World Idiots

Oh Eki, do I really want to go to down this road with you again? First off, The NOBLE Cause was to get ride of a jerk. The Americans have spent billions of dollars and 3100 of their own lives to get to the point they are at now. Halliburton and the like would have made the money they make in other places if not rebuilding Iraq.

If Iraq's life expectancy at Birth was 70 plus years old, I would love to see where you dug THAT nugget up from. A lot of Western nations didn't manage that until the 60's and 70's. As for 35000 dying there now, it isn't the Americans killing them, Iraqi's of Shiite and Sunni faiths seem very happy to do that to each other. If the Americans leave, you really think this will stop? You really are naive if you believe THAT.

I would like to know how the Americans are making anything worse at this point. They are not making things better I will say, but if they don't put in the effort, change tactics and maybe find new ways to stop the violence, then that is a far greater sin isn't it? They made the mess in Iraq, so don't let them off the hook. Let them find a solution by either beating those who would kill, maim and enslave their fellow country men.

Also, when the Iranians get out of Iraq, maybe a lot of the shooting will stop, but as usual, you only have eyes for Uncle Sam. Spare me this crap about the Iranians just doing this because they don't trust the Americans. The Iranians want the US out of there, all they have to do is put a stop to the war and the Yanks will be out of there so fast it will make your head shake. The American people want an end to this but they want an end that will make sense. Walking out on a basketcase nation in a civil war is more gutless than anything. Of course, you tend to defend gutless actions I have noticed....

Oh one more thing. You are omitting one VERY salient fact. The Kurds are loving their freedom, they are getting on with looking for oil in the north, they are happy to just be who they are without someone trying to kill them, and they complain they don't see the Americans on the ground at all. So at least one part of Iraq appreciates the freedom they have due to the removal of Saddam Hussein. The fact that Sunni and Shiite whack jobs cant learn to understand that sharing power would be in their best interest is also not the fault of the Americans either. What is more, with Al Quaida running around helping the Sunni's, the Shiites being aided by Iranian elements, your condemnation of those two groups is sadly missing. Yet another example of you being willing to overlook the truth to bash just the Americans. Eki, your arguments are so damned one sided that they always seem to ignore glaring truths. I for one don't think America carried out the occupation of Iraq very well, and it was my only disagreement with them going to Iraq in the first place.

That said, they have gained very little by staying the last 2 years for all they have gotten is dead soldiers and scorn by the self righteous boobs in this world would tolerate almost any level of oppression as long as it was the other guy suffering.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

If Iraq's life expectancy at Birth was 70 plus years old, I would love to see where you dug THAT nugget up from.

---

I dug it up from the CIA World Fact Book DURING the invasion when we were debating if the invasion was a right thing to do. It's 69 years now, and it was about the same in 2002:

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

Life expectancy at birth:

total population: 69.01 years
male: 67.76 years
female: 70.31 years (2006 est.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Oh one more thing. You are omitting one VERY salient fact. The Kurds are loving their freedom, they are getting on with looking for oil in the north, they are happy to just be who they are without someone trying to kill them, and they complain they don't see the Americans on the ground at all. So at least one part of Iraq appreciates the freedom they have due to the removal of Saddam Hussein.

---

They were autonomous before the invasion too, since the first Gulf War in 1990. The only things they've gotten more now are mainly revenge and some seats in the Iraqi parliament.

An Iranian official says the US and Iran are natural allies:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...our/index.html

When the official waved the column by Friedman in my face at the start of the conversation, his point was this:

That despite disagreement over Iran's nuclear program, despite accusations that Iran is supporting anti-American killers in Iraq, despite even the 1979 hostage crisis, Iran and America are "natural allies" and the time has come to restore relations.

"We are natural allies. Why?" he said. "Because now the major threat for both Iran and the U.S.A. is al Qaeda."

He said al Qaeda had attacked the "symbol of our faith" when it struck the Golden Dome mosque -- the Al-Askariya Mosque -- in the Iraqi city of Samarra last February, setting off much of the sectarian violence that has plagued the war-torn nation over the last year. Similarly, he said, al Qaeda struck the "symbols of American power" on 9/11.

"Why is the U.S. forcing us to enter a struggle with them that is only in al Qaeda's interest?" he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

First off, The NOBLE Cause was to get ride of a jerk.

---

I like this comment, after the WMDs proved to be nonexistent and a link to 9/11 couldn't be found, the apologists for the invasion now say its because we had to get rid of Saddam.

Problem is of course, that 'jerk' isn't singular. There are plenty of 'jerks' around, whether it be Saddam, Mugabe, SLORC, the Kim dynasty, Turkmenistan or whatever.

