BS: Iraqi Sovereignty

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 06:51 PM

Bobert,

It is unlikely that any change in the leadership of Iraq would have been peaceful. The chances are that far more than 20,000 Iraqis would have been killed in the fight for political power. And the terrorists would have a made-for-them theater for their misdeeds. Maybe YOU need to listen to SRS, and try "the process of simply thinking about human nature in the context of the power struggle ". Just my opinion, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 06:42 PM

No, T-Bird, I do have a clue.

First of all, there was no need even to assasinate Saddam or attack Iraq. We tried to tell yout side that during the run-up-to-war but you all defended every danged thing that dribbled out of Bush's mouth. Yup, every drop of drool. Gotta hand it to you folks. When it comes to "true believin'" ya' all's up to the task...

But there you all were talking about aluminum tubes that you were sure would soon be translated into mushroom clouds...

But let's say that Bush had decided that Saddam had to go and assasinated him. What would have most likely happened is someone in the Baath Party and very close to Saddam would have stepped in to fill the void and business would go along purdy much as usual.

But then two different scenerios would have come about:

1. Bush would have sent someone from the State Department to try to get the new guy to play nicer than Saddam was percieved to have been playing. If this had occured this envoy could have reminded the new guy that the US had more bullets. Hint, hint...

2. Or Bush could have just made the new guy the new and improved boogie man, kept up the sanctions and crossed his fingers that the new and improved guy would be, ahhhh, new and improved...

Either way, upwards of 20,000 Iraqi's and 800 Americans would still be alive and well. Either way, Iraq would not be spinning out of control. Either way, terrorist wouldn't have this made-for-them theater for their misdeeds.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:38 PM

Bobert....Granny and I both thank you for your support (we sure need it)
Granny thinks she'll stick with just the sex meantime, but is a little curious about Foghat and Molly Hatchett...A bit of Triolism perhaps??...Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:28 PM

Mary... I take it that post was Fundamentalist Christian satire, a completely new concept on Mudcat.
This place is going to the dogs since Teribus started expressing opinions.
Oh for the days when we could safely nod off, as we ploughed through the reams of facts and usefull information supplied by our more intellectually challenged brethern....Whatever next ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: mg
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:50 PM

oh heavens, here is what would have happened. After a suitable period of subdued morning, Uday would have seen the error of his ways and asked for a meeting with Colin Powell to discuss ways of integrating his country back into the more or less civilized world. First he would have gone through the prison rolls and released those prisoners he felt he safely could, and worked on rehabbing the rest, in the best sense of the word. Then he would have tackled the problems one by one, fixing the oil pipelines to get the money flowing better once sanctions were lifted. He would have had his country full of of engineers work on the damaged sewage and water and electricity works. Gotten the hospitals re-equipped; likewise schools. Some of the first oil revenues would have gone to help the agricultural sector, with improved refrigeration, sanitation etc. His brother in the meantime would have decided that public life was really too much for him, and would have devoted himself to rebuilding the hanging gardens (no, it was for hanging plants, silly people) and otherwise living a quiet family life. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:28 PM

Ahhhhh, hi, Ake's granny...

Listen to yer grandchild...

But if yer gonna have another bash at sex and drugs, be sure to throw in a little Foghat or Molly Hatchet just fir added spice...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 01:29 PM

Grandmother...Welcome to Mudcat...
Im sorry to tell you that all the young opeople here are very old indeed,and the rest of us are sad bastards who get our jollies being offensive and trying to humiliate one another.
My advice...Have another bash at sex and drugs ...much more fun..
       Love Ake..

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:56 AM

Well, just for starters. A lot of dead folks would still be alive...

Except Saddam, of course...

But certainly wouldn't have been worse than what we are seeing now, that's fir sure...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:46 AM

Just as I thought Bobert - you haven't got a clue. Not much use as an alternative solution then is it.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:45 AM

As usual, Bobert, you duck the question. Why are you so afraid that we might find out what you really think about something?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:37 AM

Well, T-Bird, fir one thing... you wouldn't have a drum left to pound...

(Not so fast, Bobert! Have you no respect for Bush's PR team?)

Ahhhh, strike that one T-zer. You'd be pounding some other drum...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:17 AM

Bobert,

Your "unanswered" question has been answered on numerous occasions.

