Originally Posted by TreeHouse Infact it is! That is once the Islamic extremists have been defeated. For example the Kurds in the north of Iraq have not risen up and have been working with allied forces to rebuild the country. Incidently the Kurds society flourished thanks to the no-fly zone in the north which protected them for Saddam's forces. The Kurds are non othordox muslims who are very open to the idea of democracy and libertarian ideas like ours. Just because some parts of Iraq like Bagdad and Falluja are currently experiencing massive turmoil doesn't mean there isn't any hope for the future. President Allawi is also hardly an American puppet, when America was supportting Saddam he was a strong critic of him. So much so that he was imprisoned, tortured and eventually fled Iraq only to survive an assasination attempt on him by Iraqi agents at his new home in London. He was Iraq's equivlent of Leon Trotsky who strongly oppossed the tyranny of Stalin and who is now revered by the left as a hero. When Allawi originally joined the Baath party in 1960 it was then a socialist party which was later hijacked by the egomaniac Saddam Hussein. President Allawi is commited to building a democratic Iraq and ensuring that there are free and fair elections. That is why he supports the security role of allied troops. He is also building up Iraq's own security forces so allied troops will eventually no longer be needed. OK so most Iraqis distrust the presence of American troops and they have been responsible for some atrocities. The solution there is simple, replace them with UN troops from neighbouring arab countries who the majority of Iraqis can trust. That's either optimism or naivity. You're also assuming that politicians are inherently incorruptable. Add the element of the American puppet strings, and where does that leave them? If it's the American model of democrashite you're looking for, then maybe you're right. But the idea that America is a democratic country is laughable to say the least.... I am an optimist and have lots of naivety... i think we should wait and see, lots of things have happened that have defied expectations and though i am sure the other posters within this thread that cry out puppet goverments and know more of the history. Personaly i am going to wait and see. I have stopped reading newspapers and watching tv and after a certain person got under my skin recently ( i blame the mead, red and white wine i had been drinking at warwick on saturday:& ) i am not going to even fathom the complex intricacies of the whole situation any further than the simple notion i have at the moment. I hope in the not to distant future we are all (well, those that wish) will be taking holidays in iraq , enjoying the freedom and the wonderful scenery . I have read far to much of this kinda stuff http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ I was in the middle of the forest of information and could not see the wood for the trees. Now i just think 'one day' this will be a memory and a chapter in history.. Good look true iraqis that wish for calm and resolution.
Well the Iraqi people would have no hope of a democratic future at all had Saddam been left in power as his son Uday was waiting to take power when Saddam died and Uday was just as brutal and murderous as his father. Also people should stop thinking of the inusrgents in Iraq as the resistance, the are Islamic extremists who want to turn Iraq into an Iranian style Islamic fundamentalist state. They are no way representative of the Iraqi people. Not only that but these insurgents have even killed, Red Cross and UN staff. They are as evil as Saddam was and need to be wiped out. Some progress has already been made in Iraq, for example trade unions and independent newspapers and radio and TV channels are now free to operate. Thousands of refugees have returned home and shops and businesses are thriving. There are also loads of political parties preparing for the forthcoming elections, including the worker communist party of Iraq.
An American thinkthank today estimated that there are around 1000 foreign terrorists in Iraq operating around the netwark of al Quaeda. One thousand! Do you really think such a small number of people could contend with the might of almost 200,000 western troops? Yes, they may be there, and yes, they may be giving them a bloody nose, but let's not forget that this is an occupation and there is a strong nationalist resistance within Iraq. This is resistance on a mass scale. No one is saying that Saddam gone is a bad thing. But if Britain were occupied by a foreign force, wouldn't you resist?
Ummmmm.... I was actually praying for an invasion during the Thatcher years! Maybe that's a bad example.....
Hahahaha, fair point. But joking apart, I'm sure most of the Iraqi population were glad to see the back of Saddam. But that's not to say that they would welcome a foreign occupation force any more than their old dictator....
Yeah Sal, I agree. The problem is really whether the Americans can offer an improvement on the previous regime, which clearly they can't. If they had any framework for offering a viable post-Saddam future, then maybe they'd be welcomed with a little more enthusiasm. I suspect though that all most normal Iraqis see ahead of them is increased misery and chaos.
