who is the biggest war criminal?

[Carrera]

But I don't endorse imperialism, no matter which country happens to be carrying out the policy. I see imperialism as a big coil that spreads outwards to solve supposed external problems and then drags them inwards.
Where I disagree with you over Iraq is the fact no invasion was carried out during the time it would have been legitimate - after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. But the U.S. opted to wait and impose sanctions for many years and, whether we admit it or not, this caused untold misery for innocents. That in turn, fueled Islamic extremism. That, in part, led to 9/11 and subsequently Bush's plan to return to Iraq and hope overthrowing Saddam would solve the problem for once and for all.
Sadly I don't think it will. If you could defeat religion via force the Roman persecution of Christians would have prevented the eventual rise of Christian Fundamentalism in your country and elsewhere, correct?
Now look at the effects of Bush's Iraq policy. You have the Russians struggling to contain the secular regimes in surrounding ex-soviet countries. You have Iran getting stronger and also fundamentalist. You have Iraq returning to religious clerics with a strong dose of anti-western ideology.
You even have thousands of people in France and Britian flocking to Islam, covering themselves from head to toe.
Frankly it worries me. It makes me wonder whether the fall of the USSR was really a good thing since at least communism came up with eye-surgery, Olympic medals and the first woman in space. Today people are simply flocking back into the arms of religion be it Christian fundamentalism in America or Islam in Europe.

Iraq was constituted w/, primarily I believe, British influence (League of Nations?). Hell, you even drew thier boundary lines for cryin' out loud & installed thier 1st leader. Do you now have no interest in thier future Sure it's expensive BUT what was the alternative & do you believe that it would've been cheaper to deal w/ the thug at a later time Us baby-sitting him for another 10-15 yrs.

 

[davidmc]

But I don't endorse imperialism, no matter which country happens to be carrying out the policy. I see imperialism as a big coil that spreads outwards to solve supposed external problems and then drags them inwards.
Where I disagree with you over Iraq is the fact no invasion was carried out during the time it would have been legitimate - after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. But the U.S. opted to wait and impose sanctions for many years and, whether we admit it or not, this caused untold misery for innocents. That in turn, fueled Islamic extremism. That, in part, led to 9/11 and subsequently Bush's plan to return to Iraq and hope overthrowing Saddam would solve the problem for once and for all.
Sadly I don't think it will. If you could defeat religion via force the Roman persecution of Christians would have prevented the eventual rise of Christian Fundamentalism in your country and elsewhere, correct?
Now look at the effects of Bush's Iraq policy. You have the Russians struggling to contain the secular regimes in surrounding ex-soviet countries. You have Iran getting stronger and also fundamentalist. You have Iraq returning to religious clerics with a strong dose of anti-western ideology.
You even have thousands of people in France and Britian flocking to Islam, covering themselves from head to toe.
Frankly it worries me. It makes me wonder whether the fall of the USSR was really a good thing since at least communism came up with eye-surgery, Olympic medals and the first woman in space. Today people are simply flocking back into the arms of religion be it Christian fundamentalism in America or Islam in Europe.

Agree w/ you but that region must remain open to commercial enterprise. We are not at the point where we can all ride bicycles to work therefore, the aforementioned must be enforced. We could isolate them afterward, when we (all of us) don't need petroleum product's but, i suspect, that day will not come soon enough. Besides, do you think isolating them is good for thier people It may be good for thier theocracies, monarchies, ect... but do you really think it is good for the masses I, for one, do not

 

[Carrera]

I spend all my time laughing at car-drivers. I see them not moving and getting nowhere and myself getting to work within minutes. I see people getting fat and lazy, bad tempered and stressed. Add to that pollution.
But do I detect a sense here that you see all the Arabs as backward zelots and, on account of their stagnation, we have a right to their resources e.t.c.? I agree the Arab world has fallen way behind but, hey, so did Europe in the Middle Ages.
All I know is that, at some point, I hope someone addresses the issues of poverty, disease, over-population and global warming. So long as these problems remain, there will be unrest and terrorism. And if we don't take pollution seriously, we'll wind up as collectively extinct as the dinosaur.