Tell us Bobert exactly what do you believe would have resulted from the assassination of Saddam Hussein?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: GUEST,Grandmother
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:06 AM

I just found this site. I am thrilled. I wondered what young people were thinking about. The media gives the impression that all you do is take drugs and have sex with each other. I love the involvement you show and the wit and humor. I am old and have little (no) contact with young people anymore. Your banter made my day. Love and hugs to all of you.    Irene

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 09:01 AM

Speaking of unanswered questions, I still have one out there.

Since out reasons for invading Iraq (killing over 10,000 civilains, injuring ewns of thousands of civilians, killing over 800 of US service people and seriously injuring upwards of 20,000 US serive people) has been reduced down to Saddam was a bad man, why didn't we just assasinate him?

Oh? Against the law? Hmmmmmm? Reread the numbers of casualties in the last paragraph before playing that card.

Now my pal, Dougie, says that we "lefties" aren't happy that Iraq has been turned over to the Iraqis. Well, first of all, these Iraqis weren't elected, but appointed by the Bush folks. Second, what makes anyone think fir one minute that Iraq has been turned over to anyone? This will prove to be nuthin' more than a political smokescreen by the Bush folks. They are very good at smokescreening responsibility for their screwups. But the patterns are starting to get predictable. They either lie or blame it on Clinton...

Now I'll be the first to say that it would be very nice to have sometyhing that looks like peace (or even no war) in the Middle East but it *can't* happen with current administartion's thinking. These guy's *cowboy* foriegn policy has alienated the world community to such an extent that these guys can't fix their massive screw ups. Can John Kerry? Maybe and maybe not. But the current crew *can't*!...

Reality is that no matter how long the US stays in Iraq and no matter how many American working class kids are killed and how many of American working class tax dollars are squandered, without a massive effort by the world community, Iraq will slip into a civil war when the US pulls out.

Those of us on the anti-war side of the equation pointes this out during the debates in the run-up-to-war yet no one from the other side responded because they were too busy beating the Big Three Drum (mushroom clouds, WMD, Saddam/Al Quida/9-11). Now the sad reality is hovering and waiting to roost and I'm still not hearing any real plan for creating *this* democracy in Iraq.

And I'm still waiting on an answer on the Saddam assasination question.

And I'd still like to know why the US didn't real Saddam back into the fold. (Oh yeah, we don't do that with bad men...) We don't? When did that policy go into effect?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:22 AM

AKS - I'll answer your question after you've answered mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: AKS
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 02:11 AM

Teribus: "...country that has had the closest ties, economically and militarily, to Iraq over the past thirty-odd years..."

And you think that they would now let the US into that position? Maybe as a gesture of good will - or what?!!

AKS

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 03:15 PM

Teribus...Thanks for your posted opinion on Iraq post Saddam. It was a veritable oasis in a desert of facts.
You see... Its not so difficlt, and now you've done it once,it will be much easier the next time.
The step you have taken can change your life forever. No longer need you confine yourself to dusty subjects like ,grain quotas ,what colour we paint our bombs, or how many coats of whitwash give the perfect finish to the battalion coal supply.
You can now tackle more taxing points,such as ,Mudcatters birthdays, the sex lives of Llamas, the sex lives of hampsters, witches, silly womens stuff,and ultimately,after a decent interval of course, folk music.
After this metamorphysis, Im sure all Muddcater wil want to give the "new " Teribus, a great big hug....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 05:17 AM

Ebbie,

In response to your post of, 02 Jul 04 - 12:39 PM, on the GAO report, I would like to make the following comments:

-In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.

At the height of their summer, the above was not unexpected, power generation has been restored to pre-war levels, and the situation is improving as money is being spent on overhauling and up-grading the system. It wasn't before, it was being spent on breaking sanctions to import 384 rocket motors (import prohibited, founf by UNMOVIC), it was being spent on Palace's for Saddam Hussein, it was being spent on research, developement, testing and construction of missile systems, it was being spent on sponsoring suicide bombers in Palestine, it was being spent on suppressing and terrorising the Iraqi people. How many of those 18 provinces are actively involved in the insurrection? I think you will find it very few.

-Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations.