Yeah as Sal says this is absolute drivel. The British and the Americans want us to believe that these are foreign extremists, al-Qaeda, Baathist loyalists so they can diminish the resistance and demonise it. Quite why they think this explanation does them any favours I don't know, seeing as there was no such thing as an al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to invasion, and as such that explanation is actually an open admission that invasion has caused Iraq to become a breeding ground for terrorism, which it was not before. But they want to talk up the terrorist/extremist explanation of the insurgency to convince us that the Iraqis themselves are not actually rebelling against us - oh no, how could they? After they greeted us as they did with flowers and open arms... No, this is a popular uprising, right across the Sunni and Shia populations. These are late teenagers, fathers, average people, fighting against what they see as a hostile imperialist occupational army. I see the invasion force as a hostile imperialist army too - one that seeks to impose its own form of puppet democracy. Do you really think that these elections will be free and fair? The majority of the population of Iraq is shiite muslim, so if there were a genuinely democratic vote there is a real possibility that Iraq would become a shiite theocracy like Iran. Are the Americans going to let there be a chance of that? There's only one kind of freedom and democracy on offer here, and that's puppet-style.
They're as cynical if not more so as we are when we get a new leader. And we elect ours. It's hard to have faith in a government as it is, and when you know you had no say in how that government came to be...
We only think we elect ours. We never get a choice to elect a whole new system to replace the existing one. The same in Iraq, any election will be within the constraints of a new forced system that they are trying to impose.
Be interesting if we ever got some real options, wouldn't it? Imagine if we could elect policies instead of governments?
They are not (imho) fighting against a hostile imperialist occupational army, maybe unemployed teenagers and fathers, wanting jobs. They read and hear about the theory that they are being taken over by a hostile imperialist occupational army. That is also going take all their oil and rob them of any future. Its i think not the majority and being brainwashed is only part 'our fault, i am sure they are brain washed by the insurgent forces that perpetuate the notion that they are fighting a hostile imperialist occupational army, and not that the insurgency does not want those teenagers and fathers to have a free democratic nation were everyone eligible can vote including women, and just maybe these teenagers and fathers will be able to get jobs and broaden their horizons and see the world outside the viewpoint of these crazy insurgent people that don't realy have them best intrests at heart anyway.
That argument would have some merit, if it were not for the plain fact, they are fighting a hostile imperialist army! Firstly, it is hostile, unless you can imagine a friendly invasion. Secondly we've already established in a previous thread that the war was based on deception (whether you choose to justify that as faulty intelligence, or see it as lies). You've also accepted that the primary goal of the war was to secure Iraq's oil reserves, even if you choose to see the removal of Saddam as an acceptable trade off for this. If you want hard evidence, look at how many Iraqi national industries have been sold off to American corporations just months after the 'end' of the war. Look too at one of the central points made in Bush's declaration of war address, urging Iraqi soldiers not to destroy the oil wells. Curiouser and curiouser. I therefore would see this as imperialism. Cultural, economic and military. And as for the third term, there's not much to dispute the fact that there's a fucking large foreign army in Iraq!
The Myth: The Iraq war was for oil. The Fact: There is a direct correlation between crude oil prices prices and the worth of oil stock. Higher oil price higher oil stock worth. There is an inverse correlation between oil production costs and the worth of oil stock. Higher production costs lower oil stock worth. Crude oil prices are going down, and the costs to repair all of the dilapidated Iraqi oil facilities and to produce this Iraqi owned oil is going up. Therefore; as a direct result of the Iraq war, oil stock worth (or Price) is commming down. To be in an elected US government job, all investments in oil, defence etc... must be liquidated. No one in the current Bush administration owns oil, defense stock etc... Therefore; no one in the current Bush administration is making money on anything as a direst result of the Iraqi war. The U.S. government, elected officals and American companys did not steel or gain any ownership rights in Kuwaiti oil as a direct result of the first Gulf war carried out by the United States to liberate Kuwait fron the Tyrant Saddam. One American company did make some money trying to put out the 600 oil wells Saddam distroyed creating one of the biggist natural desasters in Kuwaiti history. Well i can't remember agreeing ?. I remember being told and then ran around the houses for a while (if thats the thread your talking about) Can't remember saying yeah i agree with you all and i suppose it is an acceptable trade off. We don't realy need another one of those threads so lets not get into that one again (or maybe be a bit more helpful than Dok' (showmet you were prety helpful, i wanted info and showmet unselfishly and with no other agenda i think plainly gave it to me wich i apreciated). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3411051.stm Are you saying that all the america is getting the lion share ? i guess you are http://iraqiamericancci.org/ http://www.dbxexpo.com/home.htm (haha i see oil and gas, but thats inevitable, i thought it was a multi natio expo and anyone (well almost ) could meet and greet..nothing to exploitative ?.http://www.iraqdirectory.com/en/default.asp i am sure if you wished you can find countless non american companies ?. Well destroying them would be pret dumb, don't you think. Its nothing to do with saving their intrest..if i gather what i pasted above it would probably be worth blowing them up ?. Yes, so that the insurgents and the reconstruction and aid workers and democracy and trade can flourish. Like i said i am naive and a optimist
I bet politicians love you.... I'm going to make one point, and one point only from what you've just said, since we could quibble statistics all day. I can't believe that anyone can be so naive as to see that there is no oil agenda. Even if corporate positions have to be given up when elected, that doesn't negate the fact that prior to their current occupations, almost every single member of the Bush administration has held a high ranking position in a corporation with vested interests in Iraq's assets - oil being the primary. I can't believe that this is simply coincidence. And let us not forget, a political career doesn't last forever - there's always that retirement fund to think of. Moreover, those in the administration are on very friendly terms with their former corporate buddies - not least because they are the primary donors to the Republican election campaign - chief among them good old Esso. I don't want to start trading insults, but please, there's being naive, and there's being stupid....
