America in the Middle-East

[Darnoc]

Socialism is kind of ethical, not communism. Socialists seek socialism peacefully, communists by killing people.

 

This is absolutely wrong and a plain lie. Words like these make me believe that you simply do not know what socialism and communism acctually are.

 

Both socialism and communism were invented by Karl Marx and his partner Friedrich Engels, both Germans (altough Marx lived later on in Great Britain). Marx and Engels are the authors of the so called "Communistic Manifest" and Marx is the author of "Das Kapital", one of the most important books of economic science.

 

It was Marx' belief that a capitalistic society as it existed during his life could not long exist. As he explains in his books, human history can be viewed in the light of fighting between different classes. Through human history, societies with different classes have evolved. First humans lived in primitive, communist-like micro-societies (mostly consisting of one village/tribe), later on a slave-master-society evolved during antiquity, followed by the feudalistic system of the middle ages. The latest step in this "evolution of society" is the capitalistic society, consisting of only two classes: The ones who possess (capitalists) and the ones who do not (proletarians) and who work for the ones who possess.

 

Marx thought about the evolment of this capitalistic society. He believed that since it lies in the nature of humans to try to possess as much as possible. Therefore the capitalists would try to gain more and more capital (money, machines, factories etc.). In order to do that, they would make their production more and more efficient (by replacing humans with machines) and lower the salaries of their workers. Since the workers have less money, they will no longer be able to buy as much as before. Therefore the capitalist will gain less profit and he will again try to make his production more efficient and cheaper.

 

This goes on until the point when the proletarians have enough. A revolution occurs, the two classes switch roles. This period is described by Marx as "dictatorship of the proletariat" or "socialism". Slowly this state will change until the socialistic society has become a communstic society in which no classes will exist and all humans will be equal. This, so says Marx, will be the acctuall end of the evolution of human society.

 

Lenin further developed this theory. He said that also in a pre-capitalistic society (as Russia was during the time of the revolution) a revolution of the proletarians could occur. He also said that not the all the proletarians would lead this revolution, but only a selected few, the "avantgarde of the revolution", mostly consisting of intellectuals. They will establish an real socialistic dictatorship which will slowly change into the communistic society.

 

Of course, this never occured. Instead Stalin established his dictatorship which was called "real socialism". Stalin never had the intention to acctually establish a communistic society of course. He also established the command economy in the Sowjetunion which was a major disaster, as you might know.

 

A lot of other nations tried this path, but they all got stuck in the socialistic period. No nation on earth has ever reached the status of a communistic society. And Marx was completly wrong about the development of capitalism. We are still waiting for the revolution of the proletarians.

 

 

Now there are the so called "social-democrats". They have nothing, I repeat, nothing, to do with the "real socialism" of the Sowjetunion and are only slightly connected to the ideas of Marx and Engels. In Europe a lot of social-democratic parties exist, they are different from the liberal parties, since they are for more influence of the government on the economy, while the liberals are against more influence of the government on economy. Without social-democrats no unions, no health insurrances or social insurrances would exist today in Europe. Look at the USA who hasn't an important social-democratic party and what happened there. Europeans should be thankfull for the existence of social-democratic parties.

 

 

There were two kinds of regimes in Central America: communism and other (I don't know how to call them). Both were totalitarian. But regimes, supported by US killed much less people than communism. For example, Pinotchet is accused of tens of thousands of deaths, not tens of millions like in China or USSR. Furthermore, no dictatorship in Central America could equal communist Cambodia, where 75% people were killed. Regimes of Central America were merciful when compared to the tirony of the Red Khmers.

As I said before, US supported these regimes in order to prevent communism.

 

It is logical that Pinochet killed less people than the government of the Sowjetunion and China. There are less people to kill in Chile, that is why.

 

Oh, you want to know what other dictators were supported by the USA? My favourite example: Indonesia.

 

Yeah, you heard right, Indonesia. During the sixties the population voted for a social-democratic president, Sukarno. Sukarno had also major support from the communistic party, but in general he wanted to be neutral towards the USA and the Sowjetunion at the same time. But the USA didn't like that. They supported another man: General Suharto. In a bloody revolution he rose to power and killed about 500'000 suspected communists. Members of the communistic party were hunted down and killed, the party forbidden. He then ruled as dictator over Indonesia until 1988. He opened Indonesia for american business which destroyed the agriculture and led most farmers into poverty. They were driven into the cities where they had to work and live in unhuman conditions in factories, run by american coorperations.