I'm surprised that the amount spent is as high as you state. The work that money is allocated to pay for consists, in the main, of fairly long term projects so the money will be disbursed in staged payments over a period of time as the work progresses - that is normal business practice. It's not if you are the sort of person who pays someone to do a job for you the total amount before they actually start the work.

-The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.

Again not so surprising, do you remember that just before, or just after, Saddam's Presidential election (in which he polled 100% of the vote), the amnesty Saddam granted to all those serving criminal sentences - the political prisoners, persons abducted and others Saddam, or his sons, did not want wandering the streets, they weren't so lucky - they were executed and dumped in mass graves. What do you think the effect would be in any country with regard to its legal system under such circumstances?

-The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are
suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.

Again not surprising, they have been the focus of insurgent attacks now for months. People still wish to enlist and now that there is an interim government, delivered on time, with the prospect of an elected government taking office next year, this is a situation that will be turned round. Everybody was told since before day one that this would not be done in any time-span that could be described as short - things don't happen overnight, so don't expect unrealistically that things should - take a look at what happened after the end of the second world war if you want some examples.

-The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May.

Again that was to be expected in the run-up to 30th June. The CPA was brutally frank in their predictions and warnings on this subject. The number of attacks should also be viewed alongside the nature of those attacks and their selected targets to determine the purpose behind them. They will prove to be as effective in Iraq as they have been in Palestine. Again due to the existence of a sovereign Iraqi government it will not take long for the bulk of the Iraqi people to turn against those carrying out those attacks. A new Iraqi government holds out and offers the people of Iraq hope - the "insurgents" offer them nothing except the prospect of civil war and the continuation of the misery they have endured for decades - It will not take long for the people of Iraq to recognise that.

AKS - 02 Jul 04 - 06:52 AM

Regarding the warning given by Russians to the US on Saddam's future intentions. Under the circumstances what use would you have made of that information? I get the distinct impression that you think they (US security agencies) should have ignored it/dismissed it out of hand, purely because of the source. But then you would be ignoring the fact (God another fact, I know Akenaton hates them) that the country that has had the closest ties, economically and militarily, to Iraq over the past thirty-odd years is Russia. Of course that would count for nothing in your criteria for evaluation - You'd be wrong, badly wrong.

Akenaton and Raedwulf,

If Saddam had only another five to ten years left, the most likely turn of events, on his death, would have been that one of his sons would have suceeded him, as happened in Syria, another Ba'athist Republic. That, with regard to the Iraqi people in particular, and for the region in general, I believe would have been a turn for the worse, not the better.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 05:14 PM

Here you go, GUEST, 02 Jul 04 - 06:43 PM (and beardedbruce)...

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20040702_209.html (Reuters)

"But the U.S. military said only two of the rockets had tested positive for sarin gas, and another 16 of the rockets found by the Poles had contained no chemical agents. The reason for the discrepancy in numbers was unclear...

...In Baghdad, the U.S. military issued a statement saying that two 122 mm rockets found by Polish forces had tested positive for sarin gas and confirmed that they were left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but said they posed little danger.

The statement said an Iraqi civilian had led the soldiers to the rockets in the town of Hilla, 62 miles south of Baghdad on June 16.

"Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against Coalition Forces," the statement said."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Raedwulf
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 01:37 PM

Doesn't really answer me, Ake, I'm sorry. Saddam had been surviving sanctions for several years already. He didn't give a damn about "his" people dying. It was to his benefit. Good press for the efforts of his friendly bleeding-heart liberals in trying to get the sanctions lifted.

By your reckoning, & on your evidence, I would say that Saddam had at least 5 years, & probably 10 or more. In fact, I think that given the status quo, it would only have been once Saddam died (or retired), that the regime might have fallen. As long as Saddam was in charge it was fixed & immovable.

I would agree that our motives for going to war should have been clear, & that they weren't. I've already said that. But Thomas says "At least 11, 056 civilians killed in Iraq by the war", & wonders about the justification. Would you both have been happier if we hadn't invaded? Because, if we hadn't, a lot more Iraqi's can be reasonably expected to have died in that time, if Saddam had kept his average up!

I think the war has done much more than butcher a few thousand Iraqi's. I think it's also saved a a great many more. I think it's given some kind of hope to a nation. I don't think it's signalled fight or die for Islam. It has, certainly, provided a focus for the fanatics, increased their activity & swelled their numbers.

