Iraqis voice support for attacks on UK troops (2 Viewers)

[Comrade nathan]

Yea, but some nations have no excuse...

Excuse? Or do you mean reason?

 

[Sepulchres]

I could point to the fact that the only reason the US brought violence upon Iraq was due to Saddam Husseins refusal to leave the nation, or due to the hatred of Saddam Hussein they had for his prior acts. Even if I consider that you may be able to prove that the US installed Saddam hussein it could be argued that that was done for different reasons... So I will leave that argument there and just point out that I don't believe it is particulary easy to blame the US for the current violence.

Yea, we could also possibly point to Saddam's mother for giving birth to him and Bush's primary school teacher for his idiocy. The fact of the matter is that the US didnt go searching for democracy in Iraq but rather with the intention of "WMDs" - which many people have forgotten. The focus has only since been shifted to "bring democracy to Iraq." It may not be easy for you to blame the US, but if there is anyone to blame over this fiasco, they would certainly top the list along with Saddam.

Well the idea is that the current violence will die down where as the Saddam's Tyranny could have lasted for years, even beyond his death. The Argument is that although there is much violence now, the iraqi people have already gone a long way into becomming a democratic people, and further progress is made every day.

This "idea" was proposed even just after the invasion of Iraq, I dont see any end in sight. Moreso, the situation is getting worse and there is increasing opposition to the war in the US. Bush better pull a miracle out of his ass before he stands down because the next president will be so because he will be bringing the troops back home - bring on the civil war, Iraq. I'd like to hear your visions of the future on this matter, considering the magnitude of the violence now and how you think this will end, if ever.

I pose the question to you, of if Iraq ends up a free, democratic and prosperous nation (as it should be) will the war have of been worth it? I am aware that there were several other solutions which have been proposed, and that it is quite possible that the war will not result in such an outcome, but this is the ideal that I believe alot of supporters of the war believed in.

If there was any indication of a harmonious government in the near future then yes, perhaps. However, this is not the case so lets wake up and smell the coffee. I also pose to you, if your child/father/mother/relatives/friends died or severely impaired for life during this war, would democracy be worth it given that people under Saddam's tyranny didnt die by chance? (e.g. because some 20yo US airforce pilot aimed wrong).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If there was any indication of a harmonious government in the near future then yes, perhaps. However, this is not the case so lets wake up and smell the coffee. I also pose to you, if your child/father/mother/relatives/friends died or severely impaired for life during this war, would democracy be worth it given that people under Saddam's tyranny didnt die by chance? (e.g. because some 20yo US airforce pilot aimed wrong).

Well despite your appeal to emotion, I will address that point. I am aware that I would probably be too mad to care about democracy, but if I wasn't blinded by my emotions I would believe democracy is worth it.

 

[Calculon]

Very very well said.....you can never justify killing innocent people

That said, anyone who believes that the American's invaded Iraq to liberate them or out of their 'goodwill' or whatever, really needs to be educated

Every nation acts out of their own self interest, but that's not to say that others cannot benefit from such acts.

 

[Calculon]

Right to use force? Won't the bleeding hearts start crying about human rights abuses like they did with Saddam?

Also only those of your faction will vote for you, those belonging to other tribes will see you no different to a foreign installed dictator. Just as Saddam was popular with the sunnis but not with the shi'ites or kurds.

At the end of the day, Iraq will not become democratic, the most likely scenario will be a bloody civil war ending with the installation of a shi'ite theocracy.
Pro-American democratic governance in Iraq is just the imagination of crack smoking US government warlords.

Force = jailing those who try to bring about the government's demise through violent acts, as opposed to putting anyone who even thought about dissent through a human paper shredder.

 

[supercharged]

Force = jailing those who try to bring about the government's demise through violent acts, as opposed to putting anyone who even thought about dissent through a human paper shredder.

LOL at least do you homework before posting such ill informed rubbish.

There never was a 'human shredder', that was exposed as a lie to get public support for the war. Iraqi dissidents also cooked up heaps of stories on Saddam and how none of his troops would fight etc to make the war more likely. All of which turned out to be opportunistic trash information.

btw, I like to see how you jail someone who has a bomb and is willing to die for their cause. Not too many sucide bombers end up in jail

 

[rink]

Every nation acts out of their own self interest, but that's not to say that others cannot benefit from such acts.

the harm of the US being there far outweighs the good my dear

 

[katie_tully]

Are you serious? I am yet to see anybody propose an alternate resolution. Oh I know! We can just give out millions of dollars to their corrupt governments in the hope, cross your fingers kids, that they actually put it towards the well being of their people.