Agree w/ you but that region must remain open to commercial enterprise. We are not at the point where we can all ride bicycles to work therefore, the aforementioned must be enforced. We could isolate them afterward, when we (all of us) don't need petroleum product's but, i suspect, that day will not come soon enough. Besides, do you think isolating them is good for thier people It may be good for thier theocracies, monarchies, ect... but do you really think it is good for the masses I, for one, do not

 

[davidmc]

I spend all my time laughing at car-drivers. I see them not moving and getting nowhere and myself getting to work within minutes. I see people getting fat and lazy, bad tempered and stressed. Add to that pollution.
But do I detect a sense here that you see all the Arabs as backward zelots and, on account of their stagnation, we have a right to their resources e.t.c.? I agree the Arab world has fallen way behind but, hey, so did Europe in the Middle Ages.
All I know is that, at some point, I hope someone addresses the issues of poverty, disease, over-population and global warming. So long as these problems remain, there will be unrest and terrorism. And if we don't take pollution seriously, we'll wind up as collectively extinct as the dinosaur.

Agree, whole-heartedly

 

[Carrera]

Sting put it quite well:
Fifty million years ago
You walked upon the planet so,
Lord of all that you could see
Just a little bit like me,

Walking in your footsteps,
Walking in your footsteps.
Walking in your footsteps,
Walking in your footsteps.

Hey Mr. Dinosaur
You really couldn't ask for more.
You were God's favorite creature,
But you didn't have a future,

Walking in your footsteps,
Walking in your footsteps.
Walking in your footsteps,
Walking in your footsteps.

Hey there mighty brontosaurus
Don't you have a message for us.
You thought your rule would always last
There were no lessons in your past.
You were built three stories high
They say you would not hurt a fly
If we explode the atom bomb,
Would they say that we were dumb.

Walking in your footsteps,
Walking in your footsteps.
Walking in your footsteps,
Walking in your footsteps.

Fifty million years ago
They walked upon the planet so
They live in a museum
It's the only place you'll see 'em.

Walking in your footsteps....................

They say the meek shall inherit the earth....
They say the meek shall inherit the earth....

Walking in your footsteps....................

Agree, whole-heartedly

 

[EoinC]

...Invade now, invade later. It'll just be more expensive in money & lives if you wait. Criticize all you want but SH & his entire cadre of inner circle thugs was a ruthless mass-murderer/rapist. I await other forum member's defense of SH (Lim )...

David, I don't think anyone who has put forward opinions here is supportive of SH (in fact, Rumsfield and Reagan are the people you need to turn to if you want to see SH's supporters). I, again, question whether the means are justified by the purported ends (ends which have not yet been achieved).
"Invade now, invade later" is an assumption that invasion is the best, if not the only, means of achieving the ends. I am truly grateful that the US did not carry this thinking over to its cold war with the Soviet Union. Every step of the way, in the lead up to this invasion of Iraq, it appeared obvious to me that the US and her Allies were not going to entertain any option other than invasion. They were not going to accept a UN resolution, nor any public debate. They were not even going to accept that they knew (or should at least have suspected) that their enunciated premises for 'going in' were based on falsehoods.
As Carerra has pointed out, this action is leading to further polarisation of the region. The move in Iran to elect a more conservative President may well have been a backlash to what they are seeing happen next door, especially after suffering a crippling proxy war fought by the US via its Iraqi friends.
Was this all part of the "Road Map to Peace"? I'm not sure of the perception of the World from within the US (never having been there), but I do know that, from where I sit, it looks like the word détente has been removed from the dictionary.
Even here in Malaysia, normally a fairly meek and mild Nation when it comes to involvement in World Affairs (except when talking about Australia), there is a strong sentiment that the Allied occupation of Iraq is a battle against Islam. It doesn't matter whether or not this is correct. What does matter is that this move by the governments of the Allied Nations has driven the wedge even deeper in the disenfranchisement of a very significant percentage of the World's population.
If the Allied Nations had supplied external support to allow the Iraqi people to take care of their own destiny, there may have been some hubbub, but this would have been limited. As it stands, whilst the governments of some Islamic and Secular / Islamic Nations may be publicly supportive or neutral on the Allied occupation, the peoples that make up those Nations are not.
From the outside, this appears as re-colonising a sovereign Nation that is of great tactical and economic importance. It does not appear as being an effort to help the Iraqi people.
I need to state here that this is not to say that the troops on the ground are not committed to helping the people of Iraq, but rather to say that the governments of the Allied Nations do not carry (or appear to carry) the same committment goals.

