What did Saddam do? - Page 3

Ramo · March 15, 2003, 04:44

I didn't say Iraq was Afghanistan. I was pointing out that the politically expedient thing to do in Afghanistan was to co-opt the warlords. The politically expedient thing to do in Iraq is co-opt the Sunni elite. We've done the politically expedient thing in Afghanistan, thus we will probably do the politically expedient thing in Iraq. Both are anti-thetical to allowing liberty and democracy.

Dis · March 15, 2003, 04:47

In any way we should also do this to make up for past mistakes.

I'm sure those bastards told the kurd we were going into Iraq in 1991 and told them to rise up.

We lied to them. I do feel bad about that. Thousands died because of it.

Ramo · March 15, 2003, 04:52

We're not going to let the Kurds keep their freedom. Seeing as how everyone in the region hates the Kurds, that's not going to win us any friends. Also, the loss of Kurds to the Iraqi state would mean it'd be easier for Iran-friendly, maybe Islamist, Shia regime to take power in Iraq. Furthermore, an independent Kurdistan would be invaded by at least Turkey if not Iran and the new Iraqi gov't, and we'd completely lose one of our strongest allies (Turkey). In other words, ain't gonna happen.

We're just lying to the Kurds some more.

Dis · March 15, 2003, 04:55

why does everyone hate the Kurds so much? That's what I don't understand.

Surely they don't hate the Kurds as much as they hate the U.S.

In any case that is what peacekeeping forces are for.

And Turkey is a long term ally. But we have essentually lost them for this operation anyways.

The Mad Monk · March 15, 2003, 04:56

Surely they don't hate the Kurds as much as they hate Israel.

GeneralTacticus · March 15, 2003, 04:59

Quote:

why does everyone hate the Kurds so much? That's what I don't understand.

I think because they occupy land that the others want and have no intention of giving it up, and their obstinate habit of refusing to vanish when subjugated.

Ramo · March 15, 2003, 05:03

Argh, too many windows open. I edited out this post.

Quote:

why does everyone hate the Kurds so much? That's what I don't understand.
Surely they don't hate the Kurds as much as they hate the U.S.

The regimes in the region tend to be very nationalistic. The Iraqi Ba'athists borrowed a lot from fascist ideology. Turkey has been uber-nationalistic ever since the Young Turk revolution and the Armenian genocide. During the past few decades, it has been participating in a nasty genocide against the Kurds. Its actions against the Kurds have been far worse than Iraq's. Iran isn't that nationalistic as much as it is Islamist, so it's strongly anti-Sunni, and the Kurds happen to be Sunni.

If we give independence to Kurdistan, the whole strategy in the Middle East would break down. We give Iran leverage by insuring Iraq ends up Shia after the civil war. And we lose Turkey as an ally. And everyone would be really pissed at us in the region.

Quote:

And Turkey is a long term ally.

Not if there's an independent Kurdistan.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · March 15, 2003, 05:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Also, the loss of Kurds to the Iraqi state would mean it'd be easier for Iran-friendly, maybe Islamist, Shia regime to take power in Iraq.

It strikes me that giving major support to Shi'ites in Iraq would be just about the best way to deal with Islamic conflict against the US. Watch the Al-Qaidr recruitments evaporate. Couple it with a few harshly-worded comments about Israel and I think you'd be getting somewhere.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · March 15, 2003, 05:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Why are you so convinced that the situation will turn out for the better?

Because if the replacement regime looks worse, we go in for Round 2.

What makes you so convinced that inactivity, or your undescribed "smart sanctions" won't just carry on resulting in the annual deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

Ramo · March 15, 2003, 05:08

Quote:

It strikes me that giving major support to Shi'ites in Iraq would be just about the best way to deal with Islamic conflict against the US. Watch the Al-Qaidr recruitments evaporate.

That's probably true. But it would totally undermine the anti-Iranian policy. And it'd guarantee a nasty civil war in Iraq. Not something I'd expect to happen.