I mean that, or getting themselves a gold plated toilet seat. We all know how well gold exfoliates our arse cheeks.

 

[Calculon]

the harm of the US being there far outweighs the good my dear

I'm so gonna sue you for sexual harrassment :~(

On a more serious note the harm of them being there at the moment is rather large, I agree, but if they acheive what they have set out to acheive then the future good will far outweigh the current harm.

 

[katie_tully]

Choosing to believe that America went to war specifically for the purpose of gaining control of Iraq's oil is definately the Occam's Razor. Even if it was a motive to some extent, America and the allied forces have committed themselves to pulling Iraq out of the gutter.

 

[Calculon]

America could have gotten shitloads of Iraqi oil in the same way France and Russia did, by lifting sanctions from Iraq.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Meh from what i've read every country was abusing the oil for food scheme, including America but especially some in France and Russia...

The Rule:

Beaurocracy fails always.

 

[supercharged]

America could have gotten shitloads of Iraqi oil in the same way France and Russia did, by lifting sanctions from Iraq.

As if, if the sanctions were lifted every country would be banging on Iraq's door to buy and develop the oilfields.

Saddam hated America for kicking him out of Kuwait and isolating Iraq. WTF would he sell the Iraqi oilfields to his enemy instead of all the other friendlier nations willing to buy them?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

WTF would he sell the Iraqi oilfields to his enemy instead of all the other friendlier nations willing to buy them?

I'm sure he would of loved to sell America to the US for the right price,
for one it gives him some leverage over them.

 

[loquasagacious]

For my money it was wrong for America to intervene in Iraq. As I believe that on the one hand it is not really their place to do so and from a neo-realist stance it dangerously overextended US power and displayed weakness.

On the other hand whilst it may not have been right for America to intervene it was definantly right for us to follow. The benefits outweigh the costs. We support our ally because thats the only way we can guarantee our own security and it goes a long way toward assuring our prosperity.

 

[supercharged]

On the other hand whilst it may not have been right for America to intervene it was definantly right for us to follow. The benefits outweigh the costs. We support our ally because thats the only way we can guarantee our own security and it goes a long way toward assuring our prosperity.

LOL you need to read the Latham diaries. The ANZUS treaty is just a paranoid incarnate of the white Australia policy. Realistically Australia is among the hardest countries to invade due to sheer distance from the rest of the world and huge size.

 

[syera]

Yes, it was definately wrong for the US to invade Iraq. The USA creates problems everywhere. They think they own the world, and will definately pay the price.
But your reason stating that it was OK for Aus to follow their ally is wrong. It isn't actually a way for us to guarantee our security, instead making us less safe. That dog john howard doesn't even know why we're there.

 

[Calculon]

LOL you need to read the Latham diaries. The ANZUS treaty is just a paranoid incarnate of the white Australia policy. Realistically Australia is among the hardest countries to invade due to sheer distance from the rest of the world and huge size.

Hey supercharged, grab an atlas or a globe. Put your finger on the Northern Territory, then move it up about 5-10cm. Yeah, that's right, a potentially hostile nation with the world's 3rd largest standing army, right at our doorstep. Who woulda thunk it?

 

[Iron]

I think that after Vietnam, the U.S struggled to show the world that it was still wearing the pants in terms of world owning (and attacking/opposing it was out of the question) But S11 was an unprecedented attack that really did require much arse-kicking. Afghanistan wasnt enough. Iraq was the next best thing.
I think Rummy laughed at the prospect of Iraq lasting over 6months, so it's all pinned on them not fucking the exit up like Vietnam

 

[supercharged]

Hey supercharged, grab an atlas or a globe. Put your finger on the Northern Territory, then move it up about 5-10cm. Yeah, that's right, a potentially hostile nation with the world's 3rd largest standing army, right at our doorstep. Who woulda thunk it?

Ok I should of said great distance from any militarily competant nations. All the countries directly to the north such as Indonesia, PNG, Solomon Islands, Fiji are banana republics with inept governments and even more corrupt militaries.

Even though Australia may not be too popular with the Indonesians there is little they can do to Australia except attack tourists in Bali. What how are they going to send an army over the ocean undetected, with little more than armed patrol boats for a navy?

Their airforce is grounded from a lack of spare parts half the time, and their army had a damn hard time control a little piece of land like Aceh. Australia would a way too ambitious target for them. If they wanted to expand their borders, a more obvious target would be to expand West Papua (Irian Java)(spl?) eastwards to encompass the equally crap PNG.