Bomb. Why should they? Everyone else has one. Of course, all the other members of the Nuclear club save North Korea have NOT threatened on a daily basis to wipe out a democratic nation. Yet the US is the problem. You people really are all canadidates for the Neville Chamberlain award for naiveity.

[schmenke]

Schmenke, first off no one here would have a civil war, because we would talk each other to death here first.

Second of all, we would willingly sell the oil to em as we always have. You myfriend have to quit hanging out with Jack Layton, he too has anti - American fantatsies.

Just trying to add some perspective to this discussion ;)


P.s. I voted Liberal :p :

[Eki]

Eki I think hates them because he feels Finland was abandoned.
No, I hate their foreign policy, because I think even small nations should have the right to decide on their own affairs without bigger nations invading them. I don't differentiate between Germany invading Poland, the Soviet Union invading Finland, Iraq invading Kuwait or the US invading Iraq. Heck, even the Soviet Union sending troops to Afghanistan or the US sending troops to Vietnam were questionable, even if they were invited by the local governments of that time.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I have said this before, and I say it again: I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-idiot.


Eki, you are anti-American, and my post to which you were referring was aimed at Schmenke, who is mouthing the platitudes of one our political party leaders here in Canada, who also claims to be NOT anti-American, but has never once complimented the nation nor people of America for doing anything correctly. You see, being anti-American up here of late has been a way of trolling for votes amongst the parties of the left. Of course, when your economy is 80% dependent on trade with the US, it does sound a little hypocritical, but as I have pointed out, you guys with a bent for disparaging George W Bush as the world's most evil man are hypocrites. You waste no posts or threads on long diatribes over any other leader, or any other political subject. Your words condemn you....

[Eki]

Of course, when your economy is 80% dependent on trade with the US, it does sound a little hypocritical,
It may sound hypocritical to you, but to me it sounds brave when one speaks up his/her mind even if their might be a backlash.

[Eki]

You waste no posts or threads on long diatribes over any other leader, or any other political subject. Your words condemn you....
We don't have a need to bash other leaders, because you're already doing it. There's no point in preaching to the choir.

[bowler]

I have said this before, and I say it again: I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-idiot.

Anti idiot is a good view to have, but the judgement of idiot is entirely subjective.

I consider that the US have made the following mistakes:

2) was invading Iraq over the WMD issue. It was a front for an invasion which I considered to be wrong, not for what it was, but for how it would be seen by the world. The US, in my view are pretty bad at picking international issues well, because their view of the world differs from many others.

1) when they were in Iraq after liberating Kuwait, they made a huge error in not dealing with Saddam at this time. They were justified, but stopped as they had no legal mandate to continue.

Having said that, now they are there, and rightly or wrongly, they have to either fix it or get out. They can't get out because the mess would be greater than the deoarture. Bush has got himself into a very difficult situation, and in one which I am glad I don't have to deal with..

It is very easy to criticise Bush, and the US, and I have certainly done so, however if there is going to be someone like that in the world, then i would rather it was the US than, say, a soviet russia.

Eki, your nation was founded, relatively recently, by a bunch of tough guys, who were prepared to fight for what they thought was right. Only through being dman tough were the Finns able to survive complete domination by Stalin after WW2. Your Pm did an amazing job of saving your country from the fate dealt to the Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. Your Grandparents would fight for the same thing today, wouldn't you?

Us bleeding heart liberals, living in democratic countries, in peace, with food in our bellies really have no idea about the real world, in which 90% of the worlds population lives.

I am enjoying Mark's sparring. Keep it up. So far Mark is the winner, and rightly so.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, I hate their foreign policy, because I think even small nations should have the right to decide on their own affairs without bigger nations invading them. I don't differentiate between Germany invading Poland, the Soviet Union invading Finland, Iraq invading Kuwait or the US invading Iraq. Heck, even the Soviet Union sending troops to Afghanistan or the US sending troops to Vietnam were questionable, even if they were invited by the local governments of that time.

Eki, fine, then you hate their foreign policy. But your steadfast refusal to not condemn Saddam Hussein when I confronted you with it for over 100 posts said to me that you have such intellectual blinders on that you cannot see past your own narrow view of the world. No, you hate the US of A's foreign policy and it has made you hate America.

I cant say what your motives are, I will apologize for trying. I must say I have always had great respects for Finn's, and their nation. That said, they cannot all be of the mind that no war is justified, they have fought on their own soil in the last 100 years two wars. So therefore I have to believe that not all Finn's would have diplomacy be the means to the end no matter what. You have a military, surely for some reason. So when you get on here and lecture me and the others that all killing is wrong, and that diplomacy should always never be abanadoned, I can agree with you in general. 99% of the conflicts between nations in this world are solved without bloodshed or military action. The US being the largest economy and military power in the Western world has more interactions with more nations and resolves all but a few peacefully. That said, the US has a habit of standing up for their allies, and yet you condemn them for that, and you condemn them any time their military is deployed. You don't want to hear the facts, you are very convinced in your own, and you spent the better part of 4 days arguing with me that The US created the carnage in Iraq. No, they may have exacerbated it, but the point is Saddam Hussein is the problem. You have defended him in post after post, if not directly, by trying to justify his actions. You on the other hand will smear George W Bush with glee. I hear no condemnation of the slaughter of innocents that the Americans do not have anything to do with, you know, Darfur, Burma, Chechnia, Somalia, Lebanon. All five of those nations have been in the headlines at various times in the last few years. All 5 have had innocents as victims of regimes or terrorist organizations provoking and outright killing people in their own selfish interests. You waste no time condmening them, because, that is ok, it is Bush that is the problem.

Right, and I have some prime swamp land in Florida I will sell you....

[Eki]

Your Grandparents would fight for the same thing today, wouldn't you?

Of course, but I'm glad I don't have to. Right now a lot of Iraqis are fighting to repel a foreign invader out of their country. Most Finns didn't want the Soviet kind of democracy, and most Iraqis don't want the US kind of democracy.

[Eki]

Right, and I have some prime swamp land in Florida I will sell you....
Did you buy it from agwiii or anthonyvop?

[Mark in Oshawa]

One more thing Eki, you think small nations should govern their own affairs without interference? How about Tibet? Shouldn't they be allowed to determine their own fate? How about Darfur? Shouldn't those non-Muslims deserve to have their own part of the world without the government abandoning them to their fate as lawless bands of thugs kill and burn their crops? All in the name of Islam, but hey, the Government in Khartoum is Islamic, so they figure it is ok. How about the people of Myanamar? Has the US stuck their noses in there? No, they haven't.

In the last 40 years, the US has not always been innocent of anything wrong, but they pretty much let small nations or big ones screw up their lives. You think American parents want to send their kids to war? You think that is a way to get votes in America? You really are living in a dream world then...you obviously have missed the last 3 Congressional elections in the US and the last Presidential one. It is a hot debate about what their place in the world is. Their foreign policy is complicated because their interests are complicated. The World is very complicated and nations do things that often seem to be machiavellian in their nature. The United States is just the biggest kid on the block, so they get the most attention. Just don't be fooled. Their motive isn't conquest, if it was, Canada and Mexico would have been under American political control years ago, with running insurrections because We and the Mexicans would fight to the death. America though isn't about conquest. They have no problem with democracy. They have no problem with people being against them in a diplomatic manner. My previous 2Rrime Ministers made a lot of hay trying to make Bush look un-informed to the Canadian public. They slighted him every chance they got. Yet they are gone, and he is still around. They were gone because we looked after things in our nation democratically. You can disagree with America all you like. They will go to war to defend your right to disagree with them if you are a democratically run nation and are attacked. Even if you are not a democracy, they will defend your nation, and then when the war is over, help rebuild it. Gee, terrible guys, they actually try to clean up the mess after the break the China.

So give up, you can disagree with the US foreign policy, but do not try to tell me that they are evil, mis-informed, or after narrow selfish interests. Nor can you convince anyone with a logical argument that they are imposing a reign of terror. We get that you don't like the war in Iraq, I have granted you that it is a mess. We get that you think little of Bush. I understand why, and why I may not agree with you, I can get that. But you have spent a lot of time on here trying to justfy the actions of Saddam Hussein. You have actually trying to defend a dictator. When I called you out on it, you spent the better part of a day continuing. I asked you to name one instance where one democracy invaded another because diplomacy failed. You gave me Norway in ww2, but as I explained, that was very weak, and you know it. You cannot get it through your head that American foreign policy is aimed trying to preserve much of the world's economy. It is aimed at defending those small nations you speak of. You have any idea how much more strife we would have if the American's didnt occasionally threaten and carry out the threat to invade the regimes of countries that were attacking others? Listen, they screw up. They know it, they debate it endlessly. Half of the US right now thinks Iraq was a mistake, but they cannot just up and leave either. Unlike other invaders, the US tends to try fix the things they break. Hardly the stuff of conquest.

Democracy and it ideals are more harshly defended by the US then any other nation. They are willing to die to defend it. I wonder about the rest of the world....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Of course, but I'm glad I don't have to. Right now a lot of Iraqis are fighting to repel a foreign invader out of their country. Most Finns didn't want the Soviet kind of democracy, and most Iraqis don't want the US kind of democracy.


There you go again Eki, presuming things. Over 80% of Iraqi's citizens have voted 2 times now in free elections. The reason there is no peace now in Iraq is because a few radicals are bent on a civil war. You notice most of the headlines in Iraq of late are NOT attacks on the US any more. No, it is Sunnis after Shiites and Shiites on Sunnis. Not all of them, just a few hot heads.

How do you know Iraq doesn't want freedom or democracy? Polling groups have been to Iraq and been stating quite the opposite actually. I guess you want people to live under a regime that gasses, maims and tortures it's people. You must, you have been defending it for days...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Anti idiot is a good view to have, but the judgement of idiot is entirely subjective.

I consider that the US have made the following mistakes:

2) was invading Iraq over the WMD issue. It was a front for an invasion which I considered to be wrong, not for what it was, but for how it would be seen by the world. The US, in my view are pretty bad at picking international issues well, because their view of the world differs from many others.

1) when they were in Iraq after liberating Kuwait, they made a huge error in not dealing with Saddam at this time. They were justified, but stopped as they had no legal mandate to continue.

Having said that, now they are there, and rightly or wrongly, they have to either fix it or get out. They can't get out because the mess would be greater than the deoarture. Bush has got himself into a very difficult situation, and in one which I am glad I don't have to deal with..

It is very easy to criticise Bush, and the US, and I have certainly done so, however if there is going to be someone like that in the world, then i would rather it was the US than, say, a soviet russia.

Eki, your nation was founded, relatively recently, by a bunch of tough guys, who were prepared to fight for what they thought was right. Only through being dman tough were the Finns able to survive complete domination by Stalin after WW2. Your Pm did an amazing job of saving your country from the fate dealt to the Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. Your Grandparents would fight for the same thing today, wouldn't you?

Us bleeding heart liberals, living in democratic countries, in peace, with food in our bellies really have no idea about the real world, in which 90% of the worlds population lives.

I am enjoying Mark's sparring. Keep it up. So far Mark is the winner, and rightly so.


Thank you Bowler, I am glad someone is paying attention..

[Mark in Oshawa]

It may sound hypocritical to you, but to me it sounds brave when one speaks up his/her mind even if their might be a backlash.

It isn't brave Eki, because we live in a democracy where bashing the US is not only allowed, it is half the raison d'etre for the last 2 Prime Ministers to divert attention from their own defiencies as leaders. You can bash the government of the US for days and years up here, and the only thing that will happen is eventually people will quit listening to you....

No, nothing brave about it, just hypocritical to state that the US is evil when we have lived side by side with them and are in a treaty obligated way to be part of their defense system if either nation is attacked directly. They are not evil at all, they are not really much different than Canada, or Finland for that matter....

[Eki]

There you go again Eki, presuming things. Over 80% of Iraqi's citizens have voted 2 times now in free elections.
Did they have all the options possible? Did they all perfectly agree on the outcome and the purpose of the elections? Voting wasn't new to them. They voted under Saddam's rule too. And just like now, they had limited options offered to them.

There was an opinion poll in Iraq after the invasion that asked what kind of democracy the Iraqis would like. The Iranian kind of democracy was the most popular option, the Saudi kind of democracy came second and the Western kind of democracy came third.

I don't know, but I think it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it was probably the ethnic majority Shiias who prefered the Iranian model, the largest ethnic minority Sunnis who prefered the Saudi model, and it was mainly the Kurds who prefered the western model.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, here is a clue for you. When Saddam had elections, he had 99% turn out, and 98% plurality. That is more than a limited action, they were voting at GUNPOINT. The UN monitored the elections in Iraq, and found them held with no threats, no co-ercion, little fraud. What is more, there were parties from all three ethnic groups on the ballots, and all three groups had people at the first constitutional conference. While all of this was going on, terrorists attacked voters, killed political figures, and generally worked to discredit the process. Yet THEY are not the bad guys? You really are naive....

[Mark in Oshawa]

There are people right now in Iraq who would kill, steal and generally wreak havoc to stop a rebuilt and remodeled Iraq government built on some sort of democratic principles. They are NOT the United States Army. If you believe every person has the right to their future being in a ballot box, heap the scorn where it belongs, on the terrorists. Stop giving them the pretence they are freedom fighters....

[Eki]

Eki, here is a clue for you. When Saddam had elections, he had 99% turn out, and 98% plurality. That is more than a limited action, they were voting at GUNPOINT. The UN monitored the elections in Iraq, and found them held with no threats, no co-ercion, little fraud. What is more, there were parties from all three ethnic groups on the ballots, and all three groups had people at the first constitutional conference. While all of this was going on, terrorists attacked voters, killed political figures, and generally worked to discredit the process. Yet THEY are not the bad guys? You really are naive....
And the Iraqi democracy is going well, is it? They could agree on the government right after the elections, did they?

I found this piece of news amusing. To have your ability to govern questioned by just the Bush government of all the governments in the world must be really humiliating:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241698,00.html

"It turns out that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's vow not to seek a second term wasn't the half of it. Maliki tells The Wall Street Journal that he regrets accepting the job in the first place — and wishes he could get out of it early. Maliki was sworn in for a four-year term last spring. He says he only agreed to the job to serve the national interest. His goal was to reign in secular violence, but the fighting has increased and Bush administration officials have questioned his ability to govern."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Did they have all the options possible? Did they all perfectly agree on the outcome and the purpose of the elections? Voting wasn't new to them. They voted under Saddam's rule too. And just like now, they had limited options offered to them.

There was an opinion poll in Iraq after the invasion that asked what kind of democracy the Iraqis would like. The Iranian kind of democracy was the most popular option, the Saudi kind of democracy came second and the Western kind of democracy came third.

I don't know, but I think it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it was probably the ethnic majority Shiias who prefered the Iranian model, the largest ethnic minority Sunnis who prefered the Saudi model, and it was mainly the Kurds who prefered the western model.

heck Americans have two major political parties, that is a limited option!! Yet they have functioned.

Iran doesn't really have a democracy. It has a one party theocracy that gives its people "choice." You can pick one anti-semite here, or another one there, but the Mullahs run the moral compass in that nation. Saudi's don't have a democracy, they have an autocratic monarchy that really deserves to be overthrown in some fashion, but flying in the face of your argument that US foreign policy is against Islam, the US is actually trying to just get the Saudi's to reform themselves one small step at a time. Wahabi leaders in that nation however view any constructive advice as Western Meddling. So the poor there go oppressed while the rich live like kings. That isn't a democracy either.

The Kurd's are the one part of Iraq who have benefitted the most. IT is only fitting because Saddam gave them the most hell. Gassing, genocidal ethnic clensing, you know, all of that good stuff you are against. The Kurds have peace, there is no strife, and they are doing deals right now with European, Canadian and American companies to develop their part of Iraq. There is peace there. The Media wastes little time on this, it isn't sexy, it is isn't newsworthy, but contrary to popular belief, Iraq is not at war from north to south in a turmoil not seen since Genghis Khan. Just the media would love you to believe that.

The Sunni Triangle and Shiite Districts are at a state of war in spots, and THAT is the issue. It is more an ethnic/religous war than a war for freedom from the US. The Americans are attacked only because they are trying to put a lid back on it. This is the one area where I have been critical of the US, they had no plan for this. It is the one reason I didn't feel the US should invade because I knew this would happen, but I couldn't see many other alternatives. Iraq would have found its way to another American invasion because Saddam Hussein was too stupid to know when he got off lucky. As Bowler pointed out, The US could have finished him off with the world's help in 1991, but they didn't have the green light from the UN to do so. The US followed the UN's dictate there for 11 years. It was Saddam who wouldn't and when confronted and told that at some point the sanctions either mean something or they don't, he chose to tell the US to go to hell. Eki, US foreign policy was ENFORCING the UN sanctions. The UN is NOT The United States...The UN is a feckless organization who should be replaced but no one can agree how. Yet the US played the game on the UN's rules for 11 years. Finally, someone was willing to do more than talk about enforcing sanctions. You know, stand up for their beliefs. Novel concept that....

[Mark in Oshawa]

And the Iraqi democracy is going well, is it? They could agree on the government right after the elections, did they?

I found this piece of news amusing. To have your ability to govern questioned by just the Bush government of all the governments in the world must be really humiliating:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241698,00.html

"It turns out that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's vow not to seek a second term wasn't the half of it. Maliki tells The Wall Street Journal that he regrets accepting the job in the first place — and wishes he could get out of it early. Maliki was sworn in for a four-year term last spring. He says he only agreed to the job to serve the national interest. His goal was to reign in secular violence, but the fighting has increased and Bush administration officials have questioned his ability to govern."

Eki, al-Maliki is frustrated. Why shouldn't he be? He is a patriot, wanted to help his nation, yet he cannot get the violence reigned in. He is not doign a good job. Of course the Bush Administration have questioned his ability, he has not done a good job of it and has admitted it. I don't see the US removing al-Maliki from office at gun point either. He was elected, he stands or fails on his own merits.

You think it is funny that Bush would say that? I don't know, the US doesn't have a civil war in its midst. Bush has kept the US economy growing for the last 8 years despite all efforts by some to say he isn't. He has done this while fighting a nasty expensive war with no real end in sight, and while he has not handled that well at all, America functions rather well. Al-Maliki is inept in comparsion. Of course, you feel that Bush is the inept one. Well I have news for you my friend, most political leaders look stupid and inept in democracies, because they do not own magic wands.

You really are reaching now.....but you should read Fox, I hear they are sometimes uncritical of Bush and US foreign policy. You might actually have some of your worst fears confirmed.....That the US ISNT the bogey man you would like to portray.

IF only you spent this much time condeming nation states and regimes that tortured their own people and created threats to their neighbours....

[airshifter]

spell check: Ronald Reagan was an oblivious higher power :p :


ok ok I'll go straight back to my stables :)


Unknown to much of the world, the US (tired of diplomacy and intent on further warfare) was poised and ready to invade East Germany.

President Reagan woke up briefly, uttered something about "tear down that wall" and once again we were robbed of the opportunity to wage war.

That typo would have been hard for me to resist too. :laugh:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Unknown to much of the world, the US (tired of diplomacy and intent on further warfare) was poised and ready to invade East Germany.

President Reagan woke up briefly, uttered something about "tear down that wall" and once again we were robbed of the opportunity to wage war.

That typo would have been hard for me to resist too. :laugh:

Just another fine example of the forces of destruction being foiled by inept political leadership eh?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, since it is your assertion Bush is inept, name me one American President who would meet your standards and why?

[Eki]

One more thing Eki, you think small nations should govern their own affairs without interference? How about Tibet?
I'd like them to, but it's not the same. Darfur has never been a sovereign country, and I'm not sure about Tibet either. If every one who want independence were given it, that would include the Kurds in Turkey and Iran, the Palestinians in Israel, the Basques in Spain, the Catholics in Northern Ireland, the Chechens in Russia, the Scottish, the Quebecains, .........

[Eki]

Eki, since it is your assertion Bush is inept, name me one American President who would meet your standards and why?
They all had some room for improvement IMO, but Bush Jr is clearly the worst I've seen (Nixon is probably the first I have some personal memories of). Ford, Carter and Clinton weren't too bad, nor was Bush Sr.

[Eki]

Of course the Bush Administration have questioned his ability, he has not done a good job of it and has admitted it.
Oh, and the Bush administration has done such a wonderful job both home and abroad? I wish Bush had the decency to resing.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'd like them to, but it's not the same. Darfur has never been a sovereign country, and I'm not sure about Tibet either. If every one who want independence were given it, that would include the Kurds in Turkey and Iran, the Palestinians in Israel, the Basques in Spain, the Catholics in Northern Ireland, the Chechens in Russia, the Scottish, the Quebecains, .........

Good point, Tibet was its own nation, but don't let Beijing hear that, they get real mad at that assertion. They still threaten Taiwan but don't because they know they will have a war with not just the people on Taiwan but the US.

Darfur isn't not a country, you are correct. The people there seem to have committed no inserrection towards the government yet they are being attacked by thugs who seem to be in the good graces of the government for nothing has stopped them. What are we to think of this? You don't condemn this action. I take is surely you are ok with this? Sudan isn't harming anyone so we should just stand by and watch? Diplomacy is busy right now trying to save those people. The only assistance they are getting is aid from western nations through NGO's. We can't do anything in your world because no nation should ever invade another for ANY reason. I guess the slaughter is ok then if your own people do it? There you go, defending dictators then.

Oh yes, I agree, not every group wants to be "free" in their own nation will get that right. Some fight for it, some try to do it through the ballot box. IN nations where democratic rights and freedoms are in place, I am all in favour of the right of the people who want out to try to get out in a fair and vaild refrenedum. In Canada the Quebecois (Your spelling was wrong, but I don't blame you, your French is probably as good as my Finnish) have twice gone to the ballot box to try to force a relationsship they call "sovreignty association". I call it having your cake and eating it too since they wouldn't give up all the good things about Canada, just what they didn't want to deal with, but at least it was done in a civilized manner. See, contrary to what some might think, I am open to diplomacy, and democracy even when I don't agree with it. The Scots and Irish in Northern Ireland have both been trying through the ballot box although the Irish terrorists did much to hurt that movement.

My contention is though that at some point, when people are dying due to oppression from a repressive regime, at some point something has to be said. When that leader doing the oppressing is also a threat to his neighbours, you now have a very delicate situation. When diplomacy is entered into on behalf of the oppressed or those threatened outside that nation's borders, then you have to have a last resort. There has to be more than hot air. If you don't have that threat, then you have no leverage, and the slaughter and threats continue. IN your world, that works. In mine, it does not.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

They all had some room for improvement IMO, but Bush Jr is clearly the worst I've seen (Nixon is probably the first I have some personal memories of). Ford, Carter and Clinton weren't too bad, nor was Bush Sr.

Bush Sr. invaded Kuwait, I thought that was a bad thing? Ford was a good man trapped in a bad time. Carter was the worst president in the last millenium IMO and Clinton was ethically challenged. You have not really stated your reasons for these three, but I suspect you hate Reagan because he actually was another US President that stood up for human rights in other nations. Cant have that can we?

Carter ran a nation with double digit inflation and unemployment by the time he left. He left the US economy in the worst shape it was in since the Depression. He had allowed a diplomatic crisis in Iran turn into a hostage crisis where 52 people were held at gunpoint for over a year. HIS people. He was defeated by the greatest margin in modern US history. Good man ethically, horrible president.

Clinton launched cruise missle attacks on Baghdad, Afghanistan and the Sudan. He sent US troops to Yugoslavia, Somalia and threatened Saddam Hussein for the same reasons Bush did. He was using the same intelligence of WMD's in Iraq too. Yet you think Clinton was ok? You are not even intellectually consistent. Clinton should be your poster boy for what is wrong with US foreign policy. Clinton never had the guts to stand in there and do what he thought was right. He would never send a man to kill another when a cruise missle strike would do the job. He wouldn't see the project through to the end. Somalia is a basket case today because the American's pulled out after arriving with great fanfare. In short, the US is hated a lot because of the actions of Bill Clinton. Bin Laden said when he saw the Americans run in Somalia he knew he could attack them. Bill Clinton never truly retaliiated or did anything after the US Embassy bombings in Africa, the apartment bombing in Saudi Arabia, or the attack on the USS Cole. All by your "freedom fighters" . When Clinton did nothing of subtance to stop Bin Laden then, he plotted 9/11. This isn't something I have made up, it can be gleaned by Bin Laden's own words in his endless videos going to al Jazeera.

No, Bill Clinton should be the man you are upset with Eki using your principles. He did more invading foreign nations for weak reasons than George did.

George Bush is not a great American president, I wont ever say that he is. I wont even say he is bad president. I think he lies somewhere in the middle. I do know he knows nothing about conquering and keeping the peace in a mad house, but we can forgive him that, he was elected, he knows nothing of putting down a people through force. He is a man with faults and merits like all leaders. In two years, he will be gone, for Americans don't have leaders for life, unlike corrupt autocratic regimes. He will retire, a man who may not have his historical record accurately written until he is dead. That is the reality. You think you have the answers on Mr. Bush, but I am afraid Eki, you don't. He isn't an evil man, but you portray him as such. He isn't a dumb man, although I can agree he looks it at times. What Bush is though is an honest man. He cannot be dumb as you make him out to be and dishonest. To be as dishonest and wrong as you have portrayed him, he would have to be a bloody genius. He isn't, but he is honest.

I don't think for a second I agree with his use of Capital punishment when he was in Texas, but I also understand that the US legal process is rigourous and in time, anyone tried and convicted in the US usually has had a fair hearing. No system is perfect, and hence my objection to the death penalty in all but the most heinous crimes.

Saddam Hussein commited heinous crimes before he even ate breakfast. He did it against his own people, the Iranians, the Kuwaitis, the Kurds. Used WMD's against them too. Not a nice man. Yet you spent a lot of time on here defending his right to do it. Sorry, in the universal declaration of human rights, mass murder isnt listed.

Your knowledge of US presidents is limited, and if you are to comment on the foreign policy of one, you should understand all of them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

OH one more thing. I would love to see Bush resign. For one reason. So Cheney would take over. You think you hate George Bush, you would be in a fit of apolexy with ole Dick Cheney. No, you want Bush to be healthy and stay in office. Trust me, because if you think Bush is a nasty fellow, let me assure you, Richard Cheney would be the most direct and hard to deal with fellow when pushed into a corner. He would also be governed by his principles also, so telling him he is wrong in a morally corrupt world isn't going to sway him. He would do what he thought was right, and he wouldn't give a flying fidoo towards his re-election.

[agwiii]

I wish Bush had the decency to resing.

Would you "resing" for us, Eki? What pitch would be best for you, perhaps B-flat?

[Eki]

My contention is though that at some point, when people are dying due to oppression from a repressive regime, at some point something has to be said.
Absolutely, I agree. But what is said and done must be well balanced, well thought over and well timed. If they really wanted to overthrow Saddam, they should have done it in 1991 when they had seemingly a more acceptable motive and wider international approval. In 2003, when Iraq was rather stable, no genocides or invasions were going on, and Saddam was crippled by the sanctions, no-fly-zones and UN weapon inspections, there was no rush to invade.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Absolutely, I agree. But what is said and done must be well balanced, well thought over and well timed. If they really wanted to overthrow Saddam, they should have done it in 1991 when they had seemingly a more acceptable motive and wider international approval. In 2003, when Iraq was rather stable, no genocides or invasions were going on, and Saddam was crippled by the sanctions, no-fly-zones and UN weapon inspections, there was no rush to invade.