I'm sure you believe the US was entirely altruistic in ridding Iraq of a most inhumane leader, but perhaps you can explain why they chose Iraq as opposed to any other country as their target of such munificience? Why has the US stopped at Iraq? Zimbabwe is pretty weak right now, I reckon only one or two US divisions could take the whole place over.

This revisionism as to why the US invaded Iraq is deplorable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I like this comment, after the WMDs proved to be nonexistent and a link to 9/11 couldn't be found, the apologists for the invasion now say its because we had to get rid of Saddam.

Problem is of course, that 'jerk' isn't singular. There are plenty of 'jerks' around, whether it be Saddam, Mugabe, SLORC, the Kim dynasty, Turkmenistan or whatever.

I'm sure you believe the US was entirely altruistic in ridding Iraq of a most inhumane leader, but perhaps you can explain why they chose Iraq as opposed to any other country as their target of such munificience? Why has the US stopped at Iraq? Zimbabwe is pretty weak right now, I reckon only one or two US divisions could take the whole place over.

This revisionism as to why the US invaded Iraq is deplorable.

---

Out of curiousity, do you think that the world would be a better place if Saddam was still in power, or do you think the getting rid of Saddam has made the world a better place, or even just Iraq? Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I like this comment, after the WMDs proved to be nonexistent and a link to 9/11 couldn't be found, the apologists for the invasion now say its because we had to get rid of Saddam.

Problem is of course, that 'jerk' isn't singular. There are plenty of 'jerks' around, whether it be Saddam, Mugabe, SLORC, the Kim dynasty, Turkmenistan or whatever.

I'm sure you believe the US was entirely altruistic in ridding Iraq of a most inhumane leader, but perhaps you can explain why they chose Iraq as opposed to any other country as their target of such munificience? Why has the US stopped at Iraq? Zimbabwe is pretty weak right now, I reckon only one or two US divisions could take the whole place over.

This revisionism as to why the US invaded Iraq is deplorable.

---

Why Iraq? Well, combine the fact Saddam had started two wars in less than 25 years and would if left unchecked likely threatened Saudi Arabia or Kuwait again. Add on that the world's intelligence bodies all stated that they thought he was hiding a WMD program. I thought the premise to invade on WMD's was weak, and said so and have admitted so on many occasions. That said, Saddam did not live up to his terms of settlement with the UN under the cease fire of the first Gulf war. Remember that one? Where he brutally tried to annex Kuwait, raped and pillaged that little country, blew up the oil fields to create a great enviromental horror show that we civilized nations had to clean up. When it was clear the US could walk right up to Baghdad, they FOLLOWED their mandate from the UN, and didn't go any further, and Saddam signed off on 12 resolutions that allowed for inspections of his WMD programs by the UN under very strict rules. Saddam flouted these rules for over 8 years as the nations of the world threatened to enforce them by force if neccessary. So spare me the crocodile tears about poor ole Saddam being singled out.

This buffoon jerked the UN around early and often in their search for weapons. It wasn't just the CIA that was reporting he had the weapons, and the Kurds know damned well he had them because they were on the receiving end of them. So spare me again this argument that we are changing history because the US cant find the weapons now. In the build up to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had ample time to sell them to nearby Syria, bury them or destroy them himself. We have really no way of knowing what happened to the weapons, but if he didn't have the weapons, he sure put on a great show to the UN and the rest of the world pretending he was hiding something? THat is like going all in at a poker game with a 2-4 offsuit when the guy across the table is holding pocket aces and 3 face cards just came up on the flop. It wasn't very bright, and of course, he didn't deter anyone.

What is more, Iraq was as good a place as any to the US to invade for no other nation in that part of the world was as obvious in their distate for American foreign policy and American Influence. As obnoxious as the Iranians are, they are skilled at not pushing people into corners. Saddam, on the other hand, left the world with the choice of enforcing the UN terms by force, or for the UN to lose total relevence. Most of you think the UN has relevence, but without Bush actually holding Iraq to the terms of the 12 resolutions and the two that were passed leading up to the war, it has zero releveance.

AS for Zimbabwe, why would the US invade there? First off, you would be correct in saying there is no oil there. Damn right, it isn't altruristic to ignore this mess and I would love for the Americans to march in there and take the fool out who runs the show there, but they wont. Oil will pay for the rebuilding of Iraq, and it is the flow of oil on a free market that the US is always looking to protect. WHY? Because the world's economy would go into a complete tailspin without the free flow of oil. Letting someone like Saddam dictate terms to the rest of the world would guarntee trouble.