No i very much doubt i would be trading insults with you..well i hope not. I did not want to get into anything with him but i did and well moving on .. I will make one point then from my humble opinion...i believe that circumstances arrose that would not go away saddam would inevitably be ousted if he did not comply...their could have been a war in another administration with out bush .. so he and cheney and whoever else you think in the administration ( i can't believe most have oil connections, wow i would like to see that evidence please) would make a profit anyway. If no war occured then possibly saddam would continue either fooling us or actualy completing a wmd programe . therefore attacking us or someone or no one ? but we will thankfuly never know.then bush administration would continue to make money from oil anyway. Plus it is all too conveniant, take away a few cards from your house of cards and it has the potential to all fall down.
Read "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore. Whilst I'm prepared to admit that his opinion is biased with a left-wing populist slant, the facts are laid out quite clearly in one chapter on the Bush cabinet's connections with big business, and he hasn't been sued for lible yet, so I'm assuming he did his research. Michael Moore goes into quite a bit of depth, but if you want an alternative source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm
Yes Saddam was a threat and had been considered so under previous admistrations before Bush got elected. Lets not kid oursleves about Saddam in thinking he posed no threat to the region. He was originally given two months after Gulf War One to declare and destroy all banned weapons, but dragged his feet, including hiding WMD from and sometimes threatening at gun point UN weapons inspectors for years and years. Finally expelling them on charges of spying in December 1998. Not only that but at the end of Gulf War One he attacked both the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. But I think America and its allies and the UN had done a successful job of containing Saddam as proved by the Iraq survey groups' findings that Iraq had been unable to re-produce any weapons of mass destruction since the UN inspectors were expelled in December 98. However there was a strong moral case for removing Saddam as it would free both his people and free UN time and resources from constantly monitering Iraq and also allow the end of sanctions on the country. In short Saddam had been contained but he was a constant worry and cause of concern.
Lmao, you could draw up a list of countries that you could say the same about, none of which we currently show any signs of invading.
Not a long list, the most dangerous regimes equal to Saddam's Iraq are North Korea (because of the regimes ultra-tryrannical nature whose polices have led to starving to death of over a million and its nuclear ambitions), China (because of their illegal invasion of Tibet) and Zimbabwe (because of Mugabe's insane land stealing policies which have plunged the country into absolute chaos) . North Korea would be too dangerous as they have a massive army. China too. Zimbabwe which I think we should sort out, with UN authority as Robert Mugbe is as evil and dangerous as Saddam was.
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." Colin Powell February 2001 "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country ... We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Condolleeza Rice, July 2001 It is documented fact that UNSCOM had been infiltrated by CIA operatives: they were spying. If the UN breaks its own part of the bargain (because of American dirty tricks) why should Saddam stick to his? There are other explanations for why Saddam behaved as he did than the ones we are told by the propagandists. Unfortunately you seem only to be aware of the propaganda lines. Understandable, most people in the West are only aware of this slanted version. But just because Saddam forced the inspectors to leave the country in 1998 does not mean he was hiding WMDs. He had legitimate concerns over the activities of UNSCOM. And the facts bear this out: he was not hiding WMDs! He was not a threat!