This is the FIRST time you have said something I can agree with. They should have finished him off in 1991. Under the conditions of the UN Resolutions that Saddam was to live under, the last resort and the final solution was for the war to be re-commenced. The Resolutions were ones governing a cease fire to that war in 1991. The US played the game fairly and followed them for 11 years. Saddam didn't. He kicked the UN out, he let them back in and harassed them, then he kicked them back out. Then he let them in when it was clear the US meant business. Maybe Bush made an error but I doubt it. If he didn't invade in 2002, you mean to tell me Iraq would be any better off?? Maybe if you like oppressive thugs to run nations, yes, but I think at some point, you have to call the man's bluff. Iraq is not a nice place now, I can agree with you on that. That said, if Bush ignored Saddam or just let things go on as they had been, when would we be dealing with Saddam again. Don't you EVER let him off the hook for this. HE COULD HAVE BACKED DOWN, and taken the game away from Bush. Let the UN in, let them actually have some freedom of movement, and Bush's plan of invasion would be out the window. You cannot see that you have to put the blame where it truly belongs. IF you think George is an idiot, then he should be pretty easy to out wit, but alas, Saddam is the bigger idiot. The point is, Hussein was not a man of his word. George bush is, and that is the end of the stroy.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, you sound like one of those typical diplomatic apparchartiks that hang out in the UN talking about human rights and values, while the real world is full of nations killing and maiming people for power, wealth and terror. You guys would talk us all to death, and nothing would ever happen. You cannot use diplomacy and talk to solve a dispute when you are dealing with someone who wont stand behind his word, and someone who will lie to you to give you what you want to hear. You cannot have diplomacy as the ends to the means. If there is not some sort of implied threat, you will get no where with the likes of Saddam. Now if you want to believe they should have taken longer with him, I wouldn't be spending the last 4 days arguing with you, but you have just blasted Bush over and over, like he is the problem. HE IS NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem was the man who created a country where ethnic hatred was used as a weapon to supress people. You want to know why those idiots were yelling at him as they hung him? Live under his rule, and see how rational you would be....

[Eki]

The point is, Hussein was not a man of his word. George bush is, and that is the end of the stroy.....
Maybe, but wise men sometimes admit they were wrong, change their mind and actions when they see things aren't going like they should be going. Only the stupid keep banging their head on the wall when it seems obvious they can't get through it (maybe that includes us, who have been debating the same things over and over again for the past 4 days like you said).

[Eki]

while the real world is full of nations killing and maiming people for power, wealth and terror.
I agree on that, except unlike you, I include the US among those nations.


You want to know why those idiots were yelling at him as they hung him?
I'm sure there would be Americans yelling at Bush if they hung him, at least Cindy Sheehan would.

[agwiii]

I'm sure there would be Americans yelling at Bush if they hung him, at least Cindy Sheehan would.

Cindy Sheehan is a traitor in a time of war. Her son is doing a rotissere in his grave at the way she has dipped her hands into his blood for her personal political agenda. That makes quite a group that you support: Hitler, Saddam and now Sheehan.

[agwiii]

Maybe, but wise men sometimes admit they were wrong, change their mind and actions when they see things aren't going like they should be going. Only the stupid keep banging their head on the wall when it seems obvious they can't get through it (maybe that includes us, who have been debating the same things over and over again for the past 4 days like you said).

Eki, you just don't know when to quit. In your battle of wits with Mark, you are unarmed. Doesn't it embarass you when he repeatedly makes you look like a fascist fool?

[Gannex]

I want to take my hat off to both of you gentlemen, Mark and Eki, for having taken the time and trouble to give us this discussion. It has been the most absorbing thread by far that I have seen in the several years I've been a member here.

Mark. I agree with most of what you say, but I cannot help thinking that you let George Bush off far too easily. I don't believe he is evil, as Eki seems to do, nor do I believe that the war against the Ba'athists was immoral. Like you, I think the Coalition went into Iraq for high purposes, to liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny, and to leave in place a regime which would give Iraq freedom and prosperity. Certainly, the Coalition believed that in so doing, benefits would flow not only to Iraq, but to the rest of the world as well. To that extent, Eki is right, in my view; there was self-interest as well as humanitarian interest at work. The Coalition felt that a free, democratic Iraq would be a more reliable supplier of oil, and also felt that an Arab democracy would act as an example to other Muslim Arab populations, showing them that there is a more prosperous and happy life available to them, if only they will abandon radical, hate-filled, warlike politics. Freedom and democracy, it was hoped, would catch on in the Arab world, if only it could be shown to be possible in the very heart of Arabia. Those were noble motives, and if all one looks at are the motives, I think you are right, Mark, when you defend Bush and say he is not the worst of presidents, though not the best.

But look at method, rather than motive, and Bush begins to look far more sinister, closer to Eki's portrait than yours. I refer to the ruthlessness with which the campaign has been conducted, the utter lack of concern, for example, with preserving order after the invasion had been carried out. Rumsfeld's dismissive "stuff happens" comment about the looting and the chaos in the days after Saddam's fall was emblematic, in my view, of the entire American approach. The wholesale imprisonment of people in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and similar hell-holes, was not the reluctant imprisonment of enemies, but of anyone who was remotely suspect. It didn't matter to the Americans, as a matter of policy, if completely innocent people were tortured or killed; they wanted to err on the side of brutality, and in this, they resembled the Japanese in World War II, rather than the Allies. In that war, unlike this one, the Americans were honourable combatants, who minimised suffering wherever they could. In this one, they clearly did not care how much suffering they caused. That, in my book, is hard to forgive.

Not only was the callousness of the Americans wrong, it was also stupid. What a way to win hearts and minds!! So the Bush administration was cruel and foolish at the same time.

Another complaint I have against the American administration is that, as you admit, the chaos, anarchy and high death-toll was entirely predictable. In not taking steps to prevent it, the Americans are in the same moral position as a drunk driver who ploughs into a school-bus -- he is admittedly better than a murderer, whose intention is to kill, but far from blameless, as you suggest the Americans are. It is morally outrageous to blast into a situation without troubling to question whether your actions will cause grief on a massive scale. But this is what the Americans did.

It didn't have to be that way. The British ruled the South in a much more considered and humane way. Had the entire Operation Iraqi Freedom been run as the British ran their sector, things could have gone according to plan, establishing freedom, being seen as liberators, leaving a country which could look forward with confidence and gratitude to those who set them free.

So I despise Bush's conduct of this war. I despise its cruelty, its incompetence, its arrogance and its effects. I cannot see how you can call Bush anything other than a disastrous wartime leader. I cannot see how he could have possibly done a worse job.

And let me add one thing. I do not have any criticism of the American forces. For years I worked with American military personnel, and they impressed me enormously. But a fighting force is only as good as its leaders allow it to be, and in this terrible war the Americans were let down badly by their president. The blame lies with him, not them.

[RaceFanStan]

The bottom line is Bush lied & soldiers died,
Bush traded blood for oil & didn't even get the oil !

[Gannex]

One of your theses, Mark, is that the reason for the terrible violence we are currently seeing in Iraq, Baghdad especially, is that the tyrannical lid on simmering sectarian hatreds was raised. It was inevitable, you seem to be saying, because Sunni and Shia just couldn't wait to get their hands on each other's throats. I don't believe that at all. There was every possibility of Sunni and Shia getting along. Under Saddam, Sunni and Shia did not fear each other or even hate each other at the street level. Intermarriage was quite common, Shia would attend Sunni weddings, travel in Sunni neighbourhoods, have Sunni friends. The hatred between Shia and Sunni that we see today is not the result of long-simmering animosity that has been unleashed. It had to be fomented, this hatred, stirred up, created. Those who created it were, primarily, Moqtada al Sadr on the one hand, and the remanants of the Ba'ath army, Saddam's army, on the other. They tried and tried to turn Iraq into a cauldron of hatred, and it has taken them years to achieve it. First, the groups used the Americans, and the killing of Americans, "resistance" they called it, to establish their legitimacy with the population at large. Moqtada al Sadr was considered a warmongering fool at first among the Shia, and they were much more interested and impressed by the very peaceful and devout Grand Ayatollah al Sistani, who advocated no violence against even the Americans, never mind the Sunni. Al Sistani's advocacy of peace toward all Muslims could have become the prevailing view, but Moqtada al Sadr used the Americans to discredit Sistani, and the Americans played right into al Sadr's hands.

Likewise the Sunni. They, the vast majority, had no real axe to grind with the Shia population at large. There was no general hatred toward the Shia among the ordinary Sunni man in the street. They had not stomach for war at all, but the Americans completely disenfrachised the Ba'athist army, turned their leaders overnight from respected, feared pillars of society, into sub-humans, not worthy even of the most menial job. So the Ba'athist leaders, taking the rank and file with them, became warriors against the invaders, gaining respect in the only way they knew how -- through violence. I don't condone that, Mark, but I do say that it needn't have happened.

Once the Ba'athists and the Shia militias embroiled the country in war against the Americans, it was a simple matter for the warlords to turn that war into a war between themselves. It wasn't inevitable at all; it was the result, in large part, of the incompetence and callousness of the invading forces. The civil war is largely George Bush's war, and that is another idiocy that I find hard to forgive.

[agwiii]

:down:


The bottom line is Bush lied & soldiers died,
Bush traded blood for oil & didn't even get the oil !

No, the bottom line is that you don't have the facts straight and have zero understanding of internation politics. You should restrict yourself to other forums instead of repeating leftist drivel.

:down:

[agwiii]

:down:


The bottom line is Bush lied & soldiers died,
Bush traded blood for oil & didn't even get the oil !

The bottom line is that you do not have the facts, and you do not understand international politics. All you are doing is repeating leftist drivel.

:down:

[RaceFanStan]

I understand that there was just enough morons to elect the sorry SOB.
It is obvious where you fit. http://www.motorsportforum.com/forums/images/icons/tongue-anim.gif :laugh:

[DonJippo]

Doesn't it embarass you when he repeatedly makes you look like a fascist fool?

You on the other hand doesn't seem to need others help on that...you manage it just find on your own :rolleyes:

[agwiii]

RaceFanStan

From what you write, it is clear that you do not understand anything about the Middle East, Iraq, War, American Politics, or many things.

[agwiii]

:down:

Okay don hippo, admit it. You cheated when you took composition and reading appreciation. It shows.

:down:

[RaceFanStan]

That is a lame rebuttal. :rolleyes:
It is sad when blind followers cannot see the truth.

Your hero is a liar & he has done great damage to USA's credibility to the world.
Your hero defied the UN & then went crying to them for help AFTER he waged war on Iraq.

Public opinion is busting through the lies & seeing Bush for what he really is.
We can only hope that someday Bush will be held accountable.
I wonder if his moronic followers will stand behind him then.

[DonJippo]

:down:

Okay don hippo, admit it. You cheated when you took composition and reading appreciation. It shows.

:down:

Likewise yours...but then again I'm sure you knew it already :rolleyes:

[Alexamateo]

Stan,

You said it was a lame rebuttal that Agwiii made, but the same can be said of yours also. I don't know if you've been reading this thread, but there have been some really interesting arguments on both sides of the issue. You may have some valid opinions too, but silly rhymes like "Bush lied and soldiers died" don't really add anything here and are degenerating the thread to name-calling. I don't mean to offend, but I just wanted to point this out.

[Woodeye]

So give up, you can disagree with the US foreign policy, but do not try to tell me that they are evil, mis-informed, or after narrow selfish interests. Nor can you convince anyone with a logical argument that they are imposing a reign of terror.

Wow, you guys really have been busy on this thread. Shame that I missed so much of this debate. I have to give you credit Mark that you really know how to back your words. It's great to read this kind of discussion, even that I don't necessary agree with everything said here.

You've said many times that it's naiive to think that diplomacy will work in all occasitions. Well, maybe that is true. I have to admit that at some point you have to throw diplomacy to bin if all the options have been used. Same time I think that in Iraq this wasn't the case. Bush needed to show the nation that he was doing something to fight the terrorists. As you said yourself, Americans need action at some point, not just endless wordflows.

But I think that it is naiivve also to think that US entered Iraq only to give freedom to Iraqi people. US needed to get rid of Saddam, they needed oil, they needed to get some space near Iran. They needed to show that Bush Jr. is a man who can fight against an "powerfull" enemy and win wars. That is a nice way to get some votes, you know. Again, war is more profitable than peace in many instances.

At some of your post you also said (if I remember correctly, if not please correct me) that UN is slow in their actions and they just discuss matters when they should be doing something instead of talking. This is correct, and I agree 100 %. At it's currect form UN is pretty much like crippled duck. It would really need somekind of organizational reshaping. The thing that I cannot understand is when something tragic happens, it takes 2 weeks for UN to condemn this. To condemn?! It should take 2 hours to condenm the issue and two weeks to solve. No matter who has the right to us "veto" -rights.

Carry on gentlemen. :)

[pino]

Quit the insults or this thread will be closed !

[janneppi]

Wow, you guys really have been busy on this thread. Shame that I missed so much of this debate. I have to give you credit Mark that you really know how to back your words. It's great to read this kind of discussion, even that I don't necessary agree with everything said here.

You've said many times that it's naiive to think that diplomacy will work in all occasitions. Well, maybe that is true. I have to admit that at some point you have to throw diplomacy to bin if all the options have been used. Same time I think that in Iraq this wasn't the case. Bush needed to show the nation that he was doing something to fight the terrorists. As you said yourself, Americans need action at some point, not just endless wordflows.

But I think that it is naiivve also to think that US entered Iraq only to give freedom to Iraqi people. US needed to get rid of Saddam, they needed oil, they needed to get some space near Iran. They needed to show that Bush Jr. is a man who can fight against an "powerfull" enemy and win wars. That is a nice way to get some votes, you know. Again, war is more profitable than peace in many instances.

At some of your post you also said (if I remember correctly, if not please correct me) that UN is slow in their actions and they just discuss matters when they should be doing something instead of talking. This is correct, and I agree 100 %. At it's currect form UN is pretty much like crippled duck. It would really need somekind of organizational reshaping. The thing that I cannot understand is when something tragic happens, it takes 2 weeks for UN to condemn this. To condemn?! It should take 2 hours to condenm the issue and two weeks to solve. No matter who has the right to us "veto" -rights.

Carry on gentlemen. :)
The problem is that no one in the UN, especially the permament members really want UN to be effective all the time. Just when it suits them.
For UN to be truly effective as a authority, it would need a completely indepedant military force capapable of kicking everybody's arse in to the stone age, and that wont happen, ever.

[Tomi]

The problem is that no one in the UN, especially the permament members really want UN to be effective all the time. Just when it suits them.
For UN to be truly effective as a authority, it would need a completely indepedant military force capapable of kicking everybody's arse in to the stone age, and that wont happen, ever.

Majority desitions in the security council would be good, and the veto right away from everyone.

[janneppi]

Majority desitions in the security council would be good, and the veto right away from everyone.
But without a real force behind it, bigger UN operations can only be conducted against countries US doesn't like. ;)

[Tomi]

But without a real force behind it, bigger UN operations can only be conducted against countries US doesn't like. ;)

Maybe so, but in sanctions and things like that, also the credibility of us is getting smaller day by day because of Iraq, that might effect their future politics too, after the monkey is out.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This thread has been an adventure. I have no idea where to begin. Gannex, your words are taken with great respect. Your take on the situation is pretty close to how I would have broke it down, EXCEPT I do not put down the American's role in screwing up the peace as anything but just ineptness. I see no bile, no EVIL in this. It was my thoughts before the invasion occured that the Bush's hadn't thought about the peace, and how to make it happen. Your assessment of the British rule in the south is DEAD on the money. I always felt if Canada had the troops and the moxy, we could have done a similar job as we are much more used to dealing with peacekeeping operations.

I guess what drew me to this thread, was the constant excuse that Bush is an idiot, liar, cheat, moron, fool. I don't think he is any of those things, but nor would I want to defend his administration. Lets just say, as Gannex has pointed out, America has made a lot of mistakes here. Agwii and other Americans to their credit have not take me to task for pointing that out, but I guess where I have to draw the line is that I do not feel it is an inherit desire to do things wrong that put Bush in this mess. I don't feel he is a war criminal nor do I feel this constant effort on the part many to give Saddam Hussein's role in this an equal status with Bush is wrong.

If we can agree that Bush has screwed the peace up, we can agree. If we think the motives are a war for oil ,as Stan believes, then I think that is naive and wrong, so lets go there.

To say that the US invaded Iraq to "Get oil" or "make money" is a fallacy. This war is costing so much in cash that the US economy is not gaining anything out of this war. Maybe the military suppliers of ammunition, rockets, military vehicles are making out like bandits, but taking 250000 people out of the US economy to fight a war is not doing much to make economic growth. Nor is the US getting oil. When I see the platitudes of the American left, and others out there that "he is in it for the oil" I cringe.

Bush believed in his heart of heart, that the intellegence leading him there was right. It looks foolish now, but the fact is it is the same evidence that the opposition in Congress were given and the majority of the Democratic party voted to give Bush the power to go to war took it. Bill Clinton had this same information when he was threatening the Saddam regime in 1998. Tony Blair believed it, and contrary to what people think, Tony and George should not have been bosom buddies. Tony is a center-left politician in the mold of Bill Clinton. That is what sold me on the motives of this war. If Tony was believing Iraq was a threat, I felt then it should be taken seriously. 50 other leaders agreed as well. Not one of them is personally going to gain by this war by getting the oil. The oil merely is a means to generate money for the new government in Iraq to pay for the infrastructure afterwards. Lets face it, someone has to pay for the broken bridges, the roads torn up, the power plants removed. The dirty little secret is the US treasury and others but mainly the US would have to pay for this. Since Saddam was doing little for the Iraq infrastructure, i would humbly suggest no matter what their faults, the US has overseen more building for the good of Iraq in the last 4 years than Saddam did in 20 years. Iraq may be paying for it though oil sales, but at least it is getting done. No, this was not a war for oil. Naive simple solutions and slogans sound nice but are not the truth.

The World economy needs oil. Finland, Canada, the US, Australia, wherever you want to look, a modern economy is dependent on oil. If Saddam had kept the oilfields of Iran that he wanted in 81, the fields in Kuwait, maybe Dubai or Saudi if he was left unchecked, he would put the squeeze on the oil reserves of the world in a way that would make people cry. That was his goal IMO. OF course, it wasn't going to happen because the Americans are very aware what a shock would do to the world's economy. Sure they would be helping themselves in the process, but lets face it, the functioning of the world economy benefits everyone, not just the Americans. So now that we look further down the road, Saddam is cornered. The UN is trying to get him to understand that the world wants him to comply with this 14 resoulutions. He doesn't , the US calls his bluff, and the war is on. The point has NEVER been made how the US gains in the oil game. It cant, for they are not seizing the oil. They are protecting it, but Iraq to this day is getting the money from the oil. The US treasury really isn't. Not to a profit in any stretch. The oil is just merely secured to not shock the world's economy. Hardly a bad motive, since an quiver in the world price of oil would hurt the economy. Oil prices have spiked, but not just American multi nationals have benefited, so have the nations of OPEC. That lovely fellow in Venezuela down there who sounds like Eki is making money hand over fist. I would wager that he is a big a winner from this mess as anyone. The only people NOT making money on this are the US Taxpayer. This is not a war for oil people, it was a war based on the misapplied intelligence gathering ability of the CIA and war to take down a possible future threat to the world.

Saddam had at least 4 months to cache weapons around the country for possible insurgents. He had that long to secure any WMD's he may have had and ship them to Syria or wherever. I don't think he had the WMD's any more, but his refusal to admit this has never been explained. That is one reason I would have kept him around, to explain his wacky theory that he could continue to hide something he didn't have. Saddam had time if he HAD the weapons to put them in the hands of people no one would want holding nerve gas. Saddam was seen as a threat full stop. To play this moral equivlency game that Bush is just as evil is a pile of crap. The last time I looked, the US were not having as government policy the wilful slaughter of innocent people for the sake of killing people. At times, the US went out its way to avoid targeting Islamic shrines, mosques and the like, and thought was given to not attacking on Islamic holy days. They have tried in their own clumsy fashion to try to do the right thing. Does this make them the drunk piling into the school bus as Gannex implies? I don't know if I would put them down as Drunk. I put them down as a bad driver, but I dont' think you can say Bush is guilty of anything but incompetance in how he prosecuted the peace. He is guilty of being too quick to trust the wrong people. That is a question of incompetance, not evil intent. To put THAT up beside the actions of Saddam Hussein's wilful use of force on his own people in the most heinous ways is repugnant to any thinking person. Hussein was a war criminal. He was tried in a manner that all his victims never received, and while I am not a proponent of Capital punishment, Saddam got justice. Eki's steadfast refusal to see him as the thug he was is what drove me to debate him, and others.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Another few thoughts:

To also say it was a war to make Bush look better to the US voter, well lets just say if he never attacked Iraq, he wouldn't have the opposition at home he now has. He would likely have made gains in Congress in 04, since his approval rating in the days after 9/11 was so high, if he had done nothing more than go after Bin Laden, he would have been far further ahead. He has lost the ground his party had worked so hard to gain. The Republican party has lost ground in Congress, and will likely lose the presidency. Yet Bush wont let go. I guess that is a sign of political naivety, and he is guilty of that.

I found it interesting to see Cindy Sheehan's name in this thread. Ms Sheehan is ....well I wont call her a traitor, as Agwii has, for I think being wrong is not traitoress. She is a pawn, a pawn of the hard left in the US. She is a willing pawn to be sure, but she has used her son's memory as a political weapon and that makes her more distasteful than you can imagine.

Simplistic slogans, solutions and ideas don't work in world geo-politics. The UN should be redone. Maybe have an associaition of democracy. Establish a standard for membership based on principles of freedom and having a nation having open and democratic elections. It wouldn't be a slam dunk Pro US group to be sure, but at least, hold nations in this membership to a higher standard, and establish a set of goals to be achieved before force is applied. Have debate amongst world leaders in an open forum to air grievances and set agenda's for the free world. This is the idea the UN was supposed to have, but then membership was established to all nations equally. Then a Security Council was added. We know the flaws in both of these ideas don't we? The Security council is deadlocked because two of the members that have veto's no real interest in democratic rights or freedoms. The General membership is close to 200 members of which at least 100 plus are autocratic regimes or worse who often use their vote to just gang up on two members, the US and Israel. Nothing happens of use, and diplomacy and words are the means to an end. That is the greatest failure of this story. As bad as Iraq is, the real loser in this was Kofi Annan. A man who had a son involved in breaking the "oil for food" embargo. The UN and Annan have been proven to be useless to say the least. In almost every humanitarian emergency in this world, the US has done far more than the UN. It pains me to say that, because I live in a nation that lived with the fantasy that the UN knows what it is doing. Canada has been the most eager participant in peacekeeping operations, and believes in the idea of a UN.

No, I think that as bad as Bush's actual running of the peace in Iraq has been, the true ineptness of the UN has been exposed once again. As we have spent days bickering here, people are dying in Darfur and no one is willing to step in. The UN wont even go in because, like Eki, they believe no nation should interfere in another nation's affairs under no circumstance period. Even if there is mass death and genocide. Nice principle to try to keep as people are clearly suffering. Of course, China has vetoed any effort in the Security Council to step in, since they are most of the evil things people would attribute to Bush and the US. They are getting their oil out of Sudan and I would argue Darfur is China's cheap oil campaign. That is, China is using their own motives at the expense of the world doing something about Darfur. Woodeye I think put it best. They should spend 2 hours condemning the obvious and 2 weeks doing something about it as opposed to two weeks arguing about it and 2 hours doing something. That sums up the UN.

The world needs a UN that works. The current one? The world needs this UN like a fish needs a bicycle.

[agwiii]

Hussein’s Voice Speaks in Court in Praise of Chemical Atrocities

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

By JOHN F. BURNS
Published: January 9, 2007

BAGHDAD, Jan. 8 — The courtroom he dominated for 15 months seemed much smaller on Monday without him there to mock the judges and assert his menacing place in history.

But the thick, high-register voice of Saddam Hussein was unmistakable. In audio recordings made years ago and played 10 days after his hanging, Mr. Hussein was heard justifying the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s, predicting they would kill “thousands” and saying he alone among Iraq’s leaders had the authority to order chemical attacks.

In the history of prosecutions against some of the last century’s grimmest men, there can rarely have been a moment that so starkly caught a despot’s unpitying nature.

On one recording, Mr. Hussein presses the merits of chemical weapons on Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, his vice-president, and now, the Americans believe, the fugitive leader of the Sunni insurgency that has tied down thousands of American troops. Mr. Douri, a notorious hard-liner, asks whether chemical attacks will be effective against civilian populations, and suggests that they might stir an international outcry.

“Yes, they’re very effective if people don’t wear masks,” Mr. Hussein replies.

“You mean they will kill thousands?” Mr. Douri asks.

“Yes, they will kill thousands,” Mr. Hussein says.

Before he was hanged Dec. 30 for offenses in another case, Mr. Hussein had used the so-called Anfal trial, involving the massacre of as many as 180,000 Iraqi Kurds, as a platform for arguing that the chemical weapons attacks of the kind that devastated the town of Halabja on March 16, 1988, were carried out by Iranian forces then fighting Iraq in an eight-year war.

But the recordings told another story. Court officials gave no hint as to how they obtained the recordings, which Iraqis familiar with Mr. Hussein’s voice said seemed to be authentic. But they appeared to have been made during meetings of his Revolutionary Command Council and of the Baath Party High Command, two groups that acted as rubber stamps for his decisions. Mr. Hussein regularly ordered meetings to be recorded, according to Iraqis who knew the inner workings of Mr. Hussein’s dictatorship.

Mr. Hussein sounds matter of fact as he describes what chemical weapons will do. “They will prevent people eating and drinking the local water, and they won’t be able to sleep in their beds,” he says. “They will force people to leave their homes and make them uninhabitable until they have been decontaminated.”

As for the concern about international reaction, he assures Mr. Douri that only he will order the attacks. “I don’t know if you know this, Comrade Izzat, but chemical weapons are not used unless I personally give the orders,” he says.

When Iraq resumed the genocide trial of its former leaders on Monday, Mr. Hussein’s high-backed, black vinyl seat at the front of the dock was left ominously empty. Something about the six remaining defendants, including Ali Hassan al-Majid, Mr. Hussein’s cousin, who was known among Iraqis as Chemical Ali for his role in overseeing the attacks on the Kurds, suggested that they felt orphaned without the commanding presence of Mr. Hussein.

Gone were the cries of “Mr. President!” as Mr. Hussein entered the court to join them in the dock, and gone, too, was the emboldened posture they took from Mr. Hussein, with frequent challenges and insults to witnesses, prosecutors and judges. Perhaps Mr. Hussein’s hanging, and the humiliating taunts he endured from witnesses and guards as he stood with the noose around his neck, had broken the last illusions among those surviving him that they could somehow evade a similar end.

