Saddam Hussein Hanged

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowler

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

I consider that the US have made the following mistakes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

There you go again Eki, presuming things. Over 80% of Iraqi's citizens have voted 2 times now in free elections.

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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