Saddam Hussein Hanged

[Mark in Oshawa]

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.


You talking to someone? Oh yes, no matter, one less dictator in the world.

[agwiii]

You talking to someone? Oh yes, no matter, one less dictator in the world.

:) Yes, that is cause for celebration whenever it happens! Come on down, Mark, I'll buy you a Sam Adams, the best beer in the world!

:beer:

[Mark in Oshawa]

The point has been, and always been, that there are some that some nations have more rights than others. There are some, who defend nation states right to do whatever they want within their own borders, as if this is sacrosanct.

The reality is, the world is full of grays. It is not full of black and white's. No nation is always wrong, no nation is always right. The US, the biggest whipping boy of late has made errors. The UK has made errors. Israel has made errors, Russia has made Errors, China has made errors. Iraq has made errors. Dig a little a deeper though, and you start to see where the errors come from. In the Western World, in democracies, the errors are those of reacting badly to threats to their security, whether it be economical or directly. The Russia's, China's are sometimes legitimate mistakes, and often are very cynical attempts to get their own way when they maybe shouldn't.

Then we reach the bottom. The Iran's, Iraq's, North Korea, Zimbabwye, Cambodia when Pol Pot was around, Japan in the 1930's, Germany in the 1930's. Nations that have greater ambitions, and threaten or outright attack their neighbours. Anyone with half a brain knows who these nations are, it just becomes obvious to me that there is more evil, carnivore nations out there than the world can deal with. So they do their own thing until they reach a point where someone takes care of them. It isn't always the US that does it either, contrary to popular opinion. Often it is an uprising or the regime collapses under its own corruption.

Nation states are not perfect, but as I have just outlined, some are more worthy of respect and trust than others.

I trust the US for the most part to try and do the right thing. When they don't, I say so. I suspect any American would respect that freedom of thought and expression. How many people were allowed that luxury in Iraq? Not with Saddam running it they were not. You either were there for his greater glory, or you were for his amusement in a rape room, torture chamber or other horrific fate he could devise. Amnesity International has documented this and more. For anyone to advocate that the US invasion of Iraq was un provoked or not worthy, is using a flawed argument. Iraq invaded two other nations in less than 20 years, and refused to be a member of the world community and comply with the resolutions of the UN. You may not like the US, but the UN either is backed by the use of force, or it is useless. It really is useless anyhow, for it turned around and chastised the Americans for enforcing the mandate of the UN, but hey, that is the logic of libreals for you.

It isn't the results that count with a libreal, it is being in the right moral mindset....theirs of course.

[Mark in Oshawa]

point has been, and always been, that there are some that some nations have more rights than others. There are some, who defend nation states right to do whatever they want within their own borders, as if this is sacrosanct.

The reality is, the world is full of grays. It is not full of black and white's. No nation is always wrong, no nation is always right. The US, the biggest whipping boy of late has made errors. The UK has made errors. Israel has made errors, Russia has made Errors, China has made errors. Iraq has made errors. Dig a little a deeper though, and you start to see where the errors come from. In the Western World, in democracies, the errors are those of reacting badly to threats to their security, whether it be economical or directly. The Russia's, China's are sometimes legitimate mistakes, and often are very cynical attempts to get their own way when they maybe shouldn't.

Then we reach the bottom. The Iran's, Iraq's, North Korea, Zimbabwye, Cambodia when Pol Pot was around, Japan in the 1930's, Germany in the 1930's. Nations that have greater ambitions, and threaten or outright attack their neighbours. Anyone with half a brain knows who these nations are, it just becomes obvious to me that there is more evil, carnivore nations out there than the world can deal with. So they do their own thing until they reach a point where someone takes care of them. It isn't always the US that does it either, contrary to popular opinion. Often it is an uprising or the regime collapses under its own corruption.

Nation states are not perfect, but as I have just outlined, some are more worthy of respect and trust than others.

I trust the US for the most part to try and do the right thing. When they don't, I say so. I suspect any American would respect that freedom of thought and expression. How many people were allowed that luxury in Iraq? Not with Saddam running it they were not. You either were there for his greater glory, or you were for his amusement in a rape room, torture chamber or other horrific fate he could devise. Amnesity International has documented this and more. For anyone to advocate that the US invasion of Iraq was un provoked or not worthy, is using a flawed argument. Iraq invaded two other nations in less than 20 years, and refused to be a member of the world community and comply with the resolutions of the UN. You may not like the US, but the UN either is backed by the use of force, or it is useless. It really is useless anyhow, for it turned around and chastised the Americans for enforcing the mandate of the UN, but hey, that is the logic of libreals for you.

It isn't the results that count with a libreal, it is being in the right moral mindset....theirs of course.

[Mark in Oshawa]

mmm Beer, this thread has driven me to drink....hey I notice your smilie is drinking Guinness agwii....you should be drinking THAT..as good as Sam Adams is...nice Yankee beer...

[Mark in Oshawa]

I believe I missed a factoid back there, I forgot to add that the Arab states attacked Israel in the 50's did they not? If not, I stand corrected. The scary part is, the Arab's had Russian armor and jets, a significant manpower advantage, and often had strategic advantages, and yet Israel still sticks around to annoy smug people who don't get why they still exist.

I guess having guts, fortitude and ingenuity in war still counts for something. That and being willing to die willingly for a cause, as opposed to the armies of those Arab nations being asked to kill Jews so that Palestinians could have all of the land there instead of their part of it.....

Free men win wars, oppressed men eventually lose them....

[agwiii]

mmm Beer, this thread has driven me to drink....hey I notice your smilie is drinking Guinness agwii....you should be drinking THAT..as good as Sam Adams is...nice Yankee beer...

Actually, that is a Sam Adams "Cream Stout." This is jet black, and is a type of ale (top fermenting yeast).

Guinness is excellent,
there is no doubt,
but best of all
is Sam Adams cream stout.

:beer:

[DonJippo]

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.

They were the minority at the time of declaring Israel independent but the governance and control of the new state was given to jews and it was declared as a Jewish state, where is the democracy in there? No wonder some Arabs felt a bit pissed about it... And when you say Jews were living there all along so were Arabs which of over 700000 where thrown out or escaped from Israel after 1948 but that does not seem to be any concern to you.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Don, really? I do realize that it was imposed. Never said Israel's creation wasn't a little ugly. I don't deny history. I just know after 60 years, the Arab world has not exactly bathed themselves in glory.

As for me not being concerned for Arabs, I am very concerned they keep biting the bait of those who would use them to fight in pointless wars against the Israelis, or pay their children to strap explosives to themselves and blow up buses full of civilians in Jerusalem. I think it is also wrong for Islamic believers to be wiped out In Chechnya. I believe it was wrong for Saddam to oppress his Shiite citizens and gas his Kurdish citizens.

In Israel, arab citizens are part of the country. They have a role and vote in Israel. Both arab and jew have lived in the area for years. Why they cannot get along is often a mystery to me. But I do know that Israel as a nation has met the Palestinians and Arabs more than once half way. Camp David Accord with Egypt in the late 70's. They have made the effort again in the Oslo negotiations, but Arafat decided to let the Intifada go on, and retreated to count his money.

Israel has made mistakes. God knows that they are a little over zealous on the ground at times in dealing with things in Gaza and on the West Bank, but there doesn't seem to be any logic in their opposition. At some point, a Palestinian has to decide, do I want to sacrifice my children's lives in a never ending cycle of violence? Or do I want my leaders to put a society together that provides a future, and then I can then in the future hope my children's children can live in a society that can deal with Israel through a more civilized fashion?

Instead, you have terrorists funded by Iran launching rockets into the northern city of Haifa, while Gaza and the West Bank are under the control of Hamas, who up until now, have not even recognized in the slightest that maybe the Jews have as much right to live there as they do.

I wont dispute that Israel's place in this part of the world is highly contentious, but fighting a cowardly war of using children as combantants removes yourself from having any credability whatsover.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I have come to the conclusion that the only people arguing with me are Finn's....is there some sort of school in Finland that teaches moral equivalency as a major? There has to be.....

I do commend you for your Argument so far DonJippo, you have made a good point but I still feel it is far to simple to paint one side as the bad guy here when the other side has used terrorist tactics to win a war they couldn't win nation to nation.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Actually, that is a Sam Adams "Cream Stout." This is jet black, and is a type of ale (top fermenting yeast).

Guinness is excellent,
there is no doubt,
but best of all
is Sam Adams cream stout.

:beer:

there wouldn't be a Cream stout from Adams if it were not for Guinness. Don't mess with the Irish nectar my friend....it is the only stout of note. There are many beers, but then you stop and realize there is only one Guinness....

[agwiii]

there wouldn't be a Cream stout from Adams if it were not for Guinness. Don't mess with the Irish nectar my friend....it is the only stout of note. There are many beers, but then you stop and realize there is only one Guinness....


You didn't like my poem? :(

Come over to a growing discussion: http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113690

[Mark in Oshawa]

I just noticed I am a -4491 in rep points. I guess I was making a point or something. Funny thing is, I had a postitive rep before coming to this thread. Could it be that a certain few cant stand people standing up to their arguments? Maybe so...I enjoy it....I will stand by my words, and respect my opponenents when they use facts and logic, but I guess that respect is not given to me likewise. Interesting....

4491 times someone slagged me....god that doesn't even count the fact I was points to the good a week ago. You guys really need to go get a life....

[agwiii]

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.

OMG, Mark! You will be like a cat in a guava grove!

[jim mcglinchey]

Shouldnt this thread have been called " saddam hussein harangued" ?.......harangued, geddit? ................OK suit your bleedin' selves.

[Gannex]

I don't agree with you, Mark, on the relevance of who lived in Israel in biblical times. By that logic, if I am descended from the Cherokee nation, I can just waltz on into some part of Alabama and claim it as my own. Or if I am Icelandic, I can assert a right to live in York, because at one time it was ruled by the Vikings. I think that going back more than a century is counter-productive.

My belief in the right of Jews to live, unmolested, in Palestine is based on recent history. They arrived there when it was British, just as Pakistanis arrived in England during the twentieth century, and when they arrived, like the Pakistanis, they were not bent on stealing land or housing from any of the people already established there. They arrived only in search of a better life, free of persecution, and they came in peace. The Arabs, however, even those who did not live within hundreds of miles, could not stand the thought that Jews would be living in the region. In fact, they could not stand that Jews would be living at all, but at least those in the region, they might be able to get rid of. It is analagous to Pakistanis arriving in England after the Second World War and immediately being attacked with intent to kill by not only the English, but also the French, Germans, Spanish . . . you get the idea. If that had happened, and the Pakistanis in England had reacted by refusing to be intimidated back to Pakistan (as Eki would have the Jews be intimidated) and had stood their ground, I would say "Well done!". So I say "Well done!" to the Jews of Israel, and they have my support.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well Gannex, I will just say this. The Jews went BACK there if I am to buy your argument because that is where they were pushed from. The dirty little secret is that the Jews have lived all over the Middle East, and many still stayed in Palestine. They had no formal country, they were all part of the Turkish Ottoman empire, and I still stand by if you were going to give the Jew's their own nation, where else would it go?

Your point is made though on the recent history. Regardless of how they got there, the intolerance and manner that opposition to their place in the Middle East says to me there is a problem here that is rooted in intolerance...

[Gannex]

It's Friday night, the Saddam thread has gone off topic completely, Mark has gone ballistic on Eki and lost a million reputation points (what the hell are they?), and posters seem most inclined to discuss Guinness! I think the thread has gone to drink. Maybe we should all chill.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gannex, I think by going ballistic, I made that point indirectly and now Iam going to go have a drink. A Guinness.....

For the rep points, click on the little scales above your post, and when you go to your control panel, on the right side there will be a green or red circle, or if you are really good, lots of green circles, or like me, lots of red ones......


I use to be in the positive for the points, and I am not now, but that is ok for I don't put much stock in it, but someone obviously DID, and it happenend when I was on this thread, debating Middle East silliness with our friends here. Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce things now does it???

[jim mcglinchey]

Why do they keep telling us on the news that Mr Husseins half brothers head popped off when they served his suspended sentence ( suspended, geddit?). Its a bit gloating, isnt it?

[Eki]

Why do they keep telling us on the news that Mr Husseins half brothers head popped off when they served his suspended sentence ( suspended, geddit?). Its a bit gloating, isnt it?
Well, as long as they don't show any videos of it.

Meanwhile, Bush keeps on saying that "failure in Iraq will affect the security of the people here in the United States" but he never tells us WHY:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-15-iraq-poll_x.htm

"Bush was asked in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes about public opposition to the troop escalation.

"I gotta keep explaining, one, the consequences of failure, that failure in Iraq will affect the security of the people here in the United States," the president replied. "And, secondly, that we can succeed.""

[Lousada]

They were the minority at the time of declaring Israel independent but the governance and control of the new state was given to jews and it was declared as a Jewish state, where is the democracy in there? No wonder some Arabs felt a bit pissed about it... And when you say Jews were living there all along so were Arabs which of over 700000 where thrown out or escaped from Israel after 1948 but that does not seem to be any concern to you.

Not really true here. The area that is now Isreal+Gaza+Westbank was British and they decided it to split it up. They made it clear that the country was divided in a Jewish part (which was originally only a small part of present day Israel) and an Arab part. The Arabs however rejected every proposal which included a Jewish state. So far for democratic negotiations.
Those 700.000 were not thrown out nor escaped the angry Jews. The leaders of the Islamic countries surrounding them ordered them to leave because they were planning an invasion. If there is anyone to be angry at, it's them for telling them to leave and not accepting them as real citizens.

[race aficionado]

Something that is also important is to see the position the new Democratic majority finds itself in.
Most disagree with president Bush's idea of sending more troops - even some top Republican's have also joined the bandwagon but the bottom line is this:
A• Congress can use it's leverage to stop the money flow to hinder President's Bush's desires to send more troops (which he has the power to do so because he is the Commander in Chief)
- If they indeed do this and our troops continue to be massacred, many will blame congress because funds were cut and our troops were left supposably unprotected.

B• Or congress can give Bush another chance and our troops will continue to be massacred increasing the cost of the war and the cost of lives.

I go for plan A• Yes, more soldiers will die if we continue to be there but if Bush can realize that his money flow has stopped pumping, he will have to implement the "get out of this mess we got our selves into" and this will be the beginning of our retreat.

But no matter what, President Bush will still find a way to blame Congress for the defeat because he will say that he was not allowed to finish the job that God told him to do . . . . :dozey: . . . .


:s mokin:

[agwiii]

It's Friday night, the Saddam thread has gone off topic completely, Mark has gone ballistic on Eki and lost a million reputation points (what the hell are they?), and posters seem most inclined to discuss Guinness! I think the thread has gone to drink. Maybe we should all chill.

Gannex, should we chill the Guinness, and if so, how cold should it be? I'm still enjoying the "best Vodka" thread too!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Agwiii, Guinness is designed to be served at "cellar" temp, that is about 46 degrees or so F, it isn't meant to be chilled that much.

As for hanging two more of Saddam's henchmen, well either they will join Saddam in hell or with the 72 virgins if you believe the whacko Islamists that would have you believe you can condone anything in the name of Allah

As for the Israeli argument that was going on last week, I think for us to bring that in at this point would be a radically different thread that should be on its own. Lets just say I am more sypathetic to Israel than some of the people who send their kids in with explosives and nails in vests for a walk on the city bus and detonate it......

[viper_man]

Not sure if its been mentioned yet as I didnt want to look through all of the previous pages as a lot of it is pointless arguing on random stuff.

But anyway, Saddams execution pales in comparison to that of his half brother, who ended up being decapitated as he was being hanged. They were also dressed in prison style orange boiler suits. This time however there was no taunting or jeering.

[100%hondafan]

has hanging him achived anything ?? he hasnt brung back those inocent people back

perosnaly i think he should of been locked up for the rest of his life there for suffering rather than ending it quickly

[RaceFanStan]

Decapitated by the hangman's noose !!! What a terrible way to go. :s

[canada]

This so-called accidental decapitation has shown just how disgusting this so-called democratic Iraqi government truly is, as are the allies of this regime. Iraq is no better then what it was.

From CBC: "Iraqi officials show video of Saddam aides' hanging"

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/14/execution-hanging.html

[Mark in Oshawa]

Me thinks that in Iraq, they are not as upset by the decapitation as some of you guys are. I think it is barbaric too, but then you think back, and realize these two mutts helped Saddam gas over 150 people (this is just the one conviction they are being hung for, not everything they likely have done) with one of those WMD's that Saddam didn't have, and all the sudden I realize to Iraqi's, they may not see this as barbaric. Some in Iraq figure these two got off light.

Their so-called justice system is run by a government that was elected in a nation where over 80% of the country voted in a free election monitored by the UN. That is what they want.....it aint a pretty thing but it is their nation. Wasn't that the point of someone back in the 26 odd pages of this post?

[agwiii]

Decapitated by the hangman's noose !!! What a terrible way to go. :s

Why would that be worse than being decapitated by an axe, sword, guillotine, or some other instrument? I tend to doubt there was anything different to the person being hanged. I'm much more concerned about the innocent men, women, and children that were murdered on such massive scales by these peoples.

[airshifter]

Me thinks that in Iraq, they are not as upset by the decapitation as some of you guys are. I think it is barbaric too, but then you think back, and realize these two mutts helped Saddam gas over 150 people (this is just the one conviction they are being hung for, not everything they likely have done) with one of those WMD's that Saddam didn't have, and all the sudden I realize to Iraqi's, they may not see this as barbaric. Some in Iraq figure these two got off light.

Their so-called justice system is run by a government that was elected in a nation where over 80% of the country voted in a free election monitored by the UN. That is what they want.....it aint a pretty thing but it is their nation. Wasn't that the point of someone back in the 26 odd pages of this post?


No, that point only applies when the US hasn't been involved in any way, shape or form, and despite the fact that Iraq has a legitimate government that was formed by elections the UN considered legitimate.

As an example, if it were later found that any US currency was in Iraq at the time of the execution, it would surely be evidence of a US puppet government that existed only to hang innocent Iraqi people. :laugh:

It's never as it appears to be according to some.

[agwiii]

Agwiii, Guinness is designed to be served at "cellar" temp, that is about 46 degrees or so F, it isn't meant to be chilled that much.

:)


As for hanging two more of Saddam's henchmen, well either they will join Saddam in hell or with the 72 virgins if you believe the whacko Islamists that would have you believe you can condone anything in the name of Allah

Mark - the business about the 72 virgins is a mistranslation. It's that they will be met by 72 Virginians. I suspect this will be led by James Mason, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc. who will proceed to "educate" the mass murderer.

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="agwiii"] :)



James Mason

I thought that James Mason was a Yorshireman from Huddersfield. The best thing he ever did was Peckinpahs classic Cross of Iron.

[agwiii]

:)

James Mason

I thought that James Mason was a Yorshireman from Huddersfield. The best thing he ever did was Peckinpahs classic Cross of Iron.

No, he is a Virginian Legislator from the mid-1800s, and the grandson of George Mason, about whom I was thinking.

[SOD]

No, that point only applies when the US hasn't been involved in any way, shape or form, and despite the fact that Iraq has a legitimate government that was formed by elections the UN considered legitimate.

As an example, if it were later found that any US currency was in Iraq at the time of the execution, it would surely be evidence of a US puppet government that existed only to hang innocent Iraqi people. :laugh:

It's never as it appears to be according to some.

SAddam was a CIA stooge, recruited to kill the king of Iraq in the 1950s. Why did Reagan IGNORE house resolutions to stop arming Saddam?

USA bombs has turned Iraq into a sh---hole , I hope you're proud. :laugh:

Saddam was tried for the killing of 168 people. no doubt Bush will continue and say that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of one million people. I think he should be tried for ALL deaths.

[SOD]

Why would that be worse than being decapitated by an axe, sword, guillotine, or some other instrument? I tend to doubt there was anything different to the person being hanged. I'm much more concerned about the innocent men, women, and children that were murdered on such massive scales by these peoples.

I'm really sure that you could care less about the innocents in Iraq. It didn't bother you that you bombed all civilian infastructure and left Iraq as a sh---hole. Are another fool who thinks the best way to help people is to bomb them.

[agwiii]

I'm really sure that you could care less about the innocents in Iraq.

Oh really, sod? I don't recall having any chats with you on this subject, or seeing you in my classrooms. I think you are laboring under a great misconception.


It didn't bother you that you bombed all civilian infastructure and left Iraq as a sh---hole.

That's right, yet another massive assumption. That was me in the left seat in all of the B-52s. You could see me, right? From the comfort of your easy chair?


Are another fool who thinks the best way to help people is to bomb them.

This is so poorly written, sod, that I'm afraid I can't answer it. Why would I think that bombing people would help them? If I drop a bomb on you and it explodes, you're dead. So why would I think that killing you would help you?

I don't know why you quoted me, when you didn't address my question I asked.

:beer:

[SOD]

here's what you said:

"'m much more concerned about the innocent men, women, and children that were murdered on such massive scales by these peoples."

I doubt you care.

[SOD]

That's right, yet another massive assumption. That was me in the left seat in all of the B-52s. You could see me, right? From the comfort of your easy chair?
you elect a big joke of a government in Washington. they employ people, on your behalf , to go around the world and shoot people up.

I'd like you to think that we all sit in comfuy chairs here.

[airshifter]

SAddam was a CIA stooge, recruited to kill the king of Iraq in the 1950s. Why did Reagan IGNORE house resolutions to stop arming Saddam?

USA bombs has turned Iraq into a sh---hole , I hope you're proud. :laugh:

Saddam was tried for the killing of 168 people. no doubt Bush will continue and say that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of one million people. I think he should be tried for ALL deaths.


Surely you can justify all your statements with supporting evidence?

I'd especially like to see that which implies that Saddam was a good man.

I'm well aware of the history of the US and others supporting and arming Saddam, but in your narrow field of view you've obviously forgotten about the number of countries that did so.

As I'm good acquaitance and/or friends with some of the first troops to arrive to protect Saudi Arabia and later remove Saddams men from Kuwait I'm also aware of that situation including the mass destruction of Kuwait, and the fact the Iraq never paid repairs for such invasion, much less accounted for the large numbers of "missing" Kuwaitis.

From that point I've made myself familiar with the numbers of resolutions passed by the UN, and the large number of countries that voted in favor of same. Along with the inspection reports, the financial accounting of the no fly zone patrols, the build up to the invasion and the war itself.

So before you cast another childish poke my way, do me a favor and understand that despite all the evidence that it was justified and supported, I still didn't favor a war, nor do I wish to see any more people killed. A great deal of that position is based on the fact that I haven't spent my entire life sitting in an easy chair, but instead spent several years serving with reactionary forces in the military.


You might enjoy more thinking that you've accomplished something by pointing fingers and making unjustified assumptions about people, but in fact you're only putting on display how wrong your sterotypes are.

I'm actively engaged in several humanitarian organizations involved in both Iraq and Darfur, and have given financial support and volunteer time to both. How much time or money have you given to help the people of Iraq?

[harsha]

atleast Iraq under Saddam was more peaceful than Iraq under the present Regime,i don't condone what Saddam did,but he atleast kept peace in the area which is more than i can say for the efforts of the American Regime....

probably you need a tyrant like Saddam to keep the peace in such a volatile area like in Iraq :s

[agwiii]

you elect a big joke of a government in Washington. they employ people, on your behalf , to go around the world and shoot people up.

Did you vote?

[agwiii]

at least Iraq under Saddam was more peaceful than Iraq under the present Regime

Yes, and there are people that say at least Hitler ended inflation in Germany. The difference is there is no element of accuracy in what you wrote.


at least kept peace in the area which is more than i can say for the efforts of the American Regime.

Again, you don't have your facts straight. There is no American Regime in Iraq, and Tony Blair is not their Prime Minister. They had an election and have their own government.

[agwiii]

Surely you can justify all your statements with supporting evidence?

I'd especially like to see that which implies that Saddam was a good man.

I'm well aware of the history of the US and others supporting and arming Saddam, but in your narrow field of view you've obviously forgotten about the number of countries that did so.

As I'm good acquaitance and/or friends with some of the first troops to arrive to protect Saudi Arabia and later remove Saddams men from Kuwait I'm also aware of that situation including the mass destruction of Kuwait, and the fact the Iraq never paid repairs for such invasion, much less accounted for the large numbers of "missing" Kuwaitis.

From that point I've made myself familiar with the numbers of resolutions passed by the UN, and the large number of countries that voted in favor of same. Along with the inspection reports, the financial accounting of the no fly zone patrols, the build up to the invasion and the war itself.

So before you cast another childish poke my way, do me a favor and understand that despite all the evidence that it was justified and supported, I still didn't favor a war, nor do I wish to see any more people killed. A great deal of that position is based on the fact that I haven't spent my entire life sitting in an easy chair, but instead spent several years serving with reactionary forces in the military.