When the chief judge, Muhammad Ureibi al-Khalifa, began the proceedings by abruptly cutting the microphone as Mr. Majid stood to intone a prayer in memory of Mr. Hussein, the former dictator seemed to be judicially, as well as existentially, dead. But the anticlimactic beginning swiftly gave way to the most astonishing day of testimony since Mr. Hussein and his associates went on trial. Once more, it was Mr. Hussein, this time in an involuntary orgy of self-incrimination, who dominated.

In the sequence of scratchy recordings — some with the dialogue quite clear, some barely decipherable — Mr. Hussein repeatedly showed the ready resort to brutality that seized Iraq with fear during his 24 years in power. At one point, he is heard telling a general to summarily execute field commanders who fail to adequately prepare their defenses against Kurdish guerrilla raids.

He cites as a precedent “some commanders who abandoned their positions when they found themselves in an awkward situation, who deserved to have their necks cut, and did.” At another point, he tells subordinates to execute any internal security officials who fail to stop Iraqi soldiers sneaking home from the Iranian front on fake passes.

“If you arrest any of them, cut off their heads,” he says. “Show no mercy. They only joined the security to avoid having to join the army and fight Iran.”

One recording revealed, more clearly than anything before, Mr. Hussein’s personal involvement in covering up Iraq’s attempts to acquire unconventional weapons, the program that ultimately led to President Bush sending American troops to overthrow him. Talking to the general who led Iraq’s dealings with United Nations weapons inspectors until weeks before the 2003 invasion, he counseled caution in the figures being divulged on the extent of Iraq’s raw supplies for chemical weapons, so as to disguise the use of unaccounted-for chemicals in the attacks on the Kurds.

But it was Mr. Hussein’s chilling discussion of the power of chemical weapons against civilians that brought prosecutors and judges to the verge of tears, and seemed to shock the remaining defendants. One of the recordings featured an unidentified military officer telling Mr. Hussein that a plan was under development for having Soviet-built aircraft carry containers, packed with up to 50 napalm bombs each, which would be rolled out of the cargo deck and dropped on Kurdish towns.

“Yes, in areas where you have concentrated populations, that would be useful,” Mr. Hussein replies.

Another recording involves a General Thabit, who was not further identified by the prosecutors, telling Mr. Hussein that his forces had used chemical weapons in the northern sector of Kurdistan, but that “our supplies of the weapons were low, and we didn’t make good use of the ones we had.” The general notes that Iraq’s production of mustard gas and sarin, a nerve gas, was “very low,” and says they should be used sparingly. “We’re keeping what we have for the future,” he says.

Before they recovered enough to begin pleading their innocence, Mr. Hussein’s erstwhile companions in the dock buried their heads in their hands, gazed at the floor, and glanced furtively toward TV cameras transmitting live coverage of the trial. Mr. Majid shifted uneasily in his seat as one recording had him telling officials to warn Kurdish refugees that they would be attacked with chemical weapons if they attempted to return to their villages.

The prosecutor, Munkith al-Faroun, came to court as almost the only person who attended Mr. Hussein’s execution on Dec. 30 to emerge with an unsullied reputation. It was he, as he and others confirmed, who attempted to halt the taunts hurled at Mr. Hussein as he stood with the noose around his neck, moments before the trapdoor opened. Over the hubbub, an illicit camera phone recording showed Mr. Faroun calling out for silence, “Please, no!” he said. “The man is about to be executed.”

But back in the courtroom, Mr. Faroun became, again, the man holding Mr. Hussein to account and, in one poignant moment, counseling restraint among those who have expressed outrage over the manner of the former ruler’s execution. That moment came after the court watched television images taken after the Halabja attack, which more than any other event focused world attention on the atrocities committed under Mr. Hussein.

The video showed the horrors: a father wailing in grief as he found his children lying along a street littered with bodies; dead mothers clutching gas-choked infants to their breasts in swaddling clothes; young sisters embracing each other in death; and trucks piled high with civilian bodies. “I ask the whole world to look at these images, especially those who are crying right now,” Mr. Faroun said, referring to the outpouring of sympathy for Mr. Hussein.

The recordings played at Monday’s trial session, seemingly eliminating any doubt about Mr. Hussein’s role in the attacks on the Kurds, may go a long way to answering criticism of the government for executing him before he was judged for the worst of his crimes.

American justice department lawyers, who have done much of the behind-the-scenes work in sifting tons of documents and other evidence gathered after the invasion of 2003, had never hinted that they held the trump card, judicially and historically, that the audio recordings seem likely to be.

[DonJippo]

To say that the US invaded Iraq to "Get oil" or "make money" is a fallacy. This war is costing so much in cash that the US economy is not gaining anything out of this war. Maybe the military suppliers of ammunition, rockets, military vehicles are making out like bandits, but taking 250000 people out of the US economy to fight a war is not doing much to make economic growth. Nor is the US getting oil. When I see the platitudes of the American left, and others out there that "he is in it for the oil" I cringe.

If it's not oil then what are they exporting to US as 50% of Irag's export 2005 was to USA https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

[Mark in Oshawa]

If it's not oil then what are they exporting to US as 50% of Irag's export 2005 was to USA https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

It ever occur to you that the US was paying world price for the oil? Did it occur to you that Iraq might have agricultural products of some sort? I suspect most of it is oil but even if it was ALL oil, if the US wants oil, Canada and Venezuela could sell the US that same oil easier, and likely cheaper than this mess in Iraq has cost. The reason the oil may be going to the US is more due to the vagries of how the oil commodities market works than any government policy.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hussein’s Voice Speaks in Court in Praise of Chemical Atrocities

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

By JOHN F. BURNS
Published: January 9, 2007

BAGHDAD, Jan. 8 — The courtroom he dominated for 15 months seemed much smaller on Monday without him there to mock the judges and assert his menacing place in history.

But the thick, high-register voice of Saddam Hussein was unmistakable. In audio recordings made years ago and played 10 days after his hanging, Mr. Hussein was heard justifying the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s, predicting they would kill “thousands” and saying he alone among Iraq’s leaders had the authority to order chemical attacks.

In the history of prosecutions against some of the last century’s grimmest men, there can rarely have been a moment that so starkly caught a despot’s unpitying nature.

On one recording, Mr. Hussein presses the merits of chemical weapons on Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, his vice-president, and now, the Americans believe, the fugitive leader of the Sunni insurgency that has tied down thousands of American troops. Mr. Douri, a notorious hard-liner, asks whether chemical attacks will be effective against civilian populations, and suggests that they might stir an international outcry.

“Yes, they’re very effective if people don’t wear masks,” Mr. Hussein replies.

“You mean they will kill thousands?” Mr. Douri asks.

“Yes, they will kill thousands,” Mr. Hussein says.

Before he was hanged Dec. 30 for offenses in another case, Mr. Hussein had used the so-called Anfal trial, involving the massacre of as many as 180,000 Iraqi Kurds, as a platform for arguing that the chemical weapons attacks of the kind that devastated the town of Halabja on March 16, 1988, were carried out by Iranian forces then fighting Iraq in an eight-year war.

But the recordings told another story. Court officials gave no hint as to how they obtained the recordings, which Iraqis familiar with Mr. Hussein’s voice said seemed to be authentic. But they appeared to have been made during meetings of his Revolutionary Command Council and of the Baath Party High Command, two groups that acted as rubber stamps for his decisions. Mr. Hussein regularly ordered meetings to be recorded, according to Iraqis who knew the inner workings of Mr. Hussein’s dictatorship.

Mr. Hussein sounds matter of fact as he describes what chemical weapons will do. “They will prevent people eating and drinking the local water, and they won’t be able to sleep in their beds,” he says. “They will force people to leave their homes and make them uninhabitable until they have been decontaminated.”

As for the concern about international reaction, he assures Mr. Douri that only he will order the attacks. “I don’t know if you know this, Comrade Izzat, but chemical weapons are not used unless I personally give the orders,” he says.

When Iraq resumed the genocide trial of its former leaders on Monday, Mr. Hussein’s high-backed, black vinyl seat at the front of the dock was left ominously empty. Something about the six remaining defendants, including Ali Hassan al-Majid, Mr. Hussein’s cousin, who was known among Iraqis as Chemical Ali for his role in overseeing the attacks on the Kurds, suggested that they felt orphaned without the commanding presence of Mr. Hussein.

Gone were the cries of “Mr. President!” as Mr. Hussein entered the court to join them in the dock, and gone, too, was the emboldened posture they took from Mr. Hussein, with frequent challenges and insults to witnesses, prosecutors and judges. Perhaps Mr. Hussein’s hanging, and the humiliating taunts he endured from witnesses and guards as he stood with the noose around his neck, had broken the last illusions among those surviving him that they could somehow evade a similar end.

When the chief judge, Muhammad Ureibi al-Khalifa, began the proceedings by abruptly cutting the microphone as Mr. Majid stood to intone a prayer in memory of Mr. Hussein, the former dictator seemed to be judicially, as well as existentially, dead. But the anticlimactic beginning swiftly gave way to the most astonishing day of testimony since Mr. Hussein and his associates went on trial. Once more, it was Mr. Hussein, this time in an involuntary orgy of self-incrimination, who dominated.

In the sequence of scratchy recordings — some with the dialogue quite clear, some barely decipherable — Mr. Hussein repeatedly showed the ready resort to brutality that seized Iraq with fear during his 24 years in power. At one point, he is heard telling a general to summarily execute field commanders who fail to adequately prepare their defenses against Kurdish guerrilla raids.

He cites as a precedent “some commanders who abandoned their positions when they found themselves in an awkward situation, who deserved to have their necks cut, and did.” At another point, he tells subordinates to execute any internal security officials who fail to stop Iraqi soldiers sneaking home from the Iranian front on fake passes.

“If you arrest any of them, cut off their heads,” he says. “Show no mercy. They only joined the security to avoid having to join the army and fight Iran.”

One recording revealed, more clearly than anything before, Mr. Hussein’s personal involvement in covering up Iraq’s attempts to acquire unconventional weapons, the program that ultimately led to President Bush sending American troops to overthrow him. Talking to the general who led Iraq’s dealings with United Nations weapons inspectors until weeks before the 2003 invasion, he counseled caution in the figures being divulged on the extent of Iraq’s raw supplies for chemical weapons, so as to disguise the use of unaccounted-for chemicals in the attacks on the Kurds.

But it was Mr. Hussein’s chilling discussion of the power of chemical weapons against civilians that brought prosecutors and judges to the verge of tears, and seemed to shock the remaining defendants. One of the recordings featured an unidentified military officer telling Mr. Hussein that a plan was under development for having Soviet-built aircraft carry containers, packed with up to 50 napalm bombs each, which would be rolled out of the cargo deck and dropped on Kurdish towns.

“Yes, in areas where you have concentrated populations, that would be useful,” Mr. Hussein replies.

Another recording involves a General Thabit, who was not further identified by the prosecutors, telling Mr. Hussein that his forces had used chemical weapons in the northern sector of Kurdistan, but that “our supplies of the weapons were low, and we didn’t make good use of the ones we had.” The general notes that Iraq’s production of mustard gas and sarin, a nerve gas, was “very low,” and says they should be used sparingly. “We’re keeping what we have for the future,” he says.

Before they recovered enough to begin pleading their innocence, Mr. Hussein’s erstwhile companions in the dock buried their heads in their hands, gazed at the floor, and glanced furtively toward TV cameras transmitting live coverage of the trial. Mr. Majid shifted uneasily in his seat as one recording had him telling officials to warn Kurdish refugees that they would be attacked with chemical weapons if they attempted to return to their villages.

The prosecutor, Munkith al-Faroun, came to court as almost the only person who attended Mr. Hussein’s execution on Dec. 30 to emerge with an unsullied reputation. It was he, as he and others confirmed, who attempted to halt the taunts hurled at Mr. Hussein as he stood with the noose around his neck, moments before the trapdoor opened. Over the hubbub, an illicit camera phone recording showed Mr. Faroun calling out for silence, “Please, no!” he said. “The man is about to be executed.”

But back in the courtroom, Mr. Faroun became, again, the man holding Mr. Hussein to account and, in one poignant moment, counseling restraint among those who have expressed outrage over the manner of the former ruler’s execution. That moment came after the court watched television images taken after the Halabja attack, which more than any other event focused world attention on the atrocities committed under Mr. Hussein.

The video showed the horrors: a father wailing in grief as he found his children lying along a street littered with bodies; dead mothers clutching gas-choked infants to their breasts in swaddling clothes; young sisters embracing each other in death; and trucks piled high with civilian bodies. “I ask the whole world to look at these images, especially those who are crying right now,” Mr. Faroun said, referring to the outpouring of sympathy for Mr. Hussein.

The recordings played at Monday’s trial session, seemingly eliminating any doubt about Mr. Hussein’s role in the attacks on the Kurds, may go a long way to answering criticism of the government for executing him before he was judged for the worst of his crimes.

American justice department lawyers, who have done much of the behind-the-scenes work in sifting tons of documents and other evidence gathered after the invasion of 2003, had never hinted that they held the trump card, judicially and historically, that the audio recordings seem likely to be.

Any defense of this people? If you think there is, be prepared for me to hound you until you are blue in the face. I think that settles what Saddam was nicely...

[agwiii]

Good that you brought up the CIA Factbook, Hippo. They have a succinct explanation of why Saddam was ousted.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

Following Kuwait's liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions over a period of 12 years led to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the ouster of the SADDAM Husayn regime. Coalition forces remain in Iraq, helping to restore degraded infrastructure and facilitating the establishment of a freely elected government, while simultaneously dealing with a robust insurgency.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh yes, one more thing. If you think that article from the NY Times is American lies, propaganda or just plain wrong, let me assure you the NY Times has put more effort into bringing down Bush's presidency than it did likely on Saddam's. For the Times to come out with this piece NOW is really putting perspective on what a vicious man was hung last week.

To say Bush deserves similar is a great misjustice to say the least. The Most callous leader of any democratic nation isn't in the same area code with this SOB. My only regret is this tape was not played at his trial. HE should have been forced to hear these words in open trial.

Oh yes, I suspect some will try to say this is some electronic trick, but I highly doubt it. The tape is legit, for Iam sure in the trial, it will come out where there source of it was, and how it was attained. Homicidal maniacs are usually eager to document their deeds, just look at the nice neat lists the Nazi's made of the names and origins of those they tossed in the gas chambers.

[Eki]

I want to take my hat off to both of you gentlemen, Mark and Eki, for having taken the time and trouble to give us this discussion. It has been the most absorbing thread by far that I have seen in the several years I've been a member here.

Mark. I agree with most of what you say, but I cannot help thinking that you let George Bush off far too easily. I don't believe he is evil, as Eki seems to do, nor do I believe that the war against the Ba'athists was immoral. Like you, I think the Coalition went into Iraq for high purposes, to liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny, and to leave in place a regime which would give Iraq freedom and prosperity. Certainly, the Coalition believed that in so doing, benefits would flow not only to Iraq, but to the rest of the world as well. To that extent, Eki is right, in my view; there was self-interest as well as humanitarian interest at work. The Coalition felt that a free, democratic Iraq would be a more reliable supplier of oil, and also felt that an Arab democracy would act as an example to other Muslim Arab populations, showing them that there is a more prosperous and happy life available to them, if only they will abandon radical, hate-filled, warlike politics. Freedom and democracy, it was hoped, would catch on in the Arab world, if only it could be shown to be possible in the very heart of Arabia. Those were noble motives, and if all one looks at are the motives, I think you are right, Mark, when you defend Bush and say he is not the worst of presidents, though not the best.

But look at method, rather than motive, and Bush begins to look far more sinister, closer to Eki's portrait than yours. I refer to the ruthlessness with which the campaign has been conducted, the utter lack of concern, for example, with preserving order after the invasion had been carried out. Rumsfeld's dismissive "stuff happens" comment about the looting and the chaos in the days after Saddam's fall was emblematic, in my view, of the entire American approach. The wholesale imprisonment of people in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and similar hell-holes, was not the reluctant imprisonment of enemies, but of anyone who was remotely suspect. It didn't matter to the Americans, as a matter of policy, if completely innocent people were tortured or killed; they wanted to err on the side of brutality, and in this, they resembled the Japanese in World War II, rather than the Allies. In that war, unlike this one, the Americans were honourable combatants, who minimised suffering wherever they could. In this one, they clearly did not care how much suffering they caused. That, in my book, is hard to forgive.

Not only was the callousness of the Americans wrong, it was also stupid. What a way to win hearts and minds!! So the Bush administration was cruel and foolish at the same time.

Another complaint I have against the American administration is that, as you admit, the chaos, anarchy and high death-toll was entirely predictable. In not taking steps to prevent it, the Americans are in the same moral position as a drunk driver who ploughs into a school-bus -- he is admittedly better than a murderer, whose intention is to kill, but far from blameless, as you suggest the Americans are. It is morally outrageous to blast into a situation without troubling to question whether your actions will cause grief on a massive scale. But this is what the Americans did.

It didn't have to be that way. The British ruled the South in a much more considered and humane way. Had the entire Operation Iraqi Freedom been run as the British ran their sector, things could have gone according to plan, establishing freedom, being seen as liberators, leaving a country which could look forward with confidence and gratitude to those who set them free.

So I despise Bush's conduct of this war. I despise its cruelty, its incompetence, its arrogance and its effects. I cannot see how you can call Bush anything other than a disastrous wartime leader. I cannot see how he could have possibly done a worse job.

And let me add one thing. I do not have any criticism of the American forces. For years I worked with American military personnel, and they impressed me enormously. But a fighting force is only as good as its leaders allow it to be, and in this terrible war the Americans were let down badly by their president. The blame lies with him, not them.
Great post, Gannex :up: You covered the both sides. I didn't bother preaching to the choir, since they already seemed to know their stuff.

[Eki]

But without a real force behind it, bigger UN operations can only be conducted against countries US doesn't like. ;)
But if the US president promised to provide the UN with military force and funds, even if it wasn't in their own interests, that wouldn't be a problem. At least if the word of the US presidents can be trusted, like Mark in Oshawa says.

[Eki]

The UN wont even go in because, like Eki, they believe no nation should interfere in another nation's affairs under no circumstance period.
I have not said "under no circumstance period". For example, I have not condemned Gulf War 1, NATO's mission in Serbia or even Afghanistan (not even political leaders of Finland has condemned Afghanistan, we even have UN troops there). There are times when even a military intervention is in order, but Iraq 2003 wasn't one of them. If it's ABSOLUTELY neccessary to use military force, there should be a wide international acceptance, at least from the UN security council if not from the General Assembly.

[agwiii]

... political leaders of Finland ...

This is an interesting phrase, the political leaders of Finland. In land area, Finland is smaller than the state of Montana, and has a population smaller than Metropolitan Miami. To make the comparisons more realistic, perhaps we should compare the positions of Carlos Alvarez to those of Tarja Halonen or Matti Vanhanen.

In her New Year's speech, Mrs. Halonen said, "Democracy and the rule of law have reigned in Finland throughout our independence. We must continue to stand up for these values and discourage the rise of extremist movements."

You should heed your President's position on your extremist positions and repent.

[Eki]

In her New Year's speech, Mrs. Halonen said, "Democracy and the rule of law have reigned in Finland throughout our independence. We must continue to stand up for these values and discourage the rise of extremist movements."

You should heed your President's position
I do, and that comment is in line with my opinion. Mrs Halonen has also condemned the Iraq invasion, calling it illegal. BTW, Mrs Halonen, is a leftist even by the Finnish standards and her views in favor of international global good over national good are probably even more radical than mine.

Besides, overthrowing Saddam encouraged the rise of extremist movements, not discouraged them.

[agwiii]

I do, and that comment is in line with my opinion. Mrs Halonen has also condemned the Iraq invasion, calling it illegal. BTW, Mrs Halonen, is a leftist even by the Finnish standards and her views on international global good over national good are probably even more radical than mine. Besides, overthrowing Saddam encouraged the rise of extremist movements, not discourage them.

Thank you for demonstrating the hypocracy of Mrs. Halonen.

[airshifter]

Stan,

You said it was a lame rebuttal that Agwiii made, but the same can be said of yours also. I don't know if you've been reading this thread, but there have been some really interesting arguments on both sides of the issue. You may have some valid opinions too, but silly rhymes like "Bush lied and soldiers died" don't really add anything here and are degenerating the thread to name-calling. I don't mean to offend, but I just wanted to point this out.

Good point, both sides of the debate should remain civil or they will end up closing the thread.

Thumbs up for all the others that have managed to keep the discussion civil, even if half of you are always wrong in the eyes of the other half. :laugh:

[bowler]

In terms of civil debate, this thread has been an excellent example of how things should be done. For it to degenerate into some kind of name calling would be very wrong.

In terms of trust and politicians, the terms are generally thought to be mutually exclusive. Irrespective of the nationality or political persuasion of any democratically elected politician, there will always be a number of people who can mount a case to show that every politician fails to perform in some way.

In the case of George Bush Junior, given the size of the US, and the visibility to the world, there are more people able to enter the debate. In the case of any smaller nation there will be less people taking up either a postive or negative view.

Scot comedian Billy Connelly said " the mere fact that someone wanted to be a politician should disqualify them from being able to be one". And while said in jest, I think that this sums up how most people feel about politicians generally. If that is only half way true, it shows the validity of democracy, and how fortunate we are to have a choice.

that choice was not available in Iraq.

[Eki]

I wonder if this piece of news will make it to the US news:

http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/200701095571968_uu.shtml

It says 7 kids around the world have hanged themselves after seeing the video about Saddam's hanging.

Translation: "In Saudi Arbia a 12 year old boy hanged himself after seeing the execution of Saddam on TV. According to newspapers, youngsters have hanged themselves also in Yemen, Pakistan, India, the United States and Algeria."

[Camelopard]

Following on from the NY times article here is one from The Independent in London showing that the West was happily arming Saddam.

Robert Fisk: He takes his secrets to the grave. Our complicity dies with him

How the West armed Saddam, fed him intelligence on his 'enemies', equipped him for atrocities - and then made sure he wouldn't squeal

Published: 31 December 2006



We've shut him up. The moment Saddam's hooded executioner pulled the lever of the trapdoor in Baghdad yesterday morning, Washington's secrets were safe. The shameless, outrageous, covert military support which the United States - and Britain - gave to Saddam for more than a decade remains the one terrible story which our presidents and prime ministers do not want the world to remember. And now Saddam, who knew the full extent of that Western support - given to him while he was perpetrating some of the worst atrocities since the Second World War - is dead.
Gone is the man who personally received the CIA's help in destroying the Iraqi communist party. After Saddam seized power, US intelligence gave his minions the home addresses of communists in Baghdad and other cities in an effort to destroy the Soviet Union's influence in Iraq. Saddam's mukhabarat visited every home, arrested the occupants and their families, and butchered the lot. Public hanging was for plotters; the communists, their wives and children, were given special treatment - extreme torture before execution at Abu Ghraib.
There is growing evidence across the Arab world that Saddam held a series of meetings with senior American officials prior to his invasion of Iran in 1980 - both he and the US administration believed that the Islamic Republic would collapse if Saddam sent his legions across the border - and the Pentagon was instructed to assist Iraq's military machine by providing intelligence on the Iranian order of battle. One frosty day in 1987, not far from Cologne, I met the German arms dealer who initiated those first direct contacts between Washington and Baghdad - at America's request.
"Mr Fisk... at the very beginning of the war, in September of 1980, I was invited to go to the Pentagon," he said. "There I was handed the very latest US satellite photographs of the Iranian front lines. You could see everything on the pictures. There were the Iranian gun emplacements in Abadan and behind Khorramshahr, the lines of trenches on the eastern side of the Karun river, the tank revetments - thousands of them - all the way up the Iranian side of the border towards Kurdistan. No army could want more than this. And I travelled with these maps from Washington by air to Frankfurt and from Frankfurt on Iraqi Airways straight to Baghdad. The Iraqis were very, very grateful!"
I was with Saddam's forward commandos at the time, under Iranian shellfire, noting how the Iraqi forces aligned their artillery positions far back from the battle front with detailed maps of the Iranian lines. Their shelling against Iran outside Basra allowed the first Iraqi tanks to cross the Karun within a week. The commander of that tank unit cheerfully refused to tell me how he had managed to choose the one river crossing undefended by Iranian armour. Two years ago, we met again, in Amman and his junior officers called him "General" - the rank awarded him by Saddam after that tank attack east of Basra, courtesy of Washington's intelligence information.
Iran's official history of the eight-year war with Iraq states that Saddam first used chemical weapons against it on 13 January 1981. AP's correspondent in Baghdad, Mohamed Salaam, was taken to see the scene of an Iraqi military victory east of Basra. "We started counting - we walked miles and miles in this ****ing desert, just counting," he said. "We got to 700 and got muddled and had to start counting again ... The Iraqis had used, for the first time, a combination - the nerve gas would paralyse their bodies ... the mustard gas would drown them in their own lungs. That's why they spat blood."
At the time, the Iranians claimed that this terrible cocktail had been given to Saddam by the US. Washington denied this. But the Iranians were right. The lengthy negotiations which led to America's complicity in this atrocity remain secret - Donald Rumsfeld was one of President Ronald Reagan's point-men at this period - although Saddam undoubtedly knew every detail. But a largely unreported document, "United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War", stated that prior to 1985 and afterwards, US companies had sent government-approved shipments of biological agents to Iraq. These included Bacillus anthracis, which produces anthrax, andEscherichia coli (E. coli). That Senate report concluded that: "The United States provided the Government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-systems programs, including ... chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment."
Nor was the Pentagon unaware of the extent of Iraqi use of chemical weapons. In 1988, for example, Saddam gave his personal permission for Lt-Col Rick Francona, a US defence intelligence officer - one of 60 American officers who were secretly providing members of the Iraqi general staff with detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning and bomb damage assessments - to visit the Fao peninsula after Iraqi forces had recaptured the town from the Iranians. He reported back to Washington that the Iraqis had used chemical weapons to achieve their victory. The senior defence intelligence officer at the time, Col Walter Lang, later said that the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis "was not a matter of deep strategic concern".
I saw the results, however. On a long military hospital train back to Tehran from the battle front, I found hundreds of Iranian soldiers coughing blood and mucus from their lungs - the very carriages stank so much of gas that I had to open the windows - and their arms and faces were covered with boils. Later, new bubbles of skin appeared on top of their original boils. Many were fearfully burnt. These same gases were later used on the Kurds of Halabja. No wonder that Saddam was primarily tried in Baghdad for the slaughter of Shia villagers, not for his war crimes against Iran.
We still don't know - and with Saddam's execution we will probably never know - the extent of US credits to Iraq, which began in 1982. The initial tranche, the sum of which was spent on the purchase of American weapons from Jordan and Kuwait, came to $300m. By 1987, Saddam was being promised $1bn in credit. By 1990, just before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, annual trade between Iraq and the US had grown to $3.5bn a year. Pressed by Saddam's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, to continue US credits, James Baker then Secretary of State, but the same James Baker who has just produced a report intended to drag George Bush from the catastrophe of present- day Iraq - pushed for new guarantees worth $1bn from the US.
In 1989, Britain, which had been giving its own covert military assistance to Saddam guaranteed £250m to Iraq shortly after the arrest of Observer journalist Farzad Bazoft in Baghdad. Bazoft, who had been investigating an explosion at a factory at Hilla which was using the very chemical components sent by the US, was later hanged. Within a month of Bazoft's arrest William Waldegrave, then a Foreign Office minister, said: "I doubt if there is any future market of such a scale anywhere where the UK is potentially so well-placed if we play our diplomatic hand correctly... A few more Bazofts or another bout of internal oppression would make it more difficult."
Even more repulsive were the remarks of the then Deputy Prime Minister, Geoffrey Howe, on relaxing controls on British arms sales to Iraq. He kept this secret, he wrote, because "it would look very cynical if, so soon after expressing outrage about the treatment of the Kurds, we adopt a more flexible approach to arms sales".
Saddam knew, too, the secrets of the attack on the USS Stark when, on 17 May 1987, an Iraqi jet launched a missile attack on the American frigate, killing more than a sixth of the crew and almost sinking the vessel. The US accepted Saddam's excuse that the ship was mistaken for an Iranian vessel and allowed Saddam to refuse their request to interview the Iraqi pilot.
The whole truth died with Saddam Hussein in the Baghdad execution chamber yesterday. Many in Washington and London must have sighed with relief that the old man had been silenced for ever.
'The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East' by Robert Fisk is now available in paperback

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2114403.ece

[agwiii]

http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/200701095571968_uu.shtml

Translation: "In Saudi Arbia (SIC) a 12 year old boy hanged himself after seeing the execution of Saddam on TV. According to newspapers, youngsters have hanged themselves also in Yemen, Pakistan, India, the United States and Algeria."