So in conclusion, you cynics can say the Americans are self serviing boobs who had no business invading Iraq. Us more logical people look at it this way. If Saddam Hussein was left to his own devices, would he be a ressponsbile member of the world community? Would he have stopped killing 20000 plus members of his own nation to keep power? Would he cease to be a threat to the world's oil producing nations in the Middle East? Would he cease funding terrrorist networks who would kill any one of us for no other reason than we are from the west? Would Saddam Hussein respect the resolutions of the UN? Would the UN enforce fairly and evenly these resolutions in a manner that would dictate they actually mattered?

If you seriously can answer YES to any one of those above questions, you are living in a fantasy land. History shows us Saddam Hussein was one of many threats the world has, but he was a growing threat if left unchecked, and while Eki has stated that the status quo to keep Saddam in check was working, Eki wasn't paying the billions of dollars it was costing the US and the UK to keep a military presence in the area. WE can agree that the US has botched the "peace" in Iraq, but I think for most of you, it isn't concern for the common guy on the street that Iraq that is driving this, it is an open desire to see the Yanks get humiliated and embarassed yet once again.

Well, they have bit off more than they can chew, but unlike some of you, I put the blame on this on the feet of of a leader who would enslave and kill his own people, religious zealots who would kill or maim anyone in the cause of creating an Islamic world, and naive champagne socialists who are great at telling everyone how if everyone would just listen to their enlightened arguments, we could all disarm.

The title of this thread is apt, WORLD IDIOTS seem to abound....and while I will accept that Bush may be an idiot on a lot of levels, some of you shouldn't throw stone in glass houses....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Why Iraq? Well, combine the fact Saddam had started two wars in less than 25 years and would if left unchecked likely threatened Saudi Arabia or Kuwait again. Add on that the world's intelligence bodies all stated that they thought he was hiding a WMD program.

---

He MAY have been athreat if left unchecked. I don't think mere suspicion justifies as drastic measures that were taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

This buffoon jerked the UN around early and often in their search for weapons.

---

The US jerked the UN around far worse when it decided to invade despite the opposition of the UN. It has jerked the UN around also by not paying its due membership fees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

History shows us Saddam Hussein was one of many threats the world has, but he was a growing threat if left unchecked, and while Eki has stated that the status quo to keep Saddam in check was working, Eki wasn't paying the billions of dollars it was costing the US and the UK to keep a military presence in the area. .

---

With the money they have ALREADY spent on the invasion, they could have kept Saddam in check until Saddam and his sons died of old age.

Saddam was a threat to some in Iraq and POTENTIALLY to his neighboring countries, but he was a negligible threat to the World until the US decided to make it one. By defying the will of the UN and invading another sovereign country despite international opposition and against international laws it has created a dangerous precedent and lowered the bar to every crackpot leader who wants to flex their muscles and increase their circle of power. Now they may just say "If the US is allowed to do it, we should be also allowed to do it".

Negligible threat? Eki, the man invaded Iran and Kuwait. He was paying Hamas money to give to the families who offered up their KIDS as suicide bombers. I wont disagree that the US has spent a lot of money on this war, and that keeping Saddam under their thumb was cheaper, but it is a fallacy to say, well the US and the UK can keep Saddam in check by just keeping a lid on the sanctions. The dirty little secret is the French, Russians and Chinese were quite willing to ignore the UN sanctions and go around that great scam of "oil for food". You see Eki, unlike you, I don't expect the Americans to just pay to keep the world sane while telling them how stupid and inept they are.

As for their share of the UN, may I also remind you they put up with the presence of the UN in New York and would probably wish the UN would either gain some relevence or grow some balls and stand for something, but they wont, so why should the US keep pouring money into a hole. They do still fund a quarter of the UN's budget on paper, but for the abuse they take for it, I wonder why they belong to the UN at all.

They didn't defy the damned UN, they were enforcing UN resolutions. Saddam agreed to open access by the UN for WMD inspection. Saddam didn't give that by any real honest assessment and the US used THAT as the legal grounds to invade. Only you would use moral equivalency to say other nations would use this as a legal pretence to invade a neighbour. There is a few huge differences. One, I don't recall Saddam asking the UN's persmission when it invaded Iran or Kuwait, so it is obvious to me that most dictators do what they want when they want, and the other massive difference is that the US did it with 53 other nations, and their blessing. This was not a unilateral operation, although many of you seem to want to ignore that salient fact.

The fact that a left of center politician such as Tony Blair was in on this from the start says to me that this was not a George Bush wet dream. You continue with your fiction though that it is just American imperialism. Nothing I will say will ever change your closed mind, but I figure someone has to occasionally point out the truth.