Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amen-Moses · 03-24-2003, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark
Democracy: Ba'ath party is made up of predominantly Sunni Muslims which make up a quarter of the population. The remaining two-thirds are Shia Muslim and Kurd. All three hate each other intensly.

I know we've gone decimal and all but your math still stinks!

Amen-Moses

Mark · 03-24-2003, 11:07 AM

Whoops! Buggeration, sorry about that Moses

Anyway....

True points, liquidage. But the sanctions also hurt Saddam's enemies within Iraq than they hurt him. And little effort to disarm Iraq was made 1991-2002. OK, Bush has not been in power that long, but Blair has: he's been in since 1997, and an MP asked a few weeks ago why Saddam is now more of a threat than in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

motorhead · 03-24-2003, 01:57 PM

I am not pro-Saddam either. I agree that he's an evil guy and that the people of Iraq would be better without him and with a decent government. But I don't think the U.S. or any other country should be installing a new government in this country, and certainly not by the means it's being done now. I think the destiny of Iraq has to be worked out by the people of Iraq with some assistance (pressure for change, aid, etc.) by outside countries. This is an Arab country with a culture much different than ours. What right does the Bush Administration have to install a new government in another country just because they don't like the current one? Who said it's up to Bush or any other country?

Like I said, Saddam's an evil guy and he has caused suffering for the Iraqi people. It's unfortunate and I think the world should put all kinds of pressure on him to change his government, give aid to the people, etc. But in the end it's up to Iraq to work out it's destiny.

As many have already said, this engagement in Iraq is going to get much worse before it gets better? What kind of government will the U.S. install? How will they deal with the fact that millions of Iraqi's may not want them or their new government there? Why should we (U.S. taxpayers) pay to install a new government and all the problems that are going to crop up after the new government is installed? What happens 50 years from now after we're well out of there and some other dictator comes to power in Iraq? Operation Iraqi Freedom, Part II? Why does the U.S. have to be the policeman of the world?

motorhead · 03-24-2003, 02:04 PM

and another thing...with all due respect to our military men and women, I can't help but ask myself if this "cause" is worth dying for. Everytime I hear of a new casualty, I keep asking myself what these people are dying for? Is it really worth it? I cringe each time the Bush Gang seems to talk to flippantly about expecting U.S. casualities. I wonder what the military men and women there think they're fighting for? I remember thinking this same after watching the movie Blackhawk Down. Was that operation worth dying for?

orac · 03-24-2003, 02:12 PM

Saddam must go because a US backed government in the Middle East will be a shining example of peace and freedom for all the world.

Kinda like how Israel is a shining example of a nation without a terrorism problem.....

Excuse me, I've got to finish digging my bunker.

Liquidrage · 03-24-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark
Whoops! Buggeration, sorry about that Moses

Anyway....

True points, liquidage. But the sanctions also hurt Saddam's enemies within Iraq than they hurt him. And little effort to disarm Iraq was made 1991-2002. OK, Bush has not been in power that long, but Blair has: he's been in since 1997, and an MP asked a few weeks ago why Saddam is now more of a threat than in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

I don't think Saddam is more of a threat then in '97

I think he should have been removed in '91

I think he really should have been removed in '88

penumbra · 03-24-2003, 02:44 PM

I'm of the opinion that Saddam is a rotten bastard and the world is probably better off without him. BUT, that having been said, the bigger question might be: why take him out this way, as opposed to using other, less violent means. I can think of a couple of reasons:
1. A relatively successful war could build Bush's political stock at home, allowing him (or his puppeteers) to put into place things like tax cuts, Patriot Act II, increased Homeland Security measures, and other even less savory domestic agendas.
2. A protracted combat action means lots and lots of physical damage to Iraq, which in turn means nice fat rebuilding contracts for Haliburton, et al.

Why do I keep seeing in my mind that one scene from "The Wizard of Oz"? You know, the one where the wizard tells Dorothy "Don't look behind the curtain!"

Soul Invictus · 03-24-2003, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by motorhead
I am not pro-Saddam either. I agree that he's an evil guy and that the people of Iraq would be better without him and with a decent government. But I don't think the U.S. or any other country should be installing a new government in this country, and certainly not by the means it's being done now. I think the destiny of Iraq has to be worked out by the people of Iraq with some assistance (pressure for change, aid, etc.) by outside countries. This is an Arab country with a culture much different than ours. What right does the Bush Administration have to install a new government in another country just because they don't like the current one? Who said it's up to Bush or any other country?

Like I said, Saddam's an evil guy and he has caused suffering for the Iraqi people. It's unfortunate and I think the world should put all kinds of pressure on him to change his government, give aid to the people, etc. But in the end it's up to Iraq to work out it's destiny.