 

[limerickman]

An Iraqi'e colleague of mine - Haidar - was telling me yesterday about a conversation that he had with his family back in Iraq.
His family as Shia Muslims :
the way life is now over in Iraq is that everyday life has become more difficult.
Electricity is limited and water supply is only available for a few hours each day.
In his families village, there is a curfew in operation between 8.00pm and 6.00am.

His sister - a university graduate with a paid job prior to the invasion - has no job.
The company she worked for is out of business because the local economy has been effectively destroyed.

The American occupying forces are now regarded as occupiers.
But the Iraqi people also have another enemy.
Shia "advisors" from Iran are now making the presence felt.
Haidars sister cannot go out alone unaccompanied : she also has to wear traditional modest female Muslim wear.
The Shia advisors have moved in to Shia populations throughout their region and are now insisting that the local population become more "traditional".
This means having to attend the Mosque every day and giving support to Traditional candidates in a political sense.
Haidar's mother went to the American's to ask about restricting the influence
of Iranian advisors and was told "we don't have a quarrel with Iranians. Our mandate doesn't extend to the internal affairs of Iraq".
the Americans are unwilling and/or unable to stop the influx of hardline Iranian
Shia advisors coming in to southern Iraq.

Haidar tells me that SH was the lesser of the three evils, followed by American occupation, with the Iranian project being the last choice, according to his family.

That is the reality of life in Iraq : a people who's everyday ordinary life has become worse since March 2003.

 

[darkboong]

I haven't got time to read through 17 pages of discussion so I will just post my thoughts and hope I don't get in the way too much!

I voted for George Bush on the basis that he went into a war against the will of the United Nations with the primary aim of the invasion being regime change.

Not being funny : But what the hell is this idea of "Regime Change" meant to do exactly ? Sounds like you are changing shorts or something. Surely there is a purpose behind "Regime Change", if so, what the hell is it ? The Saddam was Dispicable and didn't look after his people line doesn't wash. Fact is the occupation wasn't even planned for in any shape or form beyond picketing the oil ministry.

 

[davidmc]

...it appeared obvious to me that the US and her Allies were not going to entertain any option other than invasion. They were not going to accept a UN resolution, nor any public debate. They were not even going to accept that they knew (or should at least have suspected) that their enunciated premises for 'going in' were based on falsehoods.

I had the suspicion Bush would invade regardless but, as far as another UN resolution , let's be serious here, shall we

As Carerra has pointed out, this action is leading to further polarisation of the region. The move in Iran to elect a more conservative President may well have been a backlash to what they are seeing happen next door, especially after suffering a crippling proxy war fought by the US via its Iraqi friends.
Was this all part of the "Road Map to Peace"? I'm not sure of the perception of the World from within the US (never having been there), but I do know that, from where I sit, it looks like the word détente has been removed from the dictionary.

Is not Israel in this "region" What about SH's "bounties" to those willing to carry out suicide bombings (terrorism) in Israel

I need to state here that this is not to say that the troops on the ground are not committed to helping the people of Iraq, but rather to say that the governments of the Allied Nations do not carry (or appear to carry) the same committment goals.

This is debatable.

 

[EoinC]

I had the suspicion Bush would invade regardless but, as far as another UN resolution , let's be serious here, shall we .

My apologies. I forgot that the US is the World's Police Force and that the rest of us have no say in international matters.

Is not Israel in this "region" What about SH's "bounties" to those willing to carry out suicide bombings (terrorism) in Israel

Correct. Israel is in the "region". I still fail to see how this indicates that invasion was the only solution available. Strange that so many Nations of the World did not leap to the same conclusion and that, of the ones who did, in at least some cases, there were ulterior motives at play.

This is debatable.

My statement was aimed at the general (no pun intended), rather than the particular. I would imagine that most of the Allied troops stationed in Iraq are hoping that they are helping the people of Iraq, regardless of whether in fact they are doing so.

 

[Jupiler]

Not being funny : But what the hell is this idea of "Regime Change" meant to do exactly ? Sounds like you are changing shorts or something. Surely there is a purpose behind "Regime Change", if so, what the hell is it ? The Saddam was Dispicable and didn't look after his people line doesn't wash. Fact is the occupation wasn't even planned for in any shape or form beyond picketing the oil ministry.

