Issue in Iraq - Updated Again!

[Scruffy5389]

Assassin, I couldnt agree with you more.

 

 

 

I do understand that society cant be built on a system of fear.

 

 

 

But do you agree that the current Iraq is more devastating than the ruling done by Saddam?

 

 

 

Im just curious..

 

I think certain aspects of it are. It's probably harder for the average citizen nowadays but you don't have the genocides and the fear of the system that you had in Saddam's rule. Saddam ruled with a system of terror, almost like Stalin on a smaller scale. Many people living in Russia during Stalin's rule regealed him as a great leader, but since his rule it's been estimated that some 10 million people died in his purges. Does this make what he did right? Propoganda is king here. People only believe what they're told. Especially in a dictatorship where they're unable to look outside the system. I appreciate the global media has now entered Iraq but believe me even though Saddam may of kept a relatively stable, it was stable in so far as there was no room for opposition. There were still horrendous things going on, but they were just happening behind the curtain of the "stable" system. Stability is relative, Nazi Germany was "stable" but does that mean we should of just left it?

 

 

 

I don't know my Russian history well enough to comment on Stalin :?

 

 

 

Nazi Germany was aggressive, and it was growing as a world power. I think we had to fight against it, simply to save ourselves. (I'm agreeing with you on that point.)

 

 

 

However, Iraq under Saddam was not a threat to the United States. He had no nukes, he 'looked into' chemical warfare once or twice but was not out to take over the world. He ruled his little middle eastern country and was content to keep his atrocities within his own borders.

 

 

 

Because he was not a threat to us, I think we should have left him alone.

 

 

 

That said, he was a genocidal murderer, and if we could truly reform Iraq, of course we should do the right thing and take him out of power for the good of his people. But it was obvious before we went in and is becoming increasingly obvious as the months drag by that the United States does not have the power to stabilize democracy in Iraq, and has instead replaced stable, brutal oppression with unstable, brutal anarchy. Personally, I don't care which one is better. It certainly wasn't worth the American lives and money. We should have left Saddam alone.

 

 

 

That's just my argument against going into Iraq in the first place; it's the same argument I used before we even took over Baghdad. It has nothing to do with whether Saddam was evil or not or deserved to be in power or not. I just don't think that we had or have the power to liberate and stabilize Iraq, and since Iraq was not a threat to us (and didn't appear to be becoming one) why should we have wasted so much time, money, and American lives trying to do so?

 

 

 

There's my view. Nothing more than that, and I would like to emphasize that I strongly disagree with nearly everything else Kryptic has written. Saddam back is just about the worst idea I've ever heard. Kryptic's post appears to be pure propaganda, with little truth in his claims or deep thought behind his arguments. I'm afraid I don't have the time to argue against him, but I did want to type up my theory on the Iraq war in general.

 

 

 

EDIT: Okay, I had to type that fairly quickly (which is why it's long and ill-organized :P ), but I'd like to clarify what my purpose was in writing this post. I think Kryptic's opinions are extremely radical, and I am worried that people who support the war may take Kryptic as an example of the typical dissenter. This is untrue, and I wrote this post in an effort to distance the anti-war movement from some of the more extreme opinions like Kryptic's. Sorry Kryptic, but I don't want all war protesters to be tarred with the same brush as you.

 

 

 

That said, Kryptic did raise a basic argument that I consider a reasonable and fundamental objection to the war, and I wanted to reinforce that argument. Although I think Kryptic gives a bad name to war protesters in general because of his more extreme statements, he does have a legitimate anti-war idea that I support full-heartedly.

 

 

 

Basically, Iraq is little better off now than it was before we 'liberated' it. There is no genocide; instead there's just civil war. We can argue all day about whether anarchy and civil war is better than stability and mass genocide; the point is that they're both awful and we've wasted a ton of money (billions or trillions?) jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

 

 

 

That is, I believe, similar to the core of Kryptic's argument. However, Kryptic seems to argue that the stability of Saddam's rule definitely was better than civil war no matter how murderous Saddam was, and I disagree with that. It's a very hard comparison to make, and I especially want to avoid saying anything good about saddam or his regime.

 

 

 

Kryptic, I'm sorry to leave you out in the cold, but I don't want my opinions to even be associated with the idea that we should put Saddam back in power (you don't say this directly, but you mention that it is what the Iraqis want), or that Saddam's rule "wasn't all that bad." I'm also not sure I trust your claim about being Arab, but that is a separate issue.