 

Though I don't think US would give knowledge on how to create chemical weapons to someone who might use it against them later.

 

It was against international law to give Saddam access to chemical weapons. Saddam massacred thousands of Iranians during the war with those terrible weapons and the world looked the other way, since those boys and young men were all soldiers of the "evil" Iran. Oh, and I don't understand why the USA should consider the Iran to be evil. Just because the Shiits are religious fundamentalists? If they want to dwell in religion, so be it.

 

And if you remember, it was Saddam who attacked Iran, not Iran who attacked Iraq. Iran was defending its territory from the invading forces and later on trying to free their religious brethren, the surpressed Shiits of southern Iraq. In my eyes they had at least a worthy cause, not like Saddam who was just an aggressor and saddistic dictator.

 

By the way, what is the difference between the religious fundamentelists sitting in the white house, proclaiming war on the "forces of evil" in the islamic world and the religious fundamentalists sitting in terrorist camps and proclaiming war on the "Sheitan" (devil) USA? For I cannot make out any difference at all, with the exception for their religion and the place they are living and the weapons they use. The mentality is the same.

[draighox]

This is absolutely wrong and a plain lie. Words like these make me believe that you simply do not know what socialism and communism acctually are.

 

Now there are the so called "social-democrats". They have nothing, I repeat, nothing, to do with the "real socialism" of the Sowjetunion and are only slightly connected to the ideas of Marx and Engels. In Europe a lot of social-democratic parties exist, they are different from the liberal parties, since they are for more influence of the government on the economy, while the liberals are against more influence of the government on economy. Without social-democrats no unions, no health insurrances or social insurrances would exist today in Europe. Look at the USA who hasn't an important social-democratic party and what happened there. Europeans should be thankfull for the existence of social-democratic parties.

Yeah, I mixed socialism with social-democracy. Sorry about that. But I don't approve it. In social-democracy the more you earn the more taxes you pay. This money is given to people who don't work. Companies are forced to pay huge taxes and therefore they cannot employ many people or raise wages. Idler gets your earned money.

And what's wrong with USA? As far as I know, their economy is the best in the world. Europe lags behind because of the social-democratic parties.

 

It is logical that Pinochet killed less people than the government of the Sowjetunion and China. There are less people to kill in Chile, that is why.

 

Oh, you want to know what other dictators were supported by the USA? My favourite example: Indonesia.

I have to correct myself. Pinotchet killed a few thousands, not tens of thousands people. And there were about 15 million people in Chile, so he could have easily killed millions of people, like communists did.

Indonesia? Is that the best you can come up with? Compare it with Cambodia, USSR or China and you'll see that communism has killed more people than anything else and therefore IT IS EVIL.

 

By the way, what is the difference between the religious fundamentelists sitting in the white house, proclaiming war on the "forces of evil" in the islamic world and the religious fundamentalists sitting in terrorist camps and proclaiming war on the "Sheitan" (devil) USA? For I cannot make out any difference at all, with the exception for their religion and the place they are living and the weapons they use. The mentality is the same.

The difference is that the "religious fundamentelists sitting in the white house" DO NOT kill or torture their own people. And you would be killed at best for post like this if you lived in USA and the mentality was be the same.

[Zmid]

Erm.. Has anybody considered that Saddam HAD to be removed? Yeah, many people have died, and yeah, war is evil. But there haven't been greater evil than Saddam (well, maybe Stalin). My Christianity teacher said once: 'We must always take the least evil choices.' The least evil choice was to remove Saddam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True. So why did we wait? Saddam was just as evil in the 1980s as he was in 2002. Guess what? Back then, he was our friend in the Middle East.

 

Not only that, the fact he was such an evil guy had nothing to do with the justification for the war. It only changed to that when it began to become obvious the stories of WMD were just that - stories.

 

Yes, explosions are frequent in some areas. But many areas (most of them are controlled by Kurds) are quite peaceful. I haven't heard of someone being tortured to death or entire cities being sprayed with chemicals these days. How would you like to be tortured? Do you know what's it like when gas eats your lungs? I'd rather be exploded.