We can only hope and pray that all of Al Queda will be inspired by these suicides and follow suit.

[agwiii]

Good point, both sides of the debate should remain civil or they will end up closing the thread.

This is the Formula Libre section - no rules, just "run what you brung." You've just entered the octagonal ring.

[agwiii]

Following on from the NY times article here is one from The Independent in London showing that the West was happily arming Saddam.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the revisionists jump into action. The revisionists are much more malevolent than the conspiracy theorists because they risk establishing some level of credibility.

[agwiii]

I do, and that comment is in line with my opinion. Mrs Halonen has also condemned the Iraq invasion, calling it illegal.

I'm happy that Carlos Alvarez did not shoot himself in the foot with such an ignorant statement.

[agwiii]

Besides, overthrowing Saddam encouraged the rise of extremist movements, not discouraged them.

Amazing. You have only the slightest acquaintance with facts.

[EuroTroll]

This is the Formula Libre section - no rules, just "run what you brung." You've just entered the octagonal ring.

Have you ever considered spontaneous combustion? I think it would do a man like you a world of good.

[agwiii]

Have you ever considered spontaneous combustion? I think it would do a man like you a world of good.

How almost clever of you studiose. Your attempt at being a wit made it half way there.

[EuroTroll]

How almost clever of you studiose. Your attempt at being a wit made it half way there.

Better half way than no way. ;)

[agwiii]

Better half way than no way. ;)

That's what all half-wits say. I have always wondered why they would admit such a thing.

[EuroTroll]

That's what all half-wits say. I have always wondered why they would admit such a thing.

You know, I can't really say. :( But how about that spontaneous combustion, then? Did you give it a try? Oh come on, you've got to! ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh my, I will just not comment on the insults going back and forth.

Lets put it this way. If people want to commit suicide because of Saddam's hanging, well, it is a selfish act, and terrorists are nothing but selfish. A tragedy to be sure people feel a need to commit suicide, I know of a family member who did that very thing, and the pain of it will live with me forever. So you guys can make jokes about it, but for the families left behind, I hope they realize that suicide is selfish act that hurts the family most of all.

Now for the drivel about how Saddam was hung to cover up his misdeeds and relations with the US. We know the US foreign policy in the 80's was to support this mutt. You are not telling us anything new. Again, another miscaluclation on the behalf of US Foreign policy. It isn't some deep dark secret. The one thing that the US has to wear is its failures in foreign policy, because unlike Communist nations (China) or autocratic powers (Russia), there is a freedom of information act on much of what goes on, and it is that democratic freedom to question the government of any western nation that makes the US such a great whipping boy for all the left-wing, knee-jerk second guessing that seems to be alive and well in every democratic nation. That is the price the US has to pay for freedom of speech. Yet you guys think the US is the problem.

No, Saddam was backed in a cynical foreign policy that was common in the cold war. My dictator was always better than your dictator, or in this case, better Saddam than Iran. Remember, the US was still smarting after the hostage crisis. Was it wrong? Hell ya, it was, but show me a nation state that gets everything right and I will show you revisionist history. Saddam was the attack dog for the US in 1980 or so, but by the time 1989 came along, they realized the dog might be rabid. In 1990, they knew the dog was rabid, and they just took 14 years to put him down.

Saddam didn't take any secret information making the US look bad to the grave. If he did, he is twice the moron I thought he was, a trial where that evidence was entered would have embarassed the US. Yet Saddam just bleated how he had the right to be president and the trial was illegal. No, the trial was your chance to put it in the open dummy, assuming you had anything more to add, but alas, Saddam was obviously holding the door when they handed out intelligence....

[Eki]

Yet you guys think the US is the problem.

No, we just think it's a part of the problem. It takes two to tango.

[Eki]

Lets put it this way. If people want to commit suicide because of Saddam's hanging, well, it is a selfish act, and terrorists are nothing but selfish. A tragedy to be sure people feel a need to commit suicide, I know of a family member who did that very thing, and the pain of it will live with me forever. So you guys can make jokes about it, but for the families left behind, I hope they realize that suicide is selfish act that hurts the family most of all.

Speaking of families, I also saw a story on Finnish media on how Saddam's daughters miss their father, probably another thing the US media will coveniently forget.

[EuroTroll]

Oh my, I will just not comment on the insults going back and forth.

Sorry about that. And apologies to Agwiii. I wasn't myself last night.

[Tomi]

Sorry about that. And apologies to Agwiii. I wasn't myself last night.

who where you then?

[EuroTroll]

Well, I don't know what to call it, but I was drunk and pissed off at Agwiii. Whereas usually I'm just pissed off at Agwiii. :)

[bowler]

Speaking of families, I also saw a story on Finnish media on how Saddam's daughters miss their father, probably another thing the US media will coveniently forget.

Isn't that to be expected?

It is hardly news, or news worthy. Everybody who loses a family member feels a sense of loss. All of the bad stuff goes away, and everyone remembers the good.It is a natural part of grieving.

I am not sure what point you are making

[bowler]

The Fisk article does not raise any new stuff.

The US fed both Iran and Iraq (and the taleban, and the afghanis before) and many others.

[Tomi]

Well, I don't know what to call it, but I was drunk and pissed off at Agwiii. Whereas usually I'm just pissed off at Agwiii. :)

lol

[AndyPerry]

Oh my, I will just not comment on the insults going back and forth.

Lets put it this way. If people want to commit suicide because of Saddam's hanging, well, it is a selfish act, and terrorists are nothing but selfish. A tragedy to be sure people feel a need to commit suicide, I know of a family member who did that very thing, and the pain of it will live with me forever. So you guys can make jokes about it, but for the families left behind, I hope they realize that suicide is selfish act that hurts the family most of all.

Now for the drivel about how Saddam was hung to cover up his misdeeds and relations with the US. We know the US foreign policy in the 80's was to support this mutt. You are not telling us anything new. Again, another miscaluclation on the behalf of US Foreign policy. It isn't some deep dark secret. The one thing that the US has to wear is its failures in foreign policy, because unlike Communist nations (China) or autocratic powers (Russia), there is a freedom of information act on much of what goes on, and it is that democratic freedom to question the government of any western nation that makes the US such a great whipping boy for all the left-wing, knee-jerk second guessing that seems to be alive and well in every democratic nation. That is the price the US has to pay for freedom of speech. Yet you guys think the US is the problem.

No, Saddam was backed in a cynical foreign policy that was common in the cold war. My dictator was always better than your dictator, or in this case, better Saddam than Iran. Remember, the US was still smarting after the hostage crisis. Was it wrong? Hell ya, it was, but show me a nation state that gets everything right and I will show you revisionist history. Saddam was the attack dog for the US in 1980 or so, but by the time 1989 came along, they realized the dog might be rabid. In 1990, they knew the dog was rabid, and they just took 14 years to put him down.

Saddam didn't take any secret information making the US look bad to the grave. If he did, he is twice the moron I thought he was, a trial where that evidence was entered would have embarassed the US. Yet Saddam just bleated how he had the right to be president and the trial was illegal. No, the trial was your chance to put it in the open dummy, assuming you had anything more to add, but alas, Saddam was obviously holding the door when they handed out intelligence....


I find it pretty hard to believe that a country of never-ending resources and intelligence services like USA didn't find Saddam "rabid" after he started butchering people right and left. It's understandable to defend your country and way of life, because you are in fact defending your own existance, but enough is enough. If you refuse to open your eyes to the role that USA is playing today and foolishly believe they aim to establish world peace then there is nothing more to say.Go watch Borat - it will tell you more about Americans than we all ever wanted to know.

[Eki]

who where you then?
A half-wit, according to agwiii.

[Tomi]

Go watch Borat - it will tell you more about Americans than we all ever wanted to know.

Lol, very true, good and funny movie, it is both a comedy or tragedy, depends who is looking :)

[EuroTroll]

A half-wit, according to agwiii.

If there's an element of truth in this, he stumbled on it by accident. :p :

[agwiii]

Well, I don't know what to call it, but I was drunk and pissed off at Agwiii. Whereas usually I'm just pissed off at Agwiii. :)

LOL

[agwiii]

Go watch Borat - it will tell you more about Americans than we all ever wanted to know.

Go watch "Night and Fog" to understand what Eki and the others in the FFL are supporting.

[Woodeye]

Go watch "Night and Fog" to understand what Eki and the others in the FFL are supporting.

Oh come on! Nobody's laughing.

Maybe you should see one of Michael Moore's documents. Oh, but I'm sure you can't. Because those are all just full of lies and left-wing liberals, right?

[Gannex]

Yes, the US has backed some awful people, including Saddam in the 1980's. That's because, in politics, there are usually no good options. You have to choose the least bad option, and in the 1980's, the least bad option was, arguably, to back Iraq, at least sufficiently to stop the place being taken over by Iran.

That is still the situation, in fact. The present government of Iraq is far from perfect. The army and police are infiltrated with militant Shiite militiamen who are running around killing innocent Sunni civilians. But we back the Iraqi government, not because the government is totally benign, but because there is no better option. Has Robert Fisk any better option to suggest? I bet not.

It's all very well for Fisk to complain about the US having backed Saddam, but what would he say the US should have done instead? Stayed out of the dispute between Iraq and Iran? That would have amounted to giving a green light to the Iranians to overrun Iraq, and when the US gives a green light to a nation bent on conquest, the first people to complain are the Robert Fisks of the world. So, as Mark said a few days ago, the US simply cannot ever do right in the eyes of its critics.

But to get back to another point that has been raised in the last day or two, and that is whether oil was the motivation for the Iraqi war. Stan says it was, and Mark pointed out that spending billions of dollars on a war for the right to pay prevailing market prices for Iraqi oil is one hell of a strange way of going about getting oil on the cheap. I'm not sure I buy that entirely, because the neocons who masterminded the Iraqi war fully believed that the war would be very cheap. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's vision was of a very small, very high-tech force, quickly overcoming the enemy and establishing control. Large, expensive deployments of troops would be unnecessary and the oil revenue, it was thought, would pay for the re-construction of Iraq; this would be fairly cheap anyway, because the damage, it was naively believed, would be minimal. This over-optimistic assessment was prompted in part by the easy success in Afghanistan, where the high-tech, small force approach seemed to have worked well.

So I suggest that the Americans didn't think the war would be expensive, and they did believe that the oil revenue would defray the relatively small costs that would be incurred. They also believed that the war was a way to get, if not cheap oil, then at least a reliable supply of normally-priced oil. In that sense, one of the motives was indeed oil.

But I have two things to say about that: first, what is wrong with trying to secure a steady, reliable supply of oil? I know Mark made this point earlier, but I think it bears repeating, because Eki and Stan and most critics of the Coalition seem to think that all they have to do is point to oil as a motive for the Iraqi action and they have discredited the entire war effort. I reject that; it might be reasonable if oil were the ONLY motivation, though even then, reasonable people could differ, but I challenge you, Stan, to come up with any convincing argument that oil, and only oil, was the Coalition's reason for going to war.

Which brings me to my second point, and that is that the motivations for war, especially in a democracy like the United States, are NEVER simple. Hell, I can't even tell you why I got up this morning! Was it because I'd be bored if I stayed in bed, because I wanted the respect of my wife, who would be disgusted if I stayed in bed all day, because I needed the money from work, because I am just in the habit, because . . . I don't know. And so it is with the decision to go to war. Everyone who signed on to the decision, which is millions of people, signed on for his or her own reasons. For me, I supported it (with grave misgivings) primarily because I believed that Saddam, if not confronted, would eventually become the master of the entire Middle East, kill millions of people (including all Jews), control the world price of oil, and end up as a menace as big as Stalin had been a half century before. We had survived the Soviet threat; I didn't want to see one powerful monster replaced by another. Securing the oil supply was another motive for me, but certainly far down the list, and I suspect that was the case for most of us who supported the Iraqi action.

[agwiii]

Oh come on! Nobody's laughing.

Maybe you should see one of Michael Moore's documents. Oh, but I'm sure you can't. Because those are all just full of lies and left-wing liberals, right?

The fat man's stuff is fiction. At the Academy Award, he tried to get his 911 Diatribe in as a documentary, but even the Film Academy (quite leftist) rejected that and placed the film in the fiction category.

Nice try, but no cigar.

[Eki]

You have to choose the least bad option, and in the 1980's, the least bad option was, arguably, to back Iraq, at least sufficiently to stop the place being taken over by Iran.

That's an interesting point. Do you believe Iraq would have been worse off under Iran than under Saddam?

[Gannex]

I don't know. It's a close call. What do you think?

[Eki]

I don't know. It's a close call. What do you think?
I don't know, I just know the Sunnis wouldn't have been happy and the place may probably had been a similar mess than it's now. I'm not sure if all the Shiias would have been happy either, many don't like foreign invaders in their country no matter who they are.

[Tomi]

I belive it would have been about same that what it is now, a guerilla war, only difference is Iran knows about local customs and manners.

[Gannex]

I think the Shia would have preferred Iran to the Ba'athists. At least, under Iranian control, the Shia would have been able to practice their religion, which they were not allowed to do under Saddam. The Shiite holy days could not be observed, and if you remember, after Saddam's fall, the rejoicing on the first Shia, as opposed to Sunni, holiday, was a joy to behold.

But there's no question that the Shia of Iraq would prefer to control their own affairs, over control by either the Iranians or the Ba'athists. They have a wonderful religious leader in al Sistani. This man makes the clerics of Iran look like fools by comparison. In a perfect world, the Shia of Iraq would have been led by al Sistani in a religiously tolerant theocracy. That, I believe, is what the British were hoping for at the beginning of the campaign, but of course it never happened, and now seems certain never to happen.

[Tomi]

I think the Shia would have preferred Iran to the Ba'athists. At least, under Iranian control, the Shia would have been able to practice their religion, which they were not allowed to do under Saddam. The Shiite holy days could not be observed, and if you remember, after Saddam's fall, the rejoicing on the first Shia, as opposed to Sunni, holiday, was a joy to behold.

But there's no question that the Shia of Iraq would prefer to control their own affairs, over control by either the Iranians or the Ba'athists. They have a wonderful religious leader in al Sistani. This man makes the clerics of Iran look like fools by comparison. In a perfect world, the Shia of Iraq would have been led by al Sistani in a religiously tolerant theocracy. That, I believe, is what the British were hoping for at the beginning of the campaign, but of course it never happened, and now seems certain never to happen.

Its very difficult to predict what would have happen, but history tells that normally a war unites the people, because they have a common enemy.
But if that would have happen some of the other Arab countries would have propably got involved also some how.
Many does not seem to understand also on how weak basis almost every government in that area is, meaning the majority of the people wants else than only words from their goverments.

[Gannex]

I agree, Tomi. The people of Saudi Arabia do not want to be ruled by Saudi princes, any more than the people of Egypt want Mubarak, or Syrians want Assad. There isn't a democracy anywhere in the Arab world. Which is why it's such a crying shame that it has proved impossible to establish a democracy in Iraq.

[Tomi]

I agree, Tomi. The people of Saudi Arabia do not want to be ruled by Saudi princes, any more than the people of Egypt want Mubarak, or Syrians want Assad. There isn't a democracy anywhere in the Arab world. Which is why it's such a crying shame that it has proved impossible to establish a democracy in Iraq.

Have you btw heard any Arab leader comment anything about the hanging of Hussein?

[Eki]

Isn't that to be expected?

It is hardly news, or news worthy. Everybody who loses a family member feels a sense of loss. All of the bad stuff goes away, and everyone remembers the good.It is a natural part of grieving.

I am not sure what point you are making
My point is, everyone who's going to kill somebody, even themselves, should remember that the one dying isn't the only one who will suffer. Heck, the one dying might even be the one who suffers least.

[airshifter]

This is the Formula Libre section - no rules, just "run what you brung." You've just entered the octagonal ring.

Being I've been around for multiple sessions and versions of the "I hate America", "US is evil", and "Iraq War" threads, I'm more than aware of the forum rules. I'm also aware that others who thought it was an open bashing forum have been banned in the past for their mistaken views. ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gannex, I suggest you are doing a fantastic job in my absence. I am not posting as often because the real life is getting in the way!!! Ok, let me just say that this attitude that Iam too Pro American is a pile of crap. I am pro truth. I have been critical of America's role in trying to get post-war Iraq going. I have been critical of US foreign policy in backing people who should be flushed down the proverbial toilet of history. They have had a habit of playing real-politik with people who have bit them in the ass later.

But when I see one of you guys say BORAT tells us everything you need to know about Americans I laugh. You guys take movies as truth? Michael Moore's movies are the definative view of America? Borat? REALLY??

BORAT takes a few dumb back country people who are too embarrassed to know what to say to this whack job foreigner and either try to make him happy or they don't get what he is driving at. They are not America any more than all Englishmen are Mr. Bean. Watching Movies that guarntee your prejudices just makes you as racist as anyone.

Moore's movies are anti-Bush propaganda. His treatment of the shootings at Columbine was to compare the gun culture of the US vs the gun culture of Canada. He was off the mark by so much though when he said people in Toronto didn't lock their doors and there was no gun crime. Read a Toronto news paper for a week and tell me there is no gun crime and people leave the doors unlocked. He cant get details right because he chooses to gloss over what he doesn't want to see, which is why I am not surprised you guys love Moore. You gloss over what you do not want to see.

Gannex has explained, and I have explained in great details that your world of black and white is not, and it is a lot of shades of gray, but if you are confronted with BLACK, you better be prepared to fight for your WHITE. And if you are in a world where you would rather defend a dictator's right to brutalize his own nation, vs a free nation's leader's right to make mistakes, then you really are looking at all of this backwards.

Bush is not a great American president. Gannex and I stand by that one, but to suggest he is a greater threat to world peace than an unchecked Saddam Hussein would have been is a joke. IF you didn't put Saddam in a box, he would eventually be that threat that you guys deny he was, and if he is in the box, he will eventually try something to provoke the world to do something about him, and he DID. He flouted his authority in the face of the resolutions demanding UN inspectors free and unfettered access of his nation. At some point, you have to call his bluff. He was a weasel. He had no honour, used his own people as pawns, and played a silly cynical PR game that you guys obviously wanted to buy into. I have no sympathy for his fate, and while I have great empathy for the people of Iraq, I had empathy for the people there before he was removed from power, which is something I suspect most of you never put above your radar. You were too busy trying to think of ways to look at George Bush or some other American leader as a buffoon.

When you take movies as a serious way of educating yourself, you dismiss the value of going to a reputable university and sitting in a lecture hall learning from many professors, both of a right and left wing persusasion and realizing the world is MUCH MUCH more complicated than you want to paint it.

I realize now that Gannex and I can use facts, logic all we like, but when Tomi thinks Borat defines America, I realize we are fighting people who choose not to learn about anything but they choose to learn about.

AS for Stan, well he lives in the US, he has the right to criticize Bush, and the right to vote against him. That still doesn't change the fact he could be wrong about Bush, any more than Americans could be wrong about Clinton. The things is, in a world where dictatorial thugs called the shots, no one would have any rights, so for any one of you democratically charged oppoenents of mine, realize George Bush would have no problem you voicing your opinion, Saddam would. I think there is the lesson....

[Tomi]

AS for Stan, well he lives in the US, he has the right to criticize Bush, and the right to vote against him.

everyone in whos life the us politics effect, has the very same right to criticise them also.

[Woodeye]

Moore's movies are anti-Bush propaganda. His treatment of the shootings at Columbine was to compare the gun culture of the US vs the gun culture of Canada. He was off the mark by so much though when he said people in Toronto didn't lock their doors and there was no gun crime. Read a Toronto news paper for a week and tell me there is no gun crime and people leave the doors unlocked. He cant get details right because he chooses to gloss over what he doesn't want to see, which is why I am not surprised you guys love Moore. You gloss over what you do not want to see.

But the point is that Moore is not giving only his opinions about Bush. He's telling facts also. You cannot deny that, can you? And the facts that he tells are the ones that you don't like to see. So I'm not surprised that you don't like Moore.

I cannot argue about the newspaper articles in Toronto, but I isn't it strange that there's just a border between Canada and US and on the other side of this border guncrimes happen many times more than on the other? This is of topic I know, but still had to brought this up.

[Eki]

Bush is not a great American president. Gannex and I stand by that one, but to suggest he is a greater threat to world peace than an unchecked Saddam Hussein would have been is a joke.
You think Saddam was a threat to the WORLD? I think even Finland alone could have kicked his ass if necessary.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You think Saddam was a threat to the WORLD? I think even Finland alone could have kicked his ass if necessary.

I didn't see the Finns volunteering. Iraq had the 4th biggest army in the world in 1991, but Saddam invaded and took Kuwait. I didn't see the Finn's ready to just take him out of there and tell the US to stay home. I have no idea what the Finnish government's take was on it, but I suspect if the Americans didn't volunteer for the job, Kuwait would be a province of Iraq today.

AS for your point Woodeye, you are right. Canada has a lot less gun crime. I didn't say that Moore was all wrong, but he often plays fast and loose with the facts. He made a big show of how safe Toronto is and how no one in Toronto or Canada locks their doors. The reality of it is Toronto is not that safe at all, and while people don't die in Canadian cities like American cities, that isn't because we are superior to the Americans or we are more intelligent, it is more part and parcel of we have a different cultural make up and a history that didn't depend on Guns. It is one major difference between the US and Canada. That said, Canada day after day is becoming a lot more like America, and it isn't America's fault. Gun crimes are up in this country in the last 20 years, while the government has been more anti-gun than ever.

Anyhow, I didn't come to this thread to argue about Canadian gun culture, but my point was in the case of Moore, he was all wrong about Toronto, but it didn't stop him from using that point of view to prove his "point". He is not accurate on that, so why would I trust his views that he is trying to portray on other subjects? He is a boor, and a bully who also grilled Charlton Heston and tried to portray him in a ridiculous light in that same movie for no other reason than to bring his view to the screen. The same Heston who invited him into the house for a chat about the subject and the same Heston who was suffering from the first stages of Alzheimers and it didn't stop Moore. Moore's pictures should be no more than entertainment. To use them as educational tools is crap. Before you attack me for my thoughts on this, understand I watched every one of his films and his TV shows right up to his Columbine picture. His Behaviour in that, and the way he acted at the Academy Awards shows the world what a jerk he really is.

No, If you want Hollywood to confirm your views of the world so be it, but Moore talks about he is the little guy from Michigan and he idenfies with the little guy, but he is a multi-millionaire who has money in stocks, bonds and the like, and that is fine, but don't feed me this little guy persona. He is also notoriously nasty and thin skinned when people disagree with him, and he isn't exactly a renowned phlantropist either. He is flawed, so spare me of how he understands what Bush is. He is another activist with an agenda.

You just happen to agree with him, i don't.

In Bush's America, he can say all those things and no secret police are busting down his door. He can say those things because that right to be a fool and an idiot is protected and enshrined by law and the willingness to enforce that law. That same willingness to enforce the law is what makes the civilized world work. That same willingness that drove the US to try to make Saddam stick to the terms of cease fire in the form of 14 resolutions in the UN. You know, the pretext for war. The war Saddam could have avoided. EASILY. No one here save Gannex and few others seems to want to believe this, they just want to Bash Bush. You guys with your Anti-American ramblings just have no idea what America is at all.

[Mark in Oshawa]

everyone in whos life the us politics effect, has the very same right to criticise them also.

Tomi, I didn't say you couldn't criticize Bush. I didn't say Bush is a genius either, but Stan at least comes at it from a view that Bush is his President. I can accept Stan's view of what Bush is and what America is, even if I don't agree with him because he lives there. Your view of George Bush is he is a war criminal and BORAT defined what America is. You have no idea of what America is any more than I can define Finland from watching the Conan O'Brien show when he went there last winter. You fall for knee-jerk reactions and play this moral superiority game of how America is the greatest threat in the world. This in a world where the Chinese are backing Iran in their search for nuclear weapons. This in a world where Russia is also doing this, interferering in political procesesses in sovereign nations such as the Ukraine and Georgia. This in a world where terrorists use civilians deliberately as targets in countries that often have little to do with the war in the Middle East.

George Bush is just a leader of one nation that tries on occasion, no matter how poorly you might think to try to effect a positive change. You want to hang him. If you said Americans shouldn't have elected him, I wouldn't waste the time arguing with you, as I don't with Stan. You and Eki though in particular have wanted to hang Bush, while all along saying Saddam shouldn't have been hung. You have said Bush is no different than Saddam. I pity your view of the world. You have no idea how wrong you are on so many levels because despite my effort and Gannex's, you don't want to hear that your view is too simple to even be considered. The world is complicated and that makes it very hard to criticize any leader who is in front of a free nation for trying to effect a change, when their motives are good. This War for Oil nonsense is just that, and I have proven that as has Gannex. The market for Oil runs the world economy, and if you think Bush is wrong, and that Saddam was a great fellow, you wouldn't want him controlling the oil in the middle east. Trust me, that is where Saddam was going in time if left unchecked. Power is a drug and Saddam was addicted. Bush on the other hand, well, he is gone in 2 years, and I look forward to seeing you whine and complain about the next American president. I think your rantings are based on some smug intellectually insular attitude that seems to pervade Europe about what America is. I may not be always right, but I constantly seek ways to understand the world, and I don't put any person or leader of a democratic nation in a box and state they are a buffoon for sport. You speak like you have all the answers, I know I need to know more answers.

[Eki]

I didn't see the Finns volunteering.
We didn't think it was necessary. We could have provided at least half a million men (and some women) instead of the measly 200,000 or so that actually participated.