 

 

 

Hope we can all talk about this in a mature manner :D

 

 

 

And hopefully in the future I'll achieve better organization in my posts than this :roll: :lol:

[Barihawk]

Well, you have to look to history. Has any new Republic ever gotten off immediately to a good start?

 

 

 

The US was in turmoil for 8 years before the revolts stopped happening. Think Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Revolt.

 

 

 

A major change in power results in inevitable turmoil, and it is unfair to judge after only 3 years. And the US didn't have an outside power instigating things like this (reports of Al Queda kicking dust in the eyes of Shi'ite and Sunni tribes to ignite insurgency).

 

 

 

Will Iraq settle down under a democracy? I believe yes. But it's going to take a decade or so. I think the US should stay as long as possible to try and keep outside forces from intervening. We should pull out after a certain point to let the Iraqi army take over...but they lack expertise which only a guest nation can provide. US and British troops were in Israel for years training thier army, and now it is one of the best military units in the world.

[jakerules13]

um so he didnt mass murder people? are you kidding me? YOU ARE [developmentally delayed]ED

 

 

 

i know my parents say its mentally challenged but i think this one deserves [developmentally delayed]ed...

 

 

 

look at all the good things that are happening there, they had the first election to actually get some sort of government going, running water is now in some places, and schools are being built.

 

 

 

....wow

[Zerocool11]

Assassin, I couldnt agree with you more.

 

 

 

I do understand that society cant be built on a system of fear.

 

 

 

But do you agree that the current Iraq is more devastating than the ruling done by Saddam?

 

 

 

Im just curious..

 

 

 

Saddam killed thousands of innocent people for no reason.

 

 

 

He gassed a different ethnic group. I think it was the Kurds? Something like that, anyway, it was genocide and he's facing these charges in court.

[Scruffy5389]

Well, you have to look to history. Has any new Republic ever gotten off immediately to a good start?

 

 

 

The US was in turmoil for 8 years before the revolts stopped happening. Think Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Revolt.

 

 

 

A major change in power results in inevitable turmoil, and it is unfair to judge after only 3 years. And the US didn't have an outside power instigating things like this (reports of Al Queda kicking dust in the eyes of Shi'ite and Sunni tribes to ignite insurgency).

 

 

 

Will Iraq settle down under a democracy? I believe yes. But it's going to take a decade or so. I think the US should stay as long as possible to try and keep outside forces from intervening. We should pull out after a certain point to let the Iraqi army take over...but they lack expertise which only a guest nation can provide. US and British troops were in Israel for years training thier army, and now it is one of the best military units in the world.

 

 

 

In history, the United States didn't have religious fundamentalism to breed irrational hatred and violence, so we could work our problems out alone. The Iraqis are not ready to govern themselves, and the United States of America, leading nation of the world, is simply not powerful or rich enough to govern or stabilize their country for them. Our attempt to do so is embarrassing our nation, giving our nation a bad name internationally, and putting our country deep into terrible debt.

 

 

 

The way things are going, we will destroy our nation before we achieve a stable democracy in Iraq.

 

 

 

Maybe with infinite money and time, America could make Iraq into a stable democracy. That seems to be your premise; that three years is not long enough to judge. But I how much longer can we pay for this war? We can't.

 

 

 

I repeat: we will destroy our nation before we achieve a stable democracy in Iraq.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Israeli history either, but it seems to me that Israel was a little more unified to begin with. The Israelis could come to agree on common goals and stop their in-fighting. The Iraqis are simply too fractured a people for us to bring them together easily.

[Barihawk]

The rest of your post is a valid argument, but:

 

 

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Israeli history either, but it seems to me that Israel was a little more unified to begin with. The Israelis could come to agree on common goals and stop their in-fighting. The Iraqis are simply too fractured a people for us to bring them together easily.

 

 

 

Are you insane? Israel was founded in 1948 and basically UN bought Palestine...a move which the Palestinians did not approve of. Israel has been at war with Gaza for almost 60 years now...and TODAY is some of the worst fighting. Israel is the perfect example of what I am trying to say. There will always be insurgents in Iraq. The US only needs to stay in enough to train thier government and military to the point where Iraq can deal with it's own problems.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Assassin, I couldnt agree with you more.

 

 

 

I do understand that society cant be built on a system of fear.

 

 

 

But do you agree that the current Iraq is more devastating than the ruling done by Saddam?

 

 

 

Im just curious..

 

 

 

Saddam killed thousands of innocent people for no reason.

 

 

 

He gassed a different ethnic group. I think it was the Kurds? Something like that, anyway, it was genocide and he's facing these charges in court.