I think Davebee meant he voted for Bush in this poll

 

[davidmc]

My apologies. Strange that so many Nations of the World did not leap to the same conclusion and that, of the ones who did, in at least some cases, there were ulterior motives at play.

The nay-sayer's were either owed money by Iraq (Russia) or complicit in the OFF Scandal.

My statement was aimed at the general (no pun intended), rather than the particular. I would imagine that most of the Allied troops stationed in Iraq are hoping that they are helping the people of Iraq, regardless of whether in fact they are doing so.

It is odd how I hardly ever see any stories about infrastructure building in Iraq by coalition troops (Schools, hospitals, water, elect., ect...) I was for the use of force due to violation of UN Security council resolutions regardless of any WMD finding. SH was thumbing his nose at the Int'l. Community (breaking the law), not to mention financial endorsement of suicide bombers in Israel (another crime). For what it's worth, I didn't vote for Bush.

 

[Jupiler]

Is not Israel in this "region" What about SH's "bounties" to those willing to carry out suicide bombings (terrorism) in Israel

What I've heard is that the Israeli's destroyed the houses of the family of the suicide bomber after an attack and that Saddam offered them money as compensation - don't know if this is true...

Question remains: if the israeli's knew the family, why don't they just take away the money they got from saddam?

 

[davidmc]

What I've heard is that the Israeli's destroyed the houses of the family of the suicide bomber after an attack and that Saddam offered them money as compensation - don't know if this is true...

Question remains: if the israeli's knew the family, why don't they just take away the money they got from saddam?

Good points. I don't know the jurisdictional implications. Besides, it could be wired to an anonymous/numbered account.

 

[Jupiler]

The nay-sayer's were either owed money by Iraq (Russia) or complicit in the OFF Scandal.

Sorry, but are you saying 80% of the world were owned money by Iraq or complicit in the OFF scandal? More like 80% tought this war was BS and saw the real reasons for the invasion.

 

[Jupiler]

Good points. I don't know the jurisdictional implications. Besides, it could be wired to an anonymous/numbered account.

Seems like alot of Saudi's are wiring out money too in that direction...why not them?

Anyways why isn't Israel dealing with this since it's their problem...?

 

[davidmc]

Sorry, but are you saying 80% of the world were owned money by Iraq or complicit in the OFF scandal? More like 80% tought this war was BS and saw the real reasons for the invasion.

If 80% comprises Germany & France then...well...yes. I have a difficult time holding France to acct. because of thier bankrolling our revolution & the invaluable service of thier Navy to help us throw off the chain's of England. Thier actions in this century & the last inre: conflict, are debatable &, therefore they are a different entity.

 

[davidmc]

Seems like alot of Saudi's are wiring out money too in that direction...why not them?

Anyways why isn't Israel dealing with this since it's their problem...?

Our FBI have investigated "supposed" non-profit organizations set up by Saudi's w/ some success, I might add.

 

[davidmc]

I haven't got time to read through 17 pages of discussion so I will just post my thoughts and hope I don't get in the way too much!

I voted for George Bush on the basis that he went into a war against the will of the United Nations with the primary aim of the invasion being regime change. Saddam Hussein (sp) behaved in a dispicable way towards the people of his own country, that much is pretty much indisputable. I would however question the right of another country to decide that he has to go. If such a decision needs to be made it needs to be done at the very least on a majority basis by an independant council. IE the UN.

The thing that ****** me off most of all about the Iraq war was Britain's (my country) involvement. We were taken to war by Blair against the majority will of the country. That isn't democracy!


Just as an aside. WHY is democracy the best method of government? It sort of works in the USA (a slightly warped kind of democracy but still just about democracy) and it works in europe to a pretty good extent but that doesn't mean it is the way that everyone else should go to. It hasn't worked in Africa or large swathes of Asia and its success in the middle east is questionable at best. So why does everyone keep banging on about democracy?


Goodnight everyone.

You refer to your country as Britain(?) yet you state that you voted for Bush. Do you have "dual-citizenship"

 

[davidmc]

Seems like alot of Saudi's are wiring out money too in that direction...why not them?

Anyways why isn't Israel dealing with this since it's their problem...?

I know this may seem shallow but, how far do you live from the Mercxx bicycle factory