You might enjoy more thinking that you've accomplished something by pointing fingers and making unjustified assumptions about people, but in fact you're only putting on display how wrong your sterotypes are.

I'm actively engaged in several humanitarian organizations involved in both Iraq and Darfur, and have given financial support and volunteer time to both. How much time or money have you given to help the people of Iraq?

How do I make the sound of applause here?

[SOD]

Did you vote?


I'm not a US citizen. "what they do in Washington. they just takes care of NUMBER ONE, and NUMBER ONE aint you. you aint even NUMBER TWO"



as for Airshifter, the "reactionary force", says it all. i'm sure someone will make work for you. As for the UN resolutions, I wonder how those reolutions stand up now that it is clear that Iraq posed no imminent danger to anyone. where's all the chemical, nuclear and biological weaponry?

[agwiii]

I'm not a US citizen. "what they do in Washington. they just takes care of NUMBER ONE, and NUMBER ONE aint you. you aint even NUMBER TWO"

If you don't vote in the election, then shut up and stop your public display of ignorance.

[harsha]

Again, you don't have your facts straight. There is no American Regime in Iraq, and Tony Blair is not their Prime Minister. They had an election and have their own government.

it's not a credible government....i'd rather have a ruler like Saddam keeping the peace(no matter how brutally) rather than have an unstable/weak government....and the number of people that George Bush Killed with his invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan were far more than the number of people killed by Saddam?

so when is George Bush going to be tryed for his crimes in a criminal court :?:

[SOD]

If you don't vote in the election, then shut up and stop your public display of ignorance.

that doesn't make any sense. I couldn't care less who you voted for, whether you voted for Bush, David Duke, Bo gritz, Michael jackson or whether you just sat at home in your comfy chair on election day.. The point is that Bush is the guy legitimately in charge of where & how your tax monies are spent. someone conducted and implemented the Iraq war on your behalf. try harder to convince me otherwise.

[SOD]

it's not a credible government....i'd rather have a ruler like Saddam keeping the peace(no matter how brutally) rather than have an unstable/weak government....and the number of people that George Bush Killed with his invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan were far more than the number of people killed by Saddam?

so when is George Bush going to be tryed for his crimes in a criminal court :?:

The reports from iraqis that I have heard said that the situation was better under Saddam. As fo the American Regime, who is pulling the strings of Al malaki?

[harsha]

Is the US such a perfect country that they give themselves the right to invade another soverign nation :?:

[Sandfly]

As for the UN resolutions, I wonder how those reolutions stand up now that it is clear that Iraq posed no imminent danger to anyone. where's all the chemical, nuclear and biological weaponry?


Iraq is/was absolutely filled with nerve agents and sulfer based chemical weapons and military devivery systems. There were many underground depot of "insectatcide". which is a handy "dual use" workaround of the rules.

The LD50 for organaphosphate poison is almost identical to more spophistatcated and labeled nerve agents. That means it is just as deadly.

Oh Yeah, in the "barn" on the farm with the hidden stockpile of poison they just happen to find a weapons cache of empty cannister artillery shells. Gues they did not like having bugs around the weapons depot huh. I saw it on CNN in the middle of the night - never again. But reports now indicate that the CNN cameraman, a Knight ridder reporter , and interpretor and two soldiers were overcome by the agent and required hospitalization. NO NEWS REPORT - NO REPLAYS. Certainly don't want to show any WMD's on TV again

Fact is, this is a third world country and they were packed with third world chemical weapons - make do and use "dual use" weapons where possible because the bleeding hearts will defend having a HUGE supply of thiouracil - a thryroid drug - in a plant next to the equipement for extracting the sulfur for chemical weapons. I did not realize that thyroid disease was such a menace in Iraq. The media was looking for a crate with WMD stencilled on the side. Or a shiny box with two binary components attched with tubing ready to mix and explode. Give me a break.

This is all outlined in the Kay report and the Dollfer report. BUT the focus is not on the defination of WMD - which EXCLUDED discussion of ANY DUAL USE compound. THE media and the left focused on the line that NO WMD was found and ignored the " meeting the limited definition of WMD" part. The place is flooded with chemical weapons and the UN just narrowed the definition of rportable WMD's to make it look like disneyland.

Iraq was truly a terrible place with a crazed leader who would kill his enemies and it is now but one front in a long term war that was started by enemies of the west - and the US in particular.

Peace is not just the absence of war - and this is a war the even Nancy Pelosi's grandson may be called on to fight.

[harsha]

the victors have the honour of rewriting history to suit themselves

[SOD]

Iraq was truly a terrible place with a crazed leader who would kill his enemies and it is now but one front in a long term war that was started by enemies of the west - and the US in particular.

Peace is not just the absence of war - and this is a war the even Nancy Pelosi's grandson may be called on to fight.

can't come to terms that your govt scared you into believing that Iraq had WMD? Do you not even remember the many reasons that were given 4 years ago?

What's a pelosi?

The only people looking for a long drawn out war are you and bin laden. may your collective poop come to life and kiss both of you.

besides, you'll only be able to wage a long drawn out war, as long as the money lasts.

[Sandfly]

Is the US such a perfect country that they give themselves the right to invade another soverign nation :?:


Do you remember the Kuwait invasion - by Iraq? Do you remember the terms of the Cease-fire, withdrawal, and the UN sanctions of Iraq. The sovereign country that invaded Kuwait got part of what it deserved. If Bush 41 had destroyed the Iraqi army on retreat - he would have killed many fathers and brothers of Iraqi's who were likely just transcripts doing a job to stay alive. That compassion and the compassion shown by the US military today and on entry into Iraq has led to this delima we face today. It would be very easy to put the heavy hand on Iraq insurgents and bring suffering to many who are innocent. That is not what the US wants to do - yet.

The US is not at war with Iraq - that is simply the battlefield. It will continue there and elswhere untill the non-violent and tolerant elements of Islam gain control and/or influence of the religion and the Islamic people decide to live for Allah instead of die for Allah.

[harsha]

i could imagine a lot more uses for the money rather than spending it funding this war...which the pompous Bush claims to be fighting on behalf of humanity

[harsha]

The US is not at war with Iraq - that is simply the battlefield. It will continue there and elswhere untill the non-violent and tolerant elements of Islam gain control and/or influence of the religion and the Islamic people decide to live for Allah instead of die for Allah.

then isn't the US fighting a Crusade against Islam,so we are back to the middle ages where the Christians with the blessing of the Popes fought against the Muslim invaders.....

[SOD]

Do you remember the Kuwait invasion - by Iraq? Do you remember the terms of the Cease-fire, withdrawal, and the UN sanctions of Iraq. The sovereign country that invaded Kuwait got part of what it deserved. If Bush 41 had destroyed the Iraqi army on retreat - he would have killed many fathers and brothers of Iraqi's who were likely just transcripts doing a job to stay alive. That compassion and the compassion shown by the US military today and on entry into Iraq has led to this delima we face today. It would be very easy to put the heavy hand on Iraq insurgents and bring suffering to many who are innocent. That is not what the US wants to do - yet.

The US is not at war with Iraq - that is simply the battlefield. It will continue there and elswhere untill the non-violent and tolerant elements of Islam gain control and/or influence of the religion and the Islamic people decide to live for Allah instead of die for Allah.

Saddam got the OK from the US State Dept to invade Kuwait in 1990. Go look it up.

ever heard of the "Road to basra", all the evidence of the US Military's love and compassion is there for all to see.

As a point of reference the Iraqi's kicked out the Brits in the 1930s.

[Sandfly]

then isn't the US fighting a Crusade against Islam,so we are back to the middle ages where the Christians with the blessing of the Popes fought against the Muslim invaders.....


YES !!!!! That is exactly what it is. A defensive crusade against the Islamic fanatics who have declared war on the west because they do not like our way of life.

That is why I say it will not truly end until the elements within Islam that want to fight and die for Allah are convinced from wihin ISLam that the better choice is not to fight and die but to live for Allah and spread his religion by practice.

OR, untill the west demonstrates that it is willing to kill every last muslim - just like in ww-II. Remeber the Fire Bomb Dresden or Tokyo to make the point. I hope it does not get to that point - but clearly the Islamic fundamentalists are willing to kill women and children with INTENT,

When the west is willing to do so, this will end quickly, and Allah will be much more peaceful

[klm-607]

Saddam got the OK from the US State Dept to invade Kuwait in 1990. Go look it up.

ever heard of the "Road to basra", all the evidence of the US Military's love and compassion is there for all to see.

As a point of reference the Iraqi's kicked out the Brits in the 1930s.

Firstly... B.S. Step away from the X-files reruns there sparky! Secondly... it's O.K. to savagely behead innocent civilians w/a big knife/blade, but not O.K. to ACCIDENTALLY behead a genocidal tyrant w/a rope??? What total & utter hypocracy!!!!!!! Wake up!!!! I'm not Muslim, Jew, or Christian... I'm agnostic, but right & wrong are very clear to me. What the extreme elements of the Islamic faith have done to ruin a once beautiful religion is sickening!!! The U.S. wouldn't be in Iraq or Afganistan IF there hadn't been a 9/11/01! (& if you try saying that Saddam had no terroist ties... you're just ignorant!!!!!!!!) Oh & If the U.S. had never gotten involved in world affairs... well, most of you would be speaking German, Japanese, or Russian by now, & living in a MUCH darker world!! So, You're wlecome!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy your "cushy"/"free" life & SHUT UP!!!!!!

[GruppoB]

I'm not bothering reading all the posts in this thread. As an American I believe the war and this presidency is a sham and half of this country is brain dead for voting for Bush. My fellow American's OBAMA 08!

[harsha]

Oh & If the U.S. had never gotten involved in world affairs... well, most of you would be speaking German, Japanese, or Russian by now, & living in a MUCH darker world!! So, You're wlecome!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy your "cushy"/"free" life & SHUT UP!!!!!!

Really........... :s

so instead of german,russian or japanese,we are speaking English,doesn't it mean the same thing

[agwiii]

it's not a credible government.

The Iraqi people disagree.


i'd rather have a ruler like Saddam keeping the peace (no matter how brutally) rather than have an unstable/weak government.

Ah, you enjoy brutality, so you are a masochist. If I had your addy, I could arrange something appropriate for you.

[agwiii]

What's a pelosi?

Okay, when someone demonstrates an incredible level of ignorance, there is only one solution! <PLONK>

:s mokin:

[harsha]

Ah, you enjoy brutality, so you are a masochist. If I had your addy, I could arrange something appropriate for you.


tell me where in my previous posts did i say that i enjoyed brutality...don't twist my words...i just said that i'd rather have peace in the region even if a tyrant like Saddam in charge rather than complete chaos with your self righteous war....

[Mark in Oshawa]

it's not a credible government....i'd rather have a ruler like Saddam keeping the peace(no matter how brutally) rather than have an unstable/weak government....and the number of people that George Bush Killed with his invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan were far more than the number of people killed by Saddam?

so when is George Bush going to be tryed for his crimes in a criminal court :?:

He wont be. He is judged by history, and to many, has botched this war. That said, (god here we go again explaining what people don't want to see) Saddam Hussein was killing over 20000 people a year just running the nation. Amnesty International (not people who take sides with George W Bush) has records on what a turd Mr. Hussein was. He just didn't merely kill, he did it for style points. Rape rooms, torture, feeding people into plastic recycling shredders, the whole lot. Gassing a few thousand Kurd's who didn't agree with him. OH ya, he and ole Dubya ought to be roasting marshmallows in hell together if I asked you. Problem is, All Dubya did was try to enforce a UN resolution or two...make it 14. Fourteen resolutions that were to be either followed or have force taken to enforce them.

These resolutions were not for whether Saddam had clean laundry, or had been a nice dad, these were resolutions to get rid of his WMD's, and let the UN inspect the country unencumbered by Saddam's restrictions so the UN could be confident that he didn't have them and then the sanctions against his country could be lifted. These were terms AGREED to by Saddam to save his sorry @ss when he screwed up the last time and the US military and a strong international force were running up the highway to Baghdad. Now 11 years later, he played one game after another, then told the UN to take a hike. What was the world supposed to do? Well, if a few of you were asked, nothing...because most of you would do nothing when faced when making a tough choice.

Listen, I thought this invasion thing was botched and I thought it was not thought out well, and I was against it when they went in. I am glad Canada was NOT involved, but not for the limp wristed reasons most of you have. I am glad because I didn't think the plan for rebuliding Iraq was sound. I didn't think they had a good plan. Saddam could rot in hell as far as Iam concerned. His actions have been DIRECTLY responsible for a lot more death's than most of you are too chicken to admit. HE enjoyed killing people, and he didn't care who he killed either. Now for you guys to get all verklept is a joke. I said it to Eki, I have said it to Tomi and a few others, and I am now telling you Harsha and a few others who still don't want to see what happened for what it was that Saddam Hussein could have avoided all of this, and Iam not sorry he is dead. Heck, I am against the death penalty but in this case, it had to be seen to be done.

Saddam could have just played nice boy in the UN, he would still be in power and what is more, he would be alive today. Not only that, but he would still be killing and suppressing both his Shiite and Kurdish minorities, looting the country, and none of you would waste the outrage you are on a democratically elected president who for all his faults, is at least trying to do the right thing. You know, democracies, that country all of you have the luxury of living in where you can shoot your mouth's off while not applying logical thought to your argument. Saddam would have hung the lot of ya without batting an eyelash and before his next sip of coffee......

[harsha]

i am not denying the fact that Saddam Hussein was a Tyrant,Despot.......but just the fact that the US and it's allies went into the war "without UN Sanction" acting as if they were the guardian angels of this world .............

[Mark in Oshawa]

tell me where in my previous posts did i say that i enjoyed brutality...don't twist my words...i just said that i'd rather have peace in the region even if a tyrant like Saddam in charge rather than complete chaos with your self righteous war....

Harsha, I think you have good intentions towards your fellow man. I admire that you aren't a violent nasty guy, but don't be getting all stupid over this. You wouldn't want to live in his nation, or have his kind of Peace. There was no peace with Saddam, he invaded Iran first, and then Kuwait. If it wasn't for the fact the UN and NATO forces in the gulf were not on top of him all the time, he likely would have invaded Kuwait again, or maybe god forbid Saudi Arabia.

Listen, your kind of thinking was prevalent in the UK and in the US in the late 1930's. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini took full advantage of it. Hideki Tojo pushed his Japanese regime in to China and Mongolia, but since the victims were not white, no one seemed to care. Stalin killed over 20 million in pogroms and ethnic clearances in the Ukraine, and all the "peaceful" people said he was a great guy. No one said anything, save for a few crackpots. You know, that Winston S. Churchill fellow. He was a "warmonger" and Neville Chamberlain made "peace" with Hitler. Peace in our time....next year Neville had to declare war because the writing was on the wall. With people like Saddam Hussein, it was ENGRAVED on the wall after his wreckless and cruel invasion of Kuwait. They should have taken him out then, so why is is wrong that he is gone now? I disagree with how the rebuilding of Iraq has gone, but that doesn't alter the fact that in 100 years, Hussein being taken out was an example to every other repressive thug.

You cannot tolerate ANY form of violent or repressive regime in the name of peace and then turn around and call George W Bush a criminal. It is hypocracy of the highest form. Saddam was a murderous thug. I cant say that enough. Dubya on the other hand was crying practically talking to a wounded soldier the other day. I think he knows he has not handled the peace well, but it doens't alter the fact that Iraq has a chance to rebuild their country under some form of democracy, and 80% of them came out to vote in a nation where people were trying to kill those who voted.

There is a HUGE gulf between Bush and Saddam, and I despise those who play this moral equivalency crap. I despire that because it is not intellectually honest. If you decry the deaths after Bush's invasion, you should of been posting on here how terrible Saddam was then. You should be posting long threads about Darfur and the Sudanese's tolerance of genocide. How about the Chinese in Tibet? Maybe the government of Myanmar (Burma) and their regime? Oh wait a minute, you aren't posting on those because the US isn't the bad guy. Hypocracy is a funny thing. When you knock one tyrant, you should condemn them all equally, yet you pick on the one leader you want to because you don't like the country he comes from or the party he leads. Never mind he was elected. Never mind his nation defends the freedom's you would use to condemn him.

George W Bush is not a great president. There I said it, and history will judge this Iraq adventure as not a great idea. That said, he had the guts to stand up Saddam and enforce the will of the UN, when the UN itself of course has no balls. Saddam was a threat to the middle east, and he likely would have been a threat to the US if left alone. Bush is no different than any other western leader, except he wasn't willing to just sit there while we played Saddam's little games of mocking the UN and the resolutions he was to follow. Now you may say he had ulterior motives, I can argue that most of those are unproven, and weak arguments, and you could say he is a cowboy, and you would be wrong. Democratic members of Congress backed this war, and now want out when it isn't going well. They didn't want to be standing by the roadside if it went well, so they ok'ed it just to try to pander for votes. You want to talk cynical hypocrites, write a few of them letters.

George Bush isn't a war criminal, but Saddam Hussein surely was.......

If Saddam had just stuck to oppressing his own people and followed the UN resolutions to the letter, he is alive today.

now...go back to your blather about how bad George is...I am waiting...

[harsha]

Hg.

When you knock one tyrant, you should condemn them all equally, yet you pick on the one leader you want to because you don't like the country he comes from or the party he leads. Never mind he was elected. Never mind his nation defends the freedom's you would use to condemn him.


America defending my freedom :s

India is a World Power in its own right,an apart from the Civil Nuclear Deal between India and the US,i can't see when the US actually helped India fight against Terrorism.Everyday we get news over here of some Indian Soldiers being killed because of insurgents from Pakistan.One of my friends is an officer posted in Kashmir,The first thing i do whenever i see that paper is look for the names.

US has more of hindered rather than helped India in its war against terrorism,and the US government fails to see that Pakistan is the center of Islamic Terrorism today

[Mark in Oshawa]

i am not denying the fact that Saddam Hussein was a Tyrant,Despot.......but just the fact that the US and it's allies went into the war "without UN Sanction" acting as if they were the guardian angels of this world .............

It is really simple. UN sanction means squat. The UN wont sanction any incursion to any nation for ANY reason, because the Security Council doesn't give a rats behind about peace. China and Russia were both in bed financially with Saddam, and they are in bed with people just as bad as Saddam. The French were buying illicit oil on the black market that Saddam was using to get around the "oil for food" program. Those nations who voted against the US and the UK are the real hypocrites, making money off the backs of those Saddam enslaved and was starving while he built another palace.

At some point, every now and then a leader decides he has had enough BS and lies and calls someone on their little game. If Saddam lets the UN inspectors see whatever they needed to see, he is still alive and in power today, as ugly as that would be for the people of Iraq. Bush didn't tell Saddam to flip the world the finger....he did it all on his lonesome precisely because too many people like you would tell him he is nasty, but we only want peace. Peace sometimes only comes after bloodshed. WW2 proved that....sometimes evil has to be confronted.

You may not like the UK and the US and the 53 nations of the "willing" did this, but it comes down to the point where words are useless. Note how Qaddafi gave up his WMD's in Libya right after Iraq fell. He couldn't get rid of them fast enough. You think this little invasion didn't make a lot of dictatorial thugs nervous???

[Gannex]

America defending my freedom :s

India is a World Power in its own right. . .US has more of hindered rather than helped India in its war against terrorism,and the US government fails to see that Pakistan is the center of Islamic Terrorism today
I don't understand why you say this, harsha. Don't you think that the biggest threats to India are jihadi Muslims and those from Pakistan who are militant on the Kashmir question? I would think that on both counts, especially the jihadists, the US has been helpful to India in its desire to counter the extremists within Islam, and bolster the peace-loving Muslims. As far as Kashmir is concerned, you and Pakistan came close to nuclear war over the issue just two years ago. It was US diplomatic intervention that helped take the heat out of the situation, when a cooling of tensions between India and Pakistan was desperately needed. So I would say that India has benefitted, and continues to benefit from US foreign policy, in that its most important goals are supported by the US.

[harsha]

who supplies arms to Pakistan :?:

who trained the Al-Qaida :?:

who refuses to see pakistan as a hot bed for islamic terrorism :?:

[Gannex]

Of course, harsha, it is the US who supplies arms to Pakistan, but those arms are supplied to the Pakistani army, not the jihadists. That army, and those weapons are the forces opposing the jihadists, whom you want to see opposed. So you are focussing your hostility on the wrong target entirely. The Musharraf regime, like India, is doing all it can to rein in the Islamic militants, at great risk to itself, I might add, and with considerable courage. The aggressive wing of Islam hates Musharraf and the army he heads. If the US were not supplying arms to Pakistan's army, Pakistan would be taken over by the militants who, though I'm sure you don't need reminding of this, are determined to make terrible problems for India. So please, harsha, don't criticise the US for supporting Pakistan's army with materiel; they are helping to neutralise your enemies.

You ask in your post who trains Al-Qaida. Certainly not the Pakistani government. Al-Qaida train themselves. The last government that helped them, the Afghan government, has been deposed, and was deposed, by the way, by the same United States that you are complaining about.

Finally, you say that the US refuses to see Pakistan as a hot-bed for Islamic terrorism. I can assure you, as one who spends a lot of time in the US, that the Americans see very clearly that Pakistan is the home of militant Islamists. They see that as clearly as your government sees it, in fact, and that is precisely why the Americans have been very careful to co-opt Musharraf's help, more than anyone else's, in the war on terror. It was mainly for Musharraf's ears that Bush made his famous comment that you are with us or with the terrorists. So America is very well aware, harsha, of the realities of Pakistan, so aware, in fact, that it is probable that both British and American Special Forces are operating covertly in Pakistan precisely to counter those elements which you, apparently, desperately wish to see countered.

My conclusion, harsha, is this: your country wants to see the threat from Pakistan neutralised, so that you can live in peace. The US wants exactly the same thing, and has devoted a lot of military and diplomatic muscle to achieving that goal. As a patriotic Indian, I think you should be applauding that, not knocking it.

[Eki]

I'd especially like to see that which implies that Saddam was a good man.

Nobody here has said or even implied that Saddam was a good man, unless YOU think being a CIA stooge is good.

[Eki]

If you don't vote in the election, then shut up and stop your public display of ignorance.
I sure would have voted in the US presidential elections if only had the right to do so. I didn't have. I don't think that's democratic. I think every person on this globe should have the right to vote in the US presidental elections, if the US presidents insist on bypassing the UN and meddling in internal affairs of other countries.

[Eki]

then isn't the US fighting a Crusade against Islam,so we are back to the middle ages where the Christians with the blessing of the Popes fought against the Muslim invaders.....
Pope John Paul II was against invading Iraq. At least the Popes have evolved since the Middle Ages.

[EuroTroll]

Pope John Paul II was against invading Iraq. At least the Popes have evolved since the Middle Ages.

Of course, modern Popes operate without the corruptive influence of real political power - unlike their Medieval predecessors - which makes it so much easier to be a man of morals and ideals. ;)

[Eki]

YES !!!!! That is exactly what it is. A defensive crusade against the Islamic fanatics who have declared war on the west because they do not like our way of life.
:laugh: Unbelievable that someone still believes that.


That is why I say it will not truly end until the elements within Islam that want to fight and die for Allah are convinced from wihin ISLam that the better choice is not to fight and die but to live for Allah and spread his religion by practice.

If the radical Islamists are willing to die for their religion, why would you killing them bother them? Aren't you more like doing them a favor? Now it's easier for them to find new recruits to revenge the killed Muslim brothers and sisters.

[Eki]

That said, (god here we go again explaining what people don't want to see) Saddam Hussein was killing over 20000 people a year just running the nation.
According to the latest reports, the US killed about 34,000 Iraqis last year. That's almost twice as many:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/16/un.iraq/index.html


Rape rooms, torture, feeding people into plastic recycling shredders, the whole lot.
And Americans did their best to keep the old Abu Ghraib traditions alive.

[Eki]

George Bush isn't a war criminal,
Professionals of international law disagree with that. They said invading Iraq without a consent from the UN was against international laws. IMO, if you break a law, you're a criminal.

[EuroTroll]

Professionals of international law disagree with that. They said invading Iraq without a consent from the UN was against international laws. IMO, if you break a law, you're a criminal.

Just out of curiosity, who are these mysterious "professionals of international law"? Is this opinion unanimously shared among these people?

Oh, and do you not believe in the rather popular notion of a person being "innocent until proven guilty" by an appropriate court of law? ;)

[Eki]

Just out of curiosity, who are these mysterious "professionals of international law"? Is this opinion unanimously shared among these people?