 

 

 

Right - what's your point? He committed genocide against the Kurds and built r.ape rooms to throw his own people in. Were you arguing, correcting, or what?

[Barihawk]

Ive been privilaged with a satalite feed from the Middle East, which has daily updates on the Iraqi issue. And from what Algezira, and ART News stations are reporting, the Iraqi people are living 100 times worse than the life they did in Saddams ruling.

 

 

 

You do realize Al Jhazeera is like the most biased news organization on the planet, right? I mean, even worse than CNN.

 

 

 

And your section on Bush sounds like a 12-year old who watched a Daily Show with Jon Stewart marathon.

[Scruffy5389]

Aw man, I knew I should have just left Israel out of my post entirely...

 

 

 

Anyway, what I meant by "Israel was more unified" was that there was a single, determined group (the Jewish Israelis) that was united behind one clear goal and motivated by the same religion and idealism. I admit that the turmoil in Israel has been some of the worst in the world, but the situation stabilized (sp?) into two united, opposing sides without (comparatively) too much money from the United States. Iraq is a different matter. Iraq is simply too fractured. There are simply too many different groups, none of whom have really clear goals that could bring people together. They are barely even a country; they certainly have nothing to rally around. Instead, we waste our money while thugs perform nearly random acts of violence against innocent civilians, and we are simply not powerful enough to bring them together.

 

 

 

There will always be insurgents in Iraq. The US only needs to stay in enough to train thier government and military to the point where Iraq can deal with it's own problems.

 

That sounds fine in theory, but I read in the paper within the past couple of months that the Iraqi military/police is less prepared now than it was a year ago. We are not moving forward; Iraq is in as much chaos as it was a year or two ago. Why should we think it will improve? The situation is deteriorating before our eyes. The insurgents aren't even going after Americans specifically anymore, they're attacking each other (like that mosque recently), and the presence of American troops is practically irrellevent. We have lost control, lost lives, lost money, and there is no hope for improvement.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Okay, did some very brief research, and apparently I'm not remembering the paper right. The Iraqi military/police is not worse off, but it still isn't even close to good, or even improving. Here's a site that talks about the task of creating a viable Iraqi military. The author is very widely respected; the article is impeccably well-researched and well-written. It claims that the task is possible, but calls for drastic changes immediately, or we will fail completely.

 

 

 

Personally, I don't think America (least of all George Bush) can make those changes in time.

 

 

 

And even if we do create an Iraqi army, what then? We leave, claiming victory, and the Iraqi army keeps fighting? Barihawk, you use Israel as an example of success, but there is still fighting in Israel, too. Is that success?

 

 

 

We cannot stabilize Iraq. It was a waste to try. Now that we're in, what can we do? We're screwed. That article I found wrote it best:

 

"Losing" in Iraq (which I think is inevitable ~Scruffy) would mean failing to overcome the violent insurgency. A continuing insurgency would, in the view of the officer I spoke with, sooner or later mean the country's fracture in a bloody civil war. That, in turn, would mean the emergence of a central "Sunni-stan" more actively hostile to the United States than Saddam Hussein's Iraq ever was, which could in the next decade be what the Taliban of Afghanistan was in the 1990s: a haven for al-Qaeda and related terrorists. "In Vietnam we just lost," the officer said. "This would be losing with consequences."

 

 

 

Damned if we stay, damned if we leave. I say leave. It's cheaper.

[rocketman089]

Ive been privilaged with a satalite feed from the Middle East, which has daily updates on the Iraqi issue. And from what Algezira, and ART News stations are reporting, the Iraqi people are living 100 times worse than the life they did in Saddams ruling.

 

 

 

You do realize Al Jhazeera is like the most biased news organization on the planet, right? I mean, even worse than CNN.

 

 

 

And your section on Bush sounds like a 12-year old who watched a Daily Show with Jon Stewart marathon.

 

 

 

Wow, just thought that was funny, I'm watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart as I type this. What a funny show, seriously.

 

 

 

He even has a former Iraqi Air Force General that served under Saddam on the show.

[Zerocool11]

Assassin, I couldnt agree with you more.

 

 

 

I do understand that society cant be built on a system of fear.

 

 

 

But do you agree that the current Iraq is more devastating than the ruling done by Saddam?

 

 

 

Im just curious..

 

 

 

Saddam killed thousands of innocent people for no reason.

 

 

 

He gassed a different ethnic group. I think it was the Kurds? Something like that, anyway, it was genocide and he's facing these charges in court.

