The report that changed my mind about the war

Sparks

BDC,

Remember Saddam is the bad guy here.

I have no problem with that - I have a big problem with your next line. But before we do that, remember that bad as Saddam was, the fact remains that he came to power because he represented a departure from traditional Islamic rule - in other words, in Iraq, women had equal rights, they had running water and phones and electric power and were the most secular nation in the middle east. He was a brutal bastard, and no mistake, but he didn't take over the country by invading, remember, and there were and are worse leaders in the middle east.

Why is it so many here think everything the US says is lies

Precedence.

and everything the Iraqis say is the gospel truth?

We don't. Why do so many think that if I disbelieve the US, I must by definition believe the Iraqis?

The US will not invade you and will not attack you. Saddam given the chance will.

History suggests otherwise. Iraq invaded two countries under SH - Iran and Kuwait, both times with tacit support or approval from the US. The US, however, has invaded or subverted over forty nations since the end of the second world war and is the biggest enemy to democracy in the world today, by the metric of damage done.

People have been cheering Saddams downfall all over Iraq.

People were cheering for Saddam when he was in power, because to do otherwise courted a few weeks of torture. After 25 years of this, I find it unbelievable that this mindset vanished as soon as another army rolled into town.

I know there are some ****tards who will find some conspiracy, or some hidden aganda in those pictures. I really wish they would pull their heads out of their asses and smell the coffee.

This from someone who will willingly accept news without criticism from a group who have been shown to have broken just about every international law going - Geneva conventions, Hague conventions, the UN charter - and who have trashed the best hopes for future security in the world - the ICC, Kyoto, Ottowa, and so on.

I repeat, Saddam is the bad guy.

I repeat, he's not the only one... and he's not the worst guy.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Big Daddy Cruz
I repeat, Saddam is the bad guy.

Just because there's a bad guy, duesn't mean there's a good guy.

Are you American perchance?

Big Daddy Cruz

Sparks Saddam Attacked five of his neighbors Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qutar and Israel. The US did not support the invasion of Kuwait, do you remember the 500,000 US troops that got him out?

Also are you dumb enough to belive the USA will ever attack your country? If you are truely this damn stupid, it will be a waste of my time even discussing it.


Corinthian I am an American, good call. What gave it away? I tried typing with an Irish accent


I am stuck on a beautiful pacific island with way too much time on my hands.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sanvean

Originally posted by Big Daddy Cruz
Why is it so many here think everything the US says is lies and everything the Iraqis say is the gospel truth?

i don't know, maybe a healthy cynicism mixed with a basic knowledge of world history. as for thinking what the iraqis (for iraqis i'm hoping you mean the ba'athist government) say is gospel truth, no, of course not. however, and perhaps this is simply wishful thinking, but there is an attitude that a government who claims democracy and freedom to be inherent would also be partial to truth. and when they show themselves nto to be, or at least have agendas which are far from noble, then people will cry hypocrit. i guess.

also: see the list above for the countries that america has attacked (panama was invaded only a couple of months before kuwait was by the iraqis in incredibly similar circumstances).

JustHalf

I have no problem with that - I have a big problem with your next line. But before we do that, remember that bad as Saddam was, the fact remains that he came to power because he represented a departure from traditional Islamic rule - in other words, in Iraq, women had equal rights, they had running water and phones and electric power and were the most secular nation in the middle east. He was a brutal bastard, and no mistake, but he didn't take over the country by invading, remember, and there were and are worse leaders in the middle east.

Can you hear what you are saying? You are holding Saddam Hussein's regime up as the shining light of the middle-east.

Name leader in the middle-east who has done more evil than Saddam Hussein. You claimed that these exist, so back up that claim.

And if anyone thinks this war is all about oil, remember this: the US got extremely cheap oil out of Iraq through the "oil for food" programme. They were getting the oil anyway.

Sparks

Can you hear what you are saying? You are holding Saddam Hussein's regime up as the shining light of the middle-east.

No, I'm not. You need to reread my post. In particular the "when he came to power" bit. Good deeds done 24 years ago don't allow you to shoot someone today, at least not in my book. Thing is, shooting someone today doesn't erase those deeds from history. If you ignore them and assume that the torture and human rights violations were there from the start, how would you explain his rise to power in a de facto british colony?

Name leader in the middle-east who has done more evil than Saddam Hussein. You claimed that these exist, so back up that claim.

:rolleyes:
Look at his contemporaries in Iran. Observe the justice system in Saudia Arabia. Look at the rulers of Kuwait. Compare the secular system in Iraq with the islamic system in Iran and tell me which you'd prefer to live under had you no other choice available. It's like choosing between losing an arm and losing two arms, but full appreciation of the situation is important.

And if anyone thinks this war is all about oil, remember this: the US got extremely cheap oil out of Iraq through the "oil for food" programme. They were getting the oil anyway.

Why is it that when anti-war people say "it's about oil", pro-war people seem to think that they mean WD40? It's not about the end product, it's about controlling the production of the end product.

josh40

Saddam was evil, no doubt about that, but is there any guarantee that his replacement will prove any better?
Look what's happening in 'liberated' Afghanistan, the Taliban are coming back big time. Now that the war in Iraq is more or less over, whose going to clean up the mess, and pay the bill to get them back on their feet?

It's interesting because I ovbiously see very different coverage , that what is being described here. I do see CNN, but mostly, I watch Greek coverage which is very much anti- coalition forces.It's hard to imagine that what I watch on CNN, is even covering the same war!

Of course, the coalition forces are trying out new weapons, wars have traditionally been used for this. Hitler tried out all his new weapons in the Spanish civil war, brfore he went for the real thing. The coalition forces are obviously going to win, and therefore write the history books on this one, so will find a way to justify everything if necessary. The victors very rarely have to justify themselves, moves or weapons though.