Oh, and do you not believe in the rather popular notion of a person being "innocent until proven guilty" by an appropriate court of law? ;)
Professor Markku Koskenniemi, for example. I suppose you can read Finnish? I also remeber a group of Brazilian lawyers were going to try to get Bush into court. Bush himself doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty". He invaded Iraq and killed a lot of people before he had any evidence what so ever, and he still doesn't have evidence.

http://www.artto.kaapeli.fi/muut_jutut/M2003/e1205e

"Kehitys (05.12.2003 - Juhani Artto) Yhdysvaltojen hyökättyä maaliskuussa 2003 Irakiin, suomalaisten oikeusoppineiden ja tutkijoiden ryhmä esitti julkisesti, että hyökkäys rikkoo kansainvälistä oikeutta. "Yhdysvaltain sotilaallisella toiminnalla ei ole mitään kansainvälisen oikeuden tukea. Sota on laiton ja uhkaa kansainvälistä oikeusjärjestystä", kannanotossa todettiin.
Kannanoton allekirjoittajiin kuulunut Helsingin yliopiston kansainvälisen oikeuden professori Martti Koskenniemi totesi lokakuun lopulla Kehitys-lehdelle, että useimmat kansainvälisen oikeuden asiantuntijat ovat yhä samalla kannalla. "Yhdysvaltoihin ei kohdistunut Irakin taholta YK:n peruskirjan 51. artiklan tarkoittamaa hyökkäystä, joka olisi oikeuttanut ryhtymiseen sotaan.""

Translation: After the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, a group of law professionals and researchers stated publicly that the invasion is against the international law. "The US military operation doesn't have any backing from the international law. The war is illegal and threatens international law and order", said the statement. Professor of international law at Helsinki University, Martti Koskenniemi, who signed the statement among others said in October to the magazine Kehitys that most experts of international law still have the same view. "Iraq didn't pose that kind of threat meant by the 51st article of the UN charter towards the US that would have given the US the right to start a war".

[Gannex]

Eki. I think it's very much open to doubt as to whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal. There are experts on both sides of that question, but do you really think it's relevant? I think the question is not whether the invasion was legal, but whether it was right. If it was the morally right thing to do, its legality or lack thereof, is, to my mind, of little importance. To see why, let me pose this scenario to you: a coalition is formed to go into Sudan and rescue the people of Darfur from the unfolding tragedy that we are all seeing over there. The nations of the coalition go to the UN Security Council seeking a resolution to intervene and stop the massacres, but China vetoes the plan, because it is seeking to establish closer ties with all African nations, including Sudan. Do the coalition nations then cancel the operation and let the killing continue? I think not. I think that the morally correct course of action in that case is to break the law and mount the rescue operation despite China's veto. Don't you?

[Eki]

Eki. I think it's very much open to doubt as to whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal. There are experts on both sides of that question, but do you really think it's relevant? I think the question is not whether the invasion was legal, but whether it was right. If it was the morally right thing to do, its legality or lack thereof, is, to my mind, of little importance. To see why, let me pose this scenario to you: a coalition is formed to go into Sudan and rescue the people of Darfur from the unfolding tragedy that we are all seeing over there. The nations of the coalition go to the UN Security Council seeking a resolution to intervene and stop the massacres, but China vetoes the plan, because it is seeking to establish closer ties with all African nations, including Sudan. Do the coalition nations then cancel the operation and let the killing continue? I think not. I think that the morally correct course of action in that case is to break the law and mount the rescue operation despite China's veto. Don't you?
I ask you another question. Is it right Israel has free hands to oppress it's Arab minority and neighbours because the US always vetos any resolution aimed against Israel? The veto right is bad in both hands, IMO. Like I've said before, I'd like these things be decided in the UN General Assembly. One nation, one vote, no veto. The Security Council should be scrapped.

[BDunnell]

Eki. I think it's very much open to doubt as to whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal. There are experts on both sides of that question, but do you really think it's relevant? I think the question is not whether the invasion was legal, but whether it was right. If it was the morally right thing to do, its legality or lack thereof, is, to my mind, of little importance. To see why, let me pose this scenario to you: a coalition is formed to go into Sudan and rescue the people of Darfur from the unfolding tragedy that we are all seeing over there. The nations of the coalition go to the UN Security Council seeking a resolution to intervene and stop the massacres, but China vetoes the plan, because it is seeking to establish closer ties with all African nations, including Sudan. Do the coalition nations then cancel the operation and let the killing continue? I think not. I think that the morally correct course of action in that case is to break the law and mount the rescue operation despite China's veto. Don't you?

I was against the war, and I'm not bothered whether it was legal or not, largely because the issue keeps being parroted by people who want a quick and easy phrase with which to express their dislike of the conflict.

However, I don't think the war was right or justified, for all sorts of reasons too numerous to go into here. I would also say that the scenario you put forward is all very well, and of course one would hope that the coalition would do what the majority of people would see as the right thing. The trouble is that the members of that coalition wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if they subsequently wanted to complain about China breaking international law in some way or other, even if the coalition nations had 'right' on their side in so doing.

The UN is very far from being perfect, but I tend to think that it's better to adhere to the rules it imposes than ignore them. After all, it is the only body of its type that we have, and I feel it's important. This is not to say that it doesn't require a root-and-branch reform, which it does.

[Gannex]

I ask you another question. Is it right Israel has free hands to oppress it's Arab minority and neighbours because the US always vetos any resolution aimed against Israel?
Fair question, and my answer is an unequivocal yes. It is right that Israel has free hands to impose the occupation on the West Bank and Gaza strip, regardless of whether that occupation is legal under UN resolutions. There is a principle of law which holds that almost any law can be broken if it is necessary to do so for survival. So, for example, it is legal for me to kill a man if that man is pointing a gun at me and threatening to fire. Similarly, to put it in a context more closely analogous to the situation of the Jews, it was, to my mind, perfectly proper for Jews in the concentration camps to tear off strips of their uniforms to make foot coverings as they walked to their slave labour sites in winter, despite the fact that tearing those strips was against the law. Germans executed Jews for doing it because, under German law, the action constituted criminal damage to German government property. But I believe that the crime those Jews were committing, the illegality of their actions, I should say, was irrlevant. They did what they had to do to survive, because without the strips of cloth on their otherwise bare feet, their feet would have succumbed to frost bite, rendering the person immobile, at which point the inmate in question, now unable to work, would have been shot. So violating the law, for those Jews, was justified.

The same is true of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip, in my view. It is clear that if the occupation were ended tomorrow, to comply with the law, the Arabs would slaughter the Jews on the day after and celebrate the Jews' destruction for many days after that. In order to forestall that genocide, the Jews are entitled to do what they are doing, regardless of the fact that a UN resolution might decree otherwise.


I was against the war, and I'm not bothered whether it was legal or not, largely because the issue keeps being parroted by people who want a quick and easy phrase with which to express their dislike of the conflict.

However, I don't think the war was right or justified, for all sorts of reasons too numerous to go into here. I would also say that the scenario you put forward is all very well, and of course one would hope that the coalition would do what the majority of people would see as the right thing. The trouble is that the members of that coalition wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if they subsequently wanted to complain about China breaking international law in some way or other, even if the coalition nations had 'right' on their side in so doing.

The UN is very far from being perfect, but I tend to think that it's better to adhere to the rules it imposes than ignore them. After all, it is the only body of its type that we have, and I feel it's important. This is not to say that it doesn't require a root-and-branch reform, which it does.
I agree with you that, generally speaking, it is better for nations to comply with UN resolutions than not. But you avoid answering the question I posed: in a situation where complying with international law would lead to a massacre of innocent people, as in Darfur, or, say, Rwanda, is it the principle of compliance that governs, or the principle of saving innocent life? You don't say.

[agwiii]

Eki. I think it's very much open to doubt as to whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal. There are experts on both sides of that question, but do you really think it's relevant? I think the question is not whether the invasion was legal, but whether it was right. If it was the morally right thing to do, its legality or lack thereof, is, to my mind, of little importance. To see why, let me pose this scenario to you: a coalition is formed to go into Sudan and rescue the people of Darfur from the unfolding tragedy that we are all seeing over there. The nations of the coalition go to the UN Security Council seeking a resolution to intervene and stop the massacres, but China vetoes the plan, because it is seeking to establish closer ties with all African nations, including Sudan. Do the coalition nations then cancel the operation and let the killing continue? I think not. I think that the morally correct course of action in that case is to break the law and mount the rescue operation despite China's veto. Don't you?

Gannex, another well written post. The issue of whether a war is legal is a red herring raised by people like the FFL for their own purposes. War is simply the continuation of politics by other means. If you win a war, it was legal. If you lose a war, it was not.

[agwiii]

I sure would have voted in the US presidential elections if only had the right to do so.

Since you are ineligible to vote in an American election, I suggest you try to discuss something you might actually know about.

[Gannex]

Gannex, another well written post. The issue of whether a war is legal is a red herring raised by people like the FFL for their own purposes. War is simply the continuation of politics by other means. If you win a war, it was legal. If you lose a war, it was not.

Thanks for that, agwiii. And I think you summarised the principle well. Law is supposed to further justice, not prevent justice from being done.

[agwiii]

If the radical Islamists are willing to die for their religion ... <snip>

This may be the first thing you have written that is true. If radical islamists are willing to die for their religion, then I can assure you that the soldiers of the United States will accomodate them.

[Eki]

This may be the first thing you have written that is true. If radical islamists are willing to die for their religion, then I can assure you that the soldiers of the United States will accomodate them.
That's OK. Unfortunately, while doing it, they kill at least 10 if not 100 times as many people who are NOT radical Islamist but just happen to be where the American bombs, missiles and bullets hit, many of them young children and pregnant women.

[agwiii]

That's OK. Unfortunately, while doing it, they kill at least 10 if not 100 times as many people who are NOT radical Islamist but just happen to be where the American bombs, missiles and bullets hit, many of them young children and pregnant women.

This is collateral damage, and is an element of every war that has taken place. Nobody ever claimed that war was neat and surgical. Do some research, starting with Von Klauswitz.

[agwiii]

That's OK. Unfortunately, while doing it, they kill at least 10 if not 100 times as many people who are NOT radical Islamist but just happen to be where the American bombs, missiles and bullets hit, many of them young children and pregnant women.

Collateral damage doesn't come close to the tens of thousands of pregnant women and children butchered by Saddam, but that does not seem to be one of your concerns.

[Eki]

Collateral damage doesn't come close to the tens of thousands of pregnant women and children butchered by Saddam, but that does not seem to be one of your concerns.
Killing more people doesn't bring back those Saddam got killed, does it?

And if you accept pre-emptive warfare regardless of "collateral damage", you must also accept medical research on patients without their consent, you know Dr Mengele style, if it will potentially help more people than it destroys. Do you? Now you maybe say yes, unless they are Americans. Dr Mengele didn't equally care unless those human "lab rats" weren't "Aryan" Germans.

BTW, those who died in the 9/11 attacks were "just collateral damage" too. The real target was the US government and its foreign policy.

[Camelopard]

Of course, harsha, it is the US who supplies arms to Pakistan, but those arms are supplied to the Pakistani army, not the jihadists. That army, and those weapons are the forces opposing the jihadists, whom you want to see opposed. So you are focussing your hostility on the wrong target entirely. The Musharraf regime, like India, is doing all it can to rein in the Islamic militants, at great risk to itself, I might add, and with considerable courage. The aggressive wing of Islam hates Musharraf and the army he heads. If the US were not supplying arms to Pakistan's army, Pakistan would be taken over by the militants who, though I'm sure you don't need reminding of this, are determined to make terrible problems for India. So please, harsha, don't criticise the US for supporting Pakistan's army with materiel; they are helping to neutralise your enemies.

You ask in your post who trains Al-Qaida. Certainly not the Pakistani government. Al-Qaida train themselves. The last government that helped them, the Afghan government, has been deposed, and was deposed, by the way, by the same United States that you are complaining about.

Finally, you say that the US refuses to see Pakistan as a hot-bed for Islamic terrorism. I can assure you, as one who spends a lot of time in the US, that the Americans see very clearly that Pakistan is the home of militant Islamists. They see that as clearly as your government sees it, in fact, and that is precisely why the Americans have been very careful to co-opt Musharraf's help, more than anyone else's, in the war on terror. It was mainly for Musharraf's ears that Bush made his famous comment that you are with us or with the terrorists. So America is very well aware, harsha, of the realities of Pakistan, so aware, in fact, that it is probable that both British and American Special Forces are operating covertly in Pakistan precisely to counter those elements which you, apparently, desperately wish to see countered.

My conclusion, harsha, is this: your country wants to see the threat from Pakistan neutralised, so that you can live in peace. The US wants exactly the same thing, and has devoted a lot of military and diplomatic muscle to achieving that goal. As a patriotic Indian, I think you should be applauding that, not knocking it.

You have got to be kidding!!!
Where did the Taliban start? Afghanistan, who supplied them with weapons and probably training? the usa. Why? to fight those nasty pesky Ruskies who were in Afghanistan at the bequest of the legitimately elected government of that country at that time. Stinger missiles to take out Russian planes weren't bought on the free market....... Now being used on US forces, how ironic.

The Russians withdrew, much like the US did when it left Vietnam with it's tail between it's legs. Now the US don't like the Taleban as they weren't prepared to be a lapdog, suprise, suprise. Where were the original Taleban trained? mostly in madrases (sp?) in Pakistan right under the noses of Musharraf.

Have a look at this link http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/099.html Unusual top find the hand of the CIA involved. (sarcasm).

I'm sure I could find a lot more links for you, however I don't have the time that you guys seem to have for all this!!

[EuroTroll]

Law is supposed to further justice, not prevent justice from being done.

In this case, Gannex, I think you're not correct. The purpose of law is not only to meet out (what is seen as) justice to those that have committed acts against (what is seen as) the common good, but also to act as a guideline and regulation on how various parties should interact with each other in order to achieve the greatest possible common good.

Surely it is true that different people - and different nations - can have a very different idea of what is just and right, and law is the compromise that binds these different ideas into a functioning whole. Take away the law and there is no longer a common ground.

In world history, it has taken millennia for different nations to come to any sort of understanding on how international affairs should be pursued. If the mood around the world really changes to "to hell with international law, let everyone do what is just" then the consequence, I think, would be a very dramatic increase in military actions around the world, whereby the militarily strong impose their "justice" on the militarily weak.

To belittle international law is very short-sighted and dangerous IMO.

I'm not saying, though, that the US/UK invasion of Iraq was certainly against international law. I'm saying that it's very important to discuss it.

[ArrowsFA1]

I think that the morally correct course of action in that case is to break the law and mount the rescue operation despite China's veto. Don't you?
In the scenario you've provided there should be no need for a "coalition" to form and then approach the UN. An individual nation state can do that. The term "coalition" was convenient for President Bush when it was clear he did not have widespread support for his plans in Iraq, and he made it his policy to weaken and discredit the UN. That said, if the Chinese did veto a UN proposal in the circumstances you've outlined then the UN should override it, and I suspect there would be widespead support for them doing so.

The UN is very far from being perfect, but I tend to think that it's better to adhere to the rules it imposes than ignore them. After all, it is the only body of its type that we have, and I feel it's important. This is not to say that it doesn't require a root-and-branch reform, which it does.
I agree :up:

If you win a war, it was legal. If you lose a war, it was not.
In other words "might makes right", or to put it another way, the biggest bully in the playground wins?

[Eki]

In this case, Gannex, I think you're not correct. The purpose of law is not only to meet out (what is seen as) justice to those that have committed acts against (what is seen as) the common good, but also to act as a guideline and regulation on how various parties should interact with each other in order to achieve the greatest possible common good.

Surely it is true that different people - and different nations - can have a very different idea of what is just and right, and law is the compromise that binds these different ideas into a functioning whole. Take away the law and there is no longer a common ground.

In world history, it has taken millennia for different nations to come to any sort of understanding on how international affairs should be pursued. If the mood around the world really changes to "to hell with international law, let everyone do what is just" then the consequence, I think, would be a very dramatic increase in military actions around the world, whereby the militarily strong impose their "justice" on the militarily weak.

To belittle international law is very short-sighted and dangerous IMO.
Well said, studiose.

[agwiii]

In other words "might makes right", or to put it another way, the biggest bully in the playground wins?

No. Read Von Klauswitz, Kissinger, etc. If you have a serious interest in the topic, I can send you a reading list.

[agwiii]

And if you accept pre-emptive warfare regardless of "collateral damage", you must also accept medical research on patients without their consent, you know Dr Mengele style, if it will potentially help more people than it destroys. Do you? Now you maybe say yes, unless they are Americans. Dr Mengele didn't equally care unless those human "lab rats" weren't "Aryan" Germans.

BTW, those who died in the 9/11 attacks were "just collateral damage" too. The real target was the US government and its foreign policy.

You have my condolences.

[SOD]

Okay, when someone demonstrates an incredible level of ignorance, there is only one solution! <PLONK>

:s mokin:

how can I be ignorant if I don't what a pelosi is! I'm not American, am I expected to know every member of their Federal Govt.

"you're ignorant" , that the best you got?

Only a truely ignorant person would blow up the civilian infastructure (water treatment, electricity, telecoms) in Iraq and then demand that iraqis be greatful for what was done to them.

Did the Iraqi governemnt sign away all their rights to their oil yet?

[Camelopard]

Another interesting link on how Reagan armed the Mujahadeen, which led indirectly to the Taleban rise in Afghanistan.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/10/1425222

[EuroTroll]

Do some research, starting with Von Klauswitz.

I think perhaps you mean von Clausewitz? Let's not forget that all his writing is based on the Napoleonic era, when the nature of warfare was very different from what it became in the first half of the 20th century, which in turn is very different from what it has become now.

Basing our modern opinions on warfare on Clausewitz is a bit like basing our opinions on medicine on Hippocrates.

[SOD]

You have my condolences.

Eki was talking about NAZI medical experiments without consent. Tukegee syphilis trials <cough> or how about the LSD experiments conducted by the CIA?

not to mention that the USA hired all the NAZI scientists after WW2.

[agwiii]

I think perhaps you mean von Clausewitz? Let's not forget that all his writing is based on the Napoleonic era, when the nature of warfare was very different from what it became in the first half of the 20th century, which in turn is very different from what it has become now. Basing our modern opinions of warfare on Clausewitz is a bit like basing our opinions of medicine on Hippocrates.

His name is spelled more than one way, but at least you recognize him. You may also recognize Giap. (his name will also be spelled more than one way.) I wish there were one book that I could suggest you read to avoid jumping to conclusions, but there are so many for you to read.

[Camelopard]

the victors have the honour of rewriting history to suit themselves

Well said Harsha, except that if you don't agree with what is being written, then that is Revisionism!!!!!!

[TOgoFASTER]

Kissinger lol 'nuff said! Closed subject.

Arrows... SOD thumbsup and spot on.

Wars are the result of failure on every level.


Did the Iraqi governemnt sign away all their rights to their oil yet?

US oil companies are working on the terms (very long term ones) of the 'Leasing agreement' as we speak.

[EuroTroll]

His name is spelled more than one way

Yes, I know. It's spelled one way by the people who know who he was and what he wrote, and another way by people who have heard his name mentioned in some political debate and think that mindlessly repeating the name gives their argument credibility. ;)

[Camelopard]

Eki was talking about NAZI medical experiments without consent. Tukegee syphilis trials <cough> or how about the LSD experiments conducted by the CIA?

not to mention that the USA hired all the NAZI scientists after WW2.

And took Wernher von Braun, the father of the modern day rocket to the US, where he was instrumental in setting up the US space programme even though he was a member of the SS, double standards, the US never.......

[EuroTroll]

And took Wernher von Braun, the father of the modern day rocket to the US, where he was instrumental in setting up the US space programme even though he was a member of the SS, double standards, the US never.......

(Never mind...)

[ArrowsFA1]

No. Read Von Klauswitz, Kissinger, etc. If you have a serious interest in the topic, I can send you a reading list.
That comes across as being a condescending response to what was a question asked as part of an open discussion, particularly as you cannot know my level of interest in the topic, the contents of my bookshelves, or particularly my level of education in international relations/history.

Instead of lecturing, how about expanding on what you meant? Exchanging opinions and ideas makes the world go around.

My apologies if I got the tone of your reply to my question wrong.

[Sandfly]

Where does the monetary support from Palestine come from? Over 95% comes from the US, Great Britain and ---- Isreal. Less than 5% comes from Arab states that have overwhelming capability to support the poor opressed Palestentians. But instead they merely point to the ongoing strife, blaming it on the Isrealis in order to inflame thier own people against someone else -- so as not to focus any attention on the the problems in thier own countries. Palestine could be a world center of trade and tourism if the radicals would make an effort to live in peace and enjoy prosperity along with the Isralis.

How many times does Isreal need to give in to demands, only to have rockets with anti- personnell ball bearings launched INTENTIONALLY into residential areas by militant Palestenians. No more.

[Eki]

Where does the monetary support from Palestine come from? Over 95% comes from the US, Great Britain and ---- Isreal. Less than 5% comes from Arab states that have overwhelming capability to support the poor opressed Palestentians. But instead they merely point to the ongoing strife, blaming it on the Isrealis in order to inflame thier own people against someone else -- so as not to focus any attention on the the problems in thier own countries. Palestine could be a world center of trade and tourism if the radicals would make an effort to live in peace and enjoy prosperity along with the Isralis.

How many times does Isreal need to give in to demands, only to have rockets with anti- personnell ball bearings launched INTENTIONALLY into residential areas by militant Palestenians. No more.
Maybe the Arab countries would be more generous if Israel gave back the occupied territories and granted Palestine independence? Wouldn't that be at least worth to negotiate about with them?

[Camelopard]

Where does the monetary support from Palestine come from? Over 95% comes from the US, Great Britain and ---- Isreal. Less than 5% comes from Arab states that have overwhelming capability to support the poor opressed Palestentians. But instead they merely point to the ongoing strife, blaming it on the Isrealis in order to inflame thier own people against someone else -- so as not to focus any attention on the the problems in thier own countries. Palestine could be a world center of trade and tourism if the radicals would make an effort to live in peace and enjoy prosperity along with the Isralis.

How many times does Isreal need to give in to demands, only to have rockets with anti- personnell ball bearings launched INTENTIONALLY into residential areas by militant Palestenians. No more.

Have a read of this Sandfly from last weekends Sydney Morning Herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/race-row-as-arab-minister-pilloried/2007/01/12/1168105185701.html


Ed O'Loughlin Herald Correspondent in Jerusalem January 13, 2007

ONE of Israel's ruling parties has sparked a race row by denouncing the appointment of the country's first Arab minister as a blow against "the Jewish character" of the state.
Esterina Tartman, chairwoman of the Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home) party, said that the Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, was promoting "assimilation" when he named an Arab legislator, Raleb Majadele, as Science Minister.
Mr Peretz is head of the moderate Labour Party and deputy leader of the ruling centre-right coalition.
Ms Tartman told Israeli Army radio that the move was "a lethal blow to Zionism". According to the newspaper Ma'ariv, she also remarked "this pestilence must be burned".
Peretz is making a sacrifice of Zionism," she said. "He has crossed all the red lines. Israel is a Jewish state and should be run according to Jewish principles."

]Ms Tartman's party leader, a Avigdor Lieberman, a Russian immigrant, called on Mr Peretz to resign as defence minister, although he said he had "no problem" with the appointment of an Arab. "The problem here is the timing and the fact that a minister in the State of Israel is using the tools he has wrongfully in order to promote himself politically," he said
While Arabs make up about a fifth of Israel's population and are able to vote in elections, the Israeli parliament has traditionally isolated Arab members from political decision making. In the past any Zionist party seen to be actively courting Arab support risked losing votes among its Jewish constituency.
Mr Lieberman is one of the rising stars of Israeli politics, and is now ranked second in popularity after another right-winger, Benjamin Netanyahu.
]Since joining Ehud Olmert's cabinet as minister for strategic threats last year, he has publicly advocated the Cyprus-style expulsion of ethnic minorities and the shooting of Arab-Israeli parliamentarians who visited Damascus.
Ms Tartman's anti-Arab outbursts were strongly condemned by several Jewish mainstream parties. One Labour MP called on Mr Peretz to leave the coalition rather than sit with Mr Lieberman's "racist" party. Michael Eitan of the Likud party, said he "rejected with disgust Ms Tartman's racist pronouncements".

If I was treated like a third class citizen in my homeland I think I'd being taking pretty drastic action as well.

[Eki]

Ms Tartman told Israeli Army radio that the move was "a lethal blow to Zionism". According to the newspaper Ma'ariv, she also remarked "this pestilence must be burned".
Fire the ovens. Where have I heard about a similar attitude before? Oh yes, it was about 60 years ago in Europe.

[airshifter]

as for Airshifter, the "reactionary force", says it all. i'm sure someone will make work for you. As for the UN resolutions, I wonder how those reolutions stand up now that it is clear that Iraq posed no imminent danger to anyone. where's all the chemical, nuclear and biological weaponry?