Edit:
On second thought, I don't know if it would hurt Islamic terrorism against the US all that much. You might finally have the US on the side of popular revolt, but the propaganda value of that is limited. On the other hand, you might throw some of the Iraqi Sunnis into the hands of al-Qaeda et al. Plus, a Shia Iraq would de-stabilize Saudi Arabia, causing an even more extremist regime replacing House Saud.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · March 15, 2003, 05:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
And it'd gurantee a nasty civil war in Iraq.

How is that any different from the present?

Ramo · March 15, 2003, 05:21

Quote:

What makes you so convinced that inactivity, or your undescribed "smart sanctions" won't just carry on resulting in the annual deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

I'm not convinced. I think it's worth a shot, and the gov't can't screw this up too badly.

As for a description, the sanctions should be much less stringent and we should deal with Iraqi individuals instead of the state.

Quote:

Because if the replacement regime looks worse, we go in for Round 2.

We will? The propaganda focus has always been about WMD's (which are irrelevent anyways), not human rights. Human rights conditions provide a greater extra casus belli, it was never that important. But after Saddam is replaced, the US has proven it's point - once you're a *****, you're always a *****, so they'll go home.

I doubt the replacement regime would be worse per se, but that that it would be comparable, but the situation the country would be in would be more objectionable than Saddam's current situation, thus the the country will be worse.

Quote:

How is that any different from the present?

The Sunni have all the power in Iraq. The Shia have numbers (and Iranian help). Give more leverage to the Shia, and you even the situation some more. If you give power to the Sunni (as long as they're effective at crushing dissent), you insure that the civil war wouldn't really get started.

AnnC · March 15, 2003, 05:24

Laz, given the strength of your convictions, are you going to take action? I.e. join the armed services and participate in an invasion of Iraq?

The Mad Monk · March 15, 2003, 05:32

We also serve who pay taxes.

AnnC · March 15, 2003, 05:36

Paying taxes is a lot easier than putting your life at risk to depose a dictator.

The Mad Monk · March 15, 2003, 05:38

Yes, yes it is.

Zevico · March 15, 2003, 08:09

What do you mena by "what has he done"? Do you mean what has he done to make himself be invaded, or what has he done to his people or country?
The first is why we're invading him.
The second is why we should be.
Fair enough?

Bugs ****ing Bunny · March 15, 2003, 08:41

Quote:

Originally posted by AnnC
Laz, given the strength of your convictions, are you going to take action? I.e. join the armed services and participate in an invasion of Iraq?

No.

uh Clem · March 15, 2003, 09:29

Does Amnesty Internation support US military action (virtually unilateral) to remove Saddam?

yavoon · March 15, 2003, 12:02

ramo the US could do a lot more if it wasnt yelled at every second it was there by ppl screaming anti imperialism at the top of their lungs. ur right it takes longer than what we will probably spend. but only out of compromise. because imperialism is a surprisingly effective catch phrase. ppl hear it and its like insta protest.

and I don't make idiotic generalizations. there are a very few # of protestors who know **** about ****. the vast majority are simply marching under "iraq civilians will die" or the US is a meanie. it'd be a massive generalization to go the other way and say that all the protestors are in the least educated or have thought it out in any significant non infantile way.

my direction is simply taking the statistical majority and making an observation.

Joseph · March 15, 2003, 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

The Stark was hit buy a Iranian fighter jet which fired a French made exiset missile. The Iranians claimed they thought the Stark was an Iraqi oil tanker.

Sorry it was Iraq, Saddam even visit the Hosp. were some of our sailors were taken.

Joseph · March 15, 2003, 12:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
You know, I've never been under any illusions concerning how well-informed Apolytoners are, but some levels of crashing ignorance baffle me.

Want more of these reports? There's loads. The Ba'athist regime is monstrous.

