OT: Liberation(?) of Iraq?



Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paladin

Guest
Last Saturday night my wife and I were guests at the Iranian-American New Year's banquet and
celebration. What a fun, passionate and vibrant group. I'm still humming some of their tunes. Prior
to the raucous dancing, at least, the topic of table conversation naturally went to the war in Iraq.

The Iranians (at our table) expressed sadness at the inevitable loss of innocent life in Iraq, but
they joked (sometimes quite seriously) that they were hoping that coalition forces would continue
east into Iran and liberate their homeland, as well. One wanted to phone his request to GW.

Unlike some (even on this ng) they don't see the current war as an act of American aggression or
invasion, but a near-heroic act in helping those who can't help themselves to throw off a
monster that is responsible for, among other atrocities, an estimated 1,000,000+ Iraqui civilian
deaths per year.

They don't think much better of their own Ayatollah and his bunch. They explained to us that
everything is so immediate in America. These middle-easterners tend to take a long-term view of
things, and stated to us that if civilians had to die to bring long-term freedom to their
country, that was likely to be a relatively small price to pay in view of the long-term benefits
for the future of their country. With 70% of their population under 30, they are a generation
ready for freedom.

For whatever it is worth to the dialogue, these were the sentiments among those we spent the
evening with.

Paladin Ho-Dara Shork!
 
B

Bb

Guest
On 24 Mar 2003 10:43:53 -0800, Paladin wrote:

> Unlike some (even on this ng) they don't see the current war as an act of American aggression or
> invasion, but a near-heroic act in helping those who can't help themselves to throw off a monster
> that is responsible for, among other atrocities, an estimated 1,000,000+ Iraqui civilian deaths
> per year.

Its true that this will probably be a great thing for the Iraqi people in the end, which is why
there was little outrage being expressed by governments once the action finally began. Its
unquestionable that the men and women who are doing this are heroes.

But we are not the world police. It is not our job to deal with horrible dictators. The diplomacy
that led up to this event was pitiful, not just by the Americans but by the oppostion as well. If we
have the right to decide some dictator needs to be taken out, then can ANY group of countries just
get together and take out whoever they desire? What sort of precedence have we set?

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
 
M

Mattb

Guest
"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 24 Mar 2003 10:43:53 -0800, Paladin wrote:
>
> > Unlike some (even on this ng) they don't see the current war as an act of American aggression or
> > invasion, but a near-heroic act in helping those who can't help themselves to throw off a
> > monster that is responsible for, among other atrocities, an estimated 1,000,000+ Iraqui civilian
> > deaths per year.
>
> Its true that this will probably be a great thing for the Iraqi people in the end, which is why
> there was little outrage being expressed by governments once the action finally began. Its
> unquestionable that the men and women who are doing this are heroes.
>
> But we are not the world police. It is not our job to deal with horrible dictators. The diplomacy
> that led up to this event was pitiful, not just by the Americans but by the oppostion as well. If
> we have the right to decide some dictator needs to be taken out, then can ANY group of countries
> just get together and take out whoever they desire? What sort of precedence have we set?
>

Yep. I feel the same way. Does the end justify the means? Which world leader will make a similar
decision next and take to action without the blessing of the UN? GW has just set precedent that
basically made the UN's approval optional. Didn't we just participate in the bombing of Milosevic's
regime because he wouldn't comply with the UN?

I agree Sadam is bad guy and the world would be a better place without him. I'm just saddened and
worried by the way this took place. I wonder what sort of world I just brought my son into...

Damn. I wasn't going to get into political discussions here. Sorry.

Matt
 
C

Cleanbean

Guest
"Paladin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Last Saturday night my wife and I were guests at the Iranian-American New Year's banquet and
> celebration. What a fun, passionate and vibrant group. I'm still humming some of their tunes.
> Prior to the raucous dancing, at least, the topic of table conversation naturally went to the war
> in Iraq.
>
> The Iranians (at our table) expressed sadness at the inevitable loss of innocent life in Iraq, but
> they joked (sometimes quite seriously) that they were hoping that coalition forces would continue
> east into Iran and liberate their homeland, as well. One wanted to phone his request to GW.
>
> Unlike some (even on this ng) they don't see the current war as an act of American aggression or
> invasion, but a near-heroic act in helping those who can't help themselves to throw off a monster
> that is responsible for, among other atrocities, an estimated 1,000,000+ Iraqui civilian deaths
> per year.
>
> They don't think much better of their own Ayatollah and his bunch. They explained to us that
> everything is so immediate in America. These middle-easterners tend to take a long-term view of
> things, and stated to us that if civilians had to die to bring long-term freedom to their country,
> that was likely to be a relatively small price to pay in view of the long-term benefits for the
> future of their country. With 70% of their population under 30, they are a generation ready for
> freedom.
>
> For whatever it is worth to the dialogue, these were the sentiments among those we spent the
> evening with.
>
> Paladin Ho-Dara Shork!