As someone that has been involved, I'm aware of the role of reactionary forces in a number of humanitarian missions, including those involving countries not allied to the US such as Iran. If you feel I should feel bad for having such a label I suggest you're once again speaking of something you aren't educated about.

My question remains. What have you directly done to make the lives of the people in Iraq better?

As for the resolutions, if you were actually familiar with them and the inspection reports, you would find that Iraq was in direct violation of every listed concern. They hold up just fine and as so gave authority for any member nation to use force to uphold them.

[ArrowsFA1]

As for the resolutions, if you were actually familiar with them and the inspection reports, you would find that Iraq was in direct violation of every listed concern. They hold up just fine and as so gave authority for any member nation to use force to uphold them.
Therein rests a problem I have - "any member nation".

The UN Charter (Article 2) says:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Is it not the case that the US-led coalition, in acting against Iraq without the authority of the UN, did so in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, the purposes they had signed up to.

[Eki]

Therein rests a problem I have - "any member nation".

The UN Charter (Article 2) says:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Is it not the case that the US-led coalition, in acting against Iraq without the authority of the UN, did so in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, the purposes they had signed up to.
Exactly. I think the UN Charter does, as it should do, over rule any resolution of the Security Council.

[Mark in Oshawa]

how can I be ignorant if I don't what a pelosi is! I'm not American, am I expected to know every member of their Federal Govt.

"you're ignorant" , that the best you got?

Only a truely ignorant person would blow up the civilian infastructure (water treatment, electricity, telecoms) in Iraq and then demand that iraqis be greatful for what was done to them.

Did the Iraqi governemnt sign away all their rights to their oil yet?

Last Time I looked, the US government was paying to put that back together with help from Iraq. Ok, So the US doesn't invade, everyone is happy? Except those dying year in year out in Iraq. This argument that the Americans killed more than Saddam would have is bogus. What is more if Iraqi causalties through the war was more than 20000 a year, it was a one year blip, and the death toll is not that high now.

Lets add one more point. All of you who condemn the US for invading better get something straight. If Saddam didn't play his game, the US isn't there. If dictators don't murder, cheat, steal, enslave and generally threaten everyone else, the US wouldn't have a reason to go anywhere with their military. You dont like their self imposed job of policeman? Fine, then one of the useless leaders of about 50 countries who condemn all of this propose a solution to handle a nation that invaded two neighbours in less than 20 years and was sponsoring terriorism world wide. Let them figure it out. The last time the US played Ostrich, it took Pearl Harbor to get their attention. Americans don't ignore lessons of history, they learn from them. The rest of you get the Neville Chamberlain award for hoping for the best in the face of dealing with a tyrant.

You guys yap about diplomacy, but it cant be the ends to the means...

Oh yes, I was told someone mentioned Abu Garab prison and how the AMericans are just as bad. Maybe if you want to believe that, but here is the truth. Saddam runs it, you dont' leave it alive,and you are tortured. The US runs it, some guards decide you have to play naked twister, they get busted, charged and thrown out of the military and you go back to where you were. In the end, your own people likely have decided your fate.....BIG difference there, but I understand how those who hate America cant see it, you only see what you want to see....

[airshifter]

Therein rests a problem I have - "any member nation".

The UN Charter (Article 2) says:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Is it not the case that the US-led coalition, in acting against Iraq without the authority of the UN, did so in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, the purposes they had signed up to.


Arrows,

When the UN invokes the use of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, they are declaring that other means have failed and authorizing use of more intense political means or force.


Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


Resolutions of the Security Council are made only within the scope of the UN Charter, and most of the time they cite the particular Chapters of the UN Charter they are using as authority for the resolution.

Resolution 1441 was the last in a line that declared Iraq was a threat to international peace and security in the region, reaffirmed all the other resolutions it was currently in violation of along with those that authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to uphold the previous and current resolution.

The UN, not the US or any individual coalition country, declared the things Iraq had done to warrant them a threat to peace. Those things are listed in 1441 and include humanitarian issues and conventional weapons violations along with WMDs.

[Eki]

Arrows,

When the UN invokes the use of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, they are declaring that other means have failed and authorizing use of more intense political means or force.


Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


Resolutions of the Security Council are made only within the scope of the UN Charter, and most of the time they cite the particular Chapters of the UN Charter they are using as authority for the resolution.

Resolution 1441 was the last in a line that declared Iraq was a threat to international peace and security in the region, reaffirmed all the other resolutions it was currently in violation of along with those that authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to uphold the previous and current resolution.

The UN, not the US or any individual coalition country, declared the things Iraq had done to warrant them a threat to peace. Those things are listed in 1441 and include humanitarian issues and conventional weapons violations along with WMDs.
If the UN Charter agreed with the invasion, why did General Secretary Kofi Annan call the invasion illegal? I'd rather take his word for it than yours:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

"The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally."

[EuroTroll]

Americans don't ignore lessons of history, they learn from them.

The saddest thing for me is that there are numerous conflicts between Light and Darkness (so to speak) around the world where the US/the West could get much more significant results with a fraction of the resources used in Iraq.

The US is the most important country in the world, and the world desperately needs the US to get their stuff right, to choose their battles wisely, to be successful and strong.

What the world desperately doesn't need is the US getting thoroughly thrashed on the international scene, and then withdraw into isolationism to lick their wounds. Which, I'm sorry to say, will now probably happen in the next 10 years.

You say that America learns from the lessons of history? How I wish that you're right. There is truly much to learn from all this.

(And our American friends, can you please elect someone who isn't so ****ing mediocre for your next President? ;) )

[Gannex]

Resolution 1441 was the last in a line that declared Iraq was a threat to international peace and security in the region, reaffirmed all the other resolutions it was currently in violation of along with those that authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to uphold the previous and current resolution.
As I said in post 579, I think the question of the legality of the war is secondary to the far more important question of whether the war was right or not. But for those who claim it was indeed illegal, I think airshifter's point has to be troubling. I don't know much about the subject, frankly, but from what little I do know, it seems quite likely that Resolution 1441, taken together with earlier resolutions, constitutes UN authority for the war. What else could "all necessary means" mean? And not only that, it is also far from clear that a war, to be legal, has to be explicity authorised by Resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations.

But merely discussing the legal points sounds so ludicrous, doesn't it? Only a lawyer or a propagandist could think that these fine legal distinctions are important.

[EuroTroll]

But merely discussing the legal points sounds so ludicrous, doesn't it? Only a lawyer or a propagandist could think that these fine legal distinctions are important.

I think they're important, and I'm neither.

Truly Gannex, if you don't seek justification from laws, where do you seek it? From God? :rolleyes:

[bowler]

i can't see when the US actually helped India fight against Terrorism.

US has more of hindered rather than helped India in its war against terrorism,and the US government fails to see that Pakistan is the center of Islamic Terrorism today

It wasn't that many years ago that India was firmly aligned with the Soviet Union, and wanted nothing from the US.

Time changes things but don't forget the past.

Equally the dispute between Pakistan and India has been simmering sice the creation of the two separate countries in 1948.

That the two countires have not managed to make peace is nothing to do with the current "war on terror" thinking that has occurred since 9 11. It is an old dispute based on events of the past. Only the methods have changed.

Very nice to see India and Pakistan making recent efforts to ramp up the peace process, but don't confuse this dispute with others.

[bowler]

Nobody here has said or even implied that Saddam was a good man, unless YOU think being a CIA stooge is good.


Saddam was never a stooge of the CIA

Saddam was happy to be the benefactor of CIA ignorance, and he took and received supplies while it suited him. When it ceased to suit him, he went to the Russians for support.

The CIA have picked some losers, and Saddam outwitted them, simple.

[Gannex]

I think [legal questions about wars are] important, and I'm neither [a propagandist nor a lawyer].

Truly Gannex, if you don't seek justification from laws, where do you seek it? From God? :rolleyes:
studiose, I decide whether a war was just, based on the circumstances, not on the law. For example, I believe that England's war against the Axis powers in World War II was right, and I believe that without even knowing whether it was legal or not. I also believe that China's prosecution of the Korean War was dreadfully wrong, regardless of whether it was legal under the international law that was prevailing at the time. In both cases, I have no idea, frankly, about the legality, and I can't see how it is relevant. If you, as an international lawyer, were to inform me that England acted illegally in declaring war on Germany in 1939, I would tell you that in that case, the law is an ass. And if you told me that China's war in Korea was legal, I'd tell you that only shows how inadequate the legal system was at the time, that it should condone such a wrong action. So, in historical terms, I believe that the justness of a war is either there or not there, but that the question turns on considerations far more complex and weighty than what the state of international law was at the time.

[Eki]

And if you told me that China's war in Korea was legal, I'd tell you that only shows how inadequate the legal system was at the time, that it should condone such a wrong action.
Do you think that the US war in Korea was legal? Are you sure it wouldn't have been better to let the Koreans just duke it out by themselves? In the Finnish civil war, the Reds got weapons and other help from the Russians and the Whites got weapons and other help from the Germans. I think without those weapons and help there might have been a lot fewer Finns dead.

[EuroTroll]

So, in historical terms, I believe that the justness of a war is either there or not there, but that the question turns on considerations far more complex and weighty than what the state of international law was at the time.

And what are these complex and weighty considerations that determine the justness of a war in your eyes? Are they something most people in the world could conceivably agree on?

[agwiii]

Do you think that the US war in Korea was legal? Are you sure it wouldn't have been better to let the Koreans just duke it out by themselves? In the Finnish civil war, the Reds got weapons and other help from the Russians and the Whites got weapons and other help from the Germans. I think without those weapons and help there might have been a lot fewer Finns dead.

Did you fight in that war? On which side? How many troops were involved? How many casualties? How many fatalities? How many books?

[harsha]

Of course, harsha, it is the US who supplies arms to Pakistan, but those arms are supplied to the Pakistani army, not the jihadists. That army, and those weapons are the forces opposing the jihadists, whom you want to see opposed. So you are focussing your hostility on the wrong target entirely. The Musharraf regime, like India, is doing all it can to rein in the Islamic militants, at great risk to itself, I might add, and with considerable courage. The aggressive wing of Islam hates Musharraf and the army he heads. If the US were not supplying arms to Pakistan's army, Pakistan would be taken over by the militants who, though I'm sure you don't need reminding of this, are determined to make terrible problems for India. So please, harsha, don't criticise the US for supporting Pakistan's army with materiel; they are helping to neutralise your enemies.

You ask in your post who trains Al-Qaida. Certainly not the Pakistani government. Al-Qaida train themselves. The last government that helped them, the Afghan government, has been deposed, and was deposed, by the way, by the same United States that you are complaining about.

Finally, you say that the US refuses to see Pakistan as a hot-bed for Islamic terrorism. I can assure you, as one who spends a lot of time in the US, that the Americans see very clearly that Pakistan is the home of militant Islamists. They see that as clearly as your government sees it, in fact, and that is precisely why the Americans have been very careful to co-opt Musharraf's help, more than anyone else's, in the war on terror. It was mainly for Musharraf's ears that Bush made his famous comment that you are with us or with the terrorists. So America is very well aware, harsha, of the realities of Pakistan, so aware, in fact, that it is probable that both British and American Special Forces are operating covertly in Pakistan precisely to counter those elements which you, apparently, desperately wish to see countered.

My conclusion, harsha, is this: your country wants to see the threat from Pakistan neutralised, so that you can live in peace. The US wants exactly the same thing, and has devoted a lot of military and diplomatic muscle to achieving that goal. As a patriotic Indian, I think you should be applauding that, not knocking it.

Pakistan attacked India with the arms in 99.Not the militants,the army.......

As to your question on who trained Al-Qaida,the americans trained Taliban in their fight against the Russians in Afghanistan.

Pakistan completely denies the presence of Dawood Ibhrahim,an underworld Don responsible for the Mumbai blasts although there is clear evidence of him staying in Pakistan.

[harsha]

It wasn't that many years ago that India was firmly aligned with the Soviet Union, and wanted nothing from the US.



India was never alligned with any country,DO you remember the non-alligned movement.......yes,India had friendly relations with the Soviet Union,but it wasn't part of their circle

[Mark in Oshawa]

Originally Posted by Eki
Do you think that the US war in Korea was legal? Are you sure it wouldn't have been better to let the Koreans just duke it out by themselves? In the Finnish civil war, the Reds got weapons and other help from the Russians and the Whites got weapons and other help from the Germans. I think without those weapons and help there might have been a lot fewer Finns dead.

Well, since I am back in the thread, I guess I cant have a good debate without a rebuttal of Eki, here we go:

Eki, if the German's didn't give the Finn's arms in the Winter war, who is to say there is any Finland? Here is a clue, War's are ugly, but as your own nation has proven, sometimes you have to fight to survive. So not all wars are evil, wrong or unjust. So spare me all the rhetoric about how many more died because both sides were getting arms. Yes, they were, and thank god the Whites got more than the Red's.

As for the legality of the US invasion, as it was shown, the US had grounds under the resoulutions that were shown. Yet Kofi Annan declared the war "illegal". Why? Simple, Oil for food. You remember that little fiasco and how it has been discovered ELF was buying oil on the black market from Iraq and Saddam was putting in his back pocket. One of the people getting alleged kick backs was Annan's son. We have heard little of the investigation because of course, the only body that would be able to prosecute him would be your precious UN.

Listen, calling this war illegal based on the laws and dictates of the UN isn't going to fly, because there is a reasonable doubt that the US DID have the authority based on the resolutions. Furthermore, since there was no effort on the part of Russia and France to recuse themselves (as both were in bed with Iraq) at the Security council, the whole thing is a sham.

The UN is NOT the moral authority for anything and when you start giving member nations such as Iraq the same moral weight over human affairs as Finland or the US or Canada, you cant be taken seriously AT all; yet that is what you would suggest.

No, The UN cant be the final arbiter of anything. Period.

One more thing Eki, the US wasn't the only nation in Korea, Most of the West was, including I suspect Finland. They were there on a UN mandate, and they wouldn't have been there if the North Koreans had stayed in North Korea. Of course, that is ok to you Eki, since you seem to not be bothered by some nations invading others, just you object to the US.

Studiose, by the way, the reason Bush is president is because Al Gore is an idiot, and John Kerry (I voted for the war, before I voted against it) are bigger fools than Bush. Say Bush is a terrible president, history will say in the end what he is, but trust me, he was the best choice in both elections. Al Gore and John Kerry for all their "brilliance" couldn't win an election against a "dunce" so that ought tell you something.....

[EuroTroll]

Studiose, by the way, the reason Bush is president is because Al Gore is an idiot, and John Kerry (I voted for the war, before I voted against it) are bigger fools than Bush. Say Bush is a terrible president, history will say in the end what he is, but trust me, he was the best choice in both elections. Al Gore and John Kerry for all their "brilliance" couldn't win an election against a "dunce" so that ought tell you something.....

And what ought it tell me? That Americans have developed a distaste for really clever men and therefore elect "men of people"?

I don't much care for Kerry, but I think Gore would have made a truly fine President. (I don't see how you can call him an idiot. :s ) But anyway, all you can change is the future.

[bowler]

India was never alligned with any country,DO you remember the non-alligned movement.......yes,India had friendly relations with the Soviet Union,but it wasn't part of their circle

India was less non aligned with the Soviet Union, if you want to put it in those terms, but the net result was the same.

[Eki]

Did you fight in that war? On which side? How many troops were involved? How many casualties? How many fatalities? How many books?
The Finnish Civil War was fought in 1918, so I wasn't born yet. My father's grandfather was a company chief on the Red side and I think my mother's grandfather was either neutral or on the White side.

Troops:

Whites; 80,000-90,000 Finns,
550 Swedish volunteers,
13,000 Germans

Reds; 80,000-90,000 Finns,
4,000-10,000 Russians

Casualties:

Whites; 3,414 killed in action,
1,400-1,650 executed,
46 missing

Reds; 5,199 killed in action,
7,000-9,000 executed,
2,000 missing,
11,000-13,000 dead in prison camps

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

[Eki]

Eki, if the German's didn't give the Finn's arms in the Winter war, who is to say there is any Finland? Here is a clue, War's are ugly, but as your own nation has proven, sometimes you have to fight to survive. So not all wars are evil, wrong or unjust. So spare me all the rhetoric about how many more died because both sides were getting arms. Yes, they were, and thank god the Whites got more than the Red's.
We are not even talking about the same war. I was talking about the Finnish Civil War in 1918 and you start to talk about the Winter War in 1939-1940. In Winter War, there were no Whites and Reds, they were both united to fight against the Soviets. Furthermore, in Winter War Germany didn't give Finland any help but actually OKed the Soviet invasion in a secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

It was in the Continuation War in 1941-1944 where Germany helped Finland.



The UN is NOT the moral authority for anything and when you start giving member nations such as Iraq the same moral weight over human affairs as Finland or the US or Canada, you cant be taken seriously AT all; yet that is what you would suggest.
It's not about moral authority but about democracy. I think many of the about 200 member nations are quite reasonable and level headed and the "loonies" on both sides cancel each other out, so I think UN General Assembly could be able to do more impartial and reasonable decisions than the Security Council that only represents few countries.



One more thing Eki, the US wasn't the only nation in Korea, Most of the West was, including I suspect Finland.
Finnish UN peacekeepers have never been in an area where there is an open war going on. I think even our constitution forbids that. They only operate in areas where there is some sort of PEACE to be KEPT and have orders not to shoot except for self-defence when being shot at themselves. Besides, Finland wasn't allowed into the UN until 1955, the Korean War was over by then.

[ArrowsFA1]

The UN, not the US or any individual coalition country, declared the things Iraq had done to warrant them a threat to peace. Those things are listed in 1441 and include humanitarian issues and conventional weapons violations along with WMDs.
airshifter, I think your post illustrates the point I was trying to make.

"When the UN invokes the use of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, they are declaring..."

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace..."

"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action..."

The UN, not any one member nation.

President Bush chose to undermine & weaken the UN in order to pursue his agenda. Consequently international relations have been severely damaged. That has a far bigger long term significance than the invasion of Iraq alone, a significance that he will not have to deal with; or in other words, short term gain for long term pain.

The UN, not one member nation, is our best hope for resolving regional issues and conflicts in the world that all have global significance and an impact on all of us.

[BDunnell]

President Bush chose to undermine & weaken the UN in order to pursue his agenda. Consequently international relations have been severely damaged. That has a far bigger long term significance than the invasion of Iraq alone, a significance that he will not have to deal with; or in other words, short term gain for long term pain.

The UN, not one member nation, is our best hope for resolving regional issues and conflicts in the world that all have global significance and an impact on all of us.

I agree. If individual nations want to pursue their own courses of action, that's up to them. These actions could include things that are generally viewed as being 'just', like humanitarian operations that get vetoed in the Security Council for one reason or another, or things that are more questionable, like the invasion of a country that posed no military threat to anyone based on what those prosecuting the conflict knew was a false premise that it did, and which has further inflamed the terrorism that the action is seeking to fight. However, and with particular reference to the latter case, those involved shouldn't expect the legality of those actions not to be questioned, nor — if the action goes disastrously wrong — for there to be widespread recriminations.

I certainly feel justified in continuing to oppose the war in Iraq, and to feel some degree of revulsion towards those who suddenly became concerned about human rights in Iraq when George W. Bush raised the issue, having ignored it when the Hussein regime was commiting its atrocities, and indeed other abuses around the world, while simultaneously being taken in by the outlandish claims made with regard to Iraq's military capability. If Iraq had possessed a substantial military capability, and thus some kind of military threat to its neighbours, I wouldn't feel so strongly about it. In order to bring about the fear that Iraq did have this capability, the coalition had to undermine the work of the UN weapons inspectors, who, as it turns out, were right all along. This provided the final justification for going to war, but it was based — sorry to be basic about it, but I believe it to be true — on a blatant series of lies. What has happened since proves the irresponsibility on occasion of going against the UN.

[agwiii]

The UN, not any one member nation.

The UN is a hopelessly corrupt organization that has outlived its limited utility.


President Bush chose to undermine & weaken the UN in order to pursue his agenda. Consequently international relations have been severely damaged. That has a far bigger long term significance than the invasion of Iraq alone, a significance that he will not have to deal with; or in other words, short term gain for long term pain.

Hopelessly naive and unrealistic.


The UN, not one member nation, is our best hope for resolving regional issues and conflicts in the world that all have global significance and an impact on all of us.

The UN is a hopelessly corrupt organization that has outlived its limited utility. However, if you actually believe that, I have a bridge for sale that may interest you.

[agwiii]

The Finnish Civil War was fought in 1918, so I wasn't born yet. My father's grandfather was a company chief on the Red side and I think my mother's grandfather was either neutral or on the White side.

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

I'm not surprised you would use Wikipedia. It is infamous for its lack of reliability. Perhaps you recall the founder enhancing his own biography, in direct violation of the Wiki rules? It's just one step removed from citing what you find written on the bathroom walls. :s mokin:

[Woodeye]

I'm not surprised you would use Wikipedia. It is infamous for its lack of reliability. Perhaps you recall the founder enhancing his own biography, in direct violation of the Wiki rules? It's just one step removed from citing what you find written on the bathroom walls. :s mokin:


The level of your replies is so low that trying to limbo under those is just impossible.

Most of the links are in Finnish, maybe that's why you got one from Wiki, huh?

[agwiii]

The level of your replies is so low that trying to limbo under those is just impossible.

How very clever. Another FFL with the inability to address facts.


Most of the links are in Finnish, maybe that's why you got one from Wiki, huh?

I "got one" from Wiki? You need to read more carefully, pal. It was your FFL comrade that dug down into Wiki.

[DonJippo]

I'm not surprised you would use Wikipedia. It is infamous for its lack of reliability.

I believe it's still more reliable than the US intelligence sources claiming Iraq has WMDs...

[Woodeye]

How very clever. Another FFL with the inability to address facts.

Oh, and I thought it was an opinion of yours.


I "got one" from Wiki? You need to read more carefully, pal. It was your FFL comrade that dug down into Wiki.[/QUOTE]

http://www.kookas.fi/articles/read/5941

There you go, one article more from Finnish Civil war. Have fun translating it.

[Eki]

OK, agwiii, you don't trust Wikipedia, but you seem to have a blind trust on your government, so here's what the Library of Congress says about the Finnish Civil War:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+fi0024)

[agwiii]

OK, agwiii, you don't trust Wikipedia, but you seem to have a blind trust on your government, so here's what the Library of Congress says about the Finnish Civil War:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+fi0024)

Good, you display an ability to learn. Now, let's take a look at this thread and stay within in. "Taking the thread off topic" can earn you negative points.

studiose (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/member.php?u=83754)

Saddam Hussein Hanged
...about an hour ago, new agencies report.

Certainly a major milestone in the conflict, I wonder how it will influence the actions of various parties. Will it lead to more violence? Or can it be the beginning of something more positive?

[BDunnell]

The UN is a hopelessly corrupt organization that has outlived its limited utility. However, if you actually believe that, I have a bridge for sale that may interest you.

The fact that you feel the need to repeat the same phrase over and over again suggests that you have little to say on this matter other than spouting slogans.

Can I ask you, though, whether you held such strong views on the UN before the Iraq situation developed? Oh, and what do you suggest putting in the UN's place? A US military junta and associated kangaroo court?

[agwiii]

Oh, and I thought it was an opinion of yours.


I "got one" from Wiki? You need to read more carefully, pal. It was your FFL comrade that dug down into Wiki.

http://www.kookas.fi/articles/read/5941

There you go, one article more from Finnish Civil war. Have fun translating it.

This is nothing more than scrambled eggs.

[agwiii]

The fact that you feel the need to repeat the same phrase over and over again suggests that you have little to say on this matter other than spouting slogans. Can I ask you, though, whether you held such strong views on the UN before the Iraq situation developed? Oh, and what do you suggest putting in the UN's place? A US military junta and associated kangaroo court?

Actually, it's called cut and paste. The UN long ago outlived it's usefullness. The arrogance of the delegates who owe the City of New York a fortune in parking tickets is offensive. The absolute corruption and graft of Annin and his son should have them arrested and brought to trial. Why should there be anything in place of the UN? It has no legitimate function, so how does one replace something that is useless? I do suggest moving it from New York. I think Paris, Sao Paolo, Beijing or Crete would be excellent locations. ;)

[harsha]

If the UN's credibility comes under question,that's rather because of the arrogant action of the US and its allies(UK....).....in much the same way Germany disregarded the League of Nations before WW2

[ArrowsFA1]

Hopelessly naive and unrealistic.
Perhaps, but at least I'm offering my opinions for discussion instead of...what exactly? It seems you only have condescending soundbites and lectures to bring to the table.