 

So your argument is 'this war is justified because the people are being killed in a more humane manner'??????

 

1: Who appointed the US & allies as global policemen with the right to invade another country and topple the government?

It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, especially given the US' previous involvement in destabilising democratically elected governments. Chile, anyone?

 

And what would be global policemen if not US? Russa? No, thank you. Nobody? World War 2 started because there were no global policemen. If US & allies had invaded Germany when Hitler took it over, or Russa when Lenin caused the communism revolution, many millions of people would have been saved.

US had to establish their own government in Chile to prevent communism revolution there. There's no worse regime than communism.

 

Total BS. Who will be the world's policemen? No single country, that's for damn sure. That gives that single country way too much power, no matter which country it is. The UN is the closest thing we have to a workable system, so I'd say stick with that and improve it so it can actually carry out this function.

 

No worse regime than communism? How's about fascism? Totalitarian dictatorship? Hell, even monarchy if the wrong person's on the throne?

 

If you don't realise how wrong your comment was, I'd suggest you do a little research into what communism actually is.

 

The US using the fact that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator as an excuse to invade a sovereign nation which so happens to have huge oil reserves is pure hypocrisy

 

Maybe, but the fact is as follows - Saddam was removed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...as a side-effect of the war. If Saddam had somehow proven his lack of WMD (which he had already tried to do), it is quite possible he would still be in power in Iraq.

 

Socialism is kind of ethical, not communism. Socialists seek socialism peacefully, communists by killing people.

 

See Darnoc's post. He explains your complete misunderstanding of communism and socialism far better than I can.

 

But the US supports Totalitarian regimes all over the world and installed several (the ruthless dictators of Central America were imposed upon the hapless populations by CIA money).

There were two kinds of regimes in Central America: communism and other (I don't know how to call them). Both were totalitarian. But regimes, supported by US killed much less people than communism. For example, Pinotchet is accused of tens of thousands of deaths, not tens of millions like in China or USSR. Furthermore, no dictatorship in Central America could equal communist Cambodia, where 75% people were killed. Regimes of Central America were merciful when compared to the tirony of the Red Khmers.

As I said before, US supported these regimes in order to prevent communism.

 

And yet, even if you uphold democracy and accept the US as democratic, how can you then accept the US as having a role as world police? They have not been elected to perform that role, they have taken it upon themselves. They cannot be voted out and are accountable to no one. In other words they are acting as a Totalitarian state, the most evil regime you can get in your terms.

Do I have a choice? Who will remove saddams like that if not world police? Of course, it should have been elected, but better this than nothing.

 

The whole point is the US and UK chose, by themselves, to act as the 'world police'. They were not asked to, and, in fact, went against the organisation that is the nearest thing we actually have to legitimate 'world police' (the UN) in order to carry out their actions. The huge mess they left behind is testament to how badly they screwed up, and the fact that the given reason for going to war (WMD) is now universally regarded as a big, steaming pile of horseshit is basically the (hopefully) final screw-up of the entire list.

 

They have chosen to ignore even the codified international laws. Whatever your personal view of Saddam Hussein, you cannot be blind to the fact that the US is behaving illegally and dictatorially. It puts them on the same level as Saddam Hussein himself.

Nobody can be put on the same level as Saddam, as long as they don't kill and torture mass of people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, the US and UK killed a lot of people in the initial war. They then tortured people in places like Abu Ghraib, and they have now introduced laws that basically allow them to arrest and hold people indefinately without charge.

[Darnoc]

Yeah, I mixed socialism with social-democracy. Sorry about that. But I don't approve it. In social-democracy the more you earn the more taxes you pay. This money is given to people who don't work. Companies are forced to pay huge taxes and therefore they cannot employ many people or raise wages. Idler gets your earned money.

And what's wrong with USA? As far as I know, their economy is the best in the world. Europe lags behind because of the social-democratic parties.

 

Look at the facts. Social status in Europe is much better than in the USA. Mass-poverty still exists in the USA, but not in Western Europe. And Eastern Europe is getting better. The US-economy is controlled by about 10% of the population. Those 10% have about 90% of the economy and the money. In Switzerland, 10% of the population possess 50% of the economy. See the difference?