[Tomi]

Yes true I see Bush as an war criminal, more than 100000 has dead in Iraq after he went there, the real figure is propably many times bigger like usual i wars.
Offcourse Borat dont show what real usa is about, but what i think it shows is how it's possible that someone like bush can be voted president.
Also i dont think i have this critic on any other us president but bush, my opinion is that he makes the world more insecure and also has introduced a line of stupid laws that effct everyone in the world, for me it would be ok if they only effected us citizens, he is their president not mine, also the us monitoring of the SWIFT is 1 more thing, its against many countries constitution, this all has to do with redousing private persons freedom, and I dont like it at all, also the demand to build fenced security space around harbours that foreign ships are using, they still also are lobbing for armed guards in planes, all this and much else is just sick, and cost very much tax payers money.
I also dont see Hussein as a model leader or as a somekind of a hero either, but many in the arab countries sees him like that, and that is what counts i belive.

[Gannex]

You think Saddam was a threat to the WORLD? I think even Finland alone could have kicked his ass if necessary.
Eki, in addition to what Mark said, let me remind you that Saddam, immediately following the invasion of Kuwait, actually stated that Saudi Arabia was next. Do you think the Saudis, without American help, could have stopped Saddam's armies? Maybe, but it was far from certain, and the Saudis certainly took the threat extremely seriously. They begged Bush Sr. to intervene and protect them, but let's suppose for a moment that they had not, Bush Sr. had done nothing, and Saddam had secured control of both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Now he controls the vast majority of the Middle Eastern oil supply, meaning he has access to unlimited funds. He is a mega-billionaire, with power second only to the Americans. How long would it have taken him, with that amount of money, and that strong a bargaining position, to acquire a sophisticated nuclear arsenal? Remember, the Pakistanis at the time were selling nuclear technology to the highest bidder. Would they have resisted Saddam, the monarch of the Middle East? If they had, it would have been a simple enough proposition for him to have invaded Pakistan, and they knew that too. So when you say, with incredulity, that surely Saddam would not have been a threat to the world had he been left alone, I say you are completely wrong.

[Woodeye]

I didn't see the Finns volunteering. Iraq had the 4th biggest army in the world in 1991, but Saddam invaded and took Kuwait. I didn't see the Finn's ready to just take him out of there and tell the US to stay home. I have no idea what the Finnish government's take was on it, but I suspect if the Americans didn't volunteer for the job, Kuwait would be a province of Iraq today.

US didn't maybe volunteer, that is true. But this brings us back to the Subject of oil. They needed the oil coming from Kuwait, that is one fact. Ok, I'm not saying it was the only one, but would this been Checnya instead of Kuwait... Ok, but I give credit to US that they kicked Saddam away from there. No need to doubt that.


He is a boor, and a bully who also grilled Charlton Heston and tried to portray him in a ridiculous light in that same movie for no other reason than to bring his view to the screen. The same Heston who invited him into the house for a chat about the subject and the same Heston who was suffering from the first stages of Alzheimers and it didn't stop Moore. .

It's easy to portray someone in rediculous light if he is rediculous. The NRA is a joke, and a really bad one.


You just happen to agree with him, i don't.

I agree. ;)


You guys with your Anti-American ramblings just have no idea what America is at all.

To be honest maybe I don't have the right idea. But with news coming from US, seeing it's government and president with his regime to act, it's role as a world police, rediculous gun laws, endless armies of lawyers spending their time on the most stupidest things I've ever heard of (spill hot coffee on your pants and get money from it since there was no warning in the cup) and 50 cent. All those things just give an impression that I don't like and I just can't help it.

Just to let you know, when I was 11 or so, my biggest dream was to be a F16 pilot is US air forces. It's funny how opinions tend to change when years pass...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Woodeye, I take your criticisms in a different light than Eki or Tomi's, for you have some reasoning that makes intellectual sense to me, and while I wont agree with it, I can at least understand your thoughts and why you feel that way.

As for the NRA is being stupid, no, you misunderstand the American democratic system. The right to bear arms is part of their Constitution. It was written in a time where gun ownership was a part of survival in a frontier society. Now the US of course doesn't need those guns to survive in the same way, and the NRA tends to be very fanatical in keeping their right to bear arms, but I suspect that to understand the mentality, you would have to also understand that those who would take the NRA out of American society and those who would outlaw guns would also see nothing wrong if the only people who had guns be the government. That is something that even the most moderate American wouldn't approve of. The American culture of rights and freedoms and how they defend them is unique, and while I don't profess to agree with a lot of what they do, I also understand that they do it in the field of ideas, and debate and use legal means to defend their rights and freedoms. There is no tyrannical overlord in the US running the nation. What is more, people there feel all nations should have the luxury of this system. One where ideas are debated in the court of public opinion.

AS for their role as world police, well they are filling a vacuum really. Other than the UK, no other nation is willing to put significant numbers of troops on the line to enforce the dictates of the UN or any other pro-democratic policies. The Germans and French have been very shy of doing anything, and I wouldn't trust the Russians, Chinese or anyone else who have the manpower in large numbers in the role.

Tomi, I don't understand what you are driving at all for you accusing the US of running the world and imposing laws on other nations. No, the US isn't imposing their laws on anyone save those in Iraq but that is at the behest of the newly formed government. That newly formed government by the way has disagreed with the US a few times already, and yet is allowed that dissent because the Americans know it has to have its own ideas for it to survive. The Americans don't want to be there now, I know you find THAT hard to believe but it is the truth. America also doesn't want to put their laws on foreign soil by force. You don't seem to get that either.

I suspect most Americans, even those who approved of the invasion of Iraq just want it over with, so they could go back to their Ipods, sporting events and pursuit of Happiness. You make Bush out to be trying to take over the world. If I believed that, I would be the first one to object. Living beside the elephant, I know when he rolls over in his sleep. I know that Americans don't always communicate or translate well to you guys, but you have them all wrong. They are not much different than you, other than they are willing to die for principles you wont.

What is more, if the US wasn't the world's policeman, the prevailing train of thought I get from Western Europe that is is better to grab one's ankles and bend over for some of these thugs than confront them. I don't want to live that sort of world. Neville Chamberlain tried to appease a dictator in the 30's and Europe went through a much worse time than if he was confronted in 1936. You cannot solve problems by talking them away and ignoring them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh yes, Eki, I dispute your numbers of Finn's under arms full time and the number you had in the first Gulf War. IF the Finnish army had half a million armed men in it, It would I suggest be for the defense of the homeland as the Russians invaded. Then I would want to pick up a rifle and help you......

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh one more thing. Russia has brutalized Chechnia for years. It has slaughtered people in the name of keeping it in Russia. The terrorists from there are islamic, much like Bin Laden's anti-American thugs. Yet America is blamed for being attacked because of their "actions." It is like blaming a woman for being raped because her top was too low and her skirt was too high. Yet Russia gets a free pass. America is evil, the Russians? Well, we dislike Bush so much that Putin is given a pass. What is more, Putin has done so many things that lead me to believe that he is no different than the old machine that ran the USSR, and I believe a new Cold War is not that far away. I await eagerly your endless posts of condemnation of the Russians and their actions. You guys in Finland in particular should be aware of this, you have them on your doorstep and you were invaded by the Russians once in recent history. I would take you a lot more seriously if you spent as much time ripping Putin apart for what he is about, with accurate and equal venom that you use up on a man who is not much of a president and who will be out of office in 2 years. This same president you heap so much scorn on also has had votes in Congress supporting his efforts, often with bi-partisan support. He wouldn't get that if he was the clown you guys would portray him as, and if anyone in America seriously thought he was a war criminal, they would take care of him in an instant. Trust me......

[Tomi]

Offcourse yes, i dont agree with Putins doings either, not sure about bush standpoint in this, Tjetjens also has much oil, bad for them.

[Tomi]

I think the big problem about tjetjenia is that it's very closed country, nothing much reliable comes out from there, news agencies are not interested for some reason.
From Iraq again its easy to find articles and many documents are done too, news agencies like BBC, Al Jazeera + others gives a good view about whats happening there.

[Woodeye]

As for the NRA is being stupid, no, you misunderstand the American democratic system. The right to bear arms is part of their Constitution. It was written in a time where gun ownership was a part of survival in a frontier society. Now the US of course doesn't need those guns to survive in the same way, and the NRA tends to be very fanatical in keeping their right to bear arms, but I suspect that to understand the mentality, you would have to also understand that those who would take the NRA out of American society and those who would outlaw guns would also see nothing wrong if the only people who had guns be the government. That is something that even the most moderate American wouldn't approve of. The American culture of rights and freedoms and how they defend them is unique, and while I don't profess to agree with a lot of what they do, I also understand that they do it in the field of ideas, and debate and use legal means to defend their rights and freedoms. There is no tyrannical overlord in the US running the nation. What is more, people there feel all nations should have the luxury of this system. One where ideas are debated in the court of public opinion.

No, I would say that I understand American democratic society wrong. I understand how it works but I don't sometimes understand why it works the way it does. I know that the cornerstone of American democratism is Freedom . It just feels odd that most of the time this freedom is protected by lawyers.

NRA is protected by lawyers as well. And I think it will remain that way. I just can't get it that how is it possible that it is safer if all carry a gun instead that only Police and Army have access to guns? And assault rifles, machine guns, machine pistols and so on, those are not for normal people to use. Every gun is deadly inwrong hands, so why allow it to anyone? NRA is something that I will never understand. Grown up men playing with guns.



What is more, if the US wasn't the world's policeman, the prevailing train of thought I get from Western Europe that is is better to grab one's ankles and bend over for some of these thugs than confront them.

What or who would these thugs be? I don't want to live in a world like that either. That's why I would like to see some diplomacy from US towards islamic countries that they've pissed of. Now be time for it instead of yeat another. (in Iran)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tomi, Putin is after the oil if you apply the same standard to him as you do to Bush. Should he be hung? Is HE as big a threat as Saddam was? You see, all I have seen for over 15 pages plus of posts is your hatred for Bush. You don't understand why Bush does what he does, and refuse to look at anyone else as evil.

My point has always been that things are not a simple black and white conflict. America has tradtionally not liked being hated by the world. I don't think they like it now. I don't think Bush likes people not liking him one bit.

That said, he believes in what he does because he HONESTLY thinks he is doing the right thing. He has the backing of a lot of people around the world that are not fools, clowns, misinformed or having some nefarious agenda. When Tony Blair backed Bush, I knew that there was much we didn't know about and still don't know about that brought this about. Listen, being In Canada, I see America in ways you cannot. I know that America is such a large and often contradictory nation that is is impossible to truly understand their national psyche. I do know this much though. They are not the evil for which you prescribe through Bush. Bush is a product of America, and to hate him is to also be accused of hating Americans. When you do that you have to have intellectual arguments for your statements, not just platitudes and half-baked reactions.

[Tomi]

Tomi, Putin is after the oil if you apply the same standard to him as you do to Bush. Should he be hung? Is HE as big a threat as Saddam was? You see, all I have seen for over 15 pages plus of posts is your hatred for Bush. You don't understand why Bush does what he does, and refuse to look at anyone else as evil.

My point has always been that things are not a simple black and white conflict. America has tradtionally not liked being hated by the world. I don't think they like it now. I don't think Bush likes people not liking him one bit.

That said, he believes in what he does because he HONESTLY thinks he is doing the right thing. He has the backing of a lot of people around the world that are not fools, clowns, misinformed or having some nefarious agenda. When Tony Blair backed Bush, I knew that there was much we didn't know about and still don't know about that brought this about. Listen, being In Canada, I see America in ways you cannot. I know that America is such a large and often contradictory nation that is is impossible to truly understand their national psyche. I do know this much though. They are not the evil for which you prescribe through Bush. Bush is a product of America, and to hate him is to also be accused of hating Americans. When you do that you have to have intellectual arguments for your statements, not just platitudes and half-baked reactions.

i dont think bush should be hung, he should be on trial, same goes for putin too.
i dont understand your talk about product of america, also not every american voted on him either, about the hate thing, if americans dont see the difference with them self and their government, it's their problem not mine.

[Eki]

Oh yes, Eki, I dispute your numbers of Finn's under arms full time and the number you had in the first Gulf War. IF the Finnish army had half a million armed men in it, It would I suggest be for the defense of the homeland as the Russians invaded. Then I would want to pick up a rifle and help you......
The total strength of the Finnish military in the continuation war was 530,000. And that was when the total population of Finland was only 3.5 million. Now it's 5.2 million, and still about 90% men (and some voluntary women) do at least 6 to 12 months military service, depending on their rank and special training. I think half a million would be a no-brainer if Finland was seriously threatened (Finland is part of the world, you know, and Kuwait and Saudi royal houses aren't the whole world).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_war

Besides, Saddam tried to take Kuwait once, it didn't work, I don't think he was stupid enough to try it again. He was most likely content being a big fish in a small pond.

[Woodeye]

I think the main difference betweenb Putin and Bush is that Putin is evil whilst Bush is just ignorant.

What comes to Putin and Chechnya, the whole thing is tragic and criminal. If you haven't seen the document by Pirjo Honkasalo "three rooms of melancholy", go see it. Shows what has been the impact of Russia to Chechnya.

[Tomi]

I think the main difference betweenb Putin and Bush is that Putin is evil whilst Bush is just ignorant.

What comes to Putin and Chechnya, the whole thing is tragic and criminal. If you haven't seen the document by Pirjo Honkasalo "three rooms of melancholy", go see it. Shows what has been the impact of Russia to Chechnya.

it came from tv a few days ago, i missed it, but i have heard it's good.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

No, I would say that I understand American democratic society wrong. I understand how it works but I don't sometimes understand why it works the way it does. I know that the cornerstone of American democratism is Freedom . It just feels odd that most of the time this freedom is protected by lawyers.

NRA is protected by lawyers as well. And I think it will remain that way. I just can't get it that how is it possible that it is safer if all carry a gun instead that only Police and Army have access to guns? And assault rifles, machine guns, machine pistols and so on, those are not for normal people to use. Every gun is deadly inwrong hands, so why allow it to anyone? NRA is something that I will never understand. Grown up men playing with guns.



Americans believe that they are the worlds only true free democaracy! :laugh:

An Americans idea of democracy is, that if something doesn't go their own way they can sue and get compensation. Unfortunatly this type of view is becoming more popular in Europe :(



Tomi, as for saying Bush should be put on trail, that is crazy statement. :laugh: On what grounds ?

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, I would say that I understand American democratic society wrong. I understand how it works but I don't sometimes understand why it works the way it does. I know that the cornerstone of American democratism is Freedom . It just feels odd that most of the time this freedom is protected by lawyers.

NRA is protected by lawyers as well. And I think it will remain that way. I just can't get it that how is it possible that it is safer if all carry a gun instead that only Police and Army have access to guns? And assault rifles, machine guns, machine pistols and so on, those are not for normal people to use. Every gun is deadly inwrong hands, so why allow it to anyone? NRA is something that I will never understand. Grown up men playing with guns.

What or who would these thugs be? I don't want to live in a world like that either. That's why I would like to see some diplomacy from US towards islamic countries that they've pissed of. Now be time for it instead of yeat another. (in Iran)



First off, the NRA is a lobby group. They dont' tell you that you should have a gun, nor use it, they just are defending those who hunt, or collect guns to not have them confiscated. To Americans, guns are personal property, and are subject to protection based on this fact. Lawyers in any society are advocates for position and while they are maddening, they are the people who define and argue points of laws to defend rights of their clients. In America, a nation dedicated to the rule of law and democratic rights, they will always hold a large role for Americans are rich enough to spend money arguing for rights that you and I just take for granted. The NRA sometimes sound like idiots to us, because we are just assuming it is the right to walk around with machine guns. No, it isn't. In fact, the NRA has always been quick to point out that gun USAGE is subject to lawful enforcement, and if you shoot someone, you should be in prison. The also don't argue that guns are people, they are saying GUNS are property, and should be protected. IF you have a problem with the guy using the guns, then apply the law to enforce civility or put the criminal in prison.

Rights are something in America that drive their psyche, and are given to them in the Constitution. It was the first one in the modern world that said in plain terms what rights the ordinary citizen should have. It is only natural that a society carved out of the woods of America should have the attitude towards rights as they do. The whole nation is made up of people fleeing systems and governments looking for a new way of life. When you bring too much control, censorship or muzzling of these rights, Americans react with great emotion. That is why they have such idealism when they go to places like Iraq where a country of 22 million were kept under the thumb of one of the most vicious men in history.

When it comes to the Americans being too eager to the world's policeman, well remember in the first half of the last century, and most of the 1800's they didn't pay any attention to anything past their immediate doorstep, and look at the major wars that took place. Numerous invasions on the continent of "civilized" Europe took place in the late 1800's. Proxy colonial wars all over the world. Exploitation of the Chinese people through colonial means, exploitation of Spanish speaking peoples until nations in South and Central America got their independence. Wars everywhere. The death toll wasn't as high as it was in the later years, but often it wasn't for lack of trying. AS the 20th century proved, America still tried to stay out of wars. The Russo-Japanese conflict. WW1 was a bloody mess that America tried to ignore. They didn't start that one, but their presence in 1917 was the tipping point that Germany was forced to deal with and realize that they couldn't deal with.

WW2 is partially a result of America going back to sleep. They didn't join the League of Nations, and that organization fell apart because no one involved in the League actually wanted to enforce anything. No one wanted to do the heavy lifting. There was no US being the boy scout running in to enforce rights, no matter how heavy handed. As a result, dictators used the world's inaction as approval for their actions until war was unavoidable. The US still stayed out until 1941, when finally THEY were attacked. God knows Britain and the Commonwealth would have appreciated a little more help, but America was desparate to try to stay out of the war.

Enter now the post ww2 Era. The US has the power to rule the world. They were the only ones with the bomb and the means to deliver it in force for the first few years. They did not do this. They fought a diplomatic war for years with the Russians, and both sides got involved with proxy wars that did neither any good. When the UN tried to put Saddam in a box after 1991 and enforce the resolutions, Saddam complied partially, but again, played a game of denial and hostility with the UN and its enforcement through the US and Britain. At what point Do you think the US is trying to RULE the world? At what point do you think they should just go back to sleep??

As I pointed out, American foreign policy being one of appeasement and ignoring the world basically wasn't working. The world was a far more dangerous place in many ways when they didn't get involved. So now they are, and they are evil? I suspect the blame you apportion on America should be spread around the world. If nation states run by thugs and regimes that abuse, kill and maim for their own ends didn't exist, the US would just have a nap....so put the scorn on those, not the one country big enough to try to enforce some sort of world order on altruistic means, even if it is clumsy....

When I see you guys arguing Bush is the most dangerous threat to the world, it is a completely naive and shallow argument in my mind....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

First off, the NRA is a lobby group. They dont' tell you that you should have a gun, nor use it, they just are defending those who hunt, or collect guns to not have them confiscated. To Americans, guns are personal property, and are subject to protection based on this fact. Lawyers in any society are advocates for position and while they are maddening, they are the people who define and argue points of laws to defend rights of their clients. In America, a nation dedicated to the rule of law and democratic rights, they will always hold a large role for Americans are rich enough to spend money arguing for rights that you and I just take for granted. The NRA sometimes sound like idiots to us, because we are just assuming it is the right to walk around with machine guns. No, it isn't. In fact, the NRA has always been quick to point out that gun USAGE is subject to lawful enforcement, and if you shoot someone, you should be in prison. The also don't argue that guns are people, they are saying GUNS are property, and should be protected. IF you have a problem with the guy using the guns, then apply the law to enforce civility or put the criminal in prison.

Rights are something in America that drive their psyche, and are given to them in the Constitution. It was the first one in the modern world that said in plain terms what rights the ordinary citizen should have. It is only natural that a society carved out of the woods of America should have the attitude towards rights as they do. The whole nation is made up of people fleeing systems and governments looking for a new way of life. When you bring too much control, censorship or muzzling of these rights, Americans react with great emotion. That is why they have such idealism when they go to places like Iraq where a country of 22 million were kept under the thumb of one of the most vicious men in history.

When it comes to the Americans being too eager to the world's policeman, well remember in the first half of the last century, and most of the 1800's they didn't pay any attention to anything past their immediate doorstep, and look at the major wars that took place. Numerous invasions on the continent of "civilized" Europe took place in the late 1800's. Proxy colonial wars all over the world. Exploitation of the Chinese people through colonial means, exploitation of Spanish speaking peoples until nations in South and Central America got their independence. Wars everywhere. The death toll wasn't as high as it was in the later years, but often it wasn't for lack of trying. AS the 20th century proved, America still tried to stay out of wars. The Russo-Japanese conflict. WW1 was a bloody mess that America tried to ignore. They didn't start that one, but their presence in 1917 was the tipping point that Germany was forced to deal with and realize that they couldn't deal with.

WW2 is partially a result of America going back to sleep. They didn't join the League of Nations, and that organization fell apart because no one involved in the League actually wanted to enforce anything. No one wanted to do the heavy lifting. There was no US being the boy scout running in to enforce rights, no matter how heavy handed. As a result, dictators used the world's inaction as approval for their actions until war was unavoidable. The US still stayed out until 1941, when finally THEY were attacked. God knows Britain and the Commonwealth would have appreciated a little more help, but America was desparate to try to stay out of the war.

Enter now the post ww2 Era. The US has the power to rule the world. They were the only ones with the bomb and the means to deliver it in force for the first few years. They did not do this. They fought a diplomatic war for years with the Russians, and both sides got involved with proxy wars that did neither any good. When the UN tried to put Saddam in a box after 1991 and enforce the resolutions, Saddam complied partially, but again, played a game of denial and hostility with the UN and its enforcement through the US and Britain. At what point Do you think the US is trying to RULE the world? At what point do you think they should just go back to sleep??

As I pointed out, American foreign policy being one of appeasement and ignoring the world basically wasn't working. The world was a far more dangerous place in many ways when they didn't get involved. So now they are, and they are evil? I suspect the blame you apportion on America should be spread around the world. If nation states run by thugs and regimes that abuse, kill and maim for their own ends didn't exist, the US would just have a nap....so put the scorn on those, not the one country big enough to try to enforce some sort of world order on altruistic means, even if it is clumsy....

When I see you guys arguing Bush is the most dangerous threat to the world, it is a completely naive and shallow argument in my mind....



Good points :up:

But ask yourself, are Americans capable of electing a competent President when the American people seem to be alienated from the rest of the world. I've heard that American news broadcasts have far more features on Entertainment than world affairs. ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

No leader should be "on trial" for any foreign conflict that they should be involved with. Not if the war is prosecuted using principles of civility as prescribed in the Geneva Conventions. However, leaders end up as "war criminals" often as seen through the eyes of the victors in any conflict. That said, I would say leaders who use their power for truly evil ends, that is enslavement of another nation or peoples, inhumane and systemic mistreatment of peoples in prosecuting a war, or outright barbarity are the ones deserving the title "war criminal."

Bush doesn't meet any of those standards, as much as you try. He didn't tell the US army to go into Iraq and kill people willy nilly. American military officers took GREAT pains at times to not shoot, loot or abuse the Iraqi populace. The incidents that the press has brought up have been also ones where the Government of the US has set up in Inquiries, charged and jailed the soldiers responsible. They didn't give orders for this sort of behaviour, but in a large military operation, thuggery comes out of strange sources and for reasons that are understandable as soldiers under a great stress can treat an enemy with disdain. As long as the leaders do not condone or use terror as a policy, I don't think you can charge the leader as a war criminal. Bush isn't a war criminal, nor should you charge him as such.

Compare him to Putin in Chechnya, where the slaughter has been indiscriminate. Also note, that this region is being kept in the Russian nation at gunpoint, while the Ukraine, Baltic states, Belarus and others were allowed to become their own nations. Why? Oil. No other reason. Why should this nation be any different than any others? Putin has also interfered in the Ukraine, and in Belarus where he openly backs through money and other more subtle but deadly ways parties that would work towards his goals of a greater Russian influence. When political opponents appear, or journalists seeking the truth, often they mysteriously are poisoned or killed out right by unknown assassins? You suggest this is by accident? People more involved than I in this, journalists who know Russia are writing endless arguments about Russia, and what Putin is doing. He is using his government to quell any dissent, or any democratic rights and freedoms. He does it in nations outside of his own in manners that suggest his motives are not altruistic at all. Yet Bush is the bad guy to you fellows? Listen, I get you don't like him, I wouldn't have spent this much time arguing with you if it was that simple, but this blind and stupid rush to judgement sounds juvenile when I see the evil creeping out around corners from Russia, China and Islamo/fascists. If the US did nothing for the next 10 years and never went to Iraq, I despair what kind of mess the world would be in....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Good points :up:

But ask yourself, are Americans capable of electing a competent President when the American people seem to be alienated from the rest of the world. I've heard that American news broadcasts have far more features on Entertainment than world affairs. ;)

Americans elect who they elect, no matter what you might think of their education and their media.

I despair for the level of education that is shown in American Media at times, but I also know to simply just dismiss their leaders as boobs because Boobs elect them is no more correct than Iam to suggest that all Venezuelans are pompous morons because of Hugo Chavez. No one who has been to America and travelled around to small towns and the midwest would ever suggest that they are a people that understands the greater world outside. They can be insular, but their leaders are like those of any other western democracy, they learn on the job, and they are often from parts of soceity that are very well educated and are aware. They just look at the world through a different idelogical prism that is very altrustic when it comes to the idea of democracy and the application of power to effect change. Americans dont' like talking about problems they are not prepared to try and solve. I think many European leaders would talk everyone to death....

[Eki]

1
WW2 is partially a result of America going back to sleep.
They may have gone back to sleep, but at least they didn't start a new unnecessary war in Europe like they did in Iraq. Sometimes it's good to be passive.

Maybe if the US had slept also the WW1, the things might have been different. Germany may not have lost so badly that they elected Hitler and wanted a rematch.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They may have gone back to sleep, but at least they didn't start a new unnecessary war in Europe like they did in Iraq. Sometimes it's good to be passive.

No, it isn't good to be passive when human rights are being ignored. It isn't good to ignore a nation that if unchecked would conquer its neighbours.

Eki, you are right back where you were about 10 pages ago where you argue that diplomacy and talking is the means to the end. It ONLY works when you are dealing with someone who is as civlized as you are. If the US just went back to the affairs of what Paris Hilton is wearing today, and ignored things the world outside their borders, I fail to see how Saddam doesn't go back to what he was doing before Kuwait. This guy did NOT have the desire to mind his own business. Iraq had invaded 2 nations in less than 15 years and they were allowed to just ignore resolutions of the civilized world of the UN, then what good good is the UN? What good is telling any thug that he is wrong if you are not willing to use force to show the other ones that you have a point where you wont take any more?