On the other hand, I am also of the opinion that there is more reason now to hope that it may have also woken the American government (not Bush & his cronies, but the whole governmental structure) to the fact that their long pursued policies in the Middle East are probably not "in their best interests". There may yet be a sea-change in American foreign policy. We can but hope.

Apparently, the was an article in the Daily Telegraph this week which pointed out that Beirut is now a tourist destination. Twenty-five years ago, it was a war-torn no-go area. Surprising how things can change, isn't it!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 11:48 AM

Greg Stevens, DougR? Check out the spelling.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 03:26 AM

At least 11, 056 civilians killed in Iraq by the war.
Is this justifiable? I just don't see how...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: sledge
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 01:57 AM

For more info on the above try going to:-


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm

It all becomes a bit less dramatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 06:48 PM

Raedwulf...Several reasons for implosion. the sanctions policy which was causing extreme hardship to the Iraqi people. Mostly children and the sick.....The increasing corruption of the Saddam regime,wasting money on grand personal schemes,palaces ect. The deterioration of the countrys' infrastructure,obsolete power stations ,oil installations,
hospitals ect,plus pressure from the Shia and Kurds for political representation.
Saddams actions had become so outrageous that even the Westwere forced to abandon their closest ally in the Middle East.The Wests position had become untenable.
This brings us back to the real reason for the war ,and you have agreed with me earlier that it was not humanitarianism.
I was not saying that I thought an Islamic revolution to be a good thing,but if we go to war ,the motives aught to be clear.
And in my opinion ,the most likely reason that we attacked Iraq, was to protect our interests.
This "benevolent" Invasion has done more than butcher a few thousand Iraqi men women and children,it has opened the door for Western style "democracy",and signalled "fight or die for Islam...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 06:45 PM

NO, not a valid source. The SRS rule says that any information that disagrees with the SRS viewpint is invalid, just because of the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 06:43 PM

PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS ARTILLERY SHELLS FOUND BY POLISH TROOPS IN IRAQ
A hand-out photograph made available by the Polish Army on July 2, 2004 shows artillery shells found by Polish troops in Iraq on June 16, 2004. Artillery shells found by Polish troops in Iraq definitely contained the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin, the Polish army said on Friday. REUTERS/Polish Army/HO

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: DougR
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 05:45 PM

Whassamatta you folks? You bitch because the coilition unseated Saddam, you claimed all Bush wanted was the Iraqi's oil (which was pure horse pucky and I don't think even your Idolized filmmaker charged that), now the coilition has turned over the governing of Iraq to Iraqis and you bitch about that!

Never satisfied.

DougR

P. S. Greg Stevens I tried to PM you but you don't show up as a member. What goes?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 05:39 PM

Ter - Napoleon/Voltaire - You may be right. Certainly, the quote you give is more or less right for Voltaire. "God is on the side, not of the heavy battalions, but of the best shots." is the Oxford Library of Words & Phrases version. However, that is not to say that Napoleon (or some other general) didn't turn the quote on its head!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 05:30 PM

Ter - *sigh* I agree with a lot of what you've just said to Ake. But your delivery could use some work! If you take that tone with people, it's not really surprising that you wind up in a siege situation where everyone instantly assaults your point-of-view, never mind whether you have a case or not!

Ake - Ter was unnescessarily rude, but he was also largely right. I would be interested to know on what basis you believe that Iraq "was in the process of implosion"? That "Saddams regime would have had only a few years to go", or on what basis "the West had been forced (my emphasis) to withdraw support from the tyrant"? I know of no evidence, apart from wishful thinking, that suggests any of these arguments are remotely plausible!

Incidentally, you know full well that Saddam had happily survived several years of sanctions unaffected, and it is to be noted that many of those opposed to the war were also opposed to sanctions & insistent that they should be lifted. Saddam was killing @80,000 Iraqis year on year. Your notion of "evolution" might eventually have been borne out, but at what cost? How many more hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis before your hoped for implosion?