 

 

 

Right - what's your point? He committed genocide against the Kurds and built rape rooms to throw his own people in. Were you arguing, correcting, or what?

 

 

 

Just clarifying. I don't really want to open the whole pandora's box on the Iraq situation... It would just take way to long to type.

[Barihawk]

Ive been privilaged with a satalite feed from the Middle East, which has daily updates on the Iraqi issue. And from what Algezira, and ART News stations are reporting, the Iraqi people are living 100 times worse than the life they did in Saddams ruling.

 

 

 

You do realize Al Jhazeera is like the most biased news organization on the planet, right? I mean, even worse than CNN.

 

 

 

And your section on Bush sounds like a 12-year old who watched a Daily Show with Jon Stewart marathon.

 

 

 

Wow, just thought that was funny, I'm watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart as I type this. What a funny show, seriously.

 

 

 

He even has a former Iraqi Air Force General that served under Saddam on the show.

 

 

 

Never said the show was not funny. But some people have a habit of taking it as a serious news show and not a comedy show.

[Kryptic]

You do realize Al Jhazeera is like the most biased news organization on the planet, right? I mean, even worse than CNN.

 

 

 

Al Jahzeera is the closest station to Iraq, and broadcasts the news daily, they say how many people (approx) die each day, and interview the Iraqi people, so that viewers get an understanding of their life.

 

 

 

I like you to tell me, another station that does the same.

[Barihawk]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

And sorry about the Bush thing earlier. In my sleep-deprived slurry, I was thinking of George H. W. "Daddy" Bush.

[kaoskiller]

wow...

 

 

 

taking this all in is hard, but i do know that people in Iraq do want democracy, just not under another country. This reason is because, if you notice, despite the *50 killings a day in iraq* most of those people aren't American. Why? Because Iraqis have taken this problem upon themselves. I don't like the U.S. policy of meddling in other countries, but if this hadn't happened, the U.S. would still be pushed around by terrorism. Or did you forget that stopping terrorism was the whole purpose of this war.

[Barihawk]

wow...

 

 

 

taking this all in is hard, but i do know that people in Iraq do want democracy, just not under another country. This reason is because, if you notice, despite the *50 killings a day in iraq* most of those people aren't American. Why? Because Iraqis have taken this problem upon themselves. I don't like the U.S. policy of meddling in other countries, but if this hadn't happened, the U.S. would still be pushed around by terrorism. Or did you forget that stopping terrorism was the whole purpose of this war.

 

 

 

Most of the deaths are due to religious hatred, propagated by Al Queda and other extreme groups. If you don't understand why the Shi'ites and Sunni are fighting amongst themselves, look at Ireland and the religious hatred there.

[assassin_696]

Okay Scruffy, I can see your point of view and it's one i've considered quite a few times.

 

 

 

Let's go back to before the war. I wasn't one of the ones who would of seen the nukes (or lack of as it turns out) as the real reason for going to war. You said that he was quite happy to keep his atrocities within his own borders. This I am not denying, but the fact is don't we have a moral responsibility as the western powers to resolve these atrocities? Isolationism only works up to a point. There comes a point where you think, "if we really want world peace we're going to have to expand our horizons."

 

 

 

Back to the present. I agree that Iraq is in a bad way now (it's important to remember though that we'll only ever see the bad aspects through the media). However that does not mean that we should just give up on it. I don't know the exact figures but i'm pretty sure the American military has enough cash to stay there at the moment. As Barihawk said, to establish an effective democracy does take time. If we pulled out now it might never resolve itself. If we continually support and condition Iraq to take care of itself then eventually we can pull out and leave democracy to take care of the rest. We may not leave an Iraq without any conflict, that would be a big ask, but we can set it on the road to recovery.

[Kryptic]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

Wow, I respect you now. CNN, Fox and BBC are probally the most anti-arab stations I have ever seen.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

Wow, I respect you now. CNN, Fox and BBC are probally the most anti-arab stations I have ever seen.

 

 

 

Yeah, and the news station that you listed is the MOST anti-American news station in the world.

[Kryptic]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

Wow, I respect you now. CNN, Fox and BBC are probally the most anti-arab stations I have ever seen.

 

 

 

It could have something to do with them burning American flags and parading on the day of September 11th, 2001... in Palistan.

 

 

 

From what I know, most Palistians blame partially Amercia for what loosing their country, because America funds Israel. :roll:

[Elite]

America, america america.

 

 

 

You know, 9/11 - The government is lieing about it, and who knows, maybe they are behind it. It's pretty clear, really.