At some point Iraq had to be confronted. After 11 years it was obvious Saddam wasn't going to become a good citizen of the world and if left to his own devices, they would be WMD's being used to threaten the middle east. Your contention Bush shouldn't have invaded only holds water if diplomacy was given a chance, and that you HONESTLY believe that Iraq would have been open to changing its ways. No evidence supports Saddam was going to change (unlike Gaddafi, who gave up his WMD's on his own when Iraq was invaded) and no evidence proves to me Saddam was going to comply fully with UN dictates. Was the world supposed to have an embargo on Iraq forever? Were his people supposed to just starve while he built a palace a month? Were they to just continue to be oppressed because they were Kurds or Shias? You continue to make excuses for this, and yet I know you wouldn't condone such behaviour in civilized nations. You are obviously of the opinions that too bad for the Iraqi people, they don't deserve to have the yoke of Saddam off of them because it just offends your rules of diplomacy.

Listen, the US doesn't invade every nation it disagrees with. Nation states worse than Iraq for mistreatment of their citizens exist, and while the US doesn't like them, they haven't invaded. Iraq was different. Two invasions, endless threats, and flouting international decency got him to the enemy number one list with the Americans. He just never learned, and in the end, the Americans did what they should have done in the first gulf war, and legally, that is how it breaks down in my view. The resolutions that kept Iraq in check were imposed after that war, and violations of them are to be treated as hostile acts and therefore the was back on. The fact Iraq is screwed up now has a lot more to do with people in Iraq not knowing what to do with freedom, or wanting to exploit it for ethnic clensing or settling old scores of Islamic hatred.

[Mark in Oshawa]

AS for unneccesary wars in Europe, Most of Europe finally got it into their heads war is a bad idea after the carnage of the 2 world wars. That said, look at the mess in the former Yugolslavia. It took American and NATO involvement in actually shooting and bombing to get the Serbian's to the point that they were ready to realize Slobo was leading them down a path to ruin. If the Americans didn't get involved THEN, I suspect the shooting and looting of post war Yugolslavia would still be going on. God knows it was on Germany's doorstep and the Germans and French really didn't want to get their hand's dirty at first. When evil goes unchecked, it often does NOT go away, it spreads.

[Eki]

AS for unneccesary wars in Europe, Most of Europe finally got it into their heads war is a bad idea after the carnage of the 2 world wars. That said, look at the mess in the former Yugolslavia. It took American and NATO involvement in actually shooting and bombing to get the Serbian's to the point that they were ready to realize Slobo was leading them down a path to ruin. If the Americans didn't get involved THEN, I suspect the shooting and looting of post war Yugolslavia would still be going on. God knows it was on Germany's doorstep and the Germans and French really didn't want to get their hand's dirty at first. When evil goes unchecked, it often does NOT go away, it spreads.
It was then, now is now. Maybe the rest of the world should have bombed Washington DC so they had realized that Bush jr was leading them down a path to ruin and gotten into their heads that war is a bad idea.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It was then, now is now. Maybe the rest of the world should have bombed Washington DC so they had realized that Bush jr was leading them down a path to ruin and gotten into their heads that war is a bad idea.


Now you are just being infantile Eki. You losing the argument? THAT is one of the most childish and infantile statements you can make.

No, the rest of the world doesn't disagree with the US, just you and some of the other nations. Iraq isn't leading the world into ruin, it is leading Iraq into some uncertainty, but in the end, it likely will come out ahead, it just will take time. Complex issues do take time to resolve.

AS for bombing Washington, Bin Laden and his friends did do that on 9/11 after a fashion. That is WHY Bush all the sudden took his focus off his own political survival at home and went to war in Afghanistan and later Iraq. Bombing the Americans to change their mind guarntees a war. American's don't need some self righteous self appointed expert on world affairs to tell them war is really bad. They are still tearing themselves apart for their misguided involvement in Vietnam, and that was 30 years plus ago. American families have or know people who have served in wars. Americans volunteer to join their Armed forces still knowing about what war can be about. They are not a stupid people led by a stupid man that deserve your scorn. Eki, every time I think you have changed to maybe THINK about things, you say something as stupid as this.

You don't make jokes about bombing any nation you disagree with Eki. You just fail over and over again to see what point Iam driving at. You feel any nation that goes to war is WRONG unless they are directly being invaded. It is a fine theory that does not pass the test of world history. For the world's economy and sanity, sometimes threats to all nations have to be identified and either dealt with through diplomacy, or through a last resort war. This decision is never a frivolous one, although you seem to think so. Americans know war better than all the countries that seem to be stuck on this smug and insular argument that the Americans are fools. They know what they are doing isn't popular, and they know it isn't going to be easy, but they are believing what they are doing has a purpose that is noble. For you to mock that is just not fair to any intellectual standard.

They may have messed up Iraq's peace, they may have pushed too quickly to war by some, and they may be wrong in your eyes, but the fact remains you constantly knock them on this board, and it is for reasons that don't hold water. You ignore Russia's interference around the world, you have said little about China. You say little about Islamic fascist regimes who would snuff your rights out a heartbeat given a chance. You fail to condemn any of THAT with anything close to your anti-American fervor. IN short, you have to be a fool or really naive.

Just when I thought you were actually using logic to think about world issues, you post this facetious pile of crap. I just give up.....you are not going to get it are you???

[Mark in Oshawa]

BTW, I know you aren't actually advocating the physical bombing of Washington, but for you to joke about it sparked my ire, and I stand behind my feeling that you really need to re-examine your "values"

[race aficionado]

No, the rest of the world doesn't disagree with the US, just you and some of the other nations. Iraq isn't leading the world into ruin, it is leading Iraq into some uncertainty, but in the end, it likely will come out ahead, it just will take time. Complex issues do take time to resolve.



Hi guys . . . .

Mark, much of the world dissaproves of our present administration's policies, not only Eki, Myself and some other nations.

And about your point of complex iissues taking time to resolve, it will be very intresting to see what President Bush says tonight to try to sell us his "increase the amount of soldiers in Irak" policy.

we are indeed in interesting desicion times with the new Democratic mayority and president Bush's stubborness - or some would say - resolve.


peace

:s mokin:

[agwiii]

we are indeed in interesting desicion (SIC) times with the new Democratic mayority (SIC) and president Bush's stubborness - or some would say - resolve.

Indeed, it will be interesting to see what the extreme leftist like Feinstein and Pelosi can do to undermine American foreign policy. They'll have their 5 minutes of fame, and then they'll join McGovern.

[Roamy]

Hi guys . . . .

Mark, much of the world dissaproves of our present administration's policies, not only Eki, Myself and some other nations.

And about your point of complex iissues taking time to resolve, it will be very intresting to see what President Bush says tonight to try to sell us his "increase the amount of soldiers in Irak" policy.

we are indeed in interesting desicion times with the new Democratic mayority and president Bush's stubborness - or some would say - resolve.


peace

:s mokin:

Yes Race many disapprove. Me too - that pussy George Bush should have blown up the entire mid east and we would have dollar gas again. We should get our next pres from the WWF so we can body slam some of these assholes. Pelosi is so old she can't even give up pussy for peace - disgusting whitehouse at the moment!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hi guys . . . .

Mark, much of the world dissaproves of our present administration's policies, not only Eki, Myself and some other nations.

And about your point of complex iissues taking time to resolve, it will be very intresting to see what President Bush says tonight to try to sell us his "increase the amount of soldiers in Irak" policy.

we are indeed in interesting desicion times with the new Democratic mayority and president Bush's stubborness - or some would say - resolve.


peace

:s mokin:

Well I think Bush has backed you Americans into a corner. You are there now, you owe the world the duty of putting Iraq back on its feet and THAT is the true fight that America faces. Taking Iraq was easy, establishing a peace is hard. My argument with the opponents from outside the US who hate Bush is they have no idea on the complex politics that led to the war, both inside the US and with the UN. It was not just as knee jerk expedition for oil.

You in America are no different than any other democracy, if you are at odds with the government of the day, it is irritating often to read the paper, but at least you understand the process and understand that every leader has his day, and Bush has used up most of his. I was against the war, not for the reasons most of you have, but because I knew America isn't good at dealing with the complex task of nation building and peace keeping as it pertains to a culture as different from the US as Iraq would be. Add in three distinct groups and it is very hard to keep that country together. I will just say this though, I am sick and tired of hearing the constant crap about Bush being a war criminal. Only the most radical American would put any US president in that category.

It is ok to be in opposition of something but have a good and well thought out argument for the opposition. Half the people in the Democratic party voted for this war, "I voted for the war, before I voted against it" which sounds like just utter BS and political posturing. To see many of those same Democrats now pretending they knew this was going to be a screw up is just a joke. All the members of the foreign affairs committee saw the same faulty intelligence that Dubya and Tony did, and backed the decision at the time, so they shouldn't pretend they were always against it.

Most of the Democrats who objected in the beginning would object if Bush advocated Americans should try to drink water 3 times a day. Opposition for the sake of it, and I guess what I am saying it American domestic politics has influenced the decision making process, and while it is natural, I think it will further muddy the waters on what America's policy should be.

Any nations poltics should end at the "water's edge" or border, but apparently this is out the window now.

Now, If America wants to leave the mess now, they have to leave an Iraq that is governable. They owe the world that much.

[Mark in Oshawa]

AS for you Fousto, you are one sick puppy but hey, at least I know you are just slightly insane!!

[Woodeye]

First off, the NRA is a lobby group. They dont' tell you that you should have a gun, nor use it, they just are defending those who hunt, or collect guns to not have them confiscated. To Americans, guns are personal property, and are subject to protection based on this fact.

The fact only is that more guns bring more violence. This was the main point in Moore's document also. If everyone have free access to guns, it is easy to predict that this will bring problems. Not everyone will behave like they should with firearms. If you need money and you don't have it, it is easy to predict what is going to happen when instead of money you happen to have a criminal mind and a Smith&Wesson in your pocket. In Finland you can own or get a gun if you have a good reason getting one. Police permits the rights to get one and you should be able to prove that you are going to need it for hunting or sports. Usually you need to be a member of a hunting club or shooting club. Guns should be in a locked place in houses and they are not to be used in self defence. Never.


When it comes to the Americans being too eager to the world's policeman...

One should always be aware of the history. America has done many great things in WW1 and WW2 when they were helping Europe to get rid of Adolf. I think that the most important thing that history can teach us is how to avoid the mistakes that have been done in the past. Both World Wars have arisen mostly because of the unstabile situation in Europe. I think there's no need to for me to point out the reasons that lead to wars, everyone should be aware of those.

At the moment Europe has been in peace for a long time. Maybe the longest time in history, I don't know but I'm really happy about that fact. Maybe EU (even it is what it is) is brining more and more stability to this continent. Other thing that I hope is affecting is the fact that maybe we've learned not to fight in Europe. We are concerned what will be Beckham's new team. That is the biggest problem right now.

Unfortunately other parts of the world are still unstabile. The are wars in middle east and Africa. When US takes part to these Europe has always more careful attitude towards these conflicts. Why? Could it be that we've had our share of wars? Could it be that we've learned something? There have been wars in France, Germany, UK, Spain, Italy and other european countries in every century of the history. Could it just be that we've learned something and try to avoid situations like that to happen again.

I hope so. I hope that we don't have to witness war in 21st century in Europe. I hope that it won't happen, but I remain pessimistic about it.

[Knocker69]

Indeed, it will be interesting to see what the extreme leftist like Feinstein and Pelosi can do to undermine American foreign policy. They'll have their 5 minutes of fame, and then they'll join McGovern.

By Propaganda Department
1/6/2007, 10:40 pm
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/CareBears_Reid_Pelosi.gif
Capitalizing on the enormous success achieved by Democrats with the display of children at the inauguration ceremony, the new leaders are proposing to take this strategy even further and manage the situation in Iraq with the help of Care Bears™ (http://www.care-bears.com/CareBears/html/index.html).
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/05/prnw.20070105.UNF014.html) to President Bush urging him to reject any plan that could potentially result in a military victory in Iraq. The leaders warned that a surge in troop levels might further antagonize al-Qaeda's already-overtaxed fighters, and cited the dangers of U.S. victory to the future of the Democratic Party, liberal media, and world's progress towards socialism. The two leaders called on the President to heed the will of the anti-American forces, make up with dictators in Iran and Syria, and recognize the need to abandon the silly notion that all people are born equal and desire freedom.
~
Care Bears fighting powers
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/CareBears_Harmony.gif Harmony Bear
Caring Mission: Hugs enemy combatant letting him work out his anger by trying to shake her off until he is free of all negative energy and can face personal anxieties in a constructive, non-threatening way.
Points for the world peace: 7
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/CareBears_Friend.gif Friend Bear
Caring Mission: Invokes the inner child within a suicide bombing attacker, making him want to be friends and hold hands with all the children of the planet, as opposed to blowing up a school bus.
Points for the world peace: 10
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/CareBears_Share.gif Share Bear
Caring Mission: Selflessly shares jelly beans and US military secrets with al-Qaeda militants, giving them an example how they can also share a place under the sun with appeasing nations that are not stingy enough to pay them off.
Points for the world peace: 6
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/CareBears_Sun.gif Stare Bear
Caring Mission: Her unblinking stare penetrates the soul of an attacker, turning him into a gentler, kinder, more sensitive Jihadist.
Points for the world peace: 8

"Our soldiers are unqualified to combat the freedom fighters who see us as hostile invaders and ruthless killers that we are. We need to convince the insurgents that we love them, rather than alienate them with bullets and what not," the letter stated, proposing to replace U.S. troops in Iraq with a small contingent of Care Bears (http://www.care-bears.com/CareBears/html/index.html) who would send a message of love and caring throughout the Middle East.

Many in the military and in the Bush White House have cast an immediate and abruptly skeptical eye on the plan. While we have seen no official comment from the Pentagon, several issues have been raised by laymen that require further analysis. "The success of the Care Bears in dealing with Professor Coldheart has been well documented, but will they succeed in Iraq?" says Wesley Clark, a retired four-star general who currently leads a political action committee Securing America (http://securingamerica.com/splashpage/). "I'm not even sure the Care Bears would want to leave Care-a-lot for deployment."
Every Care Bear wears a bright-colored tummy picture that tells the world its name and special area of caring. While this is helpful in civilian areas, it may prove a hindrance in a combat zone. In addition, the patented "Care Bear Stare," so often used to great effect by the squad, may be in conflict with the Geneva Conventions.
Herb Finkler of the non-partisan ACLU states, "The Care Bear stare is clearly a psychological weapon with a severe long-term effect. To use this weapon on men whose only crime is desiring to detonate themselves in a crowded market is unconscionable."

While the details and efficacy of the plan remain up in the air, one thing is clear. The Democrats are not the party of "cut and run," but are indeed the party most interested in an effective and humane outcome in Iraq.

http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1030

[Knocker69]

Jan 10 5:05 PM US/Eastern

By BEN FELLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Make no mistake about it: President Bush (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22President+Bush%22&sid=breitbart.com) is admitting he's made some in Iraq. "He is responsible. He will take responsibility for the mistakes in the past," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Wednesday, promising that Bush's speech would feature some rare presidential contrition.
With public support for the war long eroded, Bush is trying to win some back. His message: OK, I get it.
He concedes now that there should have been more U.S. and Iraqi troops and clearer rules of battle for them, and that changes are coming.
This is not Bush's natural tendency. When he admits a big mistake, the concession often comes reluctantly and belatedly.
Late in his first term, he was asked to name his biggest mistake since the Sept. 11, 2001 (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Sept.+11,+2001%22&sid=breitbart.com), terrorist attacks. He famously struggled to come up with one. He told the reporter: "I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time."
When Hurricane Katrina (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Hurricane+Katrina%22&sid=breitbart.com) devastated much of the Gulf Coast (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Gulf+Coast%22&sid=breitbart.com) and lawlessness reigned in New Orleans (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22New+Orleans%22&sid=breitbart.com), Bush said he took responsibility for a slow, bumbling federal response _ after the city's mayor said federal officials "don't have a clue."
In late 2005, while defending the Iraq war, Bush took blame for faulty weapons intelligence that led to the U.S. invasion.
"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said. "As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."
Bush has also apologized sometimes for his choice of words, such as wanting to capture Osama bid Laden "dead or alive" and challenging U.S. foes to "bring it on" after the terrorist strikes on America.
"In certain parts of the world, it was misinterpreted. And so I learned from that," Bush said in May. He added that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was "the biggest mistake that's happened so far."
When Republicans lost control of Congress in November, Bush wasn't on the ballot. Yet he acknowledged that his own political standing didn't help.
"As the head of the Republican Party (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Republican+Party%22&sid=breitbart.com), I share a large part of the responsibility," Bush said.
Now comes the new way forward on Iraq.
Bartlett said Bush knows that most Americans aren't satisfied with the progress of the war.
"President Bush is in their camp," Bartlett said. "He's not satisfied. He's going to say the strategy was not working."
And that, yes, he's responsible.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/10/D8MIM6I84.html

[Woodeye]

Let's hope that Bush's new strategy will start to affect. It would about time. Too many lives have been lost already and even a civil war is not complete wrong thing to say when thinking the current situation in Iraq.

I remain sceptical about the US Military bringing the peace, but let's see...

[Mark in Oshawa]

The fact only is that more guns bring more violence. This was the main point in Moore's document also. If everyone have free access to guns, it is easy to predict that this will bring problems. Not everyone will behave like they should with firearms. If you need money and you don't have it, it is easy to predict what is going to happen when instead of money you happen to have a criminal mind and a Smith&Wesson in your pocket. In Finland you can own or get a gun if you have a good reason getting one. Police permits the rights to get one and you should be able to prove that you are going to need it for hunting or sports. Usually you need to be a member of a hunting club or shooting club. Guns should be in a locked place in houses and they are not to be used in self defence. Never.



One should always be aware of the history. America has done many great things in WW1 and WW2 when they were helping Europe to get rid of Adolf. I think that the most important thing that history can teach us is how to avoid the mistakes that have been done in the past. Both World Wars have arisen mostly because of the unstabile situation in Europe. I think there's no need to for me to point out the reasons that lead to wars, everyone should be aware of those.

At the moment Europe has been in peace for a long time. Maybe the longest time in history, I don't know but I'm really happy about that fact. Maybe EU (even it is what it is) is brining more and more stability to this continent. Other thing that I hope is affecting is the fact that maybe we've learned not to fight in Europe. We are concerned what will be Beckham's new team. That is the biggest problem right now.

Unfortunately other parts of the world are still unstabile. The are wars in middle east and Africa. When US takes part to these Europe has always more careful attitude towards these conflicts. Why? Could it be that we've had our share of wars? Could it be that we've learned something? There have been wars in France, Germany, UK, Spain, Italy and other european countries in every century of the history. Could it just be that we've learned something and try to avoid situations like that to happen again.

I hope so. I hope that we don't have to witness war in 21st century in Europe. I hope that it won't happen, but I remain pessimistic about it.

Well, I will comment on Bush in a second. To answer your idea on gun control, every culture has had a different history with guns. Switzerland has people with guns in every closet, and not just pistols, sub-machine guns. Yet they dont' shoot each other. The love of guns and the use of them in the US is part and parcel of the frontier history and culture where people carried and used guns because in the beginning, there was no law on the frontier and people had to hunt to survive. It has infused the American culture, so it isn't the guns, it is the people using the guns. Americans are proud of their individual rights to the point that they will defend them at any cost at times.

The only way to understand it is to travel to America, and realize that you don't see guns every day, and despite the stereotypes and movies, gun crime while above what it is in Europe, really isn't seen unless you are in the wrong end of town, which of course can happen anywhere. I don't feel any more unsafe in 99% of America than I do at home in Canada. That said, Canada has controlled hand guns for years, and now has a registry for long guns, which is a total waste of time and money, since criminals don't use rifles and shotguns, and if they did, they would not register a weapon so the cops would know where to go. Bureaucratic morons would figure a criminal would register their weapons I guess.

AS for your take on Europe and its attitude towards war, there is 2 factors in play IMO. First off, after two major continent wide bloodbath's, Europeans have had their blood lust for war sated forever I suspect. It has been done to the point that they no longer recognize maybe when they should examine the use of force. The UK is the exception to this historically, maybe because the UK has a more robust foreign policy historircally. The former East Bloc nations also may not be more war like, but understand how fragile freedom is as they just escaped the yoke of Moscow.

The other factor why Europe has avoided war for the most part (Yugoslavia is an ethnic stew gone bad) is that they are now realizing that they are not so different from each other in their values. A lot of those values have come from Scandanavia, which is socially progressive, which is good for preaching tolerance, something that needed to be taught in Europe before the wars; but I think also, they were united in a common goal to avoid any more conquest from the USSR, and while they didn't want a war with the Russians, they understood that you had to be on your guard. There was/is an understanding that defence is important but only defence. It is a different world, and Europe learned its lessons the hard way in 1914 to 1945. Democracy is the key to peace, and Americans take this notion one step further in that they aren't afraid to export it. I think that is where it offends Europeans. Americans tend to be too enthusiastic for European tastes!!!

I guess after being dragged across the Atlantic to participate on two wars on European soil, the Yanks figure they cant just sleep on their side of the lake, so they stay involved. This mess in Iraq is just part of that foreign policy.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Let's hope that Bush's new strategy will start to affect. It would about time. Too many lives have been lost already and even a civil war is not complete wrong thing to say when thinking the current situation in Iraq.

I remain sceptical about the US Military bringing the peace, but let's see...


Woodeye, where you are right is to remain skeptical. Not that the US cant bring peace, but they likely don't have the men to do it. It will come down to the Iraqi police and defence forces to do the job. They have to have the will to stop all of the violence and they have to do it with no favour to any side in the conflict.

The thing is, if Bush wasn't so sensitive to not dragging too many men into the fight, and listening to Rumsfeld in being told they could do more with less, then the ethnic strife wouldn't have happened. Read Gannex's take on what happened, and you realize it is maybe too late for Bush, but he is going to try anyhow, and he doesn't care what his opposition back in the US does to him in Congress. That is a man who believes he is doing the right thing, and while it has been beat to death on here that maybe it wasn't the right idea, the fact remains a leader who has the guts to stick to his idea and principles and doens't bend and twist with the polls is sometimes admirable.

Of course, Eki and Tomi want him in jail, so I will just pretend for one moment there is a rational discussion underway here....and just say that Bush may get out of this yet, although I think the results will be mixed. It pretty much is out of Bush's hands now, it is in the hands of the common Iraqi's and their fledgling government. IF people there are serious about making a changed Iraq, this is their time to prove it. I hope they can, they deserve better than the last 30 plus years of Saddam, with his purges, oppression, wars and corruption.

[Woodeye]

Switzerland has people with guns in every closet, and not just pistols, sub-machine guns. Yet they dont' shoot each other. The love of guns and the use of them in the US is part and parcel of the frontier history and culture where people carried and used guns because in the beginning, there was no law on the frontier and people had to hunt to survive. It has infused the American culture, so it isn't the guns, it is the people using the guns. Americans are proud of their individual rights to the point that they will defend them at any cost at times.

...since criminals don't use rifles and shotguns, and if they did, they would not register a weapon so the cops would know where to go. Bureaucratic morons would figure a criminal would register their weapons I guess.

Yes, in Switzerland people tend to keep guns in their closet but that is because they need to practise their arme skills every now and then. And government even gets these guns to men I think. So my question is why the Swiz know how to use them properly? Maybe it would be time for Americans to think if the Wild Wset still exists in the 21st century?

And 50cent and other morons like that driving with bullet vests on and uzi in a pocket really don't help too much. I say it again, gun in wrong hands is always dangerous.


It is a different world, and Europe learned its lessons the hard way in 1914 to 1945. Democracy is the key to peace, and Americans take this notion one step further in that they aren't afraid to export it. I think that is where it offends Europeans. Americans tend to be too enthusiastic for European tastes!!!

That's why I have somehow felt every now and then that the US is on a crusade in Iraq. They have a huge will to turn it into a democrazy, even that it never has been a one. There have always been kings or sheiks or warlords in the leading positions in arb countries. Still US try to seed democrazy there? Didn't it cross anyones mind to ask if that is what people in Iraq need? Is there any chance that democrazy will ever work there?

[Eki]

Let's hope that Bush's new strategy will start to affect. It would about time. Too many lives have been lost already and even a civil war is not complete wrong thing to say when thinking the current situation in Iraq.

I remain sceptical about the US Military bringing the peace, but let's see...
Bush doesn't realize the problem in Iraq is too MANY American soldiers in Iraq, not too FEW. If they wanted to live at gunpoint, they had it with Saddam.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Bush doesn't realize the problem in Iraq is too MANY American soldiers in Iraq, not too FEW. If they wanted to live at gunpoint, they had it with Saddam.

Eki, you really think NOW that they have gone there they can just up and leave? The carnage would be worse and carry on even longer. No, once they made up their minds to go in, the debate isn't whether they shouldn't have been there ( I have said they didn't have it all figured out) but how much do they have to do to put things right. The reason the ethnic/religous killings has gone on is because there isn't enough Americans to deal with it. Lets face the reality Eki, you would bitch if left 4 seconds after Saddam was kicked out of town. You have your agenda, and it clouds any argument I give you.

They lived in gunpoint with Saddam alright, and you were ok with that, but now you whine that the Americans might be too tough on them? Strange logic indeed, but it is what I have come to expect from you.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, in Switzerland people tend to keep guns in their closet but that is because they need to practise their arme skills every now and then. And government even gets these guns to men I think. So my question is why the Swiz know how to use them properly? Maybe it would be time for Americans to think if the Wild Wset still exists in the 21st century?

And 50cent and other morons like that driving with bullet vests on and uzi in a pocket really don't help too much. I say it again, gun in wrong hands is always dangerous.



That's why I have somehow felt every now and then that the US is on a crusade in Iraq. They have a huge will to turn it into a democrazy, even that it never has been a one. There have always been kings or sheiks or warlords in the leading positions in arb countries. Still US try to seed democrazy there? Didn't it cross anyones mind to ask if that is what people in Iraq need? Is there any chance that democrazy will ever work there?

Gangsta Culture in the US is a unique thing, but hey, this is what happens in an unhibited society where cultural groups are still trying to establish their place. The black culture of the US is tainted by the bad relations with whites going back to that slavery thing, which of course, the US killed more of its soldiers in a Civil war to end slavery than any other war they have been in. To get the US gun culture, you just have to put it down to the US being so free, that you are free to be a moron. I stand by the fact though, guns don't kill people, the people holding the guns kill people. People who commit crimes go to jail in civilized societies, and I guess the problem is in the US there is a thought that it is the only way out for some people. IT is an education thing.

As for Iraq and democracy, Woodeye, you are falling into Eki's feeling that the Iraqi's are too stupid or too inferior to get democracy. Never mind 80% of the country voted for the first time where they didn't have Saddam's goons making sure they voted....FOR HIM. Iraq in two elections had a higher turn out than the last 3 or 4 Canadian elections I can remember, and that is in a nation where people were threatened by terrorists on the way to the polls, and polling stations were actually physically under fire at times. You figure out how to deduce that. Afghani's have had two votes now, and again, over 80% turnouts. Both elections were monitored by the UN and seen to be done with proper measures. Don't tell me these people don't deserve to have better rights and freedoms. Don't tell me they don't get democracy. Electing a leader of a hunting party is a democratic principle that goes back to neanderthals I suspect, so why shouldn't Iraq have an elected leader. The problem is the people there don't know how to protect it, and they don't know how to allow tolerance. Tolerance is the key to an democracy. If you have no tolerance in a democracy, then you elect dictators. Look no further than Hitler being elected, and then changing the rules to suit his own nefarious purposes while he made Jews the scape goat.