And how is the aftermath of the war better or worse for the Iraqs than that hypothetical "implosion". One uprising had been tried, failed, & cost (I think) considerably more lives than GWII has, or probably will. A successful revolution, a descent into chaos, & yes, probably a Fundamentalist government almost as bad the original... How many lives would that little lot have cost? "More lives than GWII has, or probably will", I suggest. History shows that revolutions generally produce chronic instability or succeeding repressive governments. Saddam himself achieved his position effectively by revolution. "Benevolent" invasions have usually provided a better solution & more quickly.

I never thought the war was a good thing. I did think it was the best course, if only because it was the least of available evils. It was a profound mistake to have used WMDs as an excuse, & frankly if Daddy Bush had had the balls to do job properly first time round, we wouldn't be having this discussion now! But that's politicos for you, & the Bushes are not a particularly 'ept' example of the breed!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 12:39 PM

------You can see the full report at:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04902r.pdf

WASHINGTON - In a few key areas - electricity, the judicial system and overall security - the Iraq that America handed back to its residents Monday is worse off than before the war began last year, according to calculations in a new General Accounting Office report released Tuesday.

The 105-page report by Congress' investigative arm offers a bleak assessment of Iraq after 14 months of U.S. military occupation. Among its findings:

-In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.

-Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations.

-The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.

-The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are
suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.

-The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 07:41 AM

Teribus...I think a little less water in your "over subsidised" Scotch might put you in a better mood.
The structured arguments which you ask for demand acceptance of fact and figures and opinions provided by politicians on both sides .
One thing I have learned in my little enclave is never believe a politician.
I never pretend what I write are anything other than opinions, but at least they are MY opinions
Regarding Iran, the West seemed to think them enough of a threat,to bury their "principles" and assist the tyrant Saddam in his war against them.
Where you get the idea that I support Communist govt I dont know... a rogue opinion perhaps?   Youll need to watch out for the thought police
You are as guilty as any one else in this *entertaining* little forum, of passing an unsubstanciated opinion when it comes up your humph.
Regarding Mary ,she seems a very nice "Christian" lady ,who dosn't know her arse from her elbow.....Just an opinion...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: AKS
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 06:52 AM

"...information regarding the warning given by the Russians ..."
Now that is scary, didn't know the US were that desperate! I haven't been thinking very highly of the results of their Intelligence lately, but this is extraordinary; to trust 'Russian information'!?!

AKS

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 09:20 PM

akenaton - 01 Jul 04 - 01:53 PM

"Who decides whats right and wrong?"

Purely a matter of choice for the individual depending on the circumstance Akenaton

"In the case of the Iraq war the USA and UK decided to invade a failed state which was in the process of implosion."

Really old son, how did you come to that conclusion? Do you honestly mean to tell the world at large that Iraq was invaded on a whim? Just for once, listen to what you are saying and acknowledge the fact that according to your criteria you would be perfectly happy with Saddam Hussein firmly in power in Iraq and the world as it was two years ago - not many in Iraq would agree with you.

"Saddams regime would have had only a few years to go IMO,as the West had been forced to withdraw support from the tyrant."

Damn right son, it is only your opinion, and bloody ill informed at that. Do you question my grounds for stating that? If so then kindly explain how you arrive at the fact that Saddam's regime had only a few years to go. Oh yes the big bad "WEST" had been forced to withdraw its support - When? How? Why? Something to do with him invading another country perhaps? Where on earth is your bleeding heart compassion for the 605 Kuwaiti citizens that your pal Saddam had abducted from their homes, never to see the light of day again - their bones are amongst those uncovered in a few of the mass graves discovered in the aftermath of Saddam's overthrow.

Oh yes, Islamic Fundamentalism - your favourite phrase - your answer to all the worlds ills - Mary Garvey is completely and utterly correct - Your talking crap. Not a single structured arguement of case, merely utterances without reasoning or foundation.

Action from Iran!!! The twelve old gits who control Iran are struggling hard enough to keep their own population on their rather narrow and backward track, let alone export their brand of government elsewhere in the region, let alone the world.

High time you got yourself out of your cosy, over-subsidised little enclave out there in the western highlands and toddled out to take a look at the rest of the world - and see how it lives.

You are nothing but a disillusioned idealist - you wanted Communism to work, but alas it didn't, so you vainly scramble around looking for something else that might trip up the only system that seems to work - dig out pal - you're on a fools errand.

