U.S got Saddam

[Mojlnir]

I do feel a little pity for Saddam. I have studied his life and his childhood was filled with the sort of things that would make you cringe. I pity the little boy who was beaten, ridiculed, and indoctrinated in the ways of hate. I do not pity the man that boy became.

 

It is my opinion that foreign intervention should remain on the table as an option to the foreign policy of any nation. I do not agree with the view that all intervention is illegal, though I stop well short of arguing for blank checks to leaders. I also strongly disagree with the opinion that soldiers should die and that their occupation is equivalent to that of executioners. TheDeadTree is right, at least in America, most people who sign up are kids, fresh out of highschool, who are trying to pay for an education. The military provides a GI Bill which covers much, if not all, of the cost of higher education at most universities. Those soldiers are not executioners, they're kids trying to get ahead in the world.

 

As for America, we are in a very unenviable position right now. As the sole remaining super power, we are in a damned if you do-damned if you don't situation. If we intervene somewhere, people will scream that we are imperialistic invaders and that our troops should die, while at the same time, if we stand by and do nothing we are accuesed of being heartless and spineless.

 

I respect the right of everyone to criticize the policies of governments, but remember that NONE of us ever knows the whole story, and we are not in the shoes of those who have to make decisions. I agree that fatally wrong decisions have been made, but at the same time, good ones have been as well. I don't want to bring it up, but I will. Take Europe for example, had the U.S. not intervened, there is no telling what the current situation would be like. I highly doubt it would look anything like what it does today.

 

I'm not looking to rub anything in anyones face, nor am I saying "Look at the US, we're sooo cool, everyone owes us everything" because we've seen where that kind of talk takes us. I just want to point out that for every position taken, there is rebuttal waiting in the wings.

[Malchik]

I wouldn't start talking about the US policy during WW2 Mojlnir. Just don't go there.

[Shakkara]

Perhaps the reason for the war wasn't as pure as bush would like everyone to believe, maybe it was for his political gain and covering his mess ups but Bush did not make the desion alone.

And it is not just bush that is the source of all evil america inflicts upon the world.

 

I think there where many reasons to invade Iraq and some where valid. Sadam was a butcher, there is no denying that, that is no cover up, the U.S. did not pawn Sadam into mudering people on television.

However they picked a butcher to rule Iraq, so while they may not be responsible for Saddam's actions they are responsible for giving him the chance to inflict them on the entire nation.

 

I personaly don't know if a invasion was a good idea either, it certianly has it's repercusions(sp?) But despite what the goverment wanted the people of America wanted to liberate iraq.

Right, and we have all seen the protests. And the remaining people probably just didn't care or were indoctrinated by propaganda.

 

I have studied for years about that country and what Sadam has done to people, he was a murderous dictator. Iraq wasn't the main source of terrorism, that wasn't the reason for invasion, the reason was (and I hesitate to say) weapons of mass destruction. I personaly am %100 aganst Nukes, and not in favor of other biological and chemical weapons either. While no weapons of mass destruction where found (damnit!) the cause was good, maybe jumping the gun though.

If the US oppose WMD so much, why don't they disarm first? Besides, I think WMD are the only thing that can stop the US from invading your country when it pleases them, and I believe it is entirely justified to have them at the moment to counter the threat the US poses to the world.

 

  If I called the shots I would always hold out hope for peacfull negotiations, America's last real defensive war was with the British, (pearl harbor was revenge and I hate what happened to Japan) America will attack other countries somtimes when they present a threat and somtimes for revenge, Iraq was a mixture of both reasons. Lets face it Sadam was a tyrant and with Nukes he would use them, that is why I would justify a invasion, I believe using nukes as a detorant from the U.S. was just a way to do what ever sick s^!t he wanted to and not be attacked.

Well he couldn't use the nukes in any offensive way since that would be suicide. He could only use them defensively and keep everyone out. Well good, the Iraqi people would have gotten rid of him and his ilk sooner or later.