My kids ask me why we don't invade India who now has nukes. I tell them it all has to do with how
responsible the leadership of the country is and how abusive they are with their power. The security
of the U.S. will always be our priority. The question is now who will deal with Korea? Someone needs
to and soon.

Cleanbean
 
P

Paladin

Guest
BB <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 24 Mar 2003 10:43:53 -0800, Paladin wrote:
>
> > Unlike some (even on this ng) they don't see the current war as an act of American aggression or
> > invasion, but a near-heroic act in helping those who can't help themselves to throw off a
> > monster that is responsible for, among other atrocities, an estimated 1,000,000+ Iraqui civilian
> > deaths per year.
>
> Its true that this will probably be a great thing for the Iraqi people in the end, which is why
> there was little outrage being expressed by governments once the action finally began. Its
> unquestionable that the men and women who are doing this are heroes.
>
> But we are not the world police. It is not our job to deal with horrible dictators. The diplomacy
> that led up to this event was pitiful, not just by the Americans but by the oppostion as well. If
> we have the right to decide some dictator needs to be taken out, then can ANY group of countries
> just get together and take out whoever they desire? What sort of precedence have we set?

You hit the nail on the head. We can't just decide that because some country is ruled by a bad guy
that we have to go and take him out. There has to be a credible threat of serious harm to our own
interests (ie, we can't police the world just as do-gooders) above and beyond the fact that we don't
like him, and neither do his subjects.

In this case, at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam admitted to multi-thousands of barrels of no-no
weaponry, and we saw a lot of it in ground and sattelite photos. He promised to disclose it all, and
then to destroy it all under U.N. supervision. He failed both, and continued to procure and produce.
Those failures, coupled with what must be good intelligence on his intentions to use the WOMD,
justifies putting him down. The side benefit of liberating the people is just extraneous icing on
the cake. There are lots of miserable slaves all over the world, but it's not necessarily our
problem to risk our lives in order to impose our version of freedom on them.

Paladin
 
B

Bb

Guest
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:54:32 -0700, MattB wrote:

> I wonder what sort of world I just brought my son into...

Maybe you're young enough that you didn't grow up with bomb drills, the cold war, and dinner with
Vietnam each and every day. In those days evil dictators faded into the background of all that mess.
Its a much better world now.

Plus, the toys he'll grow up with will be way cooler. :)

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
 
S

Stephen Baker

Guest
CleanBean says:

>My kids ask me why we don't invade India who now has nukes. I tell them it all has to do with how
>responsible the leadership of the country is and how abusive they are with their power.

I'm not trying to bash Dubya here, Bean, but I wonder on that basis how soon we should look for an
invasion here.

Steve
 
J

Jaybird X

Guest
"Stephen Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I'm not trying to bash Dubya here, Bean, but I wonder on that basis how
soon we
> should look for an invasion here.
>
> Steve

Look no further......check the border between San Diego and El Paso.......

Jaybird
 
M

Mark Hickey

Guest
BB <[email protected]> wrote:

>But we are not the world police. It is not our job to deal with horrible dictators. The diplomacy
>that led up to this event was pitiful, not just by the Americans but by the oppostion as well. If
>we have the right to decide some dictator needs to be taken out, then can ANY group of countries
>just get together and take out whoever they desire? What sort of precedence have we set?

One in which the right thing will be done, IMHO. The endless and pointless diplomatic dance in the
UN could go on until hell freezes over and Saddam would still be building WMD, and would soon become
a nuclear power. We could have "played the game" for another 12 years, or we could do what obviously
needs to be done.

If and when the UN ever gets its collective act together, and acknowledges that Saddam HAD to be
taken down, North Korea and Iran will be a lot more likely to cooperate diplomatically, having seen
the consequences of noncompliance.

Or, like I said, we can all just sit back and wait to see what creative ways the fringe groups
(and no, not just Al Qaeda) can think up to kill millions of civilians to "get their message to
the world".

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
M

Mark Hickey

Guest
[email protected] (Stephen Baker) wrote:

>CleanBean says:
>
>>My kids ask me why we don't invade India who now has nukes. I tell them it all has to do with how
>>responsible the leadership of the country is and how abusive they are with their power.
>
>I'm not trying to bash Dubya here, Bean, but I wonder on that basis how soon we should look for an
>invasion here.

Kim Jong Il will be a lot easier to negotiate with in a room with Saddam's hide tacked to the wall.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
G

G.T.