Do you honestly believe that the process of international relations have improved in recent years, and that President Bush has provided effective leadership in this area?

What do you propose takes the place of the UN? If nothing, do you honestly believe that the international community would accept a single state acting as the world's policeman instead?

The UN is far from perfect, but instead of perpetuating Bush's policy of undermining and discrediting the UN, how about working towards reforming it constructively? It's very easy to criticse, and complain about the ineffectiveness of the UN, but all the time the US is doing this the Bush administration continues to withhold funds owed to UN Peacekeeping efforts, thus making them less able to do the work they are there to perform. So yes, the UN may be ineffective, but there you have one of the reasons why.

[airshifter]

airshifter, I think your post illustrates the point I was trying to make.

"When the UN invokes the use of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, they are declaring..."

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace..."

"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action..."

The UN, not any one member nation.

President Bush chose to undermine & weaken the UN in order to pursue his agenda. Consequently international relations have been severely damaged. That has a far bigger long term significance than the invasion of Iraq alone, a significance that he will not have to deal with; or in other words, short term gain for long term pain.

The UN, not one member nation, is our best hope for resolving regional issues and conflicts in the world that all have global significance and an impact on all of us.

Arrows,

The Security Council DID invoke Chapter 7, determine there were threats to the peace and had never declared a formal cease fire since the Gulf War as a result of Iraqs lack of compliance with requirements to do so. As no cease fire was ever enacted, all authorities to use force remained in effect.


In my opinion the best hope of resolving issues should be the UN, but history has shown it to be little other than a paper tiger. The Iraq situation is an example of this. In 12 years and after many resolutions they still had not forced compliance with cease fire agreements, nor did they even get close to doing so.

If the worlds best hope at peace lies in an organization who uses terms such as "as necessary means" and "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations" and backs it only with more words, then it's a huge paper tiger and nothing else.


The situation in Darfur is a current day example of what the UN is capable of. Without strong pressure from individual nations they would not even term the problem genocide. The UN has done little to nothing, individual member states have accomplished a great deal more.

The UN concluded that a peacekeeping mission would hold risks unless the involved parties quit fighting first. Just how stupid is that?

[airshifter]

As I said in post 579, I think the question of the legality of the war is secondary to the far more important question of whether the war was right or not. But for those who claim it was indeed illegal, I think airshifter's point has to be troubling. I don't know much about the subject, frankly, but from what little I do know, it seems quite likely that Resolution 1441, taken together with earlier resolutions, constitutes UN authority for the war. What else could "all necessary means" mean? And not only that, it is also far from clear that a war, to be legal, has to be explicity authorised by Resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations.

But merely discussing the legal points sounds so ludicrous, doesn't it? Only a lawyer or a propagandist could think that these fine legal distinctions are important.

I agree with your point on legal matters being secondary, but unfortunately unless there is defined legalities the organization has failed.

Right now, if any individual or collective of member or non UN member nations stopped the genocide in Darfur the world would support it, "legal" or not. Yet if those same nations failed or created a worse situation the world would condemn it as "illegal".

It shouldn't matter, there are more than enough wealthy and equipped countries to stop what is happening, yet they aren't.

[EuroTroll]

I think the main value of the UN is not in its (potential) ability to sort out the world's problems by acting as a super-national kick-ass force, but rather as the only universally recognized forum where nations can sort out matters between them - and before other nations - without having to go to war. And as such, it's an immensely valuable organization.

[BDunnell]

Why should there be anything in place of the UN? It has no legitimate function, so how does one replace something that is useless?

You haven't answered my question as to whether you felt so strongly about the UN before Bush told you to...

Here are a few (very few) of the UN's functions. Then tell me if they are useless. Firstly, weapons inspections. The UN weapons inspectors did an excellent job in Iraq. Their presence contained Saddam Hussein's ambitions with regard to developing new weaponry and helped ensure that there were no weapons of mass destruction there.

Then there have been the numerous humanitarian and peacekeeping operations in which the UN has been involved over the years. In spite of its many faults, which I acknowledge, it has generally proved to be a very effective co-ordinating body for such tasks, crucially ensuring that more countries are brought together to participate than would be the case if operations were merely, for instance, US-led.

And in spite of what some people might think, it is important to have a framework of international law within which to operate, in order to prosecute people in an appropriate way for war crimes and other such things.

Of course the UN is highly inefficient and needs reforming. Unlike you and some others commenting on these issues, I like to think that acknowledge that and don't just see the situation in black and white. However, it is far more of a force for good in spite of these major faults than you believe it to be, and I would far rather that my country worked within the frameworks provided by the UN than acted unilaterally or just in concert with the USA.

[Eki]

Right now, if any individual or collective of member or non UN member nations stopped the genocide in Darfur the world would support it, "legal" or not.
I don't think so. Just as an individual shouldn't take law into his/her own hands but let the justice system to take care of the situation the best it can, any single nation shouldn't take international matters into their own hands but let an international body like the UN to take care of it the best it can. I think this is necessary in order to maintain law and order and not cause more and deeper rifts in international relationships. No means no, and the US should learn to understand it just like Iran, North Korea and Sudan should too.



Yet if those same nations failed or created a worse situation the world would condemn it as "illegal".

The US invasion to Iraq was deemed illegal from the word "go".

[airshifter]

I would like to agree with the former two opinions, however I find it hard to see examples of the UN working to solve any major issue.

For the most part I think that they do a good job of monitoring situations such as the weapons inspectors, or peacekeeping missions. But in both instances they seem to fail when it matters. Iraq simply kicked out the inspectors with nothing other than more resolutions to condemn it, and the peacekeeping missions seem to come after the peace is for the most part already existent.

The one area I can almost agree without condition is that they do a good job of coordinating humanitarian relief efforts, but really often simply identify the need.


Can either of you provide an example in recent history where the actions of the UN alone fixed a real problem?

[Gannex]

The UN, not one member nation, is our best hope for resolving regional issues and conflicts in the world that all have global significance and an impact on all of us.
This is where I cannot agree with you, Arrows, or with BDunnell. The UN is a nice idea, just as the League of Nations was a nice idea. Peace-loving peoples gathering together to talk out their differences, instead of fighting them out. More jaw-jaw and less war-war, as Churchill put it, in uncharacteristically clumsy fashion.

But the sad truth is that a house is only as strong as the bricks it is made of. You can't build a constructive group of nations working toward peace out of quarrelsome countries, each with its own interests and varying levels of power. Either you leave the quarrelsome, power-hungry member states out of the decision-making process, which is what the Security Council system is designed to do, or you include them, and watch the angry results. There is no way around this. There are numerous national governments whom you wouldn't trust to look after your children on an evening, never mind letting them determine matters of war and peace. What are you to do with these regimes? Let them have a say in determining your foreign policy, risking that they will club together and actually dictate it, or shutting them out, and depriving your international body of all legitimacy? I don't see a third way.

[SOD]

I'd personally like to see the UN be disbanded. maybe NATO too. Even though I'm from a country that is not a member of NATO, many countries within the EU are members of NATO.

[SOD]

This is where I cannot agree with you, Arrows, or with BDunnell. The UN is a nice idea, just as the League of Nations was a nice idea. Peace-loving peoples gathering together to talk out their differences, instead of fighting them out. More jaw-jaw and less war-war, as Churchill put it, in uncharacteristically clumsy fashion.

you couldn't be any more wrong than saying that the UN is about peace-loving peoples. it would surprise you to see who setup the UN, the founders of the UN were far from "peacenik" in the aftermath of WW2.

[Eki]

Iraq simply kicked out the inspectors with nothing other than more resolutions to condemn it, and the peacekeeping missions seem to come after the peace is for the most part already existent.
Hence the name "peacekeeping". Before you can keep peace there must be a peace to be kept.





Can either of you provide an example in recent history where the actions of the UN alone fixed a real problem?
UN alone? The UN is, or at least should be, the sum of its member nations, therefore it needs cooperation from its member nations and the quarrelling parties. I think Cyprus is one good example of a successful peacekeeping mission, there hasn't been fighting in more than 30 years.

[Mark in Oshawa]

And what ought it tell me? That Americans have developed a distaste for really clever men and therefore elect "men of people"?

I don't much care for Kerry, but I think Gore would have made a truly fine President. (I don't see how you can call him an idiot. :s ) But anyway, all you can change is the future.

Al Gore IS an idiot. The State that knows him best didn't elect him over Bush for President. He claimed to have invented the Internet ( a factious argument if there ever was one and one a smart politician would never state). He also claims man is behind global warming. Understand, that global warming may not be caused by man at all, at best the science is very much theory. Nevertheless, Al Gore would cripple his nation's ability to run its economy on theories that are unproven. Al Gore who is suppossed to be brilliant, yet Bush made him look stupid in 2 debates. Al Gore should have won that election in 2000 in a walk, and yet the "idiot" squeaked out a narrow Electoral vote victory.

No, Al Gore is not the genius many would have you believe, for if he was so "brilliant" he would have been there again in 2004 but the Democratic party in the US wanted nothing to do with him.

[BDunnell]

Al Gore IS an idiot... He also claims man is behind global warming. Understand, that global warming may not be caused by man at all, at best the science is very much theory.

On what basis do you say that? I am convinced you are very much mistaken.

I am beginning to think that global warming might be a good thing if it forces people like you to realise the error of your ways when it comes to the issue...

[donKey jote]

Nevertheless, Al Gore would cripple his nation's ability to run its economy on theories that are unproven.
Theories are unproven by definition :)

While I agree with you that Al Gore losing out to Bush can indeed make him look like an idiot, you might be interested to read how Bush may be changing his course / flip-flopping on this issue :p :
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1989997,00.html

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[BDunnell]

The UN is a nice idea, just as the League of Nations was a nice idea. Peace-loving peoples gathering together to talk out their differences, instead of fighting them out. More jaw-jaw and less war-war, as Churchill put it, in uncharacteristically clumsy fashion.

But the sad truth is that a house is only as strong as the bricks it is made of. You can't build a constructive group of nations working toward peace out of quarrelsome countries, each with its own interests and varying levels of power. Either you leave the quarrelsome, power-hungry member states out of the decision-making process, which is what the Security Council system is designed to do, or you include them, and watch the angry results. There is no way around this. There are numerous national governments whom you wouldn't trust to look after your children on an evening, never mind letting them determine matters of war and peace. What are you to do with these regimes? Let them have a say in determining your foreign policy, risking that they will club together and actually dictate it, or shutting them out, and depriving your international body of all legitimacy? I don't see a third way.

This is all very true, but no-one ever puts across a better alternative, and I think there needs to be one.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Arrows,

The Security Council DID invoke Chapter 7, determine there were threats to the peace and had never declared a formal cease fire since the Gulf War as a result of Iraqs lack of compliance with requirements to do so. As no cease fire was ever enacted, all authorities to use force remained in effect.


In my opinion the best hope of resolving issues should be the UN, but history has shown it to be little other than a paper tiger. The Iraq situation is an example of this. In 12 years and after many resolutions they still had not forced compliance with cease fire agreements, nor did they even get close to doing so.

If the worlds best hope at peace lies in an organization who uses terms such as "as necessary means" and "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations" and backs it only with more words, then it's a huge paper tiger and nothing else.


The situation in Darfur is a current day example of what the UN is capable of. Without strong pressure from individual nations they would not even term the problem genocide. The UN has done little to nothing, individual member states have accomplished a great deal more.

The UN concluded that a peacekeeping mission would hold risks unless the involved parties quit fighting first. Just how stupid is that?

This has been my point exactly. All of you trendy "leftwing" posters have to understand something. Whatever George Bush did, he was citing the resolutions of the UN that Saddam was not following as justification. The search for WMD's excuse ( a lame one if none were found and therefore not one I would have used) comes from the failure of the UN to be able to get Saddam to comply with his role in letting the inspectors do their job without his henchmen stopping them from seeing what they had to see.

So when Saddam didn't want to obey the 14 Resolutions coming out of his illegal and immoral invasion of Kuwait, Bush decided to take it into his own hands. So he is a BAD man for actually making the UN stand for something. You guys say he weakened it. It was discredited in my mind years ago....

Eki stated how Cyprus has had peace because of the UN. Wrong, they have peace because one nation, Canada for the first 25 years sat between two warring parties and kept the peace. The UN didn't do anything except get the two parties to the table, but that only has value if both sides are willing to abide. You have not in 30 pages of posting here proven to me or anyone else with an open mind stated what happens when one party DOES NOT want to take diplomacy as a solution and when they WILL NOT abide by the terms laid out to them by the UN. You are so horrified by war, but what you have to understand, war's are the result of failed diplomacy. To blame the US for Saddam's refusal to go along with your precious UN is blaming the girl in the short skirt and halter top for being raped. It is a weak argument and it shows your anti-US bias.

For 32 pages Eki and his friends have constantly stated the US is the problem. Some of you have used rational arguments and have admitted the weak points in your arguments. I have stated over and over again I don't think Bush is a fantatsic president on any level, but I sure as heck also understand that failed diplomacy brings wars, and failed diplomacy can be laid on the doorstep of one man in this case, Saddam Hussein. Most of you will not accept this, and it seems you apportion Hussein no blame. I just know that when you do this, your arguments are NOT based on logic, they are based on a flawed premise that the US is at all fault for everything that happens, whether they intervene on behalf of the UN or if they ignore situations such as Darfur, Rwanda, or Zimbabwe.

For the UN to have ANY meaning at all, despite being a room full of hot air, someone has to say if the UN takes a resolution, then if it is not followed, then the member nations will have to enforce those resolutions. In the world of a few of you, there is no enforcement. You just have a bunch of useless bureaucrats talking, but that is ok with some of you. It isn't for me. Of course, the same people who refuse to allow force to be used in any manner to enforce the UN dictates would also handcuff the US from defending itself, and it would give the rights of nations run by the most dictatorial thugs the same rights as democracies. So you really are NOT intrested in anything but every nation leaving the others alone. Fine theory really, sucks in practice. Saddam loved that he was allowed by the UN to invade Iran, and when the UN stood up to him in Kuwait, he used the UN to stop the war. Of course, when it came to living up to his obligations, he wouldn't, and hence the Casus Belli with the US.

No, if you are going to want us to buy the fact the US has no reason to be involved in the Middle East, then one of you neutral Finn's better have an answer to deal with the world's nation states that wont follow the rules of civilized man. Your answer is to leave them be. That is an answer to nothing and as I have stated before, only leads to larger conflicts. If the US didn't invade Iraq in 2003, and if the sanctions were lifted, you all know that Saddam would have provoked another conflict. If you refuse to believe that, then there is no point to your arguing any further. You have made up your mind, you are blind to the reality of how the world has worked since man started keeping track of world history. Strongmen dictators will often provoke or create situations that sooner or later draw them into wars with other nations. In the case of Iraq, it was a dead certain reality. Nations run by thugs that have not been invaded have kept their cruelty within their own borders. To my Finnish Friend Eki there this is ok with him. He doesn't like it but he is fine with no war. Greater lives are saved this way....except he isn't the one he is condemning to live like this.

Thanks Eki, if the building is burning, I wont wait for you to save me....I am on my own.....

[Eki]

Eki stated how Cyprus has had peace because of the UN. Wrong, they have peace because one nation, Canada for the first 25 years sat between two warring parties and kept the peace.
You mean Canadians were there on their own independent of the UN? Can you show us some proof? Finnish UN peacekeeping troops were there about 25 years too, but they were part of UN troops that consisted of several nationalities. Do you have any idea what the UN peacekeeping forces are, what they do and where they are/have been?

[BDunnell]

This has been my point exactly. All of you trendy "leftwing" posters have to understand something. Whatever George Bush did, he was citing the resolutions of the UN that Saddam was not following as justification. The search for WMD's excuse ( a lame one if none were found and therefore not one I would have used) comes from the failure of the UN to be able to get Saddam to comply with his role in letting the inspectors do their job without his henchmen stopping them from seeing what they had to see.

There was, as it turned out, nothing for them to see. They actually did a perfectly good job despite the obstructions they faced.

[Gannex]

You could accuse Al Gore of being many things, boring, lacking in charisma, out of touch with the ordinary man, politically naive, but idiotic, never! I think Al Gore is one of the best politicians America has. I voted for him enthusiastically when he last ran (I hold both US and British citizenship), and would gladly do so again. I am at a total loss, Mark, to see why you have so little respect for him. What has he ever done to make you think he's an idiot? (Oh, and by the way; he never claimed to have invented the internet. That is just a deliberate misconception put about by his critics.)

[BDunnell]

You could accuse Al Gore of being many things, boring, lacking in charisma, out of touch with the ordinary man, politically naive, but idiotic, never! I think Al Gore is one of the best politicians America has. I voted for him enthusiastically when he last ran (I hold both US and British citizenship), and would gladly do so again. I am at a total loss, Mark, to see why you have so little respect for him. What has he ever done to make you think he's an idiot?

I know you weren't asking me, but I fear that people feel threatened by his stance on the environment, and choose instead to stick their heads in the sand.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Arrows,

The Security Council DID invoke Chapter 7, determine there were threats to the peace and had never declared a formal cease fire since the Gulf War as a result of Iraqs lack of compliance with requirements to do so. As no cease fire was ever enacted, all authorities to use force remained in effect.


In my opinion the best hope of resolving issues should be the UN, but history has shown it to be little other than a paper tiger. The Iraq situation is an example of this. In 12 years and after many resolutions they still had not forced compliance with cease fire agreements, nor did they even get close to doing so.

If the worlds best hope at peace lies in an organization who uses terms such as "as necessary means" and "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations" and backs it only with more words, then it's a huge paper tiger and nothing else.


The situation in Darfur is a current day example of what the UN is capable of. Without strong pressure from individual nations they would not even term the problem genocide. The UN has done little to nothing, individual member states have accomplished a great deal more.

The UN concluded that a peacekeeping mission would hold risks unless the involved parties quit fighting first. Just how stupid is that?

This has been my point exactly. All of you trendy "leftwing" posters have to understand something. Whatever George Bush did, he was citing the resolutions of the UN that Saddam was not following as justification. The search for WMD's excuse ( a lame one if none were found and therefore not one I would have used) comes from the failure of the UN to be able to get Saddam to comply with his role in letting the inspectors do their job without his henchmen stopping them from seeing what they had to see.

So when Saddam didn't want to obey the 14 Resolutions coming out of his illegal and immoral invasion of Kuwait, Bush decided to take it into his own hands. So he is a BAD man for actually making the UN stand for something. You guys say he weakened it. It was discredited in my mind years ago....

Eki stated how Cyprus has had peace because of the UN. Wrong, they have peace because one nation, Canada for the first 25 years sat between two warring parties and kept the peace. The UN didn't do anything except get the two parties to the table, but that only has value if both sides are willing to abide. You have not in 30 pages of posting here proven to me or anyone else with an open mind stated what happens when one party DOES NOT want to take diplomacy as a solution and when they WILL NOT abide by the terms laid out to them by the UN. You are so horrified by war, but what you have to understand, war's are the result of failed diplomacy. To blame the US for Saddam's refusal to go along with your precious UN is blaming the girl in the short skirt and halter top for being raped. It is a weak argument and it shows your anti-US bias.

For 32 pages Eki and his friends have constantly stated the US is the problem. Some of you have used rational arguments and have admitted the weak points in your arguments. I have stated over and over again I don't think Bush is a fantatsic president on any level, but I sure as heck also understand that failed diplomacy brings wars, and failed diplomacy can be laid on the doorstep of one man in this case, Saddam Hussein. Most of you will not accept this, and it seems you apportion Hussein no blame. I just know that when you do this, your arguments are NOT based on logic, they are based on a flawed premise that the US is at all fault for everything that happens, whether they intervene on behalf of the UN or if they ignore situations such as Darfur, Rwanda, or Zimbabwe.

For the UN to have ANY meaning at all, despite being a room full of hot air, someone has to say if the UN takes a resolution, then if it is not followed, then the member nations will have to enforce those resolutions. In the world of a few of you, there is no enforcement. You just have a bunch of useless bureaucrats talking, but that is ok with some of you. It isn't for me. Of course, the same people who refuse to allow force to be used in any manner to enforce the UN dictates would also handcuff the US from defending itself, and it would give the rights of nations run by the most dictatorial thugs the same rights as democracies. So you really are NOT intrested in anything but every nation leaving the others alone. Fine theory really, sucks in practice. Saddam loved that he was allowed by the UN to invade Iran, and when the UN stood up to him in Kuwait, he used the UN to stop the war. Of course, when it came to living up to his obligations, he wouldn't, and hence the Casus Belli with the US.

No, if you are going to want us to buy the fact the US has no reason to be involved in the Middle East, then one of you neutral Finn's better have an answer to deal with the world's nation states that wont follow the rules of civilized man. Your answer is to leave them be. That is an answer to nothing and as I have stated before, only leads to larger conflicts. If the US didn't invade Iraq in 2003, and if the sanctions were lifted, you all know that Saddam would have provoked another conflict. If you refuse to believe that, then there is no point to your arguing any further. You have made up your mind, you are blind to the reality of how the world has worked since man started keeping track of world history. Strongmen dictators will often provoke or create situations that sooner or later draw them into wars with other nations. In the case of Iraq, it was a dead certain reality. Nations run by thugs that have not been invaded have kept their cruelty within their own borders. To my Finnish Friend Eki there this is ok with him. He doesn't like it but he is fine with no war. Greater lives are saved this way....except he isn't the one he is condemning to live like this.

Thanks Eki, if the building is burning, I wont wait for you to save me....I am on my own.....

[Eki]

Thanks Eki, if the building is burning, I wont wait for you to save me....I am on my own.....
Don't you "rightwingers" always think everybody should always make it on their own? Then why don't you think that if a country has internal problems, its citizens should fix them on their own and not rely on outside help?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Don't you "rightwingers" always think everybody should always make it on their own? Then why don't you think that if a country has internal problems, its citizens should fix them on their own and not rely on outside help?


First off, I am a libertarian at heart. That isn't right wing, that is pro-human rights and pro-freedom of the individual. However, unlike you Eki, I understand that nation states who threaten others and enslave their own often come into conflict with other nations. AT some point, they are often dealt with. History has shown that standing by while a regime bent on conquest and oppression continually threatens other nations, they wont stop until conflict is no longer avoidable. My premise has been all along that sooner or later, Saddam was going to get the war he sought, because past history had shown that he was determined to push the boundries. He could avoided this conflict, and he didn't. You can white wash that, but that fact has always been there.

Eki, you are typical of those on the left. You are all for talking and finding a solution through talking, but there is no end game to all this rhetoric when you have no other recourse. You are naive to think that the people of oppressed nations deserve their fates because the war to liberate them might kill them. I agree, war should be avoided at all costs, but at some point, wars are the only way out. Saddam was a threat to the whole of the Middle East, and he didn't have anyone's best interests at heart except for his narrow desires. Could the world have sat on him for the next 15 years without a war? Maybe, but that situation was untenable for him, and he would have done something to bring about the conflict he ended up losing his nation in. He was starving his people under the sanctions, and while the people of Iraq suffered, you seem to think they were better off. I think a lot of us disagree, and while Bush's premise for war (WMD's) was weak, in the end, the resolutions of the UN dictated it and the failure of Saddam to live to them. You wont stand by the UN's resolutions when Saddam ignores them yet you condemn the US for not listening to Kofi Annan. The thing is, the UN had failed to enforce its own dictates, and Blair and Bush decided they were going to do it for them. Criticize away....you will anyway, but the point remains, there was no easy solution to this, for no matter what was done, people were going to suffer. At least with this, the people of Iraq have a choice now, and they voted 80% plurality in their first election. They didn't have that choice before. For someone who respects the rights of the individual, I am all for that.

You cannot deny someone else the freedoms you enjoy Eki. That just makes you very inconsistent......

[Mark in Oshawa]

You mean Canadians were there on their own independent of the UN? Can you show us some proof? Finnish UN peacekeeping troops were there about 25 years too, but they were part of UN troops that consisted of several nationalities. Do you have any idea what the UN peacekeeping forces are, what they do and where they are/have been?

I realize the Finns were there, my father in law served as a liason with them when he was in Cyprus with the Canadian Army. The point remains though that for 25 plus years the two sides are ready to kill each other but are also both willing to let the UN handle being between them. Canada gave up on it a few years ago because of the cost involved and our troops were needed elsewhere.

They were there under the UN, I never said they were not. Canada has not put troops in the field without UN sanctions since the creation of that body. You better realize however though that the UN only works when both sides are committed for it to work. Iraq is living proof that one side bent on picking a fight will eventually get it. Saddam didn't want to live up to his obligations under the UN and he received the fight that was the result.

You would hold no one accountable for their actions it seems...

[Mark in Oshawa]

There was, as it turned out, nothing for them to see. They actually did a perfectly good job despite the obstructions they faced.