 

  I however believe a invasion was the wrong way to do it. I would have given a reasonable chance to dethrone himself and upon his refusal special forces (not the fresh out of high school never been in combat kiddie type, but the ones that are active all the time you never hear about :ph34r: ) would take him out and his sons and look-alikes.

Oh right, more interference. Saddam shouldn't have been there in the first place, but US interference put him there.

 

But it has already begun, the remaining terrorist in Iraq will be eliminated or used and invading forces will prevale in building a new civilized Iraq

Terrorism will not end there unless you slaughter every single person. And I find it hard that you can believe the bullpoo you say in your last sentance, especially since america is barbarism under the guise of civilization.

[ShinJiOh]

(mojlnir) NONE of us ever knows the whole story

 

true mojlnir but then would you say that the governments themselves do not know the full story either. For the path of corruption runs deep, not that it even is corruption.

 

Once with the Australian government, we had a problem with refugees and the government released that the refugees were monsters by throwing their children overboard, which held the ref's out of the country through public demand...... and incidentally won that party the next election.

A few months later it was revealed that the boat was actually sinking and the government had lied... they denied knowledge of this

 

 

wouldn't you?

[Shakkara]

It is my opinion that foreign intervention should remain on the table as an option to the foreign policy of any nation. I do not agree with the view that all intervention is illegal, though I stop well short of arguing for blank checks to leaders. I also strongly disagree with the opinion that soldiers should die and that their occupation is equivalent to that of executioners.

If you are willing to kill then don't cry if you are killed.

 

TheDeadTree is right, at least in America, most people who sign up are kids, fresh out of highschool, who are trying to pay for an education.  The military provides a GI Bill which covers much, if not all, of the cost of higher education at most universities. Those soldiers are not executioners, they're kids trying to get ahead in the world.

At the expense of other people, even other peoples LIVES.

But hey, it's the American way!

 

As for America, we are in a very unenviable position right now.  As the sole remaining super power, we are in a damned if you do-damned if you don't situation.  If we intervene somewhere, people will scream that we are imperialistic invaders and that our troops should die, while at the same time, if we stand by and do nothing we are accuesed of being heartless and spineless.

Well IMO you should just stay on your own land at all times. IF you want to do something, then go help protect refugees and things like that, not invade the damn country.

 

I respect the right of everyone to criticize the policies of governments, but remember that NONE of us ever knows the whole story, and we are not in the shoes of those who have to make decisions. I agree that fatally wrong decisions have been made, but at the same time, good ones have been as well.  I don't want to bring it up, but I will. Take Europe for example, had the U.S. not intervened, there is no telling what the current situation would be like. I highly doubt it would look anything like what it does today.

Had the US not intervened in WW1 then there most likely would not have been a WW2. Thanks very much.

 

I'm not looking to rub anything in anyones face, nor am I saying "Look at the US, we're sooo cool, everyone owes us everything" because we've seen where that kind of talk takes us. I just want to point out that for every position taken, there is rebuttal waiting in the wings.

True, however that does not justify the premeditated evil your nation has done.

[Malchik]

Of course, Shakkara, it is not only the US that has invaded other countries in the past 50 years. I am in sympathy with a lot of what you say, though I find the way you put it too biased against the USA as against war and invasion in general. I take it you believe no country should find it necessary to intervene in another. You must therefore feel the same about Russia, China, Israel, the UK, France and a good many others. At present the US must take most flak because it is the one that does most of the invading but put it in the overall perspective. Otherwise your excellent points are swallowed up in what seems more like an anti-US rant!

 

I am not sure that I fully subscribe to there being no situation at all in which external intervention is desirable but I'd rather discuss that with you in another thread or in PM.

[Akrid]

QUOTE (Acrid @ Dec 16 2003, 09:14 PM)

I think there where many reasons to invade Iraq and some where valid. Sadam was a butcher, there is no denying that, that is no cover up, the U.S. did not pawn Sadam into mudering people on television.

