iraq, iraq, iraq, iraq, iraq, iraq, iraq, iraq, iraq
my2hands
Posts: 17,117
so i just popped on the board and counted 23 threads about israel/palestine/lebanon... and there was 1 about the iraqi death squads, 1 stating william donohue is a "tool and jackass", one on abortion, 1 on the french attacking a peaceful greenpeace ship in 1985, and my favorite one: 1 about guys trying to break the record for largets joint in the world
so my point is (i guess) that the situation in iraq is at its worst... 3000 civilians are now being killed monthly (how may "insurgents"?) and nobody is paying attention...
this is not to downplay the current spreading conflict... or the impending regional war that will likely last 20-50 years... but it is the point to remember that the situation in Iraq is getting worse
so my point is (i guess) that the situation in iraq is at its worst... 3000 civilians are now being killed monthly (how may "insurgents"?) and nobody is paying attention...
this is not to downplay the current spreading conflict... or the impending regional war that will likely last 20-50 years... but it is the point to remember that the situation in Iraq is getting worse
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Well the Lebanon/Israel conflict is taking all the coverage....not a bad thing for Bush & Co. Takes a little heat off their pathetic attempt to "install" democracy in the Middle East....
and thats the funny thing, because it should magnify it
Is there something left to say about Iraq? Nobody's listening anyway, it's like talking to a wall...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Yet it has completly disappeared.....
And what about Chechnya? DRC? Algeria? Tibet? Kurdistan? etc etc...
And all the post-conflict regions, that nobody ever cares about?
www.amnesty.org.uk
The Somalia crisis....geez I have enough Africa with the starving children ads to be bothered with that event.....
I'm kidding...this unfortunatly will be lost like the Rwanada/Sudan crisis.....
At this point, I think they would have a better chance for peace by carving up the country among Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. But they would probably still try to kill each other.
The funny thing to me is how everybody is blaming Bush and the US for this mess. Would you prefer that Saddam still be presiding over his oppressed country, with Uday and Qusay waiting in the wings to carry on their fathers murderous legacy?
At least now all grievances are out in the air and can be acted on. If these people want to kill each other, then let them do it and be done with it.
You have no problem that Bush led over 2000 of your countrymen to die, and there will be more,...for what I ask...really answer me for what...it seems the people were safer with Saddam and that truely makes this US occupation an utter failure which is unfortuante considering a ruthless dicatator ran the country more effectively....
No it doesn't bother me becuase it was and is a risk worth taking. The potential benefits far outwiegh the costs.
The second part of your post is pretty short-sighted. The US could absolutely restore order and run the country if we used the tactics of Saddam. Wouldn't you agree? Shouldn't you give us credit for not doing that, instead of over looking this and blaming us for not having countrol like Saddam did?
Simple solution isn't it? Destroy the country infrastructure and government, then let them fight each other to death, BRAVO!
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Well you tell me how to get them to stop??????????
everyone is disarmed ... if they wanna fight - gotta do it the old fashioned way ... with kitchen knives ...
an easy way would be to stop arming and supporting them
panama...hmmm we helped a cia agent take power and later he became a threat...
iraq...hmmm we helped keep a ruthless dictator in power and sold him weapons and later he became a threat
afghanistan...hmmm we supported them, too
iran...hmmm, we sold them thousands of missiles and rockets at the same time we were arming saddam, supposedly to fight iran...and now we say they are a threat...
we help destablize the world
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Whats the benefit then?
Other than oil for our vehicles....were you really afraid Saddam was gonna to get you?
Like really what is the benefit....do you think you would be proud to say your son died trying to bring a puppet government into Iraq....to be killed by a bomb while patrolling an oilfield????
BTW I have said taking out Saddam essentially was good...however the plan was a failure it over-looked problems that were going to arise...did nobody think that there would major hostilies...or did Bush & Co. expect champagne and kisses on their way to Baghdad...sorry but this will go down right beside Vietnam as an utter waste of human life.....and a black-eye on American foreign policy.....
stop? I don't think it will stop, the invasion was wrong, but now it's too late, so as i said, just watch them kill each other, maybe that will serve for future stupid illegal invasion from a greedy govt. in need of more power in a said region...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Thanks for the history lesson, but that doesn't shed any light on how to keep these factions from killing each other now.
If they want weapons, they'll get weapons... that isn't the problem.
2. USA never cared before 1991 for the Iraq human rights violations. When saddam was violating Kurds rights the USA didn't move a finger. Better: gave Iraq weapons. They started to complain about Iraq behaviour just when oil-friendly Kwait was invaded.
SO: Bush doesn't care that now Iraq could be better (and indeed: it's not). Human rights groups, like amnesty international and human rights watch, could eventually claim if it is better or not now, because they always worked on iraq. And indeed their response on the current situation is not positive.
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.amnesty.org.uk
You know the argument for bringing democracy to the Middle East. You might not agree with it, but you know it I'm sure...
what is it? really i've lost track on all these lies and new justifications...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
It would help if you tuned out the politicians, on both sides.
The argument is that democracies have an unprecedented history of peace amongst themselves. Sure, El Kabong and others will challenge that - and I'm fine with that. They have their support, and I have mine. I'm not looney for believing this.
So the purpose of taking out Saddam was to end his oppresive regime and restore order with a functioning democratic government. This in turn would spawn other movements in the broader Middle East, much like the domino effect of the Cold war.
Almost everyting has gone wrong, and Bush should shoulder most all of the blame. But I think the theory is sound in principle and was/is worth the risk.
www.amnesty.org.uk
Ah ok, i thought you'd bring me a new reason for bringing democracy, i thought you meant there was a new trendy thing to defend this invasion. You know there's a new one each month or so.
If the people in the country are not ready for democracy, it just won't happen, even if you destroy all their country. Look Afghanistan and their pseudo friendly govt., in the end they're violating human rights just as much as the taliban, maybe less violence cause they don't have the same division among the population, but woman's rights are not more advance there than it is in other "rogue" state or "axis of evil" state. So i don't know, maybe it was not to bring democracy after all, oh but that have been said many times before...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
i agree the country may need to be divided into 3 states
BUT, i find it funny how people still think this was about sadaam and the oppressed iraqi population... it is painfully obvious to even a child the reason we are there
no shit...and our country flooding this planet with these weapons doesnt help
3 states would mean 3 new army. But if they all agree to do this, ok. Just do not impose them that solution, they must vote on it or something like this.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Iraq was much safer under Saddam, that is clear. The U.S. being insistant on occupying foreign soil is the main reason for violence right now in that region. Am I wrong?
war is never a "sound theory in principle" and is never "worth the risk"
i think history will prove that
http://www.ifcongress.com/English/manifesto_of%20congress.htm
http://www.ifcongress.com/English/index.htm
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
Viva Zapatista!
imposing anything doesnt work... i think it can be helped with some guidance...but ultimately it has to evolve naturally
the problem is the oil... no side wants to relinquish rights to the natural resource ( i assume)