As many have already said, this engagement in Iraq is going to get much worse before it gets better? What kind of government will the U.S. install? How will they deal with the fact that millions of Iraqi's may not want them or their new government there? Why should we (U.S. taxpayers) pay to install a new government and all the problems that are going to crop up after the new government is installed? What happens 50 years from now after we're well out of there and some other dictator comes to power in Iraq? Operation Iraqi Freedom, Part II? Why does the U.S. have to be the policeman of the world?

:notworthy

This was so well articulated, that I had to reply so it'll be at the top of the board during peak hours! I can't see how the U.S.' has the audacity to assume the position of establishing a gov't elsewhere...especially as you noted the difference in culture. Our values aren't their values, so how dare we assert the way we like to see things done in an area we don't live in nor is part of our society? It's mindboggling. Imagine if the Iraqis felt impelled to help us out by coming over here establishing a new way of life. Wouldn't that be interesting?

orac · 03-24-2003, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul Invictus
Imagine if the Iraqis felt impelled to help us out by coming over here establishing a new way of life. Wouldn't that be interesting?

That's Osama bin Forgotten, not Saddam.

Apparantly noone really appreciated his attempts to save your souls, though. Funny, that.

hinduwoman · 03-24-2003, 05:00 PM

BBC conducted several interviews with Iraqis inside the country. They all said the same thing: they hate Saddam and would love to see him dead, BUT when all is said and done, Saddam is an Iraqi and they don't want to have any foreign invaders on their soil.
Some do not feel that way, but nationalism is the reason why the coalition forces are being fiercely resisted.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-24-2003, 11:07 AM	#12
Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1,537	Whoops! Buggeration, sorry about that Moses Anyway.... True points, liquidage. But the sanctions also hurt Saddam's enemies within Iraq than they hurt him. And little effort to disarm Iraq was made 1991-2002. OK, Bush has not been in power that long, but Blair has: he's been in since 1997, and an MP asked a few weeks ago why Saddam is now more of a threat than in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

03-24-2003, 01:57 PM	#13
motorhead Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Land of Make Believe Posts: 781	I am not pro-Saddam either. I agree that he's an evil guy and that the people of Iraq would be better without him and with a decent government. But I don't think the U.S. or any other country should be installing a new government in this country, and certainly not by the means it's being done now. I think the destiny of Iraq has to be worked out by the people of Iraq with some assistance (pressure for change, aid, etc.) by outside countries. This is an Arab country with a culture much different than ours. What right does the Bush Administration have to install a new government in another country just because they don't like the current one? Who said it's up to Bush or any other country? Like I said, Saddam's an evil guy and he has caused suffering for the Iraqi people. It's unfortunate and I think the world should put all kinds of pressure on him to change his government, give aid to the people, etc. But in the end it's up to Iraq to work out it's destiny. As many have already said, this engagement in Iraq is going to get much worse before it gets better? What kind of government will the U.S. install? How will they deal with the fact that millions of Iraqi's may not want them or their new government there? Why should we (U.S. taxpayers) pay to install a new government and all the problems that are going to crop up after the new government is installed? What happens 50 years from now after we're well out of there and some other dictator comes to power in Iraq? Operation Iraqi Freedom, Part II? Why does the U.S. have to be the policeman of the world?

03-24-2003, 02:04 PM	#14
motorhead Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Land of Make Believe Posts: 781	and another thing...with all due respect to our military men and women, I can't help but ask myself if this "cause" is worth dying for. Everytime I hear of a new casualty, I keep asking myself what these people are dying for? Is it really worth it? I cringe each time the Bush Gang seems to talk to flippantly about expecting U.S. casualities. I wonder what the military men and women there think they're fighting for? I remember thinking this same after watching the movie Blackhawk Down. Was that operation worth dying for?

03-24-2003, 02:12 PM	#15
orac Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,082	Saddam must go because a US backed government in the Middle East will be a shining example of peace and freedom for all the world. Kinda like how Israel is a shining example of a nation without a terrorism problem..... Excuse me, I've got to finish digging my bunker.

03-24-2003, 02:44 PM	#17
penumbra Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 1,938	I'm of the opinion that Saddam is a rotten bastard and the world is probably better off without him. BUT, that having been said, the bigger question might be: why take him out this way, as opposed to using other, less violent means. I can think of a couple of reasons: 1. A relatively successful war could build Bush's political stock at home, allowing him (or his puppeteers) to put into place things like tax cuts, Patriot Act II, increased Homeland Security measures, and other even less savory domestic agendas. 2. A protracted combat action means lots and lots of physical damage to Iraq, which in turn means nice fat rebuilding contracts for Haliburton, et al. Why do I keep seeing in my mind that one scene from "The Wizard of Oz"? You know, the one where the wizard tells Dorothy "Don't look behind the curtain!"

03-24-2003, 05:00 PM	#20
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	BBC conducted several interviews with Iraqis inside the country. They all said the same thing: they hate Saddam and would love to see him dead, BUT when all is said and done, Saddam is an Iraqi and they don't want to have any foreign invaders on their soil. Some do not feel that way, but nationalism is the reason why the coalition forces are being fiercely resisted.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.