They didn't see anything Saddam didn't want them to see. Do you not remember the constant controversay about the "palaces" being off limits? You mean to say in a nation that is as large as France that something couldn't have been hid? If Saddam had no WMD's, and we know he had them once upon a time, (it wasn't fiction that he gassed the Kurd's with years ago)then why was he constantly putting restrictions on the inspectors and monitoring their movements? They rarely were able to get free of Baghdad. Iraq is a huge nation, and Saddam's efforts to interfere with their movements only heightened the suspicions that the West had about his motives. If you want to be open and honest with the UN, as Libya was in giving up their WMD's, you have no issue. Saddam didn't get this UN treatment because he is a swell guy you know, he invaded a nation for plunder and to steal its resources. The sanctions came out of that invasion. He was not to be trusted with good reason. By acting the way he did, he made things worse.

[donKey jote]

You better realize however though that the UN only works when both sides are committed for it to work. Iraq is living proof that one side bent on picking a fight will eventually get it.
:up:

although we probably don't agree on who was bent on picking a fight :p :

[Mark in Oshawa]

I know you weren't asking me, but I fear that people feel threatened by his stance on the environment, and choose instead to stick their heads in the sand.


Al Gore was found wanting by a public who endorsed his boss Bill Clinton for two terms. Al Gore's dogged attititude that Global Warming will be our undoing ignores the number of respected theorists that have been pointing out the flaws in the theory. Global warming is a threat to be sure, no one disputes the magnitude of what could happen if our climate changes too much. Understand two things though. Kyoto is the favourite solution by those who agree with Al. Al is a huge fan of the Kyoto protocols yet he and Bill Clinton didn't put it before Congress. They didn't have the courage of their convictions. What is more, Kyoto's flaws are obvious to anyone with the time to read how the measurements and carbon trading credits were to be given out. Not to mention a quarter of the world's ecomomic polluters would be given a free ride (India and China were not part of the Kyoto restrictions) while the more sophisticated nations would restrict their green house gases further or buy "credit" from other nations who had just gone though economic slow downs to buy their "green house credits". Al Gore not only agreed with all of this, he helped write it.

No, we wont go into all of the machinations of Kyoto, but based on this flawed document alone, Al Gore is not to be trusted. We wont even get into his flawed economic theories.....I may not be an American with a vote, but as a citizen of a nation next door, I sometimes deplore the stiffs that manage to get nominated for the election of president.

That includes Bush by the way......but he still is not a war criminal and he certainly isn't evil. Incompetant I will accept....but at least Bush admits his faults and sticks to his principles....

[Eki]

That isn't right wing, that is pro-human rights and pro-freedom of the individual. However, unlike you Eki, I understand that nation states who threaten others and enslave their own often come into conflict with other nations.
Who exactly did Iraq threaten in the state they were in? Their military was wrecked in the first Gulf War and they hadn't received hardly any new weapons in over 10 years.

[Mark in Oshawa]

:up:

although we probably don't agree on who was bent on picking a fight :p :

you are right, we likely wont. Understand this. I have said this 100 times now. If Saddam Hussein plays welcoming host to the UN for as long as the UN wanted, then there is no war. How many times did Hans Blix say how frustrated he was with the process of inspecting Iraq because Saddam was restricting the access??

Listen, Bush just was able to exploit Saddam's intrasigence to allow the UN full access to get 53 other nations to follow him to Iraq. If he was a goof with no ability to think as you and others might portray him, 53 leaders wouldn't have committed themselves to dumping Saddam. You cannot just say Bush was the problem. It sounds old and simplistic, and you cannot also ignore it wasn't just the CIA who thought Saddam was hiding WMD's, British and French Intelligence were also open about it. Then Saddam does nothing but add to the suspicions of the world by restricting the UN. THe man was an idiot to think in a post 911 world that the US would not want to put a stop to that. They were hurt badly by the attack on the World Trade Center and to act as he did only made people in the US and outside of it see him as a possible future threat. God knows he would be if he was left to his own devices, he was before.

[Eki]

You better realize however though that the UN only works when both sides are committed for it to work.
The international bullies can't do much either if both sides aren't ready for peace. The Soviet Union learnt in Afghanistan, the US learned it in Vietnam. The US didn't do so well in Lebanon in the 80s or Somalia in the 90s either, and Iraq and Afghanistan don't look as good for them as they'd like. Oh, and Korea is still divided.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Who exactly did Iraq threaten in the state they were in? Their military was wrecked in the first Gulf War and they hadn't received hardly any new weapons in over 10 years.

They didn't threaten anyone since the Gulf war? You are right to a point. He didn't because the US and UK were constantly on top of him. The problem is, that was no permanent solution. AT some point, the world had to be able to be able to trust Iraq. Easy for you to say that the world should have to monitor this guy for years on end at great expense. The US and the UK had a lot of assets at great expense there monitoring this "peace".

So if they were to leave, we are to believe that Iraq would become a good citizen of the world? You are naive if you believe THAT.....No, if Saddam was left alone, we know where he would have been.

As for no new arms? I guess the US Army was fighting non-existent troops and tanks during their war in 2003? Saddam did manage to keep a lot of his army intact and was able to slowly put pieces in place to manage to keep a strong military prescence. The fact the soldiers didn't always do well is more a function of the fact no one wants to die for a dictator if given a choice.

Eki, Understand something here. It is fine to criticize from a fine warm home in a peace loving little nation such as yours or a peace loving bigger nation such as mine, but solutions are never black and white, and to condemn people to live in a constant state of fear based on the rule of a mad man is wrong. You would condemn anyone to live in oppression to avoid a war. You have stated that all human life is sacred. I agree it is, and sometimes wars break out for motives that are not always clear or agreeable, but for you to cry over the lost lives since the US has arrived ignores the future the country now has, and you are also ignoring the millions of people oppressed by other nations in the Middle East and around the world who would likely love for the yoke of oppression to be lifted.

The Americans may be clumsy in their prosecution of the war, but at least they went in with motives beyond just conquest. If the US was all about that, then they would be controlling a large empire at the point of a gun. They do not and will not have that ever. The US believes in Democracy, just like Finland or Canada does. The only difference is, occasionally they are willing to die for that principle. It seems many in the West are not....

[Eki]

The US believes in Democracy, just like Finland or Canada does. The only difference is, occasionally they are willing to die for that principle.
I think they do it because they are a professional military and are paid for it. Reinstitute draft, and you'll see how many Americans are really willing to die without a pay in foreign wars that have little to do with them. Many in the US military aren't even US citizens, they have enlisted because they wish they can get the citizenship that way.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, WRONG on the number of US citizens in the Army. Very few joined under your pretences. Back up that statement...I defy you. There will not be a draft in the US because there is no need. The US military is not lacking volunteers. See, Americans are willing to die for their nation and they are willing to serve it. What is more, their military is willing to reward them with an education and other benefits. While they are not always right in some of their decisions, the US military is run by a democratically elected government and is only employed by civilian leadership. They are loyal their civilian leaders and only act when asked based on the democratically elected leaderships dictates.

You know little of Americans EKi, and it is making your arguments very weak.....

[Eki]

They didn't threaten anyone since the Gulf war? You are right to a point. He didn't because the US and UK were constantly on top of him. The problem is, that was no permanent solution. AT some point, the world had to be able to be able to trust Iraq. Easy for you to say that the world should have to monitor this guy for years on end at great expense. The US and the UK had a lot of assets at great expense there monitoring this "peace".

I have not heard them complaining about being in Germany and Japan for 60 years or in Korea for 50 years. Forty more years and Saddam would have been long gone.

[SOD]

I think they do it because they are a professional military and are paid for it. Reinstitute draft, and you'll see how many Americans are really willing to die without a pay in foreign wars that have little to do with them. Many in the US military aren't even US citizens, they have enlisted because they wish they can get the citizenship that way.


I read one American writer who said that all imigrants from mexico should be first enlisted in the US army, then those who make it back alive should be granted citizenship :dork:

[Eki]

Eki, WRONG on the number of US citizens in the Army. Very few joined under your pretences. Back up that statement...I defy you. There will not be a draft in the US because there is no need. The US military is not lacking volunteers. See, Americans are willing to die for their nation and they are willing to serve it. What is more, their military is willing to reward them with an education and other benefits. While they are not always right in some of their decisions, the US military is run by a democratically elected government and is only employed by civilian leadership. They are loyal their civilian leaders and only act when asked based on the democratically elected leaderships dictates.

You know little of Americans EKi, and it is making your arguments very weak.....
Funny how one of the first hits I got when I googled for evidence was this story in Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/26/military_considers_recruiting_foreigners/

Military considers recruiting foreigners

Expedited citizenship would be an incentive

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | December 26, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.

Foreign citizens serving in the US military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country. Other analysts voice concern that a large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national security or reflect badly on Americans' willingness to serve in uniform.

The idea of signing up foreigners who are seeking US citizenship is gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon, while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that enter the United States legally each year.

The proposal to induct more noncitizens, which is still largely on the drawing board, has to clear a number of hurdles. So far, the Pentagon has been quiet about specifics -- including who would be eligible to join, where the recruiting stations would be, and what the minimum standards might involve, including English proficiency. In the meantime, the Pentagon and immigration authorities have expanded a program that accelerates citizenship for legal residents who volunteer for the military.

And since Sept. 11, 2001, the number of imm igrants in uniform who have become US citizens has increased from 750 in 2001 to almost 4,600 last year, according to military statistics.

With severe manpower strains because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and a mandate to expand the overall size of the military -- the Pentagon is under pressure to consider a variety of proposals involving foreign recruits, according to a military affairs analyst.

"It works as a military idea and it works in the context of American immigration," said Thomas Donnelly , a military scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a leading proponent of recruiting more foreigners to serve in the military.

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, the Pentagon has warned Congress and the White House that the military is stretched "to the breaking point."

Both President Bush and Robert M. Gates, his new defense secretary, have acknowledged that the total size of the military must be expanded to help alleviate the strain on ground troops, many of whom have been deployed repeatedly in combat theaters.

Bush said last week that he has ordered Gates to come up with a plan for the first significant increase in ground forces since the end of the Cold War. Democrats who are preparing to take control of Congress, meanwhile, promise to make increasing the size of the military one of their top legislative priorities in 2007.Continued...

[donKey jote]

you are right, we likely wont. Understand this. I have said this 100 times now. If Saddam Hussein plays welcoming host to the UN for as long as the UN wanted, then there is no war. How many times did Hans Blix say how frustrated he was with the process of inspecting Iraq because Saddam was restricting the access??.
I don't think so. I think the decision for war was made many months before the whole UN resolution business. How many times was Hans Blix discredited by the Bush Admin for not finding the evidence that was never to be found anyway?


Listen, Bush just was able to exploit Saddam's intrasigence to allow the UN full access to get 53 other nations to follow him to Iraq. If he was a goof with no ability to think as you and others might portray him, 53 leaders wouldn't have committed themselves to dumping Saddam.
According to the phrase of the time that would be "53 are for me, 90-odd are against me" :p :



You cannot just say Bush was the problem. It sounds old and simplistic, and you cannot also ignore it wasn't just the CIA who thought Saddam was hiding WMD's, British and French Intelligence were also open about it. Then Saddam does nothing but add to the suspicions of the world by restricting the UN. THe man was an idiot to think in a post 911 world that the US would not want to put a stop to that. They were hurt badly by the attack on the World Trade Center and to act as he did only made people in the US and outside of it see him as a possible future threat. God knows he would be if he was left to his own devices, he was before.
Bush was not the problem. He was the puppet. His neocon admin was the problem, as are -in my eyes- those who blindly follow people like them on their mission from above.
And Saddam was an idiot, yes, to say the least :s

[Mark in Oshawa]

Neo-con agenda propaganda is used to excuse the arguments the Bush supporters have put forward. Labelling people because you don't like their arguments doesn't change their arguments. Bush was given bad advice in your eyes, fine, but lets not change the reality that Saddam did everything he could to jerk the UN around.

As for the 53 for me, 90 against me crack, I would rather be standing with most of the 53 on a moral ground. While Canada was part of the 90 "against", at least Canada has a cordial relationship with the US and also is dedicated to democratic principles. I am not sure about all of the 90 being so dedicated to human rights.

As for Your claim Eki of all the foreigners trying to be recruited to get US citizen ship, 4600 is not much compared to the over 1 million men and women in Uniform in the US. It is a volunteer military, and it is a good one because of the fact people want to be there. Imagine that, being willing to give to your nation and its principles. Whatever you think of Bush, don't demean the vast majority of the people who serve in the military of the US. Anyone who serves as a volunteer in the military of a democratic nation deserves respect.

[Mark in Oshawa]

My contention has ALWAYS been that to cry over the death's in Iraq after Saddam provoked this conflict is to demean those who have suffered under his rule for over 3 decades. It is to demean every man, woman and child who has suffered in many other regimes around the world. Your contention that the US is the sole cause of all the suffering in Iraq is ill-founded. While the civilians caught in the conflict as innocents didn't deserve to die, neither did they deserve to live under the oppressive leadership of Saddam, and to be kept there by his son's after his passing if nothing was done.

IF the US went to war based on flawed intelligence, Fine, I can buy that, for I don't disagree they had bad intelligence. That said, their motives are a hell of a lot more pure than Saddam's and they didn't go there to enslave the people of Iraq. The path to hell may be paved with Good intentions in my eyes, but the hell of living in Iraq before the invasion was every bit as reprehensible and more than what is happening now. Iraqi's have a shot at peace and democracy, no matter how crude it is to you. You would take that away because the war violated your precious principles. I stated it before, those of you who would condone living in this nation have no concept of what that would be like, and you obviously see nothing wrong with dictators oppressing people unopposed. If you did, then you would spend a lot more time deploring their actions, but 35 pages in, I don't see the rabid condemnation of their actions vs those of George W Bush. When you condemn them with as equal and fervent enthusiasm, I will accept your principles with a different light, but so far, nothing has convinced me that any of this has to do with a fight for justice, just a fight to rid the world of George Bush. In 2 years he is gone, unlike Saddam, they wont have to invade Washington to get rid of him, Americans understand the value of democracy. Some of you obviously have forgotten....

[EuroTroll]

Anyone who serves as a volunteer in the military of a democratic nation deserves respect.

Funny, I always thought the US had a professional army, rather than an army of volunteers. :\ Oh, the biased coverage we get around here... :p :

[Eki]

Whatever you think of Bush, don't demean the vast majority of the people who serve in the military of the US. Anyone who serves as a volunteer in the military of a democratic nation deserves respect.
True, and I'm glad many of them are hesitating to enlist or re-enlist after seen how the US military has been abused by the present administration. I'm also glad the Finnish military is obligatory because 1) it's cheaper 2) it's bigger and 3) the Finnish government wouldn't even dream to send it into action unless Finland was REALLY threatened.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Studiose, they are volunteers in that they sign on. No one puts a gun to their head. THey are compensated so yes, they are professional. Don't split hairs, you knew exactly what I meant.

There is no draft and the US military establishment would not back one. Their experience with draftees in Vietnam is one of the reasons that war was such a miserable experience for all involved.

[EuroTroll]

IF the US went to war based on flawed intelligence, Fine, I can buy that, for I don't disagree they had bad intelligence. That said, their motives are a hell of a lot more pure than Saddam's and they didn't go there to enslave the people of Iraq. The path to hell may be paved with Good intentions in my eyes, but the hell of living in Iraq before the invasion was every bit as reprehensible and more than what is happening now. Iraqi's have a shot at peace and democracy, no matter how crude it is to you. You would take that away because the war violated your precious principles. I stated it before, those of you who would condone living in this nation have no concept of what that would be like, and you obviously see nothing wrong with dictators oppressing people unopposed. If you did, then you would spend a lot more time deploring their actions, but 35 pages in, I don't see the rabid condemnation of their actions vs those of George W Bush. When you condemn them with as equal and fervent enthusiasm, I will accept your principles with a different light, but so far, nothing has convinced me that any of this has to do with a fight for justice, just a fight to rid the world of George Bush. In 2 years he is gone, unlike Saddam, they wont have to invade Washington to get rid of him, Americans understand the value of democracy. Some of you obviously have forgotten....

I think, Mark, that the debate is really about the methods of spreading democracy. Well, at least for me it is. What difference does it make that the Iraqis have "a shot at democracy", if they'll actually end up in some horrible radical dictatorship?

In the end, results matter a hell of a lot more than intentions. If Iraq actually becomes a stable democracy, then the US has done well. If Iraq becomes a lawless anarchy or an even more radical dictatorship, then the US has ****ed up very severely.

Perhaps we should just give it some time before passing judgements?

In any case, I don't see much point in banging on about how noble the Americans are compared to the Europeans. We all live in free democratic countries, and I'm sure we all value what we have, and want others nations to have the same (as it is very much in our own interest). It's a question of methods more than anything else, and I don't see any overwhelming evidence to the American method being more effective.

[EuroTroll]

Studiose, they are volunteers in that they sign on. No one puts a gun to their head.

Can you please tell me where in the world is a professional army comprised of persons forcibly enlisted?

It's not a question of splitting hairs. It's a question of calling a spade a spade.

[Gannex]

studiose, I think you're misunderstanding the word "volunteeer". It doesn't mean unpaid, it means that you chose to do the job, rather than being forced to do it. So the US forces are composed of people who are BOTH professional AND volunteer.

I just want to put in a word for the US military, since they have been discussed here in derogatory terms, which pains me, to be honest. Over the years, I have worked with hundreds of US military aviators, both grizzled old-timers who spent years in the skies over Vietnam, and starry-eyed midshipmen at the US Naval Academy, keen, naive, idealistic kids. Almost to a man, these have been outstanding individuals, the kind of people you would be proud to have as a brother-in-law or as godparent to your children. Some of these men that I knew have died in service of their country, and I can tell you that none of them risked their lives for anything other than the highest motives. You could fairly argue that they have at times been misguided and badly led, but those I worked with were never evil, vengeful or hate-filled, and I think that fair-minded people should remember that, when discussing the sometimes terrible consequences of US military interventions. No one regrets those terrible consequences, when they happen, more than the US service personnel on the ground.

[Mark in Oshawa]

True, and I'm glad many of them are hesitating to enlist or re-enlist after seen how the US military has been abused by the present administration. I'm also glad the Finnish military is obligatory because 1) it's cheaper 2) it's bigger and 3) the Finnish government wouldn't even dream to send it into action unless Finland was REALLY threatened.

Eki, yes, it is my contention that most of your biases are based on the fact that Finland has never been overseas fighting for anything. That is fine, Finland has that luxury. Finland is also 5.5 million people so a form of universal service is a necessity. That said, unless Putin loses his mind, Finland has as much chance as being threatened in a direct attack as Canada does, that is to say, NOT at all.

As for re-enlistment rates falling in the US, that is natural, they may agree with the war and still feel it is someone elses's turn to serve.

Your dodging my point that you would condemn people to live in oppression because you don't want your precious principles violated still stands. The world isn't Finland Eki. No matter how great you think Finnish diplomacy or democracy is, and it is great, it doesn't change the fact most of the world doesn't see things your way, and maybe on occasion shouldn't. Finns, and Canadians live in a world that is protected by the fact that the US would stand up for any western democracy if attacked. The resentment of the fact the US would be the defender of many nations that seem to spit on its face still remains.

I need not state that the US is often the first nation to donate aid and help in times of natural disaster. They had diverted a carrier group to Indonesia to help out with the disaster there when the tsunami struck 2 years ago, and they spent their tax dollars to provide this service. They didn't question the need to help people suffering, yet the Indonesian government told them to take a walk because they didn't want to be seen as weak and needing American aid. Typical....yet America is the bad guy?

occasionally wrong, but their intentions are more trustworthy then most of the nations that take potshots at them...

[Eki]

There is no draft and the US military establishment would not back one. Their experience with draftees in Vietnam is one of the reasons that war was such a miserable experience for all involved.
Before a drafted military can be effective, it should be given a proper motivation to fight and die for. Vietnam wasn't one.

[EuroTroll]

I just want to put in a word for the US military, since they have been discussed here in derogatory terms, which pains me, to be honest. Over the years, I have worked with hundreds of US military aviators, both grizzled old-timers who have spent years in the skies over Vietnam, and starry-eyed midshipmen at the US Naval Academy, keen, naive, idealistic kids. Almost to a man, these have been outstanding individuals, the kind of people you would be proud to have as a brother-in-law or as godparent to your children. Some of these men that I knew have died in service of their country, and I can tell you that none of them risked their lives for anything other than the highest motives. They may have been misguided, but they were never evil, vengeful or hate-filled, and I think that fair-minded people should remember that when discussing the sometimes terrible consequences of US military interventions. No one regrets those terrible consequences, when they happen, more than the US service personnel on the ground.

I don't know enough about this to pass judgement, but I understand that the American forces in Iraq have developed a reputation for erring on the side of brutality, which is hardly helpful under the circs.

On the whole, however - yes, I also believe that the US army is a noble organization comprised of fine people.

[Eki]

studiose, I think you're misunderstanding the word "volunteeer". It doesn't mean unpaid, it means that you chose to do the job, rather than being forced to do it. So the US forces are composed of people who are BOTH professional AND volunteer.

That's like saying most of the garbage men do their job because they want the environment to be tidy and not because they are paid to do it.

[EuroTroll]

That's like saying most of the garbage men do their job because they want the environment to be tidy and not because they are paid to do it.

Yes, exactly, that was my point. Military service is a profession like any other in the US, is it not?

[Mark in Oshawa]

studiose, I think you're misunderstanding the word "volunteeer". It doesn't mean unpaid, it means that you chose to do the job, rather than being forced to do it. So the US forces are composed of people who are BOTH professional AND volunteer.

I just want to put in a word for the US military, since they have been discussed here in derogatory terms, which pains me, to be honest. Over the years, I have worked with hundreds of US military aviators, both grizzled old-timers who spent years in the skies over Vietnam, and starry-eyed midshipmen at the US Naval Academy, keen, naive, idealistic kids. Almost to a man, these have been outstanding individuals, the kind of people you would be proud to have as a brother-in-law or as godparent to your children. Some of these men that I knew have died in service of their country, and I can tell you that none of them risked their lives for anything other than the highest motives. You could fairly argue that they have at times been misguided and badly led, but those I worked with were never evil, vengeful or hate-filled, and I think that fair-minded people should remember that, when discussing the sometimes terrible consequences of US military interventions. No one regrets those terrible consequences, when they happen, more than the US service personnel on the ground.

The US soldier is NOT the thug that some of you would portray him as. Nor is the airman or sailor serving the US military. He/she sign up for reasons that are more motivated by love of country than for the pay. The pay is not horrible, but it isn't great either. It is a job that is seen as rewarding in that the soldier feels he is trying to serve his nation and democratic principles at all times. Whether you agree with the US foreign policy is immaterial, I can tell you that 99% of those who serve in the US service believe that in the end, they are on the side of right, and if they didn't, there would be mass dessertions or people avoiding following orders such as what happened in the last stages in Vietnam. The soldiers are held to a standard of conduct, and when they violate it, they are punished for it. They are held to a standard that Saddam would never respect, and most of you are willing to ignore to serve your arguments, rather than the truth.

No, disagree with the war in Iraq all you like, but please, spare me the rhetoric about how bad the Americans are......

Last time I looked, they are often the first ones ready to spend a lot of money such as the US Navy sending a carrier group out of its way in Indonesia to assist in aid following the tsunami. The Americans always try to do the right thing, even if it is arguable that it may not be. I don't trust too many nations with that privledge....

[EuroTroll]

The US soldier is NOT the thug that some of you would portray him as. Nor is the airman or sailor serving the US military. He/she sign up for reasons that are more motivated by love of country than for the pay. The pay is not horrible, but it isn't great either. It is a job that is seen as rewarding in that the soldier feels he is trying to serve his nation and democratic principles at all times. Whether you agree with the US foreign policy is immaterial, I can tell you that 99% of those who serve in the US service believe that in the end, they are on the side of right, and if they didn't, there would be mass dessertions or people avoiding following orders such as what happened in the last stages in Vietnam. The soldiers are held to a standard of conduct, and when they violate it, they are punished for it. They are held to a standard that Saddam would never respect, and most of you are willing to ignore to serve your arguments, rather than the truth.

No, disagree with the war in Iraq all you like, but please, spare me the rhetoric about how bad the Americans are......

Last time I looked, they are often the first ones ready to spend a lot of money such as the US Navy sending a carrier group out of its way in Indonesia to assist in aid following the tsunami. The Americans always try to do the right thing, even if it is arguable that it may not be. I don't trust too many nations with that privledge....