Guest
Mark Hickey wrote:
> BB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>But we are not the world police. It is not our job to deal with horrible dictators. The diplomacy
>>that led up to this event was pitiful, not just by the Americans but by the oppostion as well. If
>>we have the right to decide some dictator needs to be taken out, then can ANY group of countries
>>just get together and take out whoever they desire? What sort of precedence have we set?
>
>
> One in which the right thing will be done, IMHO. The endless and pointless diplomatic dance in the
> UN could go on until hell freezes over and Saddam would still be building WMD, and would soon
> become a nuclear power. We could have "played the game" for another 12 years, or we could do what
> obviously needs to be done.

Hmmm, and where are those WsMD now?

>
> If and when the UN ever gets its collective act together, and acknowledges that Saddam HAD to be
> taken down, North Korea and Iran will be a lot more likely to cooperate diplomatically, having
> seen the consequences of noncompliance.
>
> Or, like I said, we can all just sit back and wait to see what creative ways the fringe groups
> (and no, not just Al Qaeda) can think up to kill millions of civilians to "get their message to
> the world".
>

And you don't think there are going to more fringe groups now? Instead of one rich financier with
bin Laden, we'll have dozens.

Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out.

Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
 
G

G.T.

Guest
Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] (Stephen Baker) wrote:
>
>
>>CleanBean says:
>>
>>
>>>My kids ask me why we don't invade India who now has nukes. I tell them it all has to do with how
>>>responsible the leadership of the country is and how abusive they are with their power.
>>
>>I'm not trying to bash Dubya here, Bean, but I wonder on that basis how soon we should look for an
>>invasion here.
>
>
> Kim Jong Il will be a lot easier to negotiate with in a room with Saddam's hide tacked to
> the wall.
>

How do you know that? How do you know that China and Russia won't defend him? How do you know that
he won't want to go out in a blaze of glory?

I don't think that Bush had any intention of letting diplomacy work in Iraq. So I believe Kim Jong
Il will have a fatalistic view and send some nukes off as a parting gesture.

Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
 
S

Shaun Rimmer

Guest
Paladin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> In this case, at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam admitted to multi-thousands of barrels of no-no
> weaponry, and we saw a lot of it in ground and sattelite photos. He promised to disclose it all,
> and then to destroy it all under U.N. supervision. He failed both, and continued to procure and
> produce.

> Those failures, coupled with what must be good intelligence on his intentions to use the WOMD,
> justifies putting him down.

> The side benefit of liberating the people is just extraneous icing on the cake.

So, not 'a near-heroic act' at all then.

> There are lots of miserable slaves all over the world, but it's not necessarily our problem to
> risk our lives in order to impose our version of freedom on them.
>
> Paladin

Shaun aRe
 
M

Mark Hickey

Guest
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> One in which the right thing will be done, IMHO. The endless and pointless diplomatic dance in
>> the UN could go on until hell freezes over and Saddam would still be building WMD, and would soon
>> become a nuclear power. We could have "played the game" for another 12 years, or we could do what
>> obviously needs to be done.
>
>Hmmm, and where are those WsMD now?

Patience, grasshopper. If there's one thing in this world you can have faith in, it's Saddam's
ability to kill people.

>> If and when the UN ever gets its collective act together, and acknowledges that Saddam HAD to be
>> taken down, North Korea and Iran will be a lot more likely to cooperate diplomatically, having
>> seen the consequences of noncompliance.
>>
>> Or, like I said, we can all just sit back and wait to see what creative ways the fringe groups
>> (and no, not just Al Qaeda) can think up to kill millions of civilians to "get their message to
>> the world".

>And you don't think there are going to more fringe groups now? Instead of one rich financier with
>bin Laden, we'll have dozens.

The current action is (IMHO) the end of the fringe group mentality. Hopefully democracies in
Afghanistan and Iraq will spawn critical thought from within the "Arab street" in which their
problems aren't all laid on others. If the economy and well-being of the citizens of Afghanistan and
Iraq stand out in sharp contrast to those still mired in monarchy or heavy-handed religious
leadership (did I really say that?) the opinion of the "street" will turn.

Or we could do nothing and let the terrorists we DO know have easy access to WMD.

>Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out.

It would save time, but no. ;-)

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
M

Mark Hickey

Guest
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> Kim Jong Il will be a lot easier to negotiate with in a room with Saddam's hide tacked to
>> the wall.
>
>How do you know that? How do you know that China and Russia won't defend him? How do you know that
>he won't want to go out in a blaze of glory?

I think I understand Korean negotiation tactics pretty well (lived there for two years, and every
other foreign national I knew there admitted that Korea was by FAR the worst place in the world to
do business from a negotiation standpoint). China and Russia don't particularly want a loose cannon
with bad hair destabilizing the region, IMHO.

>I don't think that Bush had any intention of letting diplomacy work in Iraq.