 

Liberalism and Neo-Conservatism are only methods to increase the power of the ones who are already wealthy. Only through the social-democratic parties existing in Europe, the situation here is quite good, compared to the USA.

 

I have to correct myself. Pinotchet killed a few thousands, not tens of thousands people. And there were about 15 million people in Chile, so he could have easily killed millions of people, like communists did.

 

Why are you still talking about communists? Most people and parties calling themselves communists are not communistic at all. There are no communistic states on this earth, there are no communistic societies on this earth. Didn't you read my explanation of communism and socialism above?

 

Russia possesed about 150 Million inhabitants. Under Stalin, about 20 Million were killed. I don't know the figures of killed people in China, but China has a population of 1,3 Billion. Chile only has 15 Million inhabitants. Make the math yourself.

 

Indonesia? Is that the best you can come up with? Compare it with Cambodia, USSR or China and you'll see that communism has killed more people than anything else and therefore IT IS EVIL.

 

Communism is not evil. In fact, the communistic (real communistic) ideology is one of the most human on earth. The communistic ideology states that all humans are equal and no classes should exist. So whats wrong with that?

 

All those governments mentioned by you were never communistic. They didn't even call themselves like that. They were socialistic governments and they even perverted that term.

 

I came up with Indonesia, because Indonesia was a dictatorship supported by the USA. You want some more dictatorships supported by the USA? Here you go:

 

South-Vietnam (yes, this was acctually a pseudo-democratic dictatorship)

Eqypt (under Saddat and Mubarak)

Indonesia (under Suharto)

Jordan (after it made peace with Israel)

Iran (under the Shah)

Iraq (until the first Gulf war at least)

Saudi Arabia

Angola (since the nineties)

Democratic Republic Congo (or the not so democratic... formerly also known as Zaire)

Chile

 

....

 

 

 

To show you another perfect example of the hypocracy of the US-government: Angola.

 

 

Angola is ruled by the MPLA (Movimento Popular da Libertaçao de Angola), a communistic party. Opposed to the government is the rebelgroup UNITA (Uniao Nacional para a Independencia Total), which wanted a democracy in Angola. UNITA was led by John Savimbi and supported by the USA, while the MPLA was supported by the Sowjetunion and Cuba (Che Guevara even led some troops into Angola).

 

In the nineties, this suddenly changed. Oil was found in the regions controlled by the government. The USA withdrew their support for the rebels and supported from now on the dictator Jose Eduardo des Santos. At the beginning of the nineties, elections took place which were won by the MPLA and dos Santos. UNITA proclaimed that the MPLA had cheated (probably they were right) and the civil war went on.

 

Only looking at the ressources, Angola should be the richest nation of Africa. But the endless war and out-selling of the nation to international coorporations had kept Angola one of the poorest countries in the world.

[Malchik]

By Central America I was not actually referring to Chile, isn't that in South America? I meant Nicaragua, Panama etc.

 

I note in my post I made no reference to the UK. I am not pretending we aren't as much to blame but draighox's post to which I was replying had no reference to the UK.

 

I see now that the US is getting geared up to invade Iran and Syria. At least this time the UK has already said it will not support the escalation of hostilities in the Middle East. Mind you, Blair's government has executed more U turns than a London cabbie, so that might not mean anything. But I hope it does.

 

Go ahead America. Finance your war on borrowed time and money until it all implodes. Just don't forget that you have all the information to see where it is taking you. Or rather, you would have if the you could be bothered to look for it. It isn't coming out of Bush's mouth!

[draighox]

To White Wolf

 

True. So why did we wait? Saddam was just as evil in the 1980s as he was in 2002. Guess what? Back then, he was our friend in the Middle East.

 

Not only that, the fact he was such an evil guy had nothing to do with the justification for the war. It only changed to that when it began to become obvious the stories of WMD were just that - stories.

So Saddam mustn't be removed just because USA has waited for 20 years? Interesting...

 

So your argument is 'this war is justified because the people are being killed in a more humane manner'??????

Yes. And because much less people are being killed.

 

Total BS. Who will be the world's policemen? No single country, that's for damn sure. That gives that single country way too much power, no matter which country it is. The UN is the closest thing we have to a workable system, so I'd say stick with that and improve it so it can actually carry out this function.