No, Iraq can work as a democracy if the people there resist the desire to settle scores, the police force is professional and treats people with respect and equality, and if the military there resists the temptation to run the country in a military fashion, and control everything. Democracy and tolerance have to come to the Middle East in some other nation besides Israel. If it wont, Arab countries will continue to oppress their minorities, corrupt their own socieities, and use religion and oil money to keep people poor and uneducated. The Americans may have been clumsy in Iraq, but their goals cant be always seen through an idea that they are always after their own motives. The fact is, American interests are those of most nations, in that they want a stable world economy, they don't want threats from terrorists and they want a world where things are predictable. Capitalism works better with trade, not slavery....

[cobre]

and I must say how can someone who had no honor in life suddenly die with it?

[Eki]

Eki, you really think NOW that they have gone there they can just up and leave? The carnage would be worse and carry on even longer. No, once they made up their minds to go in, the debate isn't whether they shouldn't have been there ( I have said they didn't have it all figured out) but how much do they have to do to put things right. The reason the ethnic/religous killings has gone on is because there isn't enough Americans to deal with it. Lets face the reality Eki, you would bitch if left 4 seconds after Saddam was kicked out of town. You have your agenda, and it clouds any argument I give you.

They lived in gunpoint with Saddam alright, and you were ok with that, but now you whine that the Americans might be too tough on them? Strange logic indeed, but it is what I have come to expect from you.
You still think they should be forced to accept democracy when it seems obvious democracy won't work unless Iraq is divided into three different parts?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, maybe they will divide into 3 parts. Saddam held them together at gunpoint and used one group against the other to suit his own purposes. Now they can actually decide to make that decision peacefully if the radicals are taken care of. Dissent and separatist movements are fine well and good when they seek change through the ballot box, refrendum and diplomatic negotation. How anyone can sanction that a full out war unchecked between the three is good is a mystery to me, yet you can bet that is the result if the US gets out now. No, they broke it, they gotta fix is, because they cant buy it.

[Woodeye]

Gangsta Culture in the US is a unique thing, but hey, this is what happens in an unhibited society where cultural groups are still trying to establish their place. The black culture of the US is tainted by the bad relations with whites going back to that slavery thing, which of course, the US killed more of its soldiers in a Civil war to end slavery than any other war they have been in.

It's not only the blacks that are into the "gansta" -thing. It is also the latinos, asians and whites. And hailing guns and violence is common to this culture. So let these punks to have free access to guns? Seems quite irrational to me.


As for Iraq and democracy, Woodeye, you are falling into Eki's feeling that the Iraqi's are too stupid or too inferior to get democracy. Never mind 80% of the country voted for the first time where they didn't have Saddam's goons making sure they voted....FOR HIM. Iraq in two elections had a higher turn out than the last 3 or 4 Canadian elections I can remember, and that is in a nation where people were threatened by terrorists on the way to the polls, and polling stations were actually physically under fire at times. You figure out how to deduce that. Afghani's have had two votes now, and again, over 80% turnouts. Both elections were monitored by the UN and seen to be done with proper measures. Don't tell me these people don't deserve to have better rights and freedoms. Don't tell me they don't get democracy.

I'm not stating that Iraqi are inferior or stupid or don't get democracy. What I was saying is that there have been no history of working democracy in Iraq. I doubt if it will work this time. And if it doesn't work and for example some religious leaders take control, will US then come back with democracy and liberation?


The fact is, American interests are those of most nations, in that they want a stable world economy, they don't want threats from terrorists and they want a world where things are predictable. Capitalism works better with trade, not slavery....

There's no democracy in China and it is not a barrier for capitalism to work, is it? Crazy dictator is a barrier, but modern communism isn't?
If there is a trade blocks like for North Korea and in Cuba (which is totally stupid and unnecessary btw for Cuba) that will slow down the capitalism, but don't prevent it totally. Where would the real cuban cigars come from otherwise?

It was American interest to prevent communism spreading. That¨s why there still are trade barriers in Cuba. It was American interest to get rid of Saddam, that's why they did it. They are looking to get something out of Iraq, thzt why tehy did it. I'm quite sure Finland wants stable economy as well, but I'm also quite sure that we won't benefit anything even that Saddam is gone now.

[Eki]

Gangsta Culture in the US is a unique thing, but hey, this is what happens in an unhibited society where cultural groups are still trying to establish their place. The black culture of the US is tainted by the bad relations with whites going back to that slavery thing, which of course, the US killed more of its soldiers in a Civil war to end slavery than any other war they have been in.
Many of them died also defending slavery. Like I have said before, Abraham Lincoln killed almost 300,000 of his own countrymen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war

[Gannex]

I remain sceptical about the US Military bringing the peace, but let's see...
I agree with you, Woodeye. I think it is probably impossible for the US to pacify Iraq, even with the addition of 22,000 troops, which is what Bush has decided to do. It is too little, too late.

The problem is that the most violent people, primarily the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al Sadr (Shiite), and the Ba'athist remnants of Saddam's era (Sunni), now see their chance for power, and they know that if the violence stops, their chance at power is ended. Where would the twenty-somethings of the Mahdi Army be if that militia were disbanded or somehow forced to put down their weapons? They'd have no more prestige, no more of the respect that comes from carrying a weapon and a reputation for violence. They'd just be out-of-work young Iraqis, with no excitement in their lives, no feeling of being in the huge sweep of history, no self-image as fearless fighters. It's not an appealing prospect for them. They don't want peace. Peace, for them, would be a disaster.

Similarly for the Sunni insurgents. They have known power of the most intoxicating kind under Saddam. They ruled. What they said went. If someone disrespected them, they knew that person could be killed or tortured, or otherwise beaten into submission. Now they have gone from that to being guerrilla warriors, hunted animals, not only stripped of their power and position, but under threat of being killed or enslaved by the Shiites they used to dominate. Why would they ever choose to give up that fight for survival and a modicum of respect? What's in it for them if peace breaks out?

The ordinary Iraqi, of course, wants to be left in peace, but it is not the will of the ordinary Iraqis that will determine when the violence ends. It is the men of violence who will determine that, and my feeling is that those men want no peace for the reasons I stated.

So what can be done? I believe a massive infusion of troops, not 20,000, but more like a million troops from all across the civilized world, with a soldier on every corner, could do the trick. Militarily, that is possible, but politically it is not. No one, not even the Americans, would stand for it. Not any more. Not after the whole exercise has been so thoroughly discredited.

If massive troop infusions are not politically possible, I see only two other options, the first of which is to declare victory, pull out, and let Iraq disintegrate into a failed state with massive bloodshed. That is the Ted Kennedy option, and I think it is the option that will be chosen, ultimately, after this last gasp effort with the extra 20,000 troops has proved a failure.

The option I would have pursued, if I were Tony Blair, is what I call the Ethnic Cleansing option. The British covertly approach Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most respected Shiite cleric in the world, admired for his wisdom and scholarship by even the most senior Iranian ayatollahs. We offer him a deal: you will be the provincial president of southern Iraq, the leader of the Shiite part of an Iraqi federation, nominally under the umbrella of a federal Iraqi government based in Baghdad, but in practice, virtually autonomous. Your word will be law, but the price you have to pay is that the law enforcement in your province will be provided by Iran, though under your command. Also, you must undertake to use the Iranian muscle to obliterate the Mahdi Army in Baghdad who, though nominally Shiite Muslims, both you and the Iranians know to be led by a "cleric", Moqtada al Sadr, who is in fact no cleric at all, but merely a warlord posing as a saviour of Shiite Islam.

The Iranians are approached, again by the British, and again covertly. They are told that they can extend their influence into southern Iraq, gain a measure of control (which they have long coveted) over the most holy of Shiite sites, but that the price is that their forces must be under the command of al-Sistani, they must be prepared to ruthlessly put down Moqtada al Sadr if he does not submit, and must help defend the Shiites of the north, if al Sadr DOES submit.

Al Sadr himself is told by fatwa, and also by events on the ground, that he must disband his Mahdi Army and be ruled by al-Sistani and his Iranian backers. He must be made aware that if he does not, he and the people he supposedly "protects", will face not only the wrath of the Sunni insurgency, but also the might of Iran.

As for the Kurds, they will be offered a US and British presence, to protect them from the Sunnis, who will be tempted to overreach towards the north once the Shiite threat is neutralised. Turkey will more readily accept a semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan if the British and Americans are there, because we will assure Turkey that our protection of Iraqi Kurdistan will evaporate the minute the Kurds co-operate with Turkish Kurds in a move toward an independent Kurdistan straddling the border between the two countries. So hopefully, the Turks will go along, especially if the arrangement holds out the prospect for them of even greater support for their effort to accede to the European Union.

This will probably lead to a massive refugee movement of Shiites from the Sunni triangle, southwards toward Najaf and Basra. It will result in the de facto partitioning of the country, and an end to Iraq as a united nation. It will mean the extension of Iranian power beyond that nation's own borders, and a new muscularity from the Iranian regime in all areas, especially its drive to build up a nuclear arsenal. It is not, in other words, a good option. But it is better, I believe, than stepping back and watching, from the comfort of our living rooms in the West, as Iraq descends into the abyss.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Woodeye
The fact only is that more guns bring more violence.

:) John Lott's Research has shown exactly the opposite. Similarly, as the states have adopted right to carry laws, violent crime has dropped in all of those states. OTOH, violent crime is highest in places like DC that have the toughest gun control laws.

This was the main point in Moore's document also. If everyone have free access to guns, it is easy to predict that this will bring problems. Not everyone will behave like they should with firearms. If you need money and you don't have it, it is easy to predict what is going to happen when instead of money you happen to have a criminal mind and a Smith & Wesson in your pocket.

:) So you wish to restrict the rights of the honest and ethical because there are unethical criminals in society. Curious approach.

In Finland you can own or get a gun if you have a good reason getting one. Police permits the rights to get one and you should be able to prove that you are going to need it for hunting or sports. Usually you need to be a member of a hunting club or shooting club. Guns should be in a locked place in houses and they are not to be used in self defence. Never.

:) The United States Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation. The major weakness in the Constitution was the lack of articles that addressed individual rights, so Hamilton, Jay and Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, and used the writings of Publius to explain the documents. Here in the United States, we have a fundamental right to protect ourselves and our family. Guns are used in self defense because we refuse to be victims. One of the fundamental differences between citizens and slaves is that slave cannot own weapons, but citizens can.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, I dont need your Wiki post to know what the Civil war is and more than 300000 K died. I also know that he didn't kill them, he did it to enforce an unlawful succession and seizure of US property. No matter, don't get me going on the US Civil War, I studied as a hobby for years.

As for your feelings Woodeye, US law and constitution is based on rights for everyone, even for morons, and you are right, more than just blacks are in the Gangsta culture, but it is young blacks that are by far the most caught up in a vicious cycle. If they didn't use guns to kill each other, they would use knives.

Communism works with Capitalism no where really. China has kept the name Communism, but the reality of it is that Marx would be horrified by what has happened to his theories in China. What we have in China is a full out economic engine being fed by cubic yards of money, low wages, no benefits and a populace willing to take the fact they have little recourse for civil liberties past having possessions and some limited rights to travel. China is not a democracy, but I think in time, their leaders may have on do a Gorbachev and bring reforms to give the people the social and populist liberities they deserve. IF the Chinese had stuck to Mao's model, the country would have collapased years ago.

As for the US hatnig and blocking off Communism, well in a way, Castro wouldn't know what to do with the US if THEY did open up relations with him. Castro deals with the rest of us ( Canadians fly there all the time for cheapie holidays in gated resorts) while saying how the embargo has hurt his island. Dirty little secret is, the rest of the western world trades with him, but the only things he has done with his trade is create more low tech jobs, educated doctors and control every aspect of society. Would it make a difference if the US did business with Cuba? Absolutely, but the Cuban exiles in Florida, NY and around the country would go nuts, and politically, no US politician wants to mess with that now.

One more point. Castro is on America's doorstep. 90 miles south of Key West Florida. Now he wouldn't be able to affect change in America, and he wouldn't invade, so the Americans really have not really tried to remove him. The Bay of Pig's affair was a clumsy mistake on Kennedy's part to let Cuban exiles work with the CIA of maybe toppling Castro. AT that point, Fidel was already cozying up to the Russians, and that made America nervous. As the Cuban Missile crisis proved, they had a right to be. Now that all that is history, Castro and the embargo against him are more or less a relic of history. It is sad how Cuba has just stagnated, other than the resorts catering to the Europeans and Canadians visiting, but there is no freedom for the people there beyond a basic level.

Woodeye, you brought up the point freedom is no requirement for captialism, and that is true as in China. The thing is, what made Iraq unique was not only the closed society, the total control of the government and oppression of those living there, but the total corruption of all the wealth being tailored to suit Saddam's needs. He used all the money for his own gain, or to embolden the strength of his regime, both in the military and the bureaucracy.

That alone wouldn't draw anyone's attention past condemenation, but you couple that with 2 invasions of oil producing neighbours to steal their oil fields, use and work on WMD's ( he had gas to use on Iran and the Kurd's so to say he didn't have them when the UN was looking is not exactly something anyone can say 100&#37 ;) .

Saddam was the worst type of dictator. He didn't stay on his own playground and he was making a play to be a power broker. Listen, Kim Il Sung is a bigger slime ball to his own people then even Saddam, but the US leaves him alone partially to keep the peace with China, and partially because he hasn't really been a real threat. He makes a lot of noise, but everyone knows he is likely to do nothing. Saddam didn't have that restraint. If he had left Iran and Kuwait alone, he would be in power today, or until his people found a way to be rid of him. Saddam could not be trusted to be left alone, and when put under the watch of the UN, he resisted to the point that if sanctions and resolutions were to have any meeting, someone was going to have to call his bluff. We have been around this so many times and yet you guys resist the reality.

Saddam had been a threat in the past, and he could be in the future. What is more, when confronted with the reality that the world didn't trust him, he acted like he had something to hide. I wouldnt' trust Saddam and neither would you on a personal level. He was no ordinary thug. Those the US knows are not threats so while they may find them repulsive or a pain the rear, they cant fix every nation. Iraq, well it was run by an idiot. Anyone provoking the Americans when they had their blood up after 9/11 was just a fool.....

You Finn's have made your point that you think the US shouldn't have been there. I say they had probable cause to not trust this guy and they wanted to make a positive change in the Middle East. I have documented over and over again that Saddam was killing his own people at a rate that dwarfs the collaterial deaths by the Americans. What is more, his violence was aimed at them, the Americans were just trying to defeat a military who kept the people enslaved.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gannex, the Iranian option is no option. Not this Iran. Not with the president threatening his own nuclear options in the future, and a promise to take out Israel in fire or the whole world if you like. He believes in the Madhi coming, and that is the end of the world or Armageddon coming. No, giving him any more clout in that part of the world really is NOT an option.

Al-Sistani may have some pull with Iran now, but he will be swallowed up by people willing to use Islam to more nefarious plans.

Will extra troops help? You are likely correct they need way more. Intelligence estimates in the Pentagon told Rumsfeld they needed 500000 and they didn't listen to them. So now Bush ups it 20000 while they really have to lean on the local army and police to step up. IF THEY do their part, then this can happen. It is the vacuum of the Iraqi government to do more than let the Americans be the target that is part of the issue.

You are also correct that likely, the US will be out of there in two years. At that point, they will have had a go at rebuilding the nation for 3 more years than it took to rebuild Germany and Japan.

I agree with most of your assessments in that the Shiites in the south were not handled properly, but the Brits better not be talking to the Iranians in a tough manner about their nuclear program while saying under the table they can run the show in southern Iraq. This is just not an option I think anyone would want. I guess though it may be a very weak alternative to bloodshed.

I think though if the Americans pulled out, Iraq would split in 3. The south MAY end up part of the Iranian universe anyhow, but you know it wouldn't be long before friction started caused by the Iranians and the Sunni's in the middle of the country. A lot of the strife now is being fed by Iran, so what you proscribe HAPPENS. Sealing off the border with Iran should have been a more urgent and properly assessed threat.

No, a lot of the critcism the Finn's here have had is that they KNEW this was going to happen. Well, they were guessing, but the Americans by omission or incompetance (Bush admitted they have messed this up) have created the unstablity. To allow Iran to pour gas on the fire to get THEIR results shouldn't be rewarded. I would rather the Iraqis get it out of their system without Iranian interference....

[Eki]

Not with the president threatening his own nuclear options in the future, and a promise to take out Israel in fire or the whole world if you like.

I haven't heard him say that. He has only said Israel should be wiped off the map, or something like that, and I agree with him. Not through nuclear or other weapons of course, but through politics and diplomacy. Those who have emigrated to Israel should pack up and go back where they came from. How stupid it was to emigrate to the Middle East when the situation was like it was? I think Israel is as useless as DDR was and North Korea still is.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Aqwii, what our Finnish friends cant get is that in the US, rights and freedoms are given to the citizen, and it is his responsiblity to use it in a responsible manner. If he does not, he then falls afoul of the state. In just about every other democratic system in the world, the state grants you those rights and freedoms and reserves the right to take them away as needed to for the "good" of society. It is a every so slight difference, but I think in America, the system is set up to never trust government implicitly.

In Canada the slogan that was around at our Confederation was "Peace, order and Good Government". In America, it was "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" Little has changed in a sense. Both countries work, and the Canadian model is simliar to the European modern states, but the attitude towards trusting government is a lot less in the US. The Finn's don't see it is not the state's job to make sure you are personally responsible in your actions. I am not uncertain there isn't some sort of middle ground that isnt' being walked on here....lol..but that is me, the silly Canadian who wants everyone to get along!!!!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

:) Here in the United States, we have a fundamental right to protect ourselves and our family. Guns are used in self defense because we refuse to be victims. One of the fundamental differences between citizens and slaves is that slave cannot own weapons, but citizens can.


Over here in Europe we are still slaves because not all of us have weapons, we only got running water and electricity last winter ! :rolleyes:


I thought this thread was about Saddams Execution :?:

[Gannex]

Gannex, the Iranian option is no option. Not this Iran. Not with the president threatening his own nuclear options in the future, and a promise to take out Israel in fire or the whole world if you like.....
Mark, I share your concern about Iran growing even more powerful. Like you, I think that a regime like Iran, so hate-filled, so determined to obliterate its enemies, should not easily be given even more of the means to achieve their awful purposes. But you forget one thing -- the Israelis will not allow Iran to achieve a nuclear arsenal any time soon. Just last week, the Israelis leaked their plan to eliminate Iran's nuclear installations, as surely as they eliminated Iraq's back in 1981. I don't know if you saw the story. In England, it was in The Sunday Times, and detailed a rather chilling plan to attack the underground Iranian installations with a conventional bunker-buster bomb, which would then create a drop-hole through which the Israelis would drop a very small nuclear bomb. The fallout, it is thought, would be contained because of the extreme depth of the explosion. It would be more akin to an underground nuclear test in its effects on humanity, than to the bomb on Hiroshima. The power of this bomb, apparently, is about one twentieth of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

My point is that Iran can be given a little bit of leash at this point to help stabilise Iraq. Their nuclear ambitions will be taken care of later, by another country, in another way. No need to worry. Iran will not get the bomb.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I haven't heard him say that. He has only said Israel should be wiped off the map, or something like that, and I agree with him. Not through nuclear or other weapons of course, but through politics and diplomacy. Those who have emigrated to Israel should pack up and go back where they came from. How stupid it was to emigrate to the Middle East when the situation was like it was? I think Israel is as useless as DDR was and North Korea still is.

Read the Bible Eki, the Jews have been in Israel for as long as the Arabs. Both sides have to learn to get along. The Israelis say they will try if the Palestinians will but Hamas, and before them Arafat only play a game of cease fire to build up to make another push. Not to mention the Arab neighbours trying to knock them off in 4 other wars. As for Jewish immigrants, it is no diffrent than if all the Finn's around the world were denied being alllowed to move back home, even if they were from another nation.

No Eki, don't go down that road. As for Iran's president, he had a conference of holocaust denial experts, he has said he would wipe them off the map. He wont do THAT through your precious diplomacy. No, Eki, if left up to you, you would have every Jew in Israel grab their ankles and take what is coming to them obviously.....

Both the Jews and Arab's have to get along but until there is a trust from Israel that they will not be under attack as a society from suicide bombers or outright military invasion, it wont happen. Iran is the biggest backer of Hezbollah, who if you were paying attention Eki spent about a month lobbing rockets into Northern Israel. It shouldn't escape your notice that the Iranians encouraged this. So spare me the rhetoric how the President of Iran didn't say he would kill all the Jews. Heck, he would likely enslave them to wash his car for all I know but I do know this much. They would be just sub-human fodder to him. Spare me the crap about what a great fellow he is. You trust dictators and trust racist pigs Eki. Completely at odds with your Finnish state. Of course, I have come to the conclusion, you are not a typical Finn.....

[Knocker69]

Interesting that Iran has been brought up in this discussion.


US north Iraqi raid angers Iran
US forces have stormed a building in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six people said to be Iranians, prompting a diplomatic incident.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Israeli state has only been officiallly a state since 1947, and the newly minted UN said both the Arab's and Israeli's could share Palestine but the Arab's refused that option, wanting all of it under their control. Well, we know how well that has worked. Israel cant trust them to not try to wipe them out, so you have a partitioned state with hostile intentions on one side for sure. Arafat could have had 95% of his "demands" with the Oslo accord, but instead, he allowed the Intifada. He didn't want peace. The sad part is, Israeli Arabs, that is Arab's in the state of Israel do just fine, vote in the elections, have the same freedoms as anyone else. Just they are not Palestinians for the most part, and it is the Palestinians who have been used as pawns for pan-arabian hostility towards Israel.

Eki, you should really read some of the Wiki stuff you send on to me all the time, I bet I wouldn't have to keep on explaining the history of this stuff....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Knocker, don't you know they were there just to sample the local cuisine? Just friendly fellows I am sure.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki only likes Jews when they cower I guess, but in reality, they go back to Israel to defend the spiritual homeland of the start of their faith, the same way Arab's defend Saudi Arabia as the home of Mecca. I would be as angry if the Jewish state made ridiculous statements about how Saudi Arabia should be wiped out.

You have a double standard, the US isn't allowed to invade Iraq, but you see nothing wrong with Iranian and Arab hostility to threaten Israel. You obviously have a problem with Jews Eki, I worry about you.

[Eki]

Read the Bible Eki, the Jews have been in Israel for as long as the Arabs.
According to the recent research, every human being originates from Africa, somewhere near the present day Ethiopia. It doesn't mean we should all move back there. If you leave, you lose your seat. I have nothing against those who were in Israel before 1947 or their descendants staying there. If you accept a radical Jewish state, surely you must also accept a radical Muslim state.

[Mark in Oshawa]

According to the recent reserach, every human being originates from Africa, somewhere near the present day Ethiopia. It doesn't mean we should all move back there. If you leave, you lose your seat. I have nothing against those who were in Israel before 1947 or their descendants staying there. If you accept a radical Jewish state, surely you must also accept a radical Muslim state.

Eki, the Jews NEVER LEFT ISRAEL. They have been there since before Christ. They predate any Arab claims to the area. They don't NEED to go anywhere. It is THEIR HOME !!!!

I can accept Radical Arab states exist, i just don't ask anyone to take them seriously and not to trust them with anyone's right's or freedoms. I don't trust their government, and I don't trust their motives. If they threaten my way of life, I am all for someone taking them out. We had this discussion before. A democracy threatened has a right after diplomatic negotiation to take the final option of war. You would just allow anything to happen as long as it didn't effect your little world Eki. Of course, unless it was the US that did it, then you jump to the conclusion it was wrong.


As for a Radical Jewish state, yes, democratically elected nations in the Middle East are so radical compared to all the autocracies and dictators. You really have no clue of how much of a Nazi you are starting to sound like Eki. I have lost total respect for almost anything you say. It has taken you a week to finally get to the point where you are just making NO sense what so ever.

It is obvious that you my friend are a hateful soul with no regard for history or fairness. You obviously refuse to believe you have anything to learn and you never question your values. You know it all. WE should just kiss your ring because you have the knowledge. Everyone, See EKI, he has the answers...just ask him.

Fool....

[Eki]

Eki, the Jews NEVER LEFT ISRAEL. They have been there since before Christ. They predate any Arab claims to the area. They don't NEED to go anywhere. It is THEIR HOME !!!!
About 60% of the Jews in Israel have born abroad or descend from someone who has immigrated to Israel since 1947.



As for a Radical Jewish state, yes, democratically elected nations in the Middle East are so radical compared to all the autocracies and dictators.
Somebody once said democracy occurs when two wolves and a sheep decide on what to have for dinner, freedom occurs when the sheep has a gun. Bring on more wolves and give them an immigrant visa. Like a minority of Arabs have a chance in a democracy with a majority of Jews.

[Mark in Oshawa]

About 60% of the Jews in Israel have born abroad or descend from someone who has immigrated to Israel since 1947.





Eki, any country can allow anyone to emigrate or not based on their criteria. You know, your standard that every nation should be left alone. I see, only ones you AGREE with get to set that standard. Israel's Arab population has voting rights and other rights of citizenship. You know, basic rights that any democratic society gives to its citizens. Do a little research beyond reading Arab propaganda, and you learn that Jewish quarters existed in Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo and other Arab cities. What is more, the Jews there lost all rights and were basically pushed out at the point of a gun as all the states in the area became independent and colonial rule left. Arabs in Israel don't have to be worried about being evicted unless they are picking up arms or strapping TNT to their bodies. Since the ones in Israel have figured out life in the Jewish state is better than living in some other dictatorial regime, they live in peace.



Somebody once said democracy occurs when two wolves and a sheep decide on what to have for dinner, freedom occurs when the sheep has a gun. Bring on more wolves and give them an immigrant visa. Like a minority of Arabs have a chance in a democracy with a majority of Jews.


The sheep has the gun? I would say in the Middle East there are about 12 Wolves including one trying to get nuclear weapons and only 2 that will even recognize the right of Israel to exist. Damn right the Sheep has the gun, or they would have been swimming in the Med a long time ago, no thanks to people who think like you.

See Your analogies just make you look like a fool Eki. You cant advocate the elimination of the Jewish state without sounding like an anti-semite. You feel the Jews have no right to move back to Israel when I pounded it into your head that the Jews never left Israel. See, they would share and they would have given Palestinians likely more if the other Arab nations didn't persist in encouraging the Palestinians to push for the whole area. Of course, the other Arab nations can use Israel as a bogey man while no one talks about the thousands they torture, kill, enslave and generally ignore or steal from. No, you are all set to worry about Arab rights in Israel Eki but you deny them from Arabs living in Iraq or about 12 other nations in the area.

I don't know why I bother.....

[DonJippo]

Israel's Arab population has voting rights and other rights of citizenship. You know, basic rights that any democratic society gives to its citizens.

So when exactly were the elections where the whole population of the area were given change to vote about the birth of Israel?