Yeah, he cut 'em off after ONLY 12 years of non-compliance with even the basics of any of the UN
resolutions. How impatient can you get? Heck, Saddam would have eventually died of old age - what's
the hurry? Oops. He has a son that makes him look like Ghandi.

> So I believe Kim Jong Il will have a fatalistic view and send some nukes off as a parting gesture.

Kim Jong Il is an opportunist, but he's not a deranged madman (though he certainly does have his
faults). The only tactic he has right now is bluff and bluster. I think GWB is handling it
masterfully, telling KJI to go hump someone else's leg, and telling China and Russia to "deal with
it". Neither want to deal with Iraq's WMD? Fine. They can handle North Korea alone instead.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
B

Bloocow

Guest
IMHO, I think this attack was more to protect Americans from possible future attacks involving WMD
than to liberate Iraq. And I would assume the US govt has intelligence on why they think Iraq would
be likely to develop and use it against them. I saw this debate between Tony Blair and some people
on a talk show and despite almost everyone in the room voicing disagreement, I found that he made
his case logically and rationally.

I also read that even though countries like North Korea probably wouldn't attack US with its nukes
in future, the danger lies in North Korea selling the nukes to rogue states. This same scenario is
possible with any other country possessing dangerous weaponry. The question is how much can the US
trust these countries to be responsible with their dangerous arms? IMHO I think past behaviour
(history) weigh a lot. For e.g. China was once considered a possible danger because of communist
tendencies, but today I think China has proven to be very much otherwise with the abundance of
foreign investments.

bloocow.
 
C

Chris Phillipo

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> BB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >But we are not the world police. It is not our job to deal with horrible dictators. The diplomacy
> >that led up to this event was pitiful, not just by the Americans but by the oppostion as well. If
> >we have the right to decide some dictator needs to be taken out, then can ANY group of countries
> >just get together and take out whoever they desire? What sort of precedence have we set?
>
> One in which the right thing will be done, IMHO. The endless and pointless diplomatic dance in the
> UN could go on until hell freezes over and Saddam would still be building WMD, and would soon
> become a nuclear power. We could have "played the game" for another 12 years, or we could do what
> obviously needs to be done.

So what? Israel is a nuclear power, Pakastan in a nuclear power, India is a nuclear power. Those
three countries are currently engaged in hostilities in the region and haven't nuked anyone. Iraq
was contained just as Cuba has been for 50 years. God help us if they strike oil in Cuba.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
C

Chris Phillipo

Guest
> You hit the nail on the head. We can't just decide that because some country is ruled by a bad guy
> that we have to go and take him out. There has to be a credible threat of serious harm to our own
> interests (ie, we can't police the world just as do-gooders) above and beyond the fact that we
> don't like him, and neither do his subjects.
>
> In this case, at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam admitted to multi-thousands of barrels of
> no-no weaponry, and we saw a lot of it in ground and sattelite photos. He promised to disclose
> it all, and

And Scott Ritter blew a lot of it up.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
C

Chris Phillipo

Guest
> >And you don't think there are going to more fringe groups now? Instead of one rich financier with
> >bin Laden, we'll have dozens.
>
> The current action is (IMHO) the end of the fringe group mentality. Hopefully democracies in
> Afghanistan and Iraq will spawn critical thought from within the "Arab street" in which their
> problems aren't all laid on others. If the economy and well-being of the citizens of Afghanistan
> and Iraq stand out in sharp contrast to those still mired in monarchy or heavy-handed religious
> leadership (did I really say that?) the opinion of the "street" will turn.
>

I bet the communists thought they were doing everyone a favor by converting governments to their way
of thinking too. Do you really think if Iraq is run by a special interest driven two party system
like the USA is it is going to turn out all roses and puppy dog tails in the end?

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
B

Bomba

Guest
Mark Hickey wrote:

>>So I believe Kim Jong Il will have a fatalistic view and send some nukes off as a parting gesture.
>
>
> Kim Jong Il is an opportunist, but he's not a deranged madman (though he certainly does have his
> faults). The only tactic he has right now is bluff and bluster. I think GWB is handling it
> masterfully, telling KJI to go hump someone else's leg, and telling China and Russia to "deal with
> it". Neither want to deal with Iraq's WMD? Fine. They can handle North Korea alone instead.

Kim Jong Il has thrown out the UN inspectors, removed cameras in the Yongbyon nuclear complex,
abrogated the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, torn up a 1999 agreement to stop testing long range
missiles (ones that can reach the US, in fact), has said that any attempt to impose sanctions by the
UNSC would be viewed as a declaration of war and is ****** at the US for renaging on a deal 1993,
cutting off further negotiations in the GWB era and sees the positioning of cruise missiles in
Alaska as a direct threat. And you're more worried about Saddam Hussein. I'm astonished...

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.