 

 

However they picked a butcher to rule Iraq, so while they may not be responsible for Saddam's actions they are responsible for giving him the chance to inflict them on the entire nation.

 

We enpowered Sadam? Thats funny I thought he purged his way to the top like most dictators. I don't know where you get your conspiricy ideas but they sure are silly :lol: It is funny though because I thought of that same possibilty a long time ago, it seemed funny we never delt with him, almost like he served some purpose, or provided some justification to attack Iraq. I think there is mixed feeling between Iraqi's and American's I met some Iraqi people after the invasion, I asked them how they veiwed Americans and what we are doing, They said they where happy that we came to end the dictatorship there. Their english was poor but thats what I got from it. Also here's a somthing to think about, if we did put Sadam in power then what your gripe is is that we put a butcher in power, now if you admit he is a butcher, regardless of why we remove him, isn't it still nessesary? So would you say it is so America can line their pockets with oil (when we are designing cars that don't use gas) and pretty much raping Iraq of it's resources? We helped Iraq sell it's oil, we made that nation rich, only Sadam abused the money, he didn't use it to help the people of Iraq. I just don't see how Sadam is helping their economy or the U.S. we never wanted him, we never needed him, he wasn't a pawn, he was a thorn in our side. America agenda is obvious, ther happens to be a corrupt dictator in a oil rich country, we can take him out, ensure a safer counry and middle east (how often does America and Canada go to war?) The western nation value peace. And the middle east does affect us and the world. We live in a age where nations are around the world are connected with information and travel and fumilating ideas and factions. Without orginization the world would fall apart.

 

If the US oppose WMD so much, why don't they disarm first? Besides, I think WMD are the only thing that can stop the US from invading your country when it pleases them, and I believe it is entirely justified to have them at the moment to counter the threat the US poses to the world.

 

Unfourtunetly the U.S. does value weapons of mass destruction for defence, I don't like it either. Maybe Sadam would use Nukes for defence, but like I said to get away with genocide of the kurds or what not and not be attacked for it, oh thats justifed, I guess mass murder is ok, my mistake. Sadam dosn't deserve to defend himself (not his counrty he dosn't care about) he dosn't deserve to have a country, or power and he dosn't deserve to live. He has used biological and chemical weapons on civlilian targets before, and during the invasion he fired missles at that little country to it's south I believe.

[Mojlnir]

I think I've made myself pretty clear on the issues being discussed here, and because I find many of the ideas expressed here to pedantic and absolutely infuriating, I am respectfully removing myself from further discussion. I will not respond to attempts to entice me to enage in a flame war. Some of the comments that have been expressed here are blatant attempts at trolling, which I will not dignfy with responses. Malchik is correct to note that even good points can be over-shadowed by biased rhetoric. Shouting matches and inflamatory statements do not equate to debate, they are little more than so much hot air.

 

Also, when I think that an argument I am making can be supported or described by bringing up an issue of American foreign or domestic policy, from any time period, I will bring it up.

 

 

Respectfully,

 

Mojlnir

[Akrid]

I think I've made myself pretty clear on the issues being discussed here, and because I find many of the ideas expressed here to pedantic and absolutely infuriating, I am respectfully removing myself from further discussion. I will not respond to attempts to entice me to enage in a flame war. Some of the comments that have been expressed here are blatant attempts at trolling, which I will not dignfy with responses. Malchik is correct to note that even good points can be over-shadowed by biased rhetoric. Shouting matches and inflamatory statements do not equate to debate, they are little more than so much hot air.

 

You forgot to mention the valid point's being made, however I as well am becoming bored with Shakkara's I hate Americans post. Why I even respond to them is beyond me. I'm not a monster neither is anybody I know, so maybe America isn't that bad.

[Malchik]

Okay, everyone wants to pull out and I do think it is getting a little personal. Locked. PM me if you want to make more points and I'll think about it.

 

Despite the rant some good points were made here.