 

No worse regime than communism? How's about fascism? Totalitarian dictatorship? Hell, even monarchy if the wrong person's on the throne?

 

If you don't realise how wrong your comment was, I'd suggest you do a little research into what communism actually is.

As I said before, If US & allies had invaded Germany when Hitler took it over, or Russa when Lenin caused the communism revolution, many millions of people would have been saved. But no. That gives that single country way too much power, so let's just watch people being killed. (sarcasm)

United Nations? If it weren't for USA, Saddam would still rule Iraq. UN wouldn't do anything about this.

Most historians have agreed that every ideology is judged IN UNISON with measures of its realisation. Since the measures of communism realisation have killed 100 millions of people (even more than fascism), it is obvious that communism IS evil.

 

...as a side-effect of the war.

And that's a bad thing?

 

The huge mess they left behind is testament to how badly they screwed up, and the fact that the given reason for going to war (WMD) is now universally regarded as a big, steaming pile of horseshit is basically the (hopefully) final screw-up of the entire list.

They didn't screw up. The situation in Iraq nowadays is better than it was when Saddam ruled. I wrote about it before.

 

Well, the US and UK killed a lot of people in the initial war. They then tortured people in places like Abu Ghraib, and they have now introduced laws that basically allow them to arrest and hold people indefinately without charge.

First, they killed much less people than Saddam would have killed if he hadn't been removed. Second, I want to ask you. How many people were tortured in Abu Ghraib, and how many people were tortured by Saddam? Third, people in Abu Ghraib were tortured by guards, Bush didn't order them.

 

 

To Darnoc

 

Look at the facts. Social status in Europe is much better than in the USA. Mass-poverty still exists in the USA, but not in Western Europe. And Eastern Europe is getting better. The US-economy is controlled by about 10% of the population. Those 10% have about 90% of the economy and the money. In Switzerland, 10% of the population possess 50% of the economy. See the difference?

 

Liberalism and Neo-Conservatism are only methods to increase the power of the ones who are already wealthy. Only through the social-democratic parties existing in Europe, the situation here is quite good, compared to the USA.

Maybe so, but that 10%, controlled by 90% of the population in USA, is greater than the percent, controlled by 90% of population in Europe. (I'm not talking about Switzerland, which is extremely rich because of its geographycal position. Or maybe something else, you know better.) Why are people moving from Europe to USA and not vice versa?

 

Why are you still talking about communists? Most people and parties calling themselves communists are not communistic at all. There are no communistic states on this earth, there are no communistic societies on this earth. Didn't you read my explanation of communism and socialism above?

 

Russia possesed about 150 Million inhabitants. Under Stalin, about 20 Million were killed. I don't know the figures of killed people in China, but China has a population of 1,3 Billion. Chile only has 15 Million inhabitants. Make the math yourself.

I will happily repeat this as many times as needed. Most historians have agreed that every ideology is judged IN UNISON with measures of its realisation. Since the measures of communism realisation have killed 100 millions of people, it is obvious that communism IS evil.

I've made the math. According to your statistics, Stalin has killed about 13% of the population (though I think it must be more), and Pinotchet has killed about 0.002% of the population.

 

Angola is ruled by the MPLA (Movimento Popular da Libertaçao de Angola), a communistic party. Opposed to the government is the rebelgroup UNITA (Uniao Nacional para a Independencia Total), which wanted a democracy in Angola. UNITA was led by John Savimbi and supported by the USA, while the MPLA was supported by the Sowjetunion and Cuba (Che Guevara even led some troops into Angola).

 

In the nineties, this suddenly changed. Oil was found in the regions controlled by the government. The USA withdrew their support for the rebels and supported from now on the dictator Jose Eduardo des Santos. At the beginning of the nineties, elections took place which were won by the MPLA and dos Santos. UNITA proclaimed that the MPLA had cheated (probably they were right) and the civil war went on.

I can't argue back on this because I don't know anything about USA politics in Angola. I can only tell you that even USA makes mistakes (eg. supporting Israel), but these mistakes do not outweight their good accomplishments.