Mark, no offence, but you're beginning to sound like an old record, fighting against wind-mills that exist only in your head. :\

[Gannex]

I don't know enough about this to pass judgement, but I understand that the American forces in Iraq have developed a reputation for erring on the side of brutality, which is hardly helpful under the circs.
I know. Of course there are some bad apples, and the Iraqi conflict has placed stresses on the men and women that you and I can hardly conceive of. Some have broken under the pressure. With hundreds of thousands of troops out there, there are going to be some awful incidents. But on the streets of New York, there are awful incidents. No one concludes from those, that New Yorkers generally are brutal thugs. Nor should they conclude that, in my opinion, about American troops.


On the whole, however - yes, I also believe that the US army is a noble organization comprised of fine people.
Thank you. They are.

[donKey jote]

Bush was given bad advice in your eyes, fine, but lets not change the reality that Saddam did everything he could to jerk the UN around. .
I never disagreed to that :)


As for the 53 for me, 90 against me crack, I would rather be standing with most of the 53 on a moral ground. While Canada was part of the 90 "against", at least Canada has a cordial relationship with the US and also is dedicated to democratic principles. I am not sure about all of the 90 being so dedicated to human rights..
We all know that after 911 it was closer to 140 for and 3 against. Too late now, but what went wrong?
What a waste of moral ground :(

[Eki]

Eki, yes, it is my contention that most of your biases are based on the fact that Finland has never been overseas fighting for anything. That is fine, Finland has that luxury. Finland is also 5.5 million people so a form of universal service is a necessity. That said, unless Putin loses his mind, Finland has as much chance as being threatened in a direct attack as Canada does, that is to say, NOT at all.


And who is threatening the US? Canada, Mexico or maybe Cuba? Not even the Germans and the Japanese couldn't reach the mainland US and they were closer than the Middle East. Now you probably mention the 9/11 attacks, but that was one lucky shot that can more effectively be avoided with better airport security and international police co-operation than with military invasions to countries half way across the globe. And the motive for the 9/11 attacks were mainly the US troops in the Middle East and their unconditional support to Israel. Some adjustment in the US foreign policy to a more moderate direction could help much more than any military operation.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's like saying most of the garbage men do their job because they want the environment to be tidy and not because they are paid to do it.


No, It is a job to take out the trash, and thank god someone does it. That said, you don't join the Army just for a job. Some do, but rarely do they stay past one term. How about all those who are in the reserves/national guard who are serving? They do it willingly while holding down a job. It often hurts their civilian career.

See, when you don't have a voluntary service Eki, you have people there against their will. Finland forces everyone to serve, the US doesn't. I could use the argument you have LESS rights than Americans because of it. I wouldn't because unlike you, simplistic arguments hold no water with me. I know that every nation has its own reasons and values to enforce and defend, and when they don't grossly violate human rights, I can understand them. In Iraq, there was no nice gentle princple of defense being a reason. Saddam and his henchmen were all about control of their nation, oppression and in the end, if left unchecked conquest of his neighbours. I am not making it up, the proof is in the history of the area in the last 27 years....

[EuroTroll]

But on the streets of New York, there are awful incidents. No one concludes from those, that New Yorkers generally are brutal thugs.

Really? I thought most people did. :p :

[Mark in Oshawa]

I never disagreed to that :)


We all know that after 911 it was closer to 140 for and 3 against. Too late now, but what went wrong?
What a waste of moral ground :(

I agree, a lot of nations forgot what they were in support of. That said, I undestand the waste of moral ground....Bush didn't handle himself well,but that doesn't necessarily mean his motives were wrong.

[Gannex]

That's like saying most of the garbage men do their job because they want the environment to be tidy and not because they are paid to do it.
I'm not saying, Eki, that people who enlist in the US armed forces do so simply because they want to make the world a better place. Of course not. Each person enlists for his or her own reasons. All I am saying is, first, that they are paid, second, that they are volunteers in that they choose to take the job, and third, that they are not, except for a very few unusual cases, motivated by evil, hatred and a thirst for violence.

[Mark in Oshawa]

And who is threatening the US? Canada, Mexico or maybe Cuba? Not even the Germans and the Japanese couldn't reach the mainland US and they were closer than the Middle East. Now you probably mention the 9/11 attacks, but that was one lucky shot that can more effectively be avoided with better airport security and international police co-operation than with military invasions to countries half way across the globe. And the motive for the 9/11 attacks were mainly the US troops in the Middle East and their unconditional support to Israel. Some adjustment in the US foreign policy to a more moderate direction could help much more than any military operation.

No one is threatening the US except nations that would sponsor terrorism and terrorist actions. The reason the US was in Saudi aggravating Bin Laden was because they were there to defend the Saudi's against the threat of Saddam. Again, if Saddam isn't the threat he proved to be all along, the Ameircans wouldn't be there. You feel if the Americans played a game of condemning Israel to a fate of conquest by the Arabs, they would just get along. That is condoning the acts of those who commit terrorist acts to attain a position. You would tell the Americans to just condone terrorist attacks against Israel to keep the peace? Nice princples you have there Eki...

No, American foreign policy has always been to try to reach a middle ground. No matter the politics of the President, they have always been trying to mediate a peace in the Middle East. When two parties want it, it works, witness the Camp David Accords in the late 70's. They have often dealt with and tolerated some of the most exterme and rotten leaders in this part of the world to try and keep a peace. They have did what you suggested for years Eki. Then Saddam invaded Kuwait, and it all changed. Add in the fact Saddam was funding Hamas and was one of the few leaders cheering when the WTC fell says all you need to know about his potential threat to the US. Left unchecked, there is no way of knowing how much havoc he would create, but it is clear he didn't give a damn about peace....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, if you say the US deserves what they get because they were in the Middle East, it is like condeming the woman in the short skirt she deserved to be raped. You condone the most vicious people and their actions in your desire to pain the US in a bad light. It is pitiful to use such an argument in that manner while ignoring the greater injustices all over the world.....again, you are simply an anti-American...

[donKey jote]

When two parties want it, it works, witness the Camp David Accords in the late 70's.
:up:
Good ol' Jimmy :p :

[Gannex]

But on the streets of New York, there are awful incidents. No one concludes from those, that New Yorkers generally are brutal thugs.


Really? I thought most people did. :p :
Good one! Nice to have a little light-heartedness in this rather sombre thread.

[SOD]

When someone says that the USA is at war against terrorists they basically mean that the USA is at war against any other country. The CIA is spying on all web use. (if you're reading this in langley, i hope you dont freeze to death by morning.).

I have a big smile on my face, when I hear that the US government is setting up domestic spying programs, what's good for the allies is good for the rubes.

[Eki]

Eki, if you say the US deserves what they get because they were in the Middle East, it is like condeming the woman in the short skirt she deserved to be raped.
You might add a woman in a short skirt in a mensroom. The US has no right to be in the Middle East, its own territory isn't even near the Middle East.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok Eki, they stay home. They ignore whatever goes on everywhere else. Where are we? The world better then?? I say it isn't, but go ahead, tell me how the suffering stops? Tell me how the world's economy improves? Tell me how well enlightened men such as Saddam Hussein would make the world better.

ALso, if the woman was in the men's room Eki, she still wouldn't be deserving of a rape. The fact you think so says much about your logic.

[donKey jote]

sorry eki, even if she was naked it would still be no excuse :down:

[Mark in Oshawa]

When someone says that the USA is at war against terrorists they basically mean that the USA is at war against any other country. The CIA is spying on all web use. (if you're reading this in langley, i hope you dont freeze to death by morning.).

I have a big smile on my face, when I hear that the US government is setting up domestic spying programs, what's good for the allies is good for the rubes.

I guess MI in the UK just reads paperbacks? How about the Russians? The Chinese? All nations have security services monitoring the world. The US using the NSA and the CIA is no different. The fact that they feel they have to is something I am not comfortable with, but I can tell you that I feel somewhat less threatened by them having this power than many other nations. I don't like it, but I understand the thinking behind it. You still however in the US have a right to free speech and it is guarnteed by law in the constitution. Some other democratic nations respect their people less in their laws and their intelligence gathering......again, the US isn't a dictatorship, although some of you who hate America wish you could prove it...

[EuroTroll]

Some other democratic nations respect their people less in their laws and their intelligence gathering......

Which nations?


again, the US isn't a dictatorship, although some of you who hate America wish you could prove it...

Who?

[Eki]

sorry eki, even if she was naked it would still be no excuse :down:
True. The 9/11 wasn't justified either, but given the circumstances, it was more likely and understandable. I'm sure you agree that a naked woman doesn't belong to a mensroom and she's probably more likely to be raped than elsewhere. Using common sense isn't forbidden to anybody.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Which nations?

Who?

Lets see, Eki seems to think America is the bain of all evil, or at least, his arguments would lead someone to think that way.

AS for which nations are less committed to human rights and freedoms of their citizen through monitoring and "spying" on their own citizens, I suspect there are lots. Some democracies have laws and rights to intercept through wire taps and email surveillance at a level that would shock you. Canadians have less rights on paper for a lot of this than Americans do, even with the Patriot act. The fact remains that many western nations have a surveillance apparatus that can be used on its own citizens for many reasons. Police forces conduct wire taps and survelliance all the time for various reasons. That said, most have laws and rights also for the citizen that are still respected and my comments were in rebuttals to SOD's comments. His assertion that the US spies on its own people looking good on America gives me the idea he is naive to how much survelliance we all live under. I dislike it but very few western nations have put as much effort into the rights of its own citizens through the last few years as the Yanks have. Their civil liberties rights crusaders in the form of the ACLU are far more principled and determined to define and protect those rights then you would realize.

Most western nations will have and override their constitution to protect the state. In the US, I suggest there is more overrides and hurdles to infringe on human rights than in most nations....

[Eki]

I say it isn't, but go ahead, tell me how the suffering stops? Tell me how the world's economy improves?
You tell me how the Iraq war has stopped the suffering, or even improved world's economy? You say under Saddam's regime 20,000 Iraqis were killed yearly, the UN says violence killed 34,000 Iraqis last year. According to opinion polls, majority of Iraqis say they had it better under Saddam.

[Mark in Oshawa]

True. The 9/11 wasn't justified either, but given the circumstances, it was more likely and understandable. I'm sure you agree that a naked woman doesn't belong to a mensroom and she's probably more likely to be raped than elsewhere. Using common sense isn't forbidden to anybody.


The fact you had to have that pointed out to your Eki makes me wonder.

9/11 was the act of a man who felt that to kill the infidel Americans in their homeland was to make things better for the people of the middle east. He felt it is better to kill infidels in a jihad against America then to reform and make leaders in the Middle East respect and care for the people. Bin Laden does not believe in human rights, he only believes in the right of Islam to rule the world. He is NOT the leader of the islamic world, but he thinks he should be. He would impose the kind of tyranny on the world that Saddam, Hitler and Stalin would if left unopposed. THose who refuse to see this cant complain when it happens to them.

There was NO right reason to attack the US. You condone the thinking behind this while condemning the act Eki. IT is condoning the rapist again.....Regardless of where you think the US "Belongs" it does not in any way justify any terrorist attack on the US.

The US was in that part of the world because Saddam wont leave his neighbours alone, and THAT if I am not mistaken was because the UN knows that the UK and the US were the only nations willing to spend their money, send their soldiers there and do the job of enforcing the "cease fire" following the war to libreate Kuwait. Again, Saddam does something, the US reacts. IF Saddam was a great humanitarian, the US is not in the Middle East in any real capacity. Until the Kuwaiti conflict, they were only there in a civilian capacity helping improve the technology of oil field extraction. The Military of the US was NOT allowed to be in Saudi Arabia until Saddam invaded Kuwait and were massing on the Saudi Border. This gave the King Fahd the willies, and he invited the US in to protect his nation. Notice they are out of there now, but this was the flimsy premise Bin Laden used to attack the US.

You cannot keep condoning the acts of terrorists by saying the US deserved it. You are right back in the men's room when you do that Eki...

[Eki]

The US was in that part of the world because Saddam wont leave his neighbours alone,
They were in that part of the world well before Saddam had any power at all, they even helped Saddam into power and supported him in his war against his neighbour Iran.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You tell me how the Iraq war has stopped the suffering, or even improved world's economy? You say under Saddam's regime 20,000 Iraqis were killed yearly, the UN says violence killed 34,000 Iraqis last year. According to opinion polls, majority of Iraqis say they had it better under Saddam.

Show me the polls.

I didn't say the war was a perfect solution. I will tell you also that if 34000 have died in the violence, it should be noted almost that many were dying every year. How many died when he invaded Kuwait and then were killed trying to defend their occupation of that nation? How many died because he invaded Iran? How many a year was he killing just by "keeping" the country in check? How many Kurds did the UN have to feed and help along with NGO's and the US military when the Gulf war ended?? How much suffereing did this man cause in the last 30 years? I can tell you this much, it is WAY more than 34000 since the war to remove him was commenced. What is more, it isn't the Americans doing the killing anymore, it is Baathist remnants, Iranian insurgents and Shiite radicals doing the killing. Also something called "Al Quaida" in Iraq. If the American Army was the sole reason they were dying, your arguments would hold water. However, the US is losing their own now trying to stop this. You want an oppressive dictator to preserve life? Oh boy Eki, this is why I have so much disdain for your arguments. You would justify anyone to live in a situation like this to keep some peace?

Regardless of why the Americans invaded, in 10 years I suspect Iraq is a LOT better off. Saddam would have passed on the torch to Uday and Qusay, and nothing much would have changed for the better, even if they decided terrortorial ambitions beyond their borders were not a good idea. NO for the last 30 years it was proven that Saddam had no scruples in what he would do. In MY world, we are better off with him gone. In your world, he would be in power so it wouldnt' offend your princples. That is the difference, you condone the actions of these people, I deplore them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They were in that part of the world well before Saddam had any power at all, they even helped Saddam into power and supported him in his war against his neighbour Iran.

Yes, they did, Iran is not a friend of the US either. Iran really isn't any different than Saddam's Iraq on a lot of levels. The US made a bad decision to back Saddam as the lesser of two evils. That however was not George Bush's decision. What is more, where were the Americans actually holding ground and putting troops on the ground in the Middle East for purposes of occupation? WHERE? Did it ever occur to you the factor of the Americans being willing to intercede to protect oil producing powers and the flow of oil on the free market is what has kept the peace in this part of the world for as long as it had been outside of Saddam?

Did it ever occur to you if the US doesn't try to protect the free sale of oil on a free market basis, no one's interests save a dictator trying to control the oil field would gain? The world's economy runs on oil. WW2 was won because of the control of oil. Saddam's terrortorial ambitions were based on controllling the oil. The Americans make lots of mistakes, but when they realized this dog was rabid, they made the decision to put him down. You would just hope he wouldn't bite you Eki. That is the ostrich defense. It didn't work so well for Neville Chamberlain either.....

[Eki]

Show me the polls.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

Poll: Iraqis out of patience

By Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow,USA TODAY

BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup
By Khalid Mohammed, AP

The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group.

The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak. (Related item: Key findings)

But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."

That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included. The negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him.

The growing negative attitude toward the Americans is also reflected in two related survey questions: 53% say they would feel less secure without the coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway. Those answers were given before the current showdowns in Fallujah and Najaf between U.S. troops and guerrilla fighters.

The findings come as the U.S. administration is struggling to quell the insurgency and turn over limited sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government by the end of June. Interviews this week in Baghdad underscored the findings.

"I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."

'I would shoot ... right now'

Bearing the brunt of Iraqis' ill feeling: U.S. troops. The most visible symbol of the occupation, they are viewed by many Iraqis as uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country's people, religion and traditions.

Interviews were conducted between March 22 and April 2, with the exception of the governate of Sulaymaniya where interviews ran through April 9. All interviews were conducted in person in the respondent’s home, with an average interview length of 70 minutes. The cooperation rate — the percentage of those contacted who agreed to be interviewed — was 98%.

Two of the three governates in the predominantly Kurdish region, which has its own administrative agencies and has been largely independent from Baghdad for the past decade, did not participate in the poll. To have a full representation of Kurdish views in the poll, additional interviews in the third governate, Sulaymaniya, were conducted.

The margin of sampling error for the poll is +/- two percentage points.

The insurgents, by contrast, seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases. But attacks against Iraqi police officers, who are U.S.-trained, are strongly condemned by the Iraqi people.

The Bush administration has contended that the growing resistance, which has killed at least 115 Americans this month, is the work of isolated cells of former regime members or religious fanatics, often from outside Iraq.

Iraqis interviewed in Baghdad say ordinary people have lost patience with the U.S. effort to crush the insurgency and rebuild Iraq.

"I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance," says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of 2 million people in Baghdad that was strongly anti-Saddam and once friendly to the Americans. "At the beginning ... there were no problems, but gradually they started to show disrespect (and) encroach on our rights, arresting people."

Sabah Yeldo, a Christian who owns a liquor store across town, says American failures have left the capital with higher crime and less-reliable services, including electricity. That is "making everybody look back and seriously consider having Saddam back again instead of the Americans."

In the multiethnic Baghdad area, where a Gallup Poll last summer of 1,178 residents permits a valid comparison, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable. In the 2003 poll, more than twice that number saw it as the right thing to do.

Americans regard their men and women in uniform as liberators who are trying to help Iraq. But the Iraqis now see them as a threat and focus their anger on them.

"When they pass by on the street, we are curious, so we go out to look and they immediately point their gun at you," says Muia, the bicycle shop owner.

Except for the Kurds, such feelings are widely held. For example:

Two-thirds say soldiers in the U.S.-led coalition make no attempt to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed or wounded during exchanges of gunfire.

58% say the soldiers conduct themselves badly or very badly.

60% say the troops show disrespect for Iraqi people in searches of their homes, and 42% say U.S. forces have shown disrespect toward mosques.

46% say the soldiers show a lack of respect for Iraqi women.

Only 11% of Iraqis say coalition forces are trying hard to restore basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water.

The Defense Department, which was shown the survey results Wednesday, said it doesn't respond to polls. But in a statement, it noted that Iraqis say their lives are getting better and said that the fact the poll could be taken indicated increased freedom in Iraq.

Secondhand information

That negative opinion of the behavior of the troops rarely is based on direct contact. Iraq is a country the size of California with a population of 25 million. Many areas are sparsely patrolled. Only 7% in the poll say they based their opinions on personal experience.

Instead, Iraqis get their information from others. For about a third, it's pan-Arabic television such as the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya satellite news channels. The networks frequently show scenes of U.S. forces shooting into Iraqi neighborhoods in hot spots such as Fallujah, an anti-American stronghold in the center of the country. (Related poll results: Baghdad: Then and now)

Although most Iraqis watch the local, U.S.-sponsored broadcast television station, which doesn't require a satellite dish, Iraqis in the poll say the Arab satellite networks are the most trusted and break the hottest stories. Few Iraqis trust Western networks such as CNN and the BBC.

More news is spread through that oldest delivery system: marketplace chatter. In the rumor mill, interviews indicate, every confrontation between Americans and Iraqis is portrayed as an assault on the Iraqi people, not on just a few lawless insurgents.

Jalal Abbas, 20, a student in Baghdad, says it's widely believed "that when soldiers search houses, they steal gold and money. And in our houses, people are taking special (precautions) to hide their money and gold for fear of them being stolen by U.S. soldiers."

Najem Aboud Debib, 37, like many Shiites, says he feels deep disappointment now. The Shiites opposed Saddam, whose regime was dominated by Sunnis. A year ago, they welcomed the Americans and the freedom to exercise their brand of Islam without repression. Now, Aboud Debib says, "I'm sure they have no morals. ...They are something like Saddam Hussein. We are suffering under the same situation."

He'd welcome an American withdrawal but says he's sure U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. "The trouble is they (U.S. forces) cannot leave now and leave the job undone. They must go and complete the job and try to win the people again."

The negative opinion of the occupation does not mean most Iraqis want to see Saddam back in power. He is in U.S. custody, and four out of five Iraqis view him negatively, according to the poll. A little more than half have a negative view of President Bush.

Marines patrolling around Fallujah this week say they can feel the Iraqi anger every day, even when the two sides aren't shooting.

Marine Lance Cpl. Wes Monks, 23, of Springfield, Ore., says that as he drives around the restive, mostly Sunni city, he sees Iraqis with a knowing, "sarcastic smile. You see it every day. ... We're always the last one to find out when we run over a mine."

"I can see their point of view," says Marine Lance Cpl. Mathew Leifi, 20, of Orange, Calif. "If anyone rolled up on my street, I'd be pissed, too."

Kurds, the ethnic minority most closely allied with the United States, show strong support for Americans in the poll. About 97% say the invasion did more good than harm. And their pro-U.S. stance is obvious on other issues.

Everywhere else in Iraq, it's a different story. Not surprisingly, the Sunni strongholds that benefited most from Saddam's regime are the most negative in their opinion of the new Iraq. Fewer than 20% of people in those areas call the war's outcome positive.

Iraqis expected huge improvements in all aspects of their economy within weeks of Saddam's overthrow, and most say there have been at least some improvements. But a year after Bush declared major hostilities in Iraq over,

[Mark in Oshawa]

Very good Eki, read it all. They ARE GLAD SADDAM IS GONE!!!! Thank you for proving my point. A lot of it is criticism on how the Americans are handling the peace. Again, something I have been not a fan of either.

Still, the premise that Iraq would be better off under Saddam is not proven by your post here.

You should READ the whole article Eki. There is more points proving what I have been saying then you can imagine.

IT says to me that most Iraqi's have little day to day contact with the Americans, so while they dont' like the fact they are there still, no one disputes that they have a chance at a better life now. Kurd's are unhappy with the Americans but I dont' see any point of view in here that says to me they want Saddam back either. The headline is highly misleading. They may be out of patience, they may not like the US there, but until the constant attacks on minority groups, Iraqi police and military units stops, the Americans are being asked to stay by the Iraqi government. If you think this isn't the reality, fine, but understand when Bush said they would now leave if asked to, Maliki didn't say for the US to get out.

Your premise has always been that Iraq would be better off with out having Saddam being removed. This article says despite all the crap that is going on, and how they don't like the Americans there, they aren't asking for Saddam to come back and they do feel they have a shot at a better life now. My argument all along.....

[Eki]

That was just one poll interpeted by one newspaper, here's another:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14282

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein
January 3, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.

The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,000 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 22,500 troops have been wounded in action.

There has been no official inquiry on the actual number of Iraqi casualties. A volunteer group of British and U.S. academics and researchers—known as Iraq Body Count (IBC)—estimates that more than 52,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the military intervention.

In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.

The survey was conducted in November 2006, before the publication of the Iraq Study Group’s findings in the United States, and Hussein’s execution for crimes against humanity. Late last month, Al-Maliki called on the "followers of the ousted regime" to "reconsider their stance as the door is still open to anyone who has no innocent blood on his hands to help in rebuilding Iraq."

Polling Data

Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?

Better today


5%

Better before


90%

Not sure


5%

Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

[Mark in Oshawa]

one line in there cracks me up. Just slightly more than half have a negative view of Bush. Heck, even in Iraq, he has more support than he does in the US and half the free world, and this in a nation where he is supposed to be HATED????? Good lord, those people in Iraq will be ok, if self righteous fools quit trying to stop those who would protect their freedoms instead condoning those who would take them away.

I believe another quote from a Shiite in there is: "Najem Aboud Debib, 37, like many Shiites, says he feels deep disappointment now. The Shiites opposed Saddam, whose regime was dominated by Sunnis. A year ago, they welcomed the Americans and the freedom to exercise their brand of Islam without repression. Now, Aboud Debib says, "I'm sure they have no morals. ...They are something like Saddam Hussein. We are suffering under the same situation."

He'd welcome an American withdrawal but says he's sure U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. "The trouble is they (U.S. forces) cannot leave now and leave the job undone. They must go and complete the job and try to win the people again."

The negative opinion of the occupation does not mean most Iraqis want to see Saddam back in power. He is in U.S. custody, and four out of five Iraqis view him negatively, according to the poll. A little more than half have a negative view of President Bush."

Wow....What does that say?? Did you also want me to quote how 97% of
Kurds are glad he is gone? How about the quote of the American soldiers stating they know why Iraqi's are unhappy? Still doesn't stop the Americans from trying to do the right thing does it? How about THAT??


Eki, posted that, you just as well should have run up a white flag for half your arguments outright. Damn right it is a mess and damn right the Americans are not the best people to deal with this, but Iraq is better off without Saddam, and they know it. IT is YOU who would condemn them to live under his rule because you know better.....

Thank you for a nice article, for while it says things in Iraq are lousy, in time, I know damned well they are better off in the future for this suffering now.