Have a hug.

By the bye, I believe the quote was from Voltaire:

"God is not on the side of the big battalions. God is on the side of the best shots" courtesy of Bernard Cornwell

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Raedwulf
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 04:46 PM

*g* Cheers Ake! The world would be a better place for more hugs! Iraq would probably be a better place for more hugs. Even Teribus might be a better... place...? for more hugs! ;)

Don't mind Ter, Ake. He's a big (Mud-?)pussy-cat. Just remember there's nothing wrong with us evil-minded, furry bastards (Oh, & that we're in charge...)! *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 03:24 PM

Thanks Raedwulf...Been feeling a bit fragile since being savaged by Teribus.    Consider yourself hugged...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Raedwulf
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 02:53 PM

Ake - last comment, damn right! As to who decides right & wrong, to steal a line from that famous peacenik Napoleon ;), God is on the side of the big battalions as a rule! So the West is always right...

(Even when it's quite horribly wrong...) :(

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 02:41 PM

None of us know the real reason that America and Britain went to war,
but one thing I do know . A gamble of that magnitude was never made for humanitarian reasons...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 02:33 PM

Well Mary as your an expert ,I must agree..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: mg
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 02:16 PM

That's crap. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 01:53 PM

Keith...Who decides whats right and wrong?
In the case of the Iraq war the USA and UK decided to invade a failed state which was in the process of implosion. Saddams regime would have had only a few years to go IMO,as the West had been forced to withdraw support from the tyrant.
The vacuum left by any revolution, or action from Iran would soonhave been filled by Islamic fundamentalism.This left the West with no option but to invade to protect its interests,under the cloak of "democratisation" and protection of the Iraqi people.
The only people the West cares for are those who keep the machine working...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 04:44 AM

Also, because we can't right every wrong should we never try to right any?
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 02:20 AM

Ebbie,

In answer to your question, posed in your post of, 30 Jun 04 - 09:10 PM.

1. I think the US was selective in the case of Saddam Hussein because they were specifically warned about him. That information regarding the warning given by the Russians is the only "new" piece of information that has come to light in months, and it is very relevant.

2. During the time of Stalin's worst purges, the USA was strictly isolationist in its view of world politics.

3. Idi Amin, Papa Doc, Pol Pot, etc, etc, lasted as long as they did because the international community stood by the Charter of the United Nations as it stood at the time, i.e. they cannot interfere in the internal affairs of member states. Saddam would have been in the same category had he not invaded Kuwait. I believe things have altered now and the UN can act in cases of apparent genocide. That is why there is so much tap-dancing going on at the moment regarding classifying what is happening in the Sudan region of Darfur. If the UN calls it genocide they are then compelled to act, and for reasons best known to themselves, the UN hates being forced to act.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 12:06 AM

LArry the K:

Don't be ridiculous. I haven't seen a single post in all th emotnhs of the war that propsoed reinstating Saddam or his party. Or have I missed one?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: mg
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 11:47 PM

Because, in response to Ebbie's question, innocent civilians might have gotten hurt. They might have raised our taxes. Haliburton was not involved. They didn't have oil/coconuts/the remotest concept of freedom. Besides their culture is different than ours. Someone might have lost an election. Other countries might not have liked us then. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 09:13 PM

You have convinced me.   Let's bring back Sadaam.    Life was so much better in Iraq when he was in charge.   Kids were flying kites in the street and Sadaam enjoyed a 102% aprooval rating.   Most of you see those mass graves in Iraq as half empty.    I see them as half full. In my heart of hearts I know that Sadaam could fill those graves in no time flat if we only gave him a second chance.   After all, Sadaam never lied to us.   Bush, Kerry, Clinton, France, Germany, Russia all said there were WMD's.   Sadaam was the only one who said the didn't have any.   Sadaam is the only one telling the truth.    Maybe Kerry could nominate him for VP.

The current Prime Minister of Iraq has a 70%- 80% aprooval rating from the Iraq people.   What do they know.   Clearly the Mudcatters on this forum know what is better for them than they do.