[ThetaOrionis01]

There were two kinds of regimes in Central America: communism and other (I don't know how to call them). Both were totalitarian. But regimes, supported by US killed much less people than communism. For example, Pinotchet is accused of tens of thousands of deaths, not tens of millions like in China or USSR. Furthermore, no dictatorship in Central America could equal communist Cambodia, where 75% people were killed. Regimes of Central America were merciful when compared to the tirony of the Red Khmers.

As I said before, US supported these regimes in order to prevent communism.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I have to correct myself. Pinotchet killed a few thousands, not tens of thousands people. And there were about 15 million people in Chile, so he could have easily killed millions of people, like communists did.

Indonesia? Is that the best you can come up with? Compare it with Cambodia, USSR or China and you'll see that communism has killed more people than anything else and therefore IT IS EVIL.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

First, they killed much less people than Saddam would have killed if he hadn't been removed. Second, I want to ask you. How many people were tortured in Abu Ghraib, and how many people were tortured by Saddam? Third, people in Abu Ghraib were tortured by guards, Bush didn't order them.

 

...

 

I will happily repeat this as many times as needed. Most historians have agreed that every ideology is judged IN UNISON with measures of its realisation. Since the measures of communism realisation have killed 100 millions of people, it is obvious that communism IS evil.

I've made the math. According to your statistics, Stalin has killed about 13% of the population (though I think it must be more), and Pinotchet has killed about 0.002% of the population.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I find your reasoning sickening and obscene. You are excusing dictatorships 'because they're not as bad as communism'. You seem to find it easy simply to disregard all those killed by regimes supported by the US because of numbers....

 

In particular your comment

As I said before, US supported these regimes in order to prevent communism.

is not just obscene, it's also highly offensive.

 

 

It is this rationalising away of, and finding excuses for murder and torture that allows totalitarian regimes and support for them to flourish.

 

 

And as Darnoc has pointed out, Stalin's regime was not communism - it was a totalitarian dictatorship.

 

 

Whether the people of Iraq are better off now remains to be seen, and will depend on what kind of government replaces Saddam Hussein.

 

 

No single country has the right to appoint itself not just the world's policeman, but also the world's judge - not even the US. And without this legal basis, the US are not a world police force, but a bunch of vigilantes operating outside any international law. The closest the world has to an international police force is the UN - unfortunately the UN is crippled by the naked self-interest of its member states.

 

If you really want to believe that the US acted out of anything other than blatant self-interest - well, it's your right to cherish whichever myth you want to believe in.

[Zmid]

So Saddam mustn't be removed just because USA has waited for 20 years? Interesting...

 

No, my point was if the motive for war was the removal of Saddam, why did we wait 20 years? Why was it that this was NOT the given reason for the war until it began to be obvious the first given reason for the war was utter hogwash?

 

I'll tell you very simply - it had nothing to do with why the war was fought. This means the whole argument of 'but Saddam is gone' is entirely irrelevant. As I have already said, if Saddam had somehow conclusively and publicly proved he had no WMD, he would still be in power.

 

So your argument is 'this war is justified because the people are being killed in a more humane manner'??????

Yes. And because much less people are being killed.

 

So if a situation arises where a dictator is killing 100,000 people per day, and somebody decides to go to war and, in this war, the civilian casualties are 80,000 per day, it would be perfectly OK for them to go to war?

 

As I said before, If US & allies had invaded Germany when Hitler took it over, or Russa when Lenin caused the communism revolution, many millions of people would have been saved. But no. That gives that single country way too much power, so let's just watch people being killed. (sarcasm)

 

The reason 'our' side in WW2 is referred to as 'the Allies' is because there was quite a few countries in it, not just one.

 

United Nations? If it weren't for USA, Saddam would still rule Iraq. UN wouldn't do anything about this.

 

On the contrary, I rather think that if the US and UK hadn't been so stubborn about saying Iraq had WMD when they so obviously didn't, they might have won support in the UN, instead of more or less making an enemy of them. If that had happened, they might have gotten the UN to back a war over a legitimate reason, for example, Saddam's blatent disregard for his own people's Human Rights.

 

Most historians have agreed that every ideology is judged IN UNISON with measures of its realisation. Since the measures of communism realisation have killed 100 millions of people (even more than fascism), it is obvious that communism IS evil.

 

Read Darnoc's post again. There have never been any truly communist countries in the world, ever. There have been socialist countries, and dictatorships which have claimed to be communist countries, but that's as close as we have ever got.