 

 

 

He was guilty of murder, torture, using chemicals in warfare and may many other crimes... He gased your lannds and people... Killing and threatening people is not a good way to maintain a country, it is certainly not the way to do it, he could of used good ways like Blair or Bush... He was a dictator and I feel he should just be death sentanced after all he has killed hundreds maybe thousands of people, in America they like kill you after one or something like that!

 

 

 

How do you know he was guilty of murder, torture and many many other crimes? Don't you think even in the US torture happends in the back? or murders, you think US is just so perfect, it's exaclty the same as every other country. The main things happends in the background where people get nothing to know. Why do US have to put themself in other countries and think they are the cop of the world?

 

 

 

All you get your info from is probably the news, well my friend. DON'T BELIEVE IN EVERYTHING YOU HEAR.

 

 

 

"he could of used good ways like Blair or Bush"

 

This one makes me laugh, like they are any better at all.

 

 

 

GhostRanger,

 

if you are using they are not taking Iraq's oil or other stuff as money etc, It's pretty stupidish. They said IRAQ had nuclear bombs or whatever, NOTHING! It was just a stupid reason to attack.

 

 

 

The 9/11 game was probably a game that US could attack the countries they always wanted for a reason, first Afghanistan, then Iraq, now they are talking about Iran. But Iran won't belike Afghanistan or Iraq, it will be worse. Iran are more advanced. God know who is next.

 

 

 

"Democracy"

 

No country have democracy and it will never work with democracy. And US dosen't care about democracy, they are after something else.

 

 

 

So much more I want to say atm, don't know where to start so I will just write as I remember and as others post.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

America, america america.

 

 

 

You know, 9/11 - The government is lieing about it, and who knows, maybe they are behind it. It's pretty clear, really.

 

 

 

He was guilty of murder, torture, using chemicals in warfare and may many other crimes... He gased your lannds and people... Killing and threatening people is not a good way to maintain a country, it is certainly not the way to do it, he could of used good ways like Blair or Bush... He was a dictator and I feel he should just be death sentanced after all he has killed hundreds maybe thousands of people, in America they like kill you after one or something like that!

 

 

 

How do you know he was guilty of murder, torture and many many other crimes? Don't you think even in the US torture happends in the back? or murders, you think US is just so perfect, it's exaclty the same as every other country. The main things happends in the background where people get nothing to know. Why do US have to put themself in other countries and think they are the cop of the world?

 

 

 

All you get your info from is probably the news, well my friend. DON'T BELIEVE IN EVERYTHING YOU HEAR.

 

 

 

"he could of used good ways like Blair or Bush"

 

This one makes me laugh, like they are any better at all.

 

 

 

GhostRanger,

 

if you are using they are not taking Iraq's oil or other stuff as money etc, It's pretty stupidish. They said IRAQ had nuclear bombs or whatever, NOTHING! It was just a stupid reason to attack.

 

 

 

The 9/11 game was probably a game that US could attack the countries they always wanted for a reason, first Afghanistan, then Iraq, now they are talking about Iran. But Iran won't belike Afghanistan or Iraq, it will be worse. Iran are more advanced. God know who is next.

 

 

 

"Democracy"

 

No country have democracy and it will never work with democracy. And US dosen't care about democracy, they are after something else.

 

 

 

So much more I want to say atm, don't know where to start so I will just write as I remember and as others post.

 

 

 

Hahahahahaha.

 

You didn't even spell 'Lying' right, the rest of this post is pretty 'stupidish'.

 

 

 

And about your News comment, where else do you get your information...

 

ihateamerica.com?

[pianofrieak2]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

Wow, I respect you now. CNN, Fox and BBC are probally the most anti-arab stations I have ever seen.

 

 

 

What do you know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I'd like to find out about your wonderfully-balanced perspective. :lol:

[Guest GhostRanger]

GhostRanger,

 

if you are using they are not taking Iraq's oil or other stuff as money etc, It's pretty stupidish. They said IRAQ had nuclear bombs or whatever, NOTHING! It was just a stupid reason to attack.

 

 

 

Actually, what I'm saying is that I will believe that its about oil if you can prove it. Give me data. Give me facts. Don't give me conspiracy. Conspiracy theories and baseless assertions are "stupidish."

[Kryptic]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

Wow, I respect you now. CNN, Fox and BBC are probally the most anti-arab stations I have ever seen.

 

 

 

What do you know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I'd like to find out about your wonderfully-balanced perspective. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

What would you like to know? I know lots about how Israels stomp on Palestinians.