[Mark in Oshawa]

BLame the UN, that world body for it. Second of all, the birth of Israel was also to be the birth of an Arab state in the same area. I wasn't around in 1947 to know what the atmosphere was like back then, so I have no idea how Arab's viewed the idea of anything in the area being "Jewish". Let me just say this. That sort of mindset justifies any kind of bloodshed and stupidity. Would it be wise to carry these old hatreds forever? Heck, why not you Finn's mobilize and reinvade that part of Russia that was wrongly taken from you? How about the Croat's and the Bosnian Serbs taking out Muslims there for land they felt had no business belonging to someone else?

I cant turn the clock back to 1947, but I can tell you that Israel is the reality there, and it is the only nation in the area that has the power to wipe the others out and it hasn't done so. I cant say I would give the same power to Iran and think there was no threat. They have all but said they want the Jews out of the Middle East. I would rather side with reasonable people, but i guess you guys would rather give the Arab's everything they want, so they just stay in the Middle East and quit emigrating to Europe? Is that the theory? Or is it just a case of you feel Arab's have MORE Rights to be allowed to enslave, oppress or outright threaten other nations? I don't get how you can justify the stands some of you make.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Arab state that never got born was to be the Palestinian homeland. It was made up of the West Bank and Gaza, and parts of Jordan and Egypt. I didn't think it was a very good plan, and the whole World has some responsibility for the failure of not putting a better option on the table. That said, to now turn around after all those wars, all the threats, and all the hostility over 60 years for the Arab's vs the state of Israel is just silly. It has become VERY apparent that the Palestinians would just deny Israel's right to exist in any form, while the Israelis have stated repeately that a Palestinian state with democratic principles and some form of responsible government is not an problem for them. That responsbile bit is the problem Arab's have, until Iraq had their election, no real free elections exist in the Arab world. Yet you claim Israel is the problem???

[Tomi]

Heck, why not you Finn's mobilize and reinvade that part of Russia that was wrongly taken from you?

aah, only fields full of stones, the area now days is in so bad shape no idea to have it back.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tomi, if only the Arab's would look at Israel that way. It was just stones and desert, with large Salty lake, and yet they would deny the jewish state even THAT.

[Camelopard]

Hey Mark, I really must know if your last name is Steyn? The rightwing's version of Michael Moore.

[Tomi]

Tomi, if only the Arab's would look at Israel that way. It was just stones and desert, with large Salty lake, and yet they would deny the jewish state even THAT.

Or the other way around

[Roamy]

I find it pretty amazing that anyone cares about 6 million Jews living in a country the size of Rhode Island If everybody got over it things could be mellow. Short of that the Jews should blow the **** out of the entire Mideast.

[Tomi]

A few days ago they showed rodeo here on tv, i found it a bit strange that the presenter started to keep a speach to the audience about the Iraq war, who to support and so on, the same was some time ago in some nascar event, is this how common in us?
How is it in GB, does sport or other pubic events start with speeches about the war in Iraq there too, or is it there more up to the private person him/her self to make their own opinion, on what or how to think?

[Eki]

Eki, any country can allow anyone to emigrate or not based on their criteria. You know, your standard that every nation should be left alone. I see, only ones you AGREE with get to set that standard.
Sure they can, and this is what happens when superpowers first let enough foreigners into Israel so that they could allow MORE foreigners to come in. I bet most Americans today wouldn't be happy if Mexicans became the majority in the US.

[Hawkmoon]

Mark in Oshawa, Israel was made up after WWII by Europe and the US after what happened in the war, just as you say. Before that, there was a country called Palestine right where Israel is today. The Palestinians were pretty much told that their country was being split up so that the Jews could have a state of their own. I can imagine them being pretty annoyed at that.

I don't believe that the Jews have any more claim to the land in that part of the world than the Arabs do. You can't use the Bible as an excuse to start erasing countries on the map and drawing new ones. The same goes for Iraq. It's an artificial state created by and English clerk who drew lines on a map.

Now, having said that, Israel is there now and the Arabs will have to get used to it. The only chance for peace is if the Palestinians get a sovreign state of their own. Kind of like the one they had prior to 1948. Only smaller.

Throw religion into the mix, as we have here in spades, and things get messy. People in that part of the world don't seem to think straight as they're all too busy "defending the faith" and all that.

Sadly, I don't think we will get peace in the region until the likes of Hamas, Syria and Iran recognise Israel and the Israelis stop bulldozing Palestinian houses to make settlements. So that will be right after the pigs fly into the frozen Hell.

[Gannex]

What is now called Israel was never Arab land. Until the First World War, it was part of the Ottoman Empire, and rich absentee landlords owned the land. The Ottomans sided with Germany during the Great War, lost, and in the process lost their Middle Eastern possessions as well. Present-day Israel, Syria and Jordan became British and French possessions, or "mandates", as they were called. Note that neither Jews nor Arabs owned the place, except insofar as individual Jews or Arabs had bought pieces of land. By 1948, the British had given all their land east of the Jordan river to the Hashemites, a favoured Arab elite, and the French gave Syria to Arabs as well. There was just a small piece of land left, and that, it was decided, would be mainly Arab, with a small part reserved for the Jews. Of all the land that the Great Powers turned over to local ethnic groups, more than 99% was given to Arabs, and less than 1% to Jews. But the Arabs could not accept Jews occupying even 1% of the land, and continued in their efforts, which had begun long before the creation of the State of Israel, to wipe the Jews out.

The spiritual and political leader of the Palestinian Arabs in the 1940's was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who, I believe, was an uncle of Yasser Arafat. The Grand Mufti went to Berlin in 1941 where he was received as an honoured guest by Adolf Hitler. He stayed in Berlin for several months as a guest of the German government, and he devoted his time there to trying to persuade the Fuhrer to extend his campaign into Palestine and extend the "final solution" beyond the borders of Europe, so that the Reich might kill all the Jews of the Middle East as well. Hitler couldn't see the point of it, and was unpersuaded, because he had more pressing problems, but the Grand Mufti stayed, begged, pleaded, and finally gave up.

He returned to his base in British Mandate Palestine and confessed to his colleagues that their dream of killing all the Jews of the region would have to be achieved by the efforts of the Arabs alone. They would get no help from Germany.

So they began their campaign and made the elimination of Jews their number one priority. Of course, the local Arabs had been killing Jews, wherever possible, since the Jews had started arriving in numbers in the 1880's, but by the 1940's the determination to exterminate them all had become much more intense. So the attacks intensified and the hostilities became red hot.

Then, the Arabs were awarded by the international community almost the entire region, with tiny slivers of non-contiguous land reserved for the Jews, and the Jews accepted the arrangement. The Arabs, of course, did not, because their entire reason for being, at that point, was the elimination of the Jews.

Thus began the 1948 War of Independence for the State of Israel, which of course the Arabs lost. But, unlike the Germans, who had lost their war three years earlier, the Arabs did not give up hope. They lost face, they lost self-respect, they lost whatever vestiges of fellow feeling they might have had for the Jews, but they did not lose hope that, if they pulled together, the Jews might yet be killed.

They taught their children that nothing mattered as much as the elimination of the Jews, that there was no point in educating themselves, no point in working the land, no point in even living, so long as Jews were among and near them. And that is how the generations of Palestinians have been raised, with hatred of Jews running through their veins from the time they have drawn their first breaths.

Who can blame these youths throwing stones and strapping bombs to themselves as part of the great struggle against the vermin living close by? If anyone on this board had been raised as those men have been raised, I believe they would likely do the same, or at least cheer those who did. But though I do not blame them, I certainly do not condone them, and I am surprised at civilised people who do. For the Arab determination to wipe Israel out has nothing to do with settlements, nothing to do with land, nothing to do with the existence of a Jewish state. It pre-dated all those things, for it is part of the culture, as dear to the Arab heart as Islam. Some cultures dream of artistic greatness and build monuments to that. The Middle Eastern Arab culture dreams of the greatness that comes from knowing that your thirst for genocide has been quenched, and the great task of a hundred years has finally been accomplished -- a Jew-free land.

This is why, in my opinion, the Jews will never be left in peace by the Arabs, no matter how far back they withdraw from their current borders, no matter how many settlements they dismantle, or how many peace overtures they make. The Arab desire to kill them all, begun in the halls of Hitler's palaces in the 1940's, and continuing seamlessly to the present, will always be with them, because every succeeding generation is being educated to love and nurture that goal. It is by now deep in their tradition, and aspirational traditions do not change with the stroke of a pen, or the re-drawing of a map. That is why the Jews, in my opinion, have no choice but to keep up their defenses, maintain their armaments, and hope for the best.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Sure they can, and this is what happens when superpowers first let enough foreigners into Israel so that they could allow MORE foreigners to come in. I bet most Americans today wouldn't be happy if Mexicans became the majority in the US.


Eki, every time you say something stupid, I will call you on it, and I find myself answering a lot of posts as a result....

Eki, America's biggest minority IS Hispanics. Over 33 million I believe. America is a nation of immigrants. You cannot take one nationality of human and say, THAT is an American. They come from all over. The only objection Americans have is illegal immigration, that is, people coming over and working under the table, not paying taxes, and then having children that have to be educated and provided for. Also note, if you are an illegal, and your kids are born in the US, they ARE granted American citizenship if the parents wish. America is NOT a closed shop society that restricts much. Your failure to grasp this, and their obvious respect for human rights is just galling....

[Mark in Oshawa]

What is now called Israel was never Arab land. Until the First World War, it was part of the Ottoman Empire, and rich absentee landlords owned the land. The Ottomans sided with Germany during the Great War, lost, and in the process lost their Middle Eastern possessions as well. Present-day Israel, Syria and Jordan became British and French possessions, or "mandates", as they were called. Note that neither Jews nor Arabs owned the place, except insofar as individual Jews or Arabs had bought pieces of land. By 1948, the British had given all their land east of the Jordan river to the Hashemites, a favoured Arab elite, and the French gave Syria to Arabs as well. There was just a small piece of land left, and that, it was decided, would be mainly Arab, with a small part reserved for the Jews. Of all the land that the Great Powers turned over to local ethnic groups, more than 99% was given to Arabs, and less than 1% to Jews. But the Arabs could not accept Jews occupying even 1% of the land, and continued in their efforts, which had begun long before the creation of the State of Israel, to wipe the Jews out.

The spiritual and political leader of the Palestinian Arabs in the 1940's was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who, I believe, was an uncle of Yasser Arafat. The Grand Mufti went to Berlin in 1941 where he was received as an honoured guest by Adolf Hitler. He stayed in Berlin for several months as a guest of the German government, and he devoted his time there to trying to persuade the Fuhrer to extend his campaign into Palestine and extend the "final solution" beyond the borders of Europe, so that the Reich might kill all the Jews of the Middle East as well. Hitler couldn't see the point of it, and was unpersuaded, because he had more pressing problems, but the Grand Mufti stayed, begged, pleaded, and finally gave up.

He returned to his base in British Mandate Palestine and confessed to his colleagues that their dream of killing all the Jews of the region would have to be achieved by the efforts of the Arabs alone. They would get no help from Germany.

So they began their campaign and made the elimination of Jews their number one priority. Of course, the local Arabs had been killing Jews, wherever possible, since the Jews had started arriving in numbers in the 1880's, but by the 1940's the determination to exterminate them all had become much more intense. So the attacks intensified and the hostilities became red hot.

Then, the Arabs were awarded by the international community almost the entire region, with tiny slivers of non-contiguous land reserved for the Jews, and the Jews accepted the arrangement. The Arabs, of course, did not, because their entire reason for being, at that point, was the elimination of the Jews.

Thus began the 1948 War of Independence for the State of Israel, which of course the Arabs lost. But, unlike the Germans, who had lost their war three years earlier, the Arabs did not give up hope. They lost face, they lost self-respect, they lost whatever vestiges of fellow feeling they might have had for the Jews, but they did not lose hope that, if they pulled together, the Jews might yet be killed.

They taught their children that nothing mattered as much as the elimination of the Jews, that there was no point in educating themselves, no point in working the land, no point in even living, so long as Jews were among and near them. And that is how the generations of Palestinians have been raised, with hatred of Jews running through their veins from the time they have drawn their first breaths.

Who can blame these youths throwing stones and strapping bombs to themselves as part of the great struggle against the vermin living close by? If anyone on this board had been raised as those men have been raised, I believe they would likely do the same, or at least cheer those who did. But though I do not blame them, I certainly do not condone them, and I am surprised at civilised people who do. For the Arab determination to wipe Israel out has nothing to do with settlements, nothing to do with land, nothing to do with the existence of a Jewish state. It pre-dated all those things, for it is part of the culture, as dear to the Arab heart as Islam. Some cultures dream of artistic greatness and build monuments to that. The Middle Eastern Arab culture dreams of the greatness that comes from knowing that your thirst for genocide has been quenched, and the great task of a hundred years has finally been accomplished -- a Jew-free land.

This is why, in my opinion, the Jews will never be left in peace by the Arabs, no matter how far back they withdraw from their current borders, no matter how many settlements they dismantle, or how many peace overtures they make. The Arab desire to kill them all, begun in the halls of Hitler's palaces in the 1940's, and continuing seamlessly to the present, will always be with them, because every succeeding generation is being educated to love and nurture that goal. It is by now deep in their tradition, and aspirational traditions do not change with the stroke of a pen, or the re-drawing of a map. That is why the Jews, in my opinion, have no choice but to keep up their defenses, maintain their armaments, and hope for the best.

Sad part is Gannex, Eki and Tomi still think America is at fault for all of this.

I bet if you had a bad day Eki, you would somehow blame George W Bush for it. You sound THAT irrational to me.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think one thing needs to be said about how Israel became to be the Jewish state. Jews have lived in the Middle east forever. Islam didn't even come into being until 600 years after Christ, and the Jews go back to 4000 BC. The people who adopted Islam, the Arab's in this area tolerated Jews in their small enclaves in various cities in the Middle East. Synagogues I think still exist with no one to look after them in Baghdad ironically enough. It is NOT ancient history that put Jews in the Middle East, it is in the last 100 years where the Jew's have been marginlized and pushed into Israel.

Under colonial rule after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was the British who thought of giving up part of Palestine for Jewish settlement. After WW2, the idea was that if the Jews had their own state, it would give them a chance to have their own nation, their own way of defending themselves and considering the history of the Jewish people, Israel was really the only choice. Notice that as Gannex has pointed out, the Jews got one of the smallest slivers. Also note, in a region awash with oil, the Jews didn't get a drop. Israel is basically desert without irrigation and a lot of effort on their part to make it more than just an empty space. No natural minerals save salt, no advantages for industry, no real advantages.

Yet this is the patch of the Middle East the Jews had. When the exodus out Egypt occured (it did happen, regardless of what you think of Biblical history) the Jews went there. This predates anyone else being there. So ok, now the Jews have been there for a while. They also have emigrated here and there to other nations, including much of Europe.

Fast forward to Modern day times. 1947, the newly formed UN decides as a group to grant two states to the area of Palestine. The Palestinians were given part of the land, and the Jews the other part. Both parties had been sharing this area for thousand of years informally, and despite the Grand Mufti, most Palestinians were just trying to make a living. AS were most Jews. Jewish activists were agitating for their own land, yes, but so were Arabs trying to justify maybe killing the Jews before they got recognition. This conflict predates Israel. So when 1947 came along, Israel declared independance and automatically war was declared by Jordan, Egypt and Syria against Israel. All the Arab nations declared war on Israel. Note that Israel likely didn't have as many people as Finland does NOW. The Arab Nations only outnumbered them 10 to 1. The US and Britain didn't really offer any real assistance, just some surplus aircraft. Egypt had decent relations with Britain and the UK didn't want to mess with that and lose access to the Suez Canal. So Israel basically was on their own and they did hold on, and they survived. Despite being attacked or at war at least one year out of every 10 basically for their HISTORY, they have built a modern democratic society where Arab citizens of the state DO have rights to vote and own property, where their industry and GDP are more than all their neighbours. They have no oil, no mineral wealth, just their guts. OH yes, and they do this taking immigrants who often arrive with nothing more than a backpack and a copy of the Torah. The only reason the Americans got involved was because America loves an underdog and yes, some politician in the US realized that the Jews have a vote in the US. That said, America will back a democracy always in any war with an autocratic one.

Now, contrast this to say Syria, or Egypt? Both nations have some oil, both nations are run by autocratic rulers or outright dictators. Both nations have had help from their colonial masters over the years, plus lots of help from the Russians. In both nations, any Jews were kicked out to Israel, as in much the Middle East. Those Jewish enclaves in Arab nations were basically attacked. The people in those cities drove the Jews out. They went to Israel. Russia decided it didn't like Jews, so they kicked them out to Israel.

Now Israel is full of people that supposively no one wanted, people in a land that was considered the leftovers of the middle east. Still, their society is a lot more open, libreal and tolerant than any other in the region. IF you think their methods against the Palestinians are wrong, understand it wasn't the Jewish Kids that were walking into Gaza as human bombs, it was the other way around. It isn't the Jews that cant get its population above the bare minimum standard of education and building a society that can look after it self. American aid in the tune of BILLIONS of dollars has flown in to the Palestinian authority, yet they live in squalor still. Yassir Arafat died one of the richest men in the world, but his people lived in misery. Now Hamas runs the Palestianian authority. Good luck;as Dr Phil on TV says "hows that working for ya?"

What you people who hate Israel for their existance better get straight is you better not bet against them ever. Unlike thugs like Saddam or the Mullahs of Iran, they have respect for human rights and they recognize their neighbours rights, but it has to be returned. You give what you get, and Israel is just giving their neighbours what they got from the first day of the Israeli state. Jordan and Egypt have signed treaties with Israel and get along pretty well with Israel. You don't suppose that under all the rhetoric they dont' want to fight no more?

IF you want to end misery in the Arab world, don't let the people who have running it all this time run it, let democracy be an answer. That is partially and maybe naively what Iraq is all about. What a novel idea, letting the average guy have a say. You know, like all of us who bitch and whine on this board get to do. OH I forgot, the people of Iraq are too stupid to get this.....right...and I am the bigot????

[Eki]

I think one thing needs to be said about how Israel became to be the Jewish state. Jews have lived in the Middle east forever. Islam didn't even come into being until 600 years after Christ, and the Jews go back to 4000 BC. The people who adopted Islam, the Arab's in this area tolerated Jews in their small enclaves in various cities in the Middle East. Synagogues I think still exist with no one to look after them in Baghdad ironically enough. It is NOT ancient history that put Jews in the Middle East, it is in the last 100 years where the Jew's have been marginlized and pushed into Israel.
So what? How does that give Jews in Europe and the Middle East the right to live in Israel? Why do they even want to? I'm Lutheran, but I don't have any urges to emigrate to Wurttemberg in Germany where Martin Luther nailed his thesis on the church door.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, you obviously refuse to see sense as you seem to be bent on some form of anti-Semitic thought. They lived there all along. You cant see it, you refuse to see it, you also seem to miss the point that they are an ethnic minority as well as a religious one.

Regardless of what happened 60 years ago, for the Arab world to waste this much time and energy on kicking them out is retarded. I guess you might identify with that, but I don't. The fact remains, they were the people no one else wanted, they were given the right to keep a land they had been in without any formal recognition other than they had been there all along. You ever here about the fortress at Masada Eki? How about the Romans occupying the area and Jews were the inhabitants? I guess you refuse to believe all of that, so I guess your membership in the holocaust deniers club is also in good standing??

[Mark in Oshawa]

It seems Eki is only for the poor and oppressed when they are being used by Islamo fascists as pawns in Iraq, and when they are being used as pawns in a proxy war with Israel. When Jews are poor and oppressed, he loses no sleep. He loses little sleep for all the oppressed and abused people in the Islamic world, or the people of Chechnia or Tibet. Those people, they should not stand up to a dictator or oppressor, they should know their place.

Meanwhile Eki sits in Finland, knowing it all, seeing it all. George Bush is the problem according to Eki. What sad little man you must be Eki.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, I hate their foreign policy, because I think even small nations should have the right to decide on their own affairs without bigger nations invading them. I don't differentiate between Germany invading Poland, the Soviet Union invading Finland, Iraq invading Kuwait or the US invading Iraq. Heck, even the Soviet Union sending troops to Afghanistan or the US sending troops to Vietnam were questionable, even if they were invited by the local governments of that time.

I guess the Arab world invading Israel doens't count?

[Eki]

They lived there all along.
Only Jews living in Israel have been living in Israel "forever". Jews in Europe and America haven't, it would be geographically impossible to be in two places at the same time (Israel AND Europe/America). I think Israel has been using the term "anti-Semitic" as an excuse to oppress Arabs in the area for long enough, and the subject should be openly discussed and not hushed.

[Eki]

I guess the Arab world invading Israel doens't count?
Have they done that? And I mean Arab countries, not some organizations like Hamas or Hezbollah.

[Mark in Oshawa]

My point is that people in sovereign nations should decide if they want to die for their their freedom or not. No outside nation has the right to decide it for them. :



Israel doesn't count. Right Eki? You ought to be very careful, the neo-Nazi underground movement in Europe might want to be putting you on the mailing list.

You are just too easy to debate Eki, you argue in circles and I can go through a week's worth of posts and find quotes that put you out to be the pathetic hypocrite that you are.

Tomi I haven't debated like this because I suspect his English isn't strong enough that he understands all he reads here. Woodeye and I don't see eye to eye on some of this, but he has proven to be worthy of debate for he uses logical thought to put forth his argument. No I dug up these little gems of yours Eki because you are pathetic, pathologically devoted, and utterly out to lunch.

You have for the better part of a week defended Saddam's right to abuse his own nation. You have defended the Arab world's right to attack Israel. You have defended by omission just about every other dictatorial thug I have brought up and challenged you to refute.

You claim to be a man of peace, yet you condone so much suffering to people you don't like. You claim to be against capital punishment, but I suspect you would cheer if someone hung George W. Bush. You claim to want justice, but then in one post you felt the Kurds deserved to be gassed because they stood up to Saddam. If they had not, they would be OK.

You claim diplomacy is always the answer and war is never necessary but your own nation fought off an larger nation for its survival not once but twice, and when it didn't get part of its land back, thought that was ok, but cant see why the Palestinians should be happy with only 90% of what THEY wanted. You figure they should have it all.

You say you understand history, but then you feel the Jews never were in Israel. Now you are straying into a dangerous land Eki. I wont debate a holocaust denier. I wont waste my time. You are as dogmatic and foolish as anyone I have met. In the last week, I have I think put your words in context. You obviously are mentally in some sort of fantasy land and I refuse to participate. I have to get back to my life and work, and You will continue on, impressing no one, maybe save Tomi.

I have received over 5 different private messages from posters over this thread, all of it backing me up. I have received compliments from others on the thread, backing me up. Eki, I gave you a head start for 6 pages before I waded in. To bring up where we started, they hung Saddam Hussein and it still feels like the world is better in my books. You on the other hand have defended him and other evils.

I am done with this thread. Or correction, I am done with you. I am blocking you and I will never overtly mention, debate or care what you say. I will debate Woodeye and others who have brought up points without being ridiculous; I will debate rational people who I may not agree with in the spirit of democracy and debate. You however, are done as far as I am concerned, I wont be wasting no more time and effort with your crap. You can spout off your nonsense all you like.


Life is too short to argue with fools....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Have they done that? And I mean Arab countries, not some organizations like Hamas or Hezbollah.

Last point, YES Eki, in 1947, 1967, 1973. bye....

[SOD]

What is now called Israel was never Arab land. Until the First World War, it was part of the Ottoman Empire, and rich absentee landlords owned the land. The Ottomans sided with Germany during the Great War, lost, and in the process lost their Middle Eastern possessions as well. Present-day Israel, Syria and Jordan became British and French possessions, or "mandates", as they were called. Note that neither Jews nor Arabs owned the place, except insofar as individual Jews or Arabs had bought pieces of land. By 1948, the British had given all their land east of the Jordan river to the Hashemites, a favoured Arab elite, and the French gave Syria to Arabs as well. There was just a small piece of land left, and that, it was decided, would be mainly Arab, with a small part reserved for the Jews. Of all the land that the Great Powers turned over to local ethnic groups, more than 99% was given to Arabs, and less than 1% to Jews. But the Arabs could not accept Jews occupying even 1% of the land, and continued in their efforts, which had begun long before the creation of the State of Israel, to wipe the Jews out.


Take's one with Colonial mindset to say something like that. I'm sure you probasbly think that the Irish have no right to own any land in the Republic because by 1820, most of the land was owned by Absentee English landlords.

[Eki]

You have for the better part of a week defended Saddam's right to abuse his own nation. You have defended the Arab world's right to attack Israel.
Come on, I have not defended Arab world's right to attack Israel or Saddam's right to abuse his own people. If I have, show me the posts, you seem to be good at digging up old posts and using them out of context. I have merely questioned Israel's right to oppress its' Arab minority and attack its' neighbors like Lebanon. Likewise, I have questioned the right of the US to attack and invade other countries without a consent from the rest of the world.

You seem to read my posts like the Devil reads the Bible (that means he for example first takes a sentence that says "Judas Iskariot hanged himself" and then another sentence from a different part of Bible that says "you go and do the same").

[Mark in Oshawa]

Take's one with Colonial mindset to say something like that. I'm sure you probasbly think that the Irish have no right to own any land in the Republic because by 1820, most of the land was owned by Absentee English landlords.

If the Arabs did live there, where are they now? Oh right, check the Israeli census, Arabs DO still live there. Unlike Jews in the rest of the Arab world who were tossed out or killed in pogroms.

The Irish should own their land period. My ancestors are from Ulster and are Protestant, and I still say that. I cant figure out however why the IRA do what they do either. I think the English treated the Irish horribly for hundred's of years, but Ireland is now free, a great example of what happens when you get past years of stupidity and oppression and get on with building a society. It is backward thinking countries in the Middle East that have used their riches on two goals: Oppressing their people, and scheming ways to back the terrorists who would torment Israel in the name of a Palestinian state. They gave up a long time ago trying to beat Israel on the battlefield...

[Eki]

Last point, YES Eki, in 1947, 1967, 1973. bye....
At least in 1967, it seems Israel launched a "pre-emptive" attack against
Egypt. Hmmm. "pre-emptive", where have I heard that word recently?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6-Day_War

"When Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, and blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent invasion by Egypt.[1] Jordan then attacked the Israeli cities of Jerusalem and Netanya."

[SOD]

Israel doesn't count. Right Eki? You ought to be very careful, the neo-Nazi underground movement in Europe might want to be putting you on the mailing list.

how do you feel about the recruitment of Nazis by the "Allies" after WW2?

[agwiii]

Sorry to go on-topic eki, but I just checked and Saddam is still dead. None of your pandering to dictators has changed that. He's dead and will stay that way.

[Mark in Oshawa]

SOD, they didn't give jobs to Goring, or Eichmann or the top leaders of the Nazi movement. Heck, to avoid a someone who was a Nazi party member in Germany in 1945, you would have to never meet people on the street. There are Nazi's, and then there was NAZI's. Also take note, the cold war mentality was settling in and real politik took over. I wont condone Nazi's in any form, but the fact remains a Nazi party membership came with being an officer in the Luftwaffe, Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine at that time. It would be as difficult to find competant people in Germany who were not Nazi party members as it would be to find a synagogue in Iran.