 

...as a side-effect of the war.

And that's a bad thing?

 

Yes. It should have been the main objective of the war. It wasn't. The given reason for the war was entirely false. The fact Saddam was removed is a by-product of the war, nothing more.

 

The huge mess they left behind is testament to how badly they screwed up, and the fact that the given reason for going to war (WMD) is now universally regarded as a big, steaming pile of horseshit is basically the (hopefully) final screw-up of the entire list.

They didn't screw up. The situation in Iraq nowadays is better than it was when Saddam ruled. I wrote about it before.

 

Let's see, they were in a pretty bad situation. They were ruled by a despotic dictator who ordered the arrest of anyone who offended him in any way, and, in prison, they were tortured and sometimes eventually killed. They are now in a bombed-out shell of a country and could find themselves arrested, taken to a prison and tortured. Not only that, said country is infested by all sorts of terrorists who are blowing people/places/themselves up almost at random.

 

I don't see a huge difference.

 

Well, the US and UK killed a lot of people in the initial war. They then tortured people in places like Abu Ghraib, and they have now introduced laws that basically allow them to arrest and hold people indefinately without charge.

First, they killed much less people than Saddam would have killed if he hadn't been removed.

 

Well, that figure is estimated at 100,000, but could be as high as 200,000. There is no official figure because the US 'doesn't count Iraqis, only Americans'. Saddam has killed, it is estimated, 1,000,000 - over twenty-four years. You do the math.

 

Second, I want to ask you. How many people were tortured in Abu Ghraib, and how many people were tortured by Saddam? Third, people in Abu Ghraib were tortured by guards, Bush didn't order them.

 

That is what is claimed. However, the guard in charge of Abu Ghraib claimed she had evidence of such orders coming from 'the very top' of the chain of command, and it is known that the tortures committed by British forces were due to an order to 'work them hard'. The man who gave that order, who was in charge of the camp where, Major Dan Taylor, claimed he had informed his superiors of his plans before he gave that order and was not told not to. So how high up the chain of command does this go?

[draighox]

To Theta Orionis

 

I find your reasoning sickening and obscene. You are excusing dictatorships 'because they're not as bad as communism'. You seem to find it easy simply to disregard all those killed by regimes supported by the US because of numbers....

I am NOT excusing dictatorships. I'm just saying than there might have been even better way, but non-comunistic regimes was a better choice than communism, which would have killed way more people and expanded USSR influence. Is that so hard to wise up?

 

And as Darnoc has pointed out, Stalin's regime was not communism - it was a totalitarian dictatorship.

He was moving on to communism. I will repeat this for the third time - every ideology is judged IN UNISON with measures of its realisation. Since the measures of communism realisation have killed 100 millions of people, it is obvious that communism IS evil.

 

No single country has the right to appoint itself not just the world's policeman, but also the world's judge - not even the US. And without this legal basis, the US are not a world police force, but a bunch of vigilantes operating outside any international law.

I don't think you would care if you were saved by people who had authority to save people or by 'a bunch of vigilantes operating outside any international law.' Especially if the people who had authority would just sit and watch.

 

 

To White Wolf

 

I'll tell you very simply - it had nothing to do with why the war was fought.

Who cares? Saddam was removed - that's all that matters.

 

As I have already said, if Saddam had somehow conclusively and publicly proved he had no WMD, he would still be in power.

Which proves that UN would have done nothing.

 

So if a situation arises where a dictator is killing 100,000 people per day, and somebody decides to go to war and, in this war, the civilian casualties are 80,000 per day, it would be perfectly OK for them to go to war?

Yes, if there were no other way which would reduce casualties to 60,000 per day or more. I don't think I get your logic...

 

As I said before, If US & allies had invaded Germany when Hitler took it over, or Russa when Lenin caused the communism revolution, many millions of people would have been saved. But no. That gives that single country way too much power, so let's just watch people being killed. (sarcasm)

The reason 'our' side in WW2 is referred to as 'the Allies' is because there was quite a few countries in it, not just one.

So?

 

On the contrary, I rather think that if the US and UK hadn't been so stubborn about saying Iraq had WMD when they so obviously didn't, they might have won support in the UN, instead of more or less making an enemy of them. If that had happened, they might have gotten the UN to back a war over a legitimate reason, for example, Saddam's blatent disregard for his own people's Human Rights.