It is nice to know after getting back from vacation that the more things change the more they stay the same

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 09:10 PM

If the reason we invaded Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was a bad man who caused thousands/millions of deaths, why are we and have been so selective in choosing who to remove from power? Stalin murdered his millions, Id Amin killed his hundreds of thousands and Papa Doc, his thousands. Each of these lovely people died a natural death. The US and its cohorts did not feel compelled to overthrow them. Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Metchosin
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 08:31 PM

My Mum is showing signs of senile dementia, should I shoot her now or wait until after her Birthday? She hasn't bitten anyone yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Gareth
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 07:00 PM

Hmmm ! SH may well have been, in the past, a "friend" of the US of A.

That does not make his actions moral or supportable.

If your dog turns out rabid it is your duty to see that it is put down.

On those 'Catters who have lived in countries where rabies is endemic will know exactly what I mean.


Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Raedwulf
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 06:32 PM

Ter - Ta. It's nice to know someone can get through occasionally! ;) & *BG*

The only things in your latter post I'd quibble with (perhaps it's me indulging in nit-picking now? *g*) are these:

1) Interesting facts, but no attribution, as you so often complain of! And since when did the published word ever reveal the entire truth about behind-the-scenes skullduggery? Even now the UK maintains the secrecy of some documents, despite the expiry of the supposed "30 year rule", or whatever the given nominated classified period is (Pardon me, BTW, but the correct phrase for that escapes me at the moment - I'm sure you know what I'm referring to).

Moreover, does the US have a similar rule over de-classifying sensitive information? I ask from a state of ignorance. I am, however, cynical enough about politicians to believe that there are some decisions & processes that are either never recorded, or the evidence for which can never be found (IIRC, don't HMS Challenger's logbooks conveniently fall into that category?). Will we ever know the truth about Saddam & the US? I doubt it, in my lifetime at least!

And, yes, I admit that it is very easy to be cynical. But just cos I'm cynical, don't mean I'm wrong! In fact, I'm bound to be right eventually. See, I know people too... ;)

2) "the lesser of two evils from the US point of view" - that's an opinion, Ter. What's more, you surely can see that it's only a nice way of saying "my best interests"? Which is exactly the point I made originally. Whyever the US offered their temporary support, it was because it was in their best interests at the time. Naturally, that will equate to the lesser of any available evils. Whether the end result is an objective positive or negative is beside the point. Subjectively, they always pick the best overall option (to which the cynic adds: "for them"!).

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 03:35 PM

Raedwulf,

The points made in your post of, 29 Jun 04 - 05:34 PM, are well taken.

With regard to US/Iraq relations and the "Cold War" years, while the US did help the Ba'athist coup, that was done - at the time - because it represented the lesser of two evils from the US point of view.

Subsequent to the "Six Day War" (1967), however, diplomatic relations were broken off between the United States of America and Iraq and were only re-instated on 26th November, 1984. During the period 1984 to 1990 diplomatic relations existed between the USA and Iraq, but were broken off after Iraq's attempted annexation of Kuwait. That has remained the case right up until the recent appointment of Negroponte as the new US Ambassador to Iraq.

From 1967 up until 2003, Iraq was firmly regarded as being on "friendly" terms with first, the USSR, and latterly Russia, and "hostile" to the United States, except for a very brief period (1984 - 1990) during the Iran/Iraq War when the United States stepped in to prevent Iraq's defeat. In doing this the US were not alone, in terms of military assistance Iraq got a great deal more assistance from France and Russia than from the USA.

Under such circumstances it is rather difficult reconcile that state of affairs with the statement made that the good old USofA used Saddam as a hitman. Patently they did not, the facts would seem to indicate that the good old USofA along others, saved Saddam from an extremely humiliating defeat. For the pure and simple reason that - at that time - it was in the best interests of all parties who regarded the Persian Gulf region as being vital to do everything in their power to re-establish the status quo prior to the start of hostilities. A good parallel in history would be British and French support of Turkey in the mid-1850's in order to curb Russian expansion.

I freely admit that the above was rather a strange way of "using" Saddam, particularly as the US had no part in prompting Saddam into attacking Iran in 1980, that was entirely his own idea - but in no way does it equate to the US using Saddam as a "hitman", the latter implies a rather closer relationship than I believe has ever existed between the USA and Iraq.

Please don't take the above as nitpicking, or pedantry, it is only my honest attempt to explain my point of view on the matter.