I am glad it wouldn't be up to you to save my nation if required Eki, you would condemn everyone to live in misery....in the name of peace of course. I believe the Communist rulers of the USSR and Cuba used similar rationale to explain the great lack of rights and consumer goods. It is for the greater good.....
YA RIGHT

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, did it occur to you that the freedom to speak one's mind in a poll is one not given by Saddam? Do you not see the dichotomy here? This was a nation that had 99% of the people elect Saddam if he was to be believed. No, your first article states a lot of my points nicely.

The fact that 90% of the people there can bitch and complain that they think they were better off under Saddam says they have that freedom of choice, they didn't before, and no American polling firm was going to be allowed to judge their feelings before. What also should be added that a poll is a foreign concept to people not accustomed to having to state to a pollster their feellings. Before, they spouted the company line. You think they are 100% ready to trust some pollster?

Unlike people in democracies, people who were living in fear never learn their right of freedom of speech over night. Heck, hostages often speak well of their captors long after the ordeal is over. That I think is a function of what is happening here. Regardless how how this poll reads, I would bet in 5 years a drastically different result will be in the offing....

[Mark in Oshawa]

As far as I am concerned Eki, there is little point in my continuing. This article you posted which can be reached by this link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
covers a lot of ground, but much of what is in here is EXACTLY what I have been trying to tell you.

Iraq is better off now. No matter how bad it is now, it in many ways was much worse before. Iraq is going to have a Hussein less future, and while they may not thank the US, they may HATE the US for being there, you still have Not proven that they are worse off in the long run. You would condemn them to live under Saddam and his sons for the next 40 years.....I wouldn't.

I am done...

[EuroTroll]

Thank you for a nice article, for while it says things in Iraq are lousy, in time, I know damned well they are better off in the future for this suffering now.

Please tell me, oh Mark, how you know it, for I, though I wish it, am of little faith. :( :\

[Mark in Oshawa]

Studiose, read Eki's first posting at this link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

It says much of what I am saying.

Studiose, I object to this assertion that living under a regime that would enslave and kill its own people to the extent that Saddam's did is a better option. IT is NOT an option for people to live in fear every day because their "leader" feels the need to keep everyone scared to death. Not to mention throw their lives away in useless wars, or to torture and kill dissidents. You and I may disagee on a lot, but that right to disagree is one that those of us who live in freedom can have. In a free world, you have options. You succeed or fail often on your own initiative and you in a free world have the right to voice your opinion when things are not going well. In Iraq, the only future they would have if Saddam was left alone was more wars, more suffering, more torture, and more wasting of the nation's wealth on Saddam's palaces, his military and his secret police.

Studiose, I like some of your points, I like your feelings and concerns. I understand completely why you think why you do. You at least are willing to debate me with some cogent points. Just undertand my impassioned defense for the freedom of the people of Iraq is also not much different than your concerns. Unlike some people though, I understand that freedom sometimes has to be defended and fought for. If more nations stood up to thugs and regimes who would use human beings for slaves to their own glory, I suspect we would have a hell of a lot less Saddam Hussein's to deal with.

It is far too late to fight all the regimes. I think that battle should have been fought back in 1945, but war is horrid and people had more than enough of it by 1945. That said, dictators are bullies pure and simple, and most bullies collapse when confronted with a quiet resolve that is backed with the factor that you wont stand for their crap no more.

Estonia and the Baltic states are free mainly because the USSR collapsed. It collapsed because it was wrong, and it collapsed a lot faster because they tried to outspend the US in an arms race under the misconception that the US was to invade. When Gorbachev realized it wasn't going to win this fight without killing his nation's economy, he realized the sham of what was happening and tried to reform it. Of course, no dictatorship survives without the threat of force to keep the people down and it collapased. Indirectly, your nation is free because people realized the best way to do deal with the USSR is to not let them have their own way. It was a war with without causualties and thank god it was, but it doesn't change the fact it was won because the USSR knew that if pushed too far, the US would react.

It is the same in Iraq. A dictatorship refused to live up to its obligations to the world, and pushed the wrong people too far. Unlike Russia, Saddam didn't voluntarily dismantle his war machine, he dared Bush to take him out. You have to stand up for the principle of freedom, or people like Saddam will take it from you.

To take the argument Iraq would be better off under Saddam is as silly as me saying it is unfortunate the USSR is gone, it kept Estonia in check. It is NEVER good that a nation lives in fear of its own government to the point where there is no freedom. The citizens of any nation are not there to serve the state, the state should be there to serve and protect them. Those who condone nations that don't follow the rule of the latter should be forced to live in the former.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Saddam is gone because he pushed too far. As he always did. He answered to no one but the US military and Allies in 1992. When given an option to live under the rules of the UN resolutions, he forgot the spanking of 1992 and challenged Dubya. Again, he was wrong, and the world, and Iraq down the road will be in a better place. It is better to have a shot at freedom now, then wait 40 years for the next dictator to die...

[EuroTroll]

Studiose, read Eki's first posting at this link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

It says much of what I am saying.

Studiose, I object to this assertion that living under a regime that would enslave and kill its own people to the extent that Saddam's did is a better option. IT is NOT an option for people to live in fear every day because their "leader" feels the need to keep everyone scared to death. Not to mention throw their lives away in useless wars, or to torture and kill dissidents. You and I may disagee on a lot, but that right to disagree is one that those of us who live in freedom can have. In a free world, you have options. You succeed or fail often on your own initiative and you in a free world have the right to voice your opinion when things are not going well. In Iraq, the only future they would have if Saddam was left alone was more wars, more suffering, more torture, and more wasting of the nation's wealth on Saddam's palaces, his military and his secret police.

Studiose, I like some of your points, I like your feelings and concerns. I understand completely why you think why you do. You at least are willing to debate me with some cogent points. Just undertand my impassioned defense for the freedom of the people of Iraq is also not much different than your concerns. Unlike some people though, I understand that freedom sometimes has to be defended and fought for. If more nations stood up to thugs and regimes who would use human beings for slaves to their own glory, I suspect we would have a hell of a lot less Saddam Hussein's to deal with.

It is far too late to fight all the regimes. I think that battle should have been fought back in 1945, but war is horrid and people had more than enough of it by 1945. That said, dictators are bullies pure and simple, and most bullies collapse when confronted with a quiet resolve that is backed with the factor that you wont stand for their crap no more.

Estonia and the Baltic states are free mainly because the USSR collapsed. It collapsed because it was wrong, and it collapsed a lot faster because they tried to outspend the US in an arms race under the misconception that the US was to invade. When Gorbachev realized it wasn't going to win this fight without killing his nation's economy, he realized the sham of what was happening and tried to reform it. Of course, no dictatorship survives without the threat of force to keep the people down and it collapased. Indirectly, your nation is free because people realized the best way to do deal with the USSR is to not let them have their own way. It was a war with without causualties and thank god it was, but it doesn't change the fact it was won because the USSR knew that if pushed too far, the US would react.

It is the same in Iraq. A dictatorship refused to live up to its obligations to the world, and pushed the wrong people too far. Unlike Russia, Saddam didn't voluntarily dismantle his war machine, he dared Bush to take him out. You have to stand up for the principle of freedom, or people like Saddam will take it from you.

To take the argument Iraq would be better off under Saddam is as silly as me saying it is unfortunate the USSR is gone, it kept Estonia in check. It is NEVER good that a nation lives in fear of its own government to the point where there is no freedom. The citizens of any nation are not there to serve the state, the state should be there to serve and protect them. Those who condone nations that don't follow the rule of the latter should be forced to live in the former.

Mark, I know you're a good guy and I certainly agree with you more than I agree with Eki, but when comparing the USSR to Iraq, please keep in mind that the USSR was brought down by military pressure, not by military invasion.

As I've said before, to my mind we are (or should be) discussing methods, not principles. We share the principles. Even you and Eki do.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Studiose, the USSR was not brought down by invasion, you are correct, but it would be facetious to say it happened because there was no threat of invasion either. To characterize the pressure the US was putting on the USSR at that time, it was not the threat of outright invasion, but it was the knowledge that the USSR's whole raison d'etre was to stand up to the US. So they had to spend, to stand up. In their own minds, they couldn't let the Americans win any battle of armanents. Of course, what is not said is that they didn't have to do any such thing in a rational world, but the leaders of the USSR until Gorbachev came along were not RATIONAL. They ruined the economy spending wildly to keep up to the US. This is one reason the USSR collapsed.

Another reason of course is the immense courage shown by two Polish gentlemen who showed the world what it is to stand up against oppression and show that freedom is a human right. One was Pope John Paul 2 and the other was Lech Walesa. The courage they showed forced the Polish government to its knee's and by default, the USSR was forced to see a reality. They couldn't enforce any longer the fiction that this was all being done for the good of the people. The oppression, the confiscation of private property to benefit the state, the supposive goal of enlightment as a good communist to do without certain rights until the battle against the capitalist lackeys and so on. You know it better than I do, you lived it. IF the rest of the outside world did not condemn the sham that is the USSR, people inside the iron curtain would not have the confidence to know they had support in the outside world. That same argument I use in the case of Saddam and Iraq. Sometimes the oppressed have to know that the outside world will help when it can, and in the case of the US in Iraq, they did invade.

There is much said about Bush's reasons and motives,and I have not always argued that he was given or acting on the right information, and i have not argued that they have not handled the "peace" well, it was my reason for not being ready to support 100% the invasion That said, they did it, and Iraq is improving. Even in an article quoted by Eki as proof it doesn't work, you read how people rarely see the Americans while condeming the invasion. Then in the next line see how they are happier Saddam is gone. The message is very mixed and that says to me a lot of it is propaganda being used to make things look worse than they actually are.

You feel we should be discussing methods, not princples. My principles are basic. If people have a shot at a better life through their own innovation, their own democratically elected government, then they are going to be in the end, better off. It may not look it now, but that is how I feel it is. As for the method's, I agree 99% of the time wars should be avoided, but I will never argue they should never happen. Sometimes military actions are the card that allows the diplomacy to work.

Studiose, you also do understand and have not made facetious claims as silly as some on here that Bush should be tried as a war criminal. That, I think is the one argument I will never put up with. Bush for all his faults has gone out of his way to order the US military to spare civilian life where they could when the invasion was on, and it cost the US Army casulties. The orders were followed because the US military knows darn well they have to have principles to preserve life when there are civilian non-combantants involved. Bush maybe was the leader of a nation invading Iraq against the UN's wishes at the time,and you can argue the legalities of that, but I wish some would please spare me the rhetoric that Bush is a criminal. His orders cost American lives in that he forbid the US military to attack mosques even if half of Iraq was shooting at the US army from one. The Americans have in their own clumsy way tried to do the right thing. It is a HUGE strecth of the truth to say that he is in the same place as Saddam, yet I bet before long, someone will again make that claim.......

[Camelopard]

Neo-con agenda propaganda is used to excuse the arguments the Bush supporters have put forward. Labelling people because you don't like their arguments doesn't change their arguments.
An interesting comment coming from someone who has labeled anyone arguing against you as being 'trendy left wingers'. A fairly broad statement wouldn't you say. I have never said that Saddam was not evil, however I have and always will question the reasons why Iraq was picked on and not say Saudi Arabia where it has been proved that most of the money supporting Al Quaida comes from.
There are lots of nasty dictatorships in the world, however the us is only interested in getting involved when it is in their economic interest to.
Why haven't they invaded Burma for example, perhaps because The Peoples Republic of China is a major backer of the Junta there? They did try to organise a coup against Chavez however that came back to bite them.
Bush is a stooge, he had to finish his daddies war, even though as I have stated previously that US told Saddam that they would not get involved if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

[Camelopard]

I'm not saying, Eki, that people who enlist in the US armed forces do so simply because they want to make the world a better place. Of course not. Each person enlists for his or her own reasons. All I am saying is, first, that they are paid, second, that they are volunteers in that they choose to take the job, and third, that they are not, except for a very few unusual cases, motivated by evil, hatred and a thirst for violence.

That fine specimen of US womanhood Lindy England joined the military because she couldn't get a job doing anything else. This I believe is a major reason why a lot of people join the forces. Then they get upset when the get posted overseas and run the risk of getting killed.

[Camelopard]

The orders were followed because the US military knows darn well they have to have principles to preserve life when there are civilian non-combantants involved.

Seems to be lots of cases arising where the military are blaming incidents like the ones outlined in the following article as being perpetrated by insurgents.
How many have been covered up?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063000495.html

"In June, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged with murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of a crippled man in Hamdaniya, west of Baghdad. Residents there said the soldiers planted a rifle and a shovel near the victim's body to make it look as if he had been burying roadside bombs."
"Later in June, three soldiers were charged with murdering three Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody and threatening to kill another soldier who saw the incident. And last week, two Pennsylvania National Guardsmen were charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed man in the western city of Ramadi and with trying to cover up the crime."

[Camelopard]

If anyone is interested in reading what is going on in Baghdad from a locals point of view I can highly recommend the following blog written by a very well educated Iragi female.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

[Mark in Oshawa]

Seems to be lots of cases arising where the military are blaming incidents like the ones outlined in the following article as being perpetrated by insurgents.
How many have been covered up?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063000495.html

"In June, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged with murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of a crippled man in Hamdaniya, west of Baghdad. Residents there said the soldiers planted a rifle and a shovel near the victim's body to make it look as if he had been burying roadside bombs."
"Later in June, three soldiers were charged with murdering three Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody and threatening to kill another soldier who saw the incident. And last week, two Pennsylvania National Guardsmen were charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed man in the western city of Ramadi and with trying to cover up the crime."

IN your last paragraph quoted, there are two soldiers who are being CHARGED by the US authorities. In Saddam's Iraq, they would either get no trial and a bullet, or a promotion depending on the whims of Saddam. Hardly an argument for Iraq being a better place under Saddam.




That fine specimen of US womanhood Lindy England joined the military because she couldn't get a job doing anything else. This I believe is a major reason why a lot of people join the forces. Then they get upset when the get posted overseas and run the risk of getting killed.



Of course everyone who joins the military in the US is NOT Lindy England. But taking one example out of 150000 soldiers and painting them all the same works for your agenda. Problem is, it isn't indicative of the truth of why many join the Military. Also add in the fact that Lindy is in jail for her role in the humiliation of the Iraqi prisoners held at Abu Gahrab. The US government did NOT order nor condone it. Little details like that add some structure and validity to my argument of course that the Americans are trying to do the right thing. Very few military operations of this size and scope don't have a few people crossing outside the lines of human decency; how you judge the society that produced them is how they are dealt with.



An interesting comment coming from someone who has labeled anyone arguing against you as being 'trendy left wingers'. A fairly broad statement wouldn't you say. I have never said that Saddam was not evil, however I have and always will question the reasons why Iraq was picked on and not say Saudi Arabia where it has been proved that most of the money supporting Al Quaida comes from.
There are lots of nasty dictatorships in the world, however the us is only interested in getting involved when it is in their economic interest to.
Why haven't they invaded Burma for example, perhaps because The Peoples Republic of China is a major backer of the Junta there? They did try to organise a coup against Chavez however that came back to bite them.
Bush is a stooge, he had to finish his daddies war, even though as I have stated previously that US told Saddam that they would not get involved if Iraq invaded Kuwait.



I never said you did say Saddam was not evil Cossie, but the excuses people such as Eki have made to keep him in power have been astounding at times, and there are many who have opposed me that have ignored his excesses in their arguments as much as possible. I am glad you show concern for Saudi Arabia's tremendous oppression, and Burma's ridiculous human rights record. How about those lovely Chinese in Tibet? Their backing of North Korea? Sudan's oppressed black minority that is being tormented by the Janijiweed in Darfur?

No, they are valid points, I have been one of the few people to bring them up and yet I am the rabid right winger. No, I think the US military could have taken care of Burma and Saudi Arabia before finishing breakfast but what would the world say? IF they take this much heat for taking out a vicious thug who continued to jerk around the UN and anyone else he could lay his hands on, how much would the Islamic world condemn them deposing an autocratic ruling family like the Saudi's run? Going into Burma would be aggraivating the Chinese to the point of war. Ditto for North Korea. Iraq had no real backing, and they were aggravating enough, so Bush went in there. Finishing Bush Daddies war? Hey, you cant suck and blow all the time Cossie, for I suspect you are dondemning the US for NOT following the UN in staying out this time, yet Bush Sr. did obey the UN in the last war. He gave them the options and opportunity to save Saddam's sorry @ss. You cant have it both ways, but as I have seen, there are some on here that try.

I have been 100% consistent in my views for the last two weeks. I am against the death penalty in almost all cases, but in this one, it had to be carried out. I was against the invasion of Iraq only based on the fact I think a better argument wasn't used, and there was no firm plan on rebulding Iraq. I have been 100% consistent to never condone thuggery in the name of "justice" but I also understand nation states do things that make no sense if not taken in the larger context. I have been 100% consistent that war is a terrible option and almost never is justified, but if there is no option war, diplomacy with people less than honest as leaders (truly dishonest, not a guy who lied on raising your taxes who you can vote out next year) wont work. 1938 proved that, as did Stalin's pact with Hitler (of course, those two deserve a place in hell, but Hitler even stabbed Stalin in the back, showing there is no honour among thieves). Iraq was singled out because they could not be trusted to be ressponsible to anyone, their neighbours, the UN, their own people. Saddam pushed all the right buttons to give someone as simple minded and determined as George W Bush enough rope to hang him with (no pun intended). Saddam could have just let the UN do their thing, and calmed down, and he would still be in power today.

As for Chavez and the supposed coup, I think a lot of that is Venezuelan hot air and fiction. Chavez has been making hay out of any thing he can that makes the US look like bad guys, while selling them 14% of the US's imported oil needs. If the US was really the bad guys you say they are, they would have invaded Venezuela. Of course, they wouldn't. My argument has always been elected leaders, no matter how obnoxious have no worries from invasion from the US. Take away the criminally stupid intervention of the CIA against Allende in Chile in the 70's, and the US has basically let any criticism of their nation go until someone like Saddam decides to back it up with threats, supporting Hamas and other groups, and invading Kuwait. No, at some point, the most ardent opponents of the US who have any respect for democracy have to say Iraq really went out of their way to aggravate the US. It was not an unwarranted and unjust sudden decision. It was over 11 years and two presidents in the making....

[Camelopard]

I was too late to edit the above post, however Riverbend has had her writings published, more information here:

http://www.marionboyars.co.uk/Amy%20individual%20book%20info/Baghdad%20Burning.html

A second book has been published, info from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Baghdad-Burning-Girl-Blog-Iraq/dp/1558614893

[agwiii]

Hi Mark:

Well, the cowards continue to pour negative points on me for disagreeing with their support of their beloved dictator, Saddam, the Butcher of Bagdad. I see from your "red" rep, the cowards have been after you too. Well, we have a phrase that covers this. Perhaps you've encountered it in your travels into the lower 48. So to E**, I say, f*** you if you can't take a joke.

:rotflmao:

P.S., It was once believed that if you put 1,000,000 monkeys in a room with typewriters, they would produce the great works, given enough time. The Internet proves that notion wrong. With only a few exceptions here, those monkeys cannot come up with an original thought. I'm glad to see you and Gannex are persevering here, but I am tired of slumming.

When are you coming down for that drink? We're into winter now - we had a low of 65, but it bounded back to 81 in the early afternoon.

:beer:

:vodka: (I know there's no smiley for vodka, but I can dream.

[Mark in Oshawa]

If anyone is interested in reading what is going on in Baghdad from a locals point of view I can highly recommend the following blog written by a very well educated Iragi female.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

I will read it and probably not disagree with thing being crappy on the ground in Baghdad. I however put the blame on the religious and political rivalry between Sunni and Shiite down for most of the misery. If the US soldiers didn't spend most of their time trying to keep some sort of peace, life would go a lot easier. Also understand that the Kurd's and Shiites in the south are doing ok, and are getting on with their lives. All of Iraq is not like Baghdad. SO I will read this blog...and see what it has to say. I wont likely disagree with here feelings, they are hers, and she lives there, not me. I also have stated this many times, that it is easier for the arm chair critics to condemn people to live in Iraq when Saddam was running it, but this lady wouldn't be running a blog on the net under his Iraq either. The right to complain and participate in the world of public ideas is one they have now, so I welcome this blog. Some would tell you Cossie that Saddam's right to oppress these people over rides the rights of the people to have a shot at freedom, no matter what.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I wont get into specifics, but at a quick glance, her blog is filled with a lot of thoughts that go way beyond the common Iraqi on the street. Her education in English says to me she was one of the privledged few before Saddam fell. Her account of Saddam's "lynching" is interesting, for at no time has she said anything about how she felt about Saddam's regime in a negative fashion.

I feel she is an interesting voice, one I have book marked but her view is not the definative view of Iraq. Nor is it inaccurate either. It is her view, and while it backs many of the arguments of some of my opponents, the fact it is being voiced in such a manner as a "blog" was not available to anyone in Iraq 4 years ago. Also much of what is going on is being done by Iraqi's. The Americans are giving them that freedom to screw up I guess. If she wants no sectarian violence on the streets, I guess the Americans would have to crack down so tight no one would have any rights? She would like that? I suspect not.

No, an interesting blog, I will read it, and see what she thinks, but as to her biases and views, I take it with some measure of skepticism. Her education and use of English and her opinion says to me she is a Sunni who had been part of the privledged few. She reminds me of an Iranian immigrant I know in Canada who spoke well of the Shah. He thought the country was ok under the Shah too, but as the Revolution in 1979 proved, there was something seriously wrong on the ground in that nation. It is sad that that revolution that started by the grassroots has ended up in a theocratic dictatorship.

[Eki]

I however put the blame on the religious and political rivalry between Sunni and Shiite down for most of the misery.
That rivalry existed long before the invasion, it was well known and this kind of outcome was predicted, yet they decided to invade.

[Eki]

It is her view, and while it backs many of the arguments of some of my opponents, the fact it is being voiced in such a manner as a "blog" was not available to anyone in Iraq 4 years ago.
I remember the "Baghdad Blogger" who reported from Baghdad while it was bombed in 2003:

http://weblogs.about.com/od/bestofblogsdirectory/a/salampax2.htm

On How Salam Pax Started Blogging:

It wasn't until 2001 when the Internet became available in Iraq.

Even by 2002, when I got home access to the Internet, it was considered unusual. And, in the beginning, I didn't know what to do with it.

Then, I discovered weblogs. It's good because they seem like small windows in to how people are living and thinking in the outside world.

I also realized that there's nothing coming from the Arab world. So, I thought I'd start one. To give something back to the blogging community.

Also, it seems like a nice way of communicating with people.

[Gannex]

That fine specimen of US womanhood Lindy England joined the military because she couldn't get a job doing anything else. This I believe is a major reason why a lot of people join the forces. Then they get upset when the get posted overseas and run the risk of getting killed.
I agree with you, cossie, that there are some who join the US armed forces because they cannot get jobs anywhere else. This is becoming more the case today than it was five years ago, because recruitment standards are dropping. The pressure to keep manning this badly conceived and dreadfully executed war are taking their toll on the quality of the force, I will agree. But this does not shake my conviction that, on the whole, the US forces are made up of decent people.

Lynndie England was, of course, a disgrace, but I do not put all the blame on her shoulders. I think the leadership must share responsibility for the disgusting way she and her partner in crime behaved. They say a fish stinks from the head, so it is instructive to see what the head of this particular fish, the army, was doing.

First, Bush and his advisers, relying on legal loopholes, declared that the Geneva Convention was not applicable to non-uniformed persons captured in the theatre of war, very broadly defined. Secretary Rumsfeld then cemented in place the impression that the norms of decent treatment should not apply in the Iraqi conflict by his continual statements to the effect that all necessary means should be used to ensure the safety of the troops. Torture, said Rumsfeld, did not include techniques designed to put physical and emotional stress on suspects, and suspects, said the DOD, could be virtually anyone. These messages went to the Generals and down the chain of command. At one point, the CIA complained that the Army had been given TOO MUCH AUTHORITY (!!), that when the agency had pressed for relaxation of the rules of interrogation, they never intended that cabbies in Baghdad would be rounded up and interrogated by privates in Abu Ghraib. The British were highly critical of the cavalier approach to the rules that their American allies were taking in their sector, but all this made no difference to the administration and, through the administration, to the top brass. There were one or two generals who opposed the general drift toward extreme heavy-handedness, notably Lt. Gen. Petraeus, but these were lone voices crying against the wind. Only now, has the wisdom of Petraeus's counsel been acknowledged, but at the time of Lynndie England's atrocities, the atmosphere coming from above was one of condoning, even encouraging, brutal behaviour.

This is why I said, in my earlier post pleading with people not to judge the American forces too harshly, that they are decent, honourable men and women who have been let down by the leadership, badly led, misguided. The boots on the ground are good; the men with the policy decisions in their hands have been awful, and I find it very hard to forgive the top US people for the way they have conducted this war, which could have liberated Iraq, and been a glorious page in the history of the West. Now, all it is is an ugly stain.