...

As I have already said, if Saddam had somehow conclusively and publicly proved he had no WMD, he would still be in power.

Logic?

 

Read Darnoc's post again. There have never been any truly communist countries in the world, ever. There have been socialist countries, and dictatorships which have claimed to be communist countries, but that's as close as we have ever got.

And the fourth time - every ideology is judged IN UNISON with measures of its realisation. Since the measures of communism realisation have killed 100 millions of people, it is obvious that communism IS evil.

 

Yes. It should have been the main objective of the war. It wasn't. The given reason for the war was entirely false. The fact Saddam was removed is a by-product of the war, nothing more.

OK. So if my main objective was to get some milk from the shop, and on the way there I saw you being beaten up, it wouldn't be right if I helped you, because the shop has run out of milk?

 

Let's see, they were in a pretty bad situation. They were ruled by a despotic dictator who ordered the arrest of anyone who offended him in any way, and, in prison, they were tortured and sometimes eventually killed. They are now in a bombed-out shell of a country and could find themselves arrested, taken to a prison and tortured. Not only that, said country is infested by all sorts of terrorists who are blowing people/places/themselves up almost at random.

 

I don't see a huge difference.

Many areas are quite peacefull. Nobody is being tortured (except those few in Abu Ghraib.) People now have freedom and even free election.

 

That is what is claimed. However, the guard in charge of Abu Ghraib claimed she had evidence of such orders coming from 'the very top' of the chain of command, and it is known that the tortures committed by British forces were due to an order to 'work them hard'. The man who gave that order, who was in charge of the camp where, Major Dan Taylor, claimed he had informed his superiors of his plans before he gave that order and was not told not to. So how high up the chain of command does this go?

And why on earth 'the very top' of the chain of command would want prisoners being tortured?

[ThetaOrionis01]

I am NOT excusing dictatorships. I'm just saying than there might have been even better way, but non-comunistic regimes was a better choice than communism, which would have killed way more people and expanded USSR influence. Is that so hard to wise up?

 

Prove it. Prove to me conclusively that the democratically elected Allende government would have killed and tortured more people than the Pinochet dictatorship.

 

He was moving on to communism. I will repeat this for the third time - every ideology is judged IN UNISON with measures of its realisation. Since the measures of communism realisation have killed 100 millions of people, it is obvious that communism IS evil.

 

Stalin's regime had nothing to do with communism, and everything to do with totalitarianism. Can you really not see the difference? Your claim that communism is evil is therefore invalid, no matter how often you repeat your theory.

Any ideology can be twisted and abused - look at Christianity, and the genocide in South America for example. By your reasoning, Christianity is the most evil ideology on the planet.

 

 

I don't think you would care if you were saved by people who had authority to save people or by 'a bunch of vigilantes operating outside any international law.' Especially if the people who had authority would just sit and watch.

 

Tell that to the approximately 100,000 civilians killed as 'collateral damage'. Do you really think they consider themselves better off?

 

 

US foreign policy is not about what's best for everyone else - it's about what's best for US interests. So if a dictator in one country is good for US business, then that regime will receive support. If a democratically elected government in another country is perceived to be bad for US interests - including US business interests - then you need only look at Chile to see what happens.

That's why human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia go ahead without US intervention. That's why the US funded Osama bin Laden and the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. That's why the US supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. Of course, it was also in their best interest to sell weapons to Iran at the same time... - look up 'Iran-Contra Affair'.

It is now in the best interest of the US to invade Iraq - not because one of their former friends has turned against them, but because there's a heck of a lot of oil there, and because American companies stand to make lots and lots of money from this war and the consequent rebuilding. Because it will increase US influence in the Middle-East.

 

It is precisely this self-interest on the part of its member states which prevents the UN from assuming the role it should have, and it is the same self-interest which is the reason why no one state can be trusted to act as a world police force.

 

If you really believe that the US would not have supported Saddam Hussein if circumstances had been different and he had been perceived as a valuable ally (as he was perceived during the Iran-Iraq war) - for instance, as a force against extremist movements - then you really need to open your eyes to the real world of international politics. And read up on the history of US foreign policy.