Thank you. Like I said after reading all of these, anyone of us should shoot this man. Its to bad we will not get the chance.

Jac de Molay · March 15, 2003, 12:23

If anyone is under the impression that is about liberation, democracy, and freedom, they are incredibly ****ing naive.

This is bad history repeating itself. We are not interested in liberation anymore than we were in the 60's when we helped Baaths drive out Kassem.

DanS · March 15, 2003, 13:00

Laz:

How about we send an Amnesty International "letter" to the regime.

If anyone is under the impression that is about liberation, democracy, and freedom, they are incredibly ****ing naive.

Among many other things, and with varying degrees, it is about that.

Jac de Molay · March 15, 2003, 13:38

We were probably thinking the same way back in '63, and what resulted was a bloodbath of ethnic and religious reprisals, spurred on by the Baaths.

The difference between authoritianism and "liberation" thru martial law looks like two sides of the same coin to me. Our idea of spreading democracy reminds me of what Henry Ford said about the Model T: " They can have any color they want, as long as its black"

GePap · March 15, 2003, 13:48

I am sorry, but when I see all these "look how horrid Saddam is..hate him, hate him.." I get sick.

Oh yeah, Saddam is the only brutal dictator in the world, the only one that kills innocents, the only one that tortures..blah, blah, blah.

In 1941, hitler was certainly doing thins just as 'creative" with human pain, yet on Dec 6, 1941, 70% or more of American swould have said..Go to War? hell no!

Do you guys hate the Leadership of the Hutu militias who slaughtred 1,000,000 directly (I am not counting those that died in wars..most of the people we claim Saddam is fully responsible for killing died in the Iran-Iraq war, a war with two sides. Peace could have been had after just a few years, before the Iranins under Khomeini decided that beating back Saddam was not enough..that they sought regime change, and thus the war goes on until 1988 and not 1982-3) in 3 months? yes, I will save the endless posts about suffereing, about people hacked to death, packed into churches and burned, or the story about how all the dogs of the country had to be killed cuase they were getting fat of corpses. A few of them are on trial now in Kenya..but I have never ehard anyone profess hatred for them. Hell, in the Us we don't even know their names.

Oh, and what about regimes like the Usbekistan regime, one of our new great allies with a cult of personality just as bad, no, worse than Saddams in which people are disappeared and so forth? Do you guys hate them?

Give me a f*cking break! Saddam is a barbarous, criminal butcher, no doubt..but the reason Americans' "hate" him have little to do with that, as it is clear we are more than willing to overlook such things when other issues are at stake. All the bastard commentator today screaming about how Bad saddam is: same azsholes that in 1994 were arguing how Rwanda was not "genocide", but something else, and hence the US and UN had no obligations to do anyting about it.

I f*king hate such hypocrasy!

yavoon · March 15, 2003, 14:04

its depressing that u expect us to do everything about everything or nothing. kinda extreme dont u think? how about when our morality and our interests coincide that u allow us to take a stand?

instead of spitting some inane hypocrisy talk at us. when in reality ALL THESE things moraly outrage u and u do absolutely nothing about any of them.

chequita guevara · March 15, 2003, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
You know, I've never been under any illusions concerning how well-informed Apolytoners are, but some levels of crashing ignorance baffle me.

This isn't a reason to go to war. If you like, I can post equally monsterous things done by agents of the United States. We know he's a monster. That's not why we hate him.

yavoon · March 15, 2003, 14:07

chegitz ur so missing a matter of scale. yes the US isnt pure and innocent. but to compare the US gov't w/ saddam hussein is showing a complete and total lack of perspective and scale.

The Mad Monk · March 15, 2003, 14:11

Quote:

In 1941, hitler was certainly doing thins just as 'creative" with human pain, yet on Dec 6, 1941, 70% or more of American swould have said..Go to War? hell no!

That's a great reason we should go in, and not just sit back because we think the government's motives